Critiquing, part two
Jan 30th, 2006 by Sandra
I wrote all this up the other day and as a result of a rare browser crash, lost it all. So here we go again…..
I was thinking about what Laura said about the critiquer having a duty to be honest and not just say nice things, and I have to say that I’m of two minds about that.
First, in theory I totally agree. A critiquer is asked to read, to comment, to judge, and to identify problems and solutions. That’s a pretty serious request, and deserves serious response. Just as I would never submit to my critique group work that hadn’t been proofread, so I spend hours poring over their work and formulating my comments. (Ditto contest judging, but that’s another topic entirely.)
But on the other hand, I think that the critiquer’s comments can be tempered so that the writer doesn’t get bombarded