I believe in feedback, especially honest feedback for any author. Nothing does a disservice to an author more than fluff, glib 'it's good, really' feedback.

Just-to-be-nice feedback is utterly useless and is not only an insult to a writer's intelligence, but it's an affront.

Unless... you're a young writer. Despite my steady banging of the 'honest critique' drum, I don't believe that new writers should be critiqued and/or helped or 'molded' in any way.

Writing is about practice, and writing itself has a life cycle:

infancy: when every and anything we write looks good to us, but it's not what the rest of the world sees.

prospects (childhood): when we start to look for ways to improve.

potential (teenage): when we notice that something's wrong yet we can't fix it.

maturity (adulthood): where we not only know what's wrong, but we can fix some of it, or find someone else to do just that.

Recently I've tried giving honest feedback to new young writers, thinking that my little nuggets of information could be in some way useful. However, I realized something. To most young writers, criticism sure is a bunch of 'nuggets' alright. But not the sort that you would treasure.

Criticism at this stage sounds like just that, criticism. To some it's consider nitpicking, invasive, even rude. mostly it can wear on a new author's ego or self-confidence. Like anything in its infancy, rather than critique it or point out its flaws, it might be best to give excess praise to encourage a author to keep writing and growing.

Taking time out to rip a story apart (edit) and rewrite can be quite daunting and discouraging. The early stages of writing might be gritty and rough, but prolonged, unapologetic, exposure there will help a young author grow.

So youngens, just write your story. Keep writing till you're hollowed out... and once there's nothing left and you're ready to get the editing axe, look for 'critiques'.