just kidding! :)In all actuality, I've been thinking about critiques a lot lately, in part because I used them so much in re-writing, in part because my stack of TBC (to be critiqued) is growing daily :)
I think that I am more nit-picky than most people, and I blame my education for that. I'm old-school English lit major/teacher. I am used to making my students' papers bleed with my terrifying red pen; I have the reputation in school for pounding kids with essays (although many students have come back to me in the past thanking me for it).
So I do point out more grammar issues than I have seen from other crit members, and I do focus on things like word choice and language on a more minute level than is probably wanted by the person I am critiquing. I am trying to work on that, I promise.
However, my critiquing style also come from my own experience. The Amnesia Door is the 9th manuscript that I've written. The ninth. Two of them are un-save-ably bad, they are under the bed and they are staying there. Six of them are decent. One of them made it all the way to the acquiring committee at Random House, and although one editor wanted it, it was ultimately voted down.
And that rejection hurt. I felt like I was tripping at the finish line, that I was almost there, then sent back to the beginning.
The acquiring editor at RH was nice enough to send me a very extensive letter of feedback with the reasons why it ultimately wasn't right for RH and what should have been different. I showed the letter to my mom. "Oh," she said, "I thought that, too, you totally should have changed X." I showed the letter to my (then) fiance. "Yeah, I always thought Y should be Z." I showed the letter to the close friends who'd read the manuscript for me. "We didn't know why you didn't write W instead of V; we figured you knew what you were doing."
They all agreed with the editorial letter; they all had secretly felt that those changes (which were significant, such as POV, age of characters, resolution of the plot) should have been made, but none of them said anything. All I got back was smiley faces and "You can do it!" and "It's perfect the way it is!"
Now, this is my fault--I went to people who would inevitably give me positive feedback (relatives, friends). And, to be fair, I myself may not have been mature enough to take critical feedback for what it's worth.
But this is why I always try to point out everything that I think could potentially trip a person up when submitting to an agent or editor. Not because I'm a meanie, but because that is exactly how I want to be treated. Now, I seek out the harshest criticism I can find. I beg anyone and everyone to read my stuff, and in crit groups, I will sometimes go back to members and dig deeper--not because I'm a masochist, but because I want to know every little thing that can be changed. And I do believe in treating others the same way that you would like to be treated, so I do give as honest critical feedback that I possibly can.
I have only been a member of a crit group for a year, and I've come to realize that I do need to tone it down a bit--for time's sake, but also because there is a point where I can be too critical. Sometimes (probably often-times) it's the big picture critique that helps the most. I find myself skimming over comments on word choice and specifics in a sentence or a paragraph, but major revisions have stemmed from comments on bigger things, like plot, voice, characterization.
I think I've lost whatever point I was going to start off making. I guess it's just this: everyone critiques differently. Some are nitpicky (like me) some are supportive (like my mom). In the end, it's good to get many different opinions and many different sides of the story so that when you revise, you can consider others and thereby become more critical of yourself.
How do you critique? What are the most helpful kinds of critiques to you?
PS: This post in no way reflects anything about anyone's work that I am currently critiquing, now or in the future. I just found myself being very reflexive of my own critique practices and though I'd share.
10 comments:
I am working on becoming a better big picture critiquer. Trying to stop and think more about the overall effect say a 20 page submission has. Critiquing 20 pages at a time (what our group does) sometimes seems like too few to make a good assessment, but 20 pages in a book needs to keep interest no matter where it is.
As for overall critiques, I think at the start of a story (the first few chapters) it is very helpful to point out everything possible - word choices, bad grammar, etc, because this is the first impression agents and editors will have. I tend to have more comments on page 1 than anywhere else. But page 1 needs to sing - well.
This I believe because less important as the story progresses and bigger issues take precedence like plot, character motivations, believability.
Great post! BTW, thanks! I'm excited!
One of my crit groups does 50 pages at a time, one does about a chapter. There are advantages and disadvantages to both. The 50 page one gets a better overall picture of the story as a whole, and I often get better big-picture feedback. The chapter-length one does better on individual lines and (especially) whether or not the chapter itself hold attention. But I've found whole-book crits helpful in the big-big picture range, too :)
I find it easier to point out misspellings, bad word choice, etc. Unfortunately, I think many people need more help when it comes to smoothing out plot and such.
Beth, this is exciting for me to answer. I know for a fact that I value harsh critiques more than light ones. The pat on the back and "you can do it" crits are not helpful. Ever. Except for urging you along, and I can do that myself most of the time.
I didn't realize that harsh crits can make so much of a difference until I joined an online criitque group. I bled a lot those first few weeks, but I'm getting a thick skin and beginning to see that it isn't ONE critique from one person that is most helpful, it is the combination of many different views and opinions. The more the better. So I pass around my MS to everybody I can and take what I get. Some is good, some is helpful, some not so much.
In the end, it is YOUR book and your writing, though. I try to critique nicely, but honestly. Honesty is a must.
I'm into the big picture, sensory details. I hope I give respectful, honest critiques and I like to point out places where I want to see more from the plot, character, emotions.
The more detail I get from a critique, the better.
Justus--I agree! I also find it sometimes restrictive to make comments about those bigger things, especially when only reading a small selection. I try to even it out with ideas on my impression of the future from the short selection (such as "I think you might go this direction with this character, here's what I think about that,") but there really is a limit to what one can give critical feedback on. To say nothing of the fact that those kinds of comments are much harder to give.
Glam: I so agree--the more the better! It is so vital to get different feedback, to find out where everyone gets hung up, and where its only one person; and to get a broader perspective.
Vivian: Honesty is absolutely the key. I always approach it this way: if this were my manuscript, what would I want to know about it? It's the Golden Rule all over again.
At first the "You're doing great" critiques were nice, but I find that I do need a more critical eye looking at my ms. I'm glad to have found a crit group. I'm already looking at my writing more critically.
I've come to hate the "sandwich" critique (nice words surrounding criticism) -- I find myself thinking, "Yeah, yeah, yeah," during the nice words, impatient for the meat of the criticism. I understand that some folks get their feelings hurt by criticism, but for me it's all about making the story better.
Anyhoo, blah-blah-blah, I prefer comprehensive critiques. It's nice to know what works, but more useful to know what doesn't.
Lois: So true--a good crit group makes yourself more critical within your own writing!!
Nomadshan: I'm with you. While there have been times that a nice comment was really helpful (i.e. I was thinking of cutting something, but someone really liked it; or I didn't know if something worked and they assured me it did) I really like the "real" critiques better, although I find that I tend to get that more from completely anonymous people than people I have any acquaintance with at all.
I've been in several critique groups and I definitely see advantages to each of the different types. Group size is a big one. In big goups you get a variety of feedback, but often have to work doubly hard to give that feedback to everyone, and sometimes the exchange is not equivalent or your opinions vary too much.
I love harsh critiques, and I am much more of a bigger picture kind of girl. In fact, I'm so terrible at grammar, I couldn't diagram a sentence or find a proper placement of a semicolon to save my life. But I love the bigger picture stuff. I've found a "writer buddy" or a few very select writer buddies are so helpful, because they can go in so deep on a single project and if you mesh well, you know you can trust their opinion with a lot more weight. But, of course, these are the hardest partners to find. :)
Post a Comment