Critiquing an Author's Work

I listen to several different podcasts; I listen to audio books (like Zombie Chronicles, the Heaven series, and Sigler's novels), I listen to tech podcasts (StackOverflow is a favorite) and various podcasts centering on advice for amateur authors (I Should Be Writing, for example).

A recent podcast I started listening to is called "Get Published" by Michell Plested. He took a risk and read an old story as an audio story and fed it into the podcast feed. A subsequent podcast included some feedback, which sounded like he had some good comments.

Me...I didn't like it. I couldn't finish listening to it. Maybe there was negative feedback and he didn't acknowledge it. Maybe he just didn't have a lot of people give negative feedback. I don't know.

I just know I didn't like it. I actually stopped listening partway through it.

His characters were simply so far off in some ideal world of black-and-white behavior that I couldn't suspend belief. Even when a story is sci-fi or fantasy, you have to be able to put yourself into that story, into that situation, and believe that what is happening could actually happen in those circumstances. His story had started off with a character that was utterly revolting in his behavior towards a woman that he essentially "saved" after her husband was killed and was claiming as his own property. As I recall he was taking her to the king or sheriff or some other official to make his claim over her official; he was physically and emotionally abusive, as she was property, not a person.

That in itself is believable behavior in a particular environment. Stories including slavery tends to demonstrate this attitude. Many stories centered in Olde England or medieval Europe or very pious and religious societies shows women treated as less-than-equals in status. Okay...I'll buy that.

Except he and his property meet up with this "knight" that is the polar opposite. Far, far extreme opposite, where he stands up for the damsel's dignity, threatening the revolting bastard that was abusing his newly-claimed property.

Now...in a society where this appeared to be the "norm" in how people are treated, how do you just happen to find two such extremes in behavior? Even the speech patterns were way too far over the mark, with the noble knight stepping in to show what an uncouth rascal the jerk truly was. Yes, there are extremes in any society, but this was just too coincidental.

Worse, in a society where it was apparently accepted as the "right thing to do" (the antagonists words) to go to a local official to make the claim over his "woman", somehow this knight was so far removed from this society in which he lives that he was appalled at this guy's gall.

Sorry, not buying it.

But I didn't give the author feedback. I wouldn't want to, unless I was directly asked. He took a big risk in exposing his writing like that. And I hate to discourage him without being prompted for an honest opinion.

So how does one handle critiquing a new author's work?

I prefer, personally, getting honest feedback. If I'm on the wrong track, let me know. If it's salable material, I'd love to know and if it's not then I don't want to continue wasting my time on it. I'm not a professional writer or English major so if I'm not very good at writing then I can accept that kind of criticism; I'd be as broken up about it as hearing my future does not lay in a sports career or professional ballet dancer.

But I also know I am an introverted individual with Asperger's, so I don't know how other people prefer to get feedback. I prefer open honesty but apparently other people don't; just observe the reaction of Alice Hoffman, an established author, when she got a bad review from a critic. That article also has many other examples of authors bahaving poorly to criticism...

So I guess the question is, what is the expected protocol in giving feedback? Michell sounded like the feedback he got was positive; but I know that if asked my feedback would have been less than positive. I was glad to hear in the followup that the story was very old and I'd presume that with time and practice he would have found more of his voice in his writing and hopefully improved. I'd like to think that I can offer constructive criticism that, if taken in the manner it was meant when offered, could be used to improve his writing a bit.

Or maybe my criticism is specific to me; his story simply didn't appeal to me. He obviously had some people that liked his work from the feedback he repeated on the next podcast.

If anyone has been in the position to be asked to give feedback to someone who is writing a story and you found elements that you really didn't like, how did you handle the situation? What affected your decision to handle it the way you did?