One way would be to talk to the garden's owner in advance put a positive spin on your criticism and add their comments to your article. If it turns sour at this point then drop the idea as nothing will be gained.
"You may have noticed on our recent visit to Mrs O'Connells's garden that her Irises were not up to the standard that she has built her reputation upon. I asked her why this was, when I went back to see her, it was also an excuse to indulge in another piece of her delicious Dundee cake, and she said....yada yada yada and assures me that the next time we visit she will provide a feast not only for my stomach but for my eyes too." That kind of thing.

You might just talk about the things that were standard or more, and neglect to mention the less-than-standard items. Those who are in the know will realize the omissions might mean something, and the rest won't know the difference any way.
Or, talk to the owner, and get them to admit that the less-than-stunning specimens may need a different location, or whatever. Then you could put a positive spin on it by saying that Mrs. So-and-So is planning on moving the "Whatevers" to a sunnier/shadier location because she thinks they'll do better there.

It is to your credit that you are concerned with the conflict of being an honest editor and writing about what you see -warts and all, or simply raving about gardens that are good but not as good as reputed. If you will notice on these posts some will publish their work and invite comments. Not all of them but some will protest greatly if the comments are anything other than praise. This should give you some idea of what to expect even when a critique is solicited. I don't suppose you can fall back on the adage of "If you can't say something good then don't say anything at all" As editor you have space to fill and must write something. I would err on the side of caution and praise. Use this conflict as a challenge to your writing skills.

Paddy:
Thank you for the newsletter. Enjoyed it very much. My friend, the late Mrs. Roughneen of Adare in Dublin, really enjoyed everything you wrote and once told me she wished you would come to visit her garden. Alas, too late to tell you this.
Writing about gardens is a touchy thing--some people can take criticism, but you never know. So caution is the best thing. If they criticize their own garden then you may know you're on safer ground.
Coleen

I can understand your reluctance to give an honest critique, and yet without the spice, there is no flavor. If you do garden reviews regularly, you could make it a feature of your review by finding positives to start, and then have a "gardens are dynamic...what could be done next" sort of section"
"Now that the beds are abloom, the garden could be taken to the next level by including the unexpected in the form of an area of unusual species" or "Perhaps now that the roses have filled in with their riot of color, it is time to think how to create the right path to allow one to stroll past to admire them without stumbling."
Well, I'm not a garden reviewer, but if it were known that you would follow the highlights with suggestions for further enhancements, the gardener would know it was the structure of the column, and to expect some critique. Also, if the editor felt it best to remain positive...the end of the review could just be lopped off.

Many thanks to you all for your considered replies. You certainly caught the nub of my predicament. To date I have taken the course of "If you have nothing good to say, say nothing at all" and have omitted commenting about parts or aspects of a garden that were not up to scratch.

However, I feel that this really is less than honest and often feel unhappy with my own comments especially if the situation is that the person enjoys, or revels boastfully in, a good reputation without really deserving it. There are times when I feel like being perfectly honest, yes warts and all, but have always refrained.

It is an awkward situation trying to be honest, give an accurate description of a garden, express disappointment if it really did not measure up to reputation or expectations and yet not hurt any feelings.

There is a growing trend in Ireland for private gardens to open to the public. Many of these gardens are not, in my opinion, of a standard worthy of this and this especially grates when the garden owner charges for admission and then sells plants to visitors also. For many such people the garden has become a small home-based business and the goodwill, friendliness, plant swapping and free exchange of views and opinions that formerly marked gardening activities here is passing away. This is something I deeply resent as it runs contrary to my own views of gardening and my hoped for interaction between gardeners. The lowest form of this commercialism is when garden owners charge the members of their own gardening club for admission. Where is the hospitality and welcome that one expects from people who share a wonderful hobby?

Gardening is a wonderful hobby shared by many wonderful people. For me it has been marked by friendship and generosity in pursuit of a common hobby and those who commercialise it cheaply put a bad taste in my mouth.

By way of contrast, a Maryland gardener with whom I have corresponded over the past two to three years has come to Ireland for a holiday and visited yesterday bringing that most wonderful of books as a gift - Michael Dirr's book on woody plants. What a book! What a friend to have!

Goodness, I do yap on!

Many thanks all. Paddy

Hi Paddy,

May I suggest separating the issues? Your feelings about the commercialization of gardens and people charging admission to gardens that aren't up to snuff could be addressed in a separate article--no names mentioned--and that might free you up, psychologically, I mean, to focus more on the positive aspects of the gardens you review.

If a person freely gives of his or her garden, spends hours preparing, and provides refreshments to others, all with the simple purpose of sharing their pleasure, I do believe it is destructive to review their garden as if you were a New York Times critic debunking the latest Broadway hit. You could always pick an area of the garden that was especially nice and focus on it. Astute people will read between the lines, and even if they go and are disappointed, well, unless they have very hard hearts they will be sympathetic with poor Mrs So-and-So who does love her garden, and with you, who obviously realized such as well.

However, if the person whose garden is on display is trying to start a little business for themselves, that changes things. You then take on the responsibility of advising people on how to spend--or not to spend--their money. Do you want to have that responsibility? Maybe you could just make it a policy only to review gardens where there is no entry fee. Or state that such gardens will be reveiwed with a different standard in mind?

One last idea I had was to adopt a neutral system of describing the type of garden at the start of the review, using symbols. For example, you could specify that a "one flower" garden was a small, intimate garden, in which a narrow variety of plants was grown and which charged no admission, and so forth. This could subtly signal to the reader when a garden might not be such a big deal as they'd been led to believe.

It's a dilemma--good luck with it.

Paddy,
I quote the following you wrote:
"It is an awkward situation trying to be honest, give an accurate description of a garden, express disappointment if it really did not measure up to reputation or expectations and yet not hurt any feelings.

There is a growing trend in Ireland for private gardens to open to the public. Many of these gardens are not, in my opinion, of a standard worthy of this and this especially grates when the garden owner charges for admission and then sells plants to visitors also. For many such people the garden has become a small home-based business and the goodwill, friendliness, plant swapping and free exchange of views and opinions that formerly marked gardening activities here is passing away. This is something I deeply resent as it runs contrary to my own views of gardening and my hoped for interaction between gardeners. The lowest form of this commercialism is when garden owners charge the members of their own gardening club for admission. Where is the hospitality and welcome that one expects from people who share a wonderful hobby?

Gardening is a wonderful hobby shared by many wonderful people. For me it has been marked by friendship and generosity in pursuit of a common hobby and those who commercialise it cheaply put a bad taste in my mouth."

I think you have expressed the problem very well in the preceeding quote without naming names and should consider putting exactly that in your newsletter as a means of informing and soliciting the opinions of others. But do get another opinion first.

Again, Many thanks to all who have replied to my posting. I must say you are a very helpful and positive group. As you have recognised it is a difficult situation, compounded my annoyance that some of those I need to write about are also the money-grabbing type.

Ah well, such is life. I can only do my best and remain true to my own feelings about gardening and truth in writing.

Paddy

Dear Paddy,
It is my misfortune never to have visited Ireland, but since many of my ancestors came from there (a long line of Caffeys) I feel a definite kinship with the Emerald Isle.
In my opinion, if gardeners are charging money and selling plants, this is a commercial enterprise open to honest critique. It's like the difference between dining as a guest in a friend's home, or going to a restaurant. The restaurant, as a commercial establishment, is open to public criticism. However, public criticism of the friend's cooking skills would be considered rude in most circles.
I think you are quite right to go easy on those who are gracious enough to host people in their gardens. But if they are charging admission, the same courtesies no longer apply.
Best regards,
Becky

Paddy -- I can appreciate your dilemma, as it is very difficult to write glowingly about a garden that leaves you cold. In your case you must do it for the sake of friendship and diplomacy; in the case of garden writers like myself we must do it for the sake of the check that will otherwise not make it to our mailbox. On numerous occasions I have stood in a garden, notebook in hand and the garden owner (rarely is that also the gardener) standing beside me protesting "Oh criminy, I don't know the name of that plant! They didn't tell me you'd want to know the names of the plants!" and I've wanted to write: "In the Fundenblink garden, where money is no object and poor taste is as persistent as the color pink, the man-made waterfall inspires awe and begs the question: how many undocumented Mexicans must labor for how long in 95 degree heat to give an ex-Enron executive and his under-skilled third wife a water feature befitting their 8,000 square foot faux-chateau?"

One thing I try to focus on when the garden is less than stellar are specimen plants or features in the landscape that may interest readers. If you feel uncomfortable praising the garden in general, you could simply say: "In Mrs. McGillicuddy's garden all eyes were on the topiary garden in which the seven deadly sins are lovingly carved out of Buxus microphylla 'Variegata.'" Or talk about the classes of roses that Mrs. McG. grows without mentioning that they're planted in white-painted tractor tires. That's not a sin of commission but a sin of omission, and a forgivable sin, I believe, for the sake of keeping the peace in your gardening world.

As for the issue of gardeners turning their plots into profits, I agree with everyone else that this turns them into fair game for a thumbs-up, thumbs-down rating and you should have no qualms about criticizing the quality of their gardens if this is warranted. (I thought the economy in Ireland was going gangbusters?... much better than ours ... this gives revived meaning to the term 'cottage industry.')

Good luck with your writing. I hope you never have to review the Fundenblinks'.

The worst that can happen is that everyone will say "Oh, we all know what a crank that Paddy is." :-)

I have seen the "honesty in a small community" problem approached by someone taking a ridiculous nom de plume and raising Cain. Results were mixed but it certainly made for a lot of debate - about the writer's true identity, and who had "really" provoked which column! "Suzy Snipe" took her name as her job description - more constructive criticism would probably have been taken well by the more sensitive.

I think a good, serious review of a real place will allow someone with different taste from the reviewer to get a sense of the garden as well.

Good luck!

If folks spent as much time developing thick skins as they do harping about not hurting anothers feelings, a lot fewer feelings would be hurt to begin with. Worrying about snide comments and bluntly honest critiques, or even simple rudeness is a clear sign of weak character.

Internet forums such as this are in reality a truly new and unique form of communication. Unfortunately, the weak of character, which overall is a pretty large majority of the populace, have sent this potentially wonderful form of communication down the wrong path. Rather than cater to the strong of mind and character, moderators tend to cater to the weak, the easily hurt, the almost perpetually offended.
One of the greatest pieces ever written, a mere 13 words, could actually solve a many, if not most, of the worlds problems.

1)Sticks
2)And
3)Stones
4)May
5)Break
6)My
7)Bones
8)But
9)Words
10)Can
11)Never
12)Hurt
13)Me

Oh crap, I clicked on the wrong thread for the reply above, sorry! Time to alter my resonse I suppose. Your quandry is a quite a bit different than internet forums for sure. With a circulation like that within such a close knit society, you would be biting yourself in the butt BIG time if you try to be honest about other gardeners shortcomings, even if ya do sugar coat it some. It takes a certain kind of person to make "small circle critiques" work, when you have to physically interact with these same people with any regularity.

I've found that even 'minor' critiques made publicly in the written word can really piss some folks off, and it won't be forgotten for years. Admittedly, these are vain, thin skinned type folks, but heck, if you have to deal with them regularly, it can be a P.I.A. and cause all sorts of friction. Also, keep in mind that it won't be just the folks who were critiqued who will be upset. That person likely has friends who will be miffed too, possibly even moreso than the person actually critiqued. After a few reviews like that, you may end up with half the society not being happy with you.

Might be best to just 'accentuate the positive' in a situation like that, if you don't want to deal with almost certain hard feelings. I know this somewhat from personal experience in the Horse world. I'm pretty outspoken against certain practices, and it has made me some enemies in high places. Fortunately, I don't give a rats butt, I just take it all with a grin. I don't need everyone to like me, just the right people, lol. Since your situation is likely more social oriented though, you might want to use a good bit more discretion than called for within my competition horse circles.

You could talk to the gardener before hand and set the expecations of how you will write about their work. Let them know if they are charging admission and selling plants they will be reviewed as professionals. Inform them that as a pro they will be held to a higher standard. In the end ask them if they still want you to come and review the garden for the newsletter. If they say yes, then be honest, but not mean. If you have this conversation well before the open graden event you may see better gardens. They will be motivated to really get things in shape.

jb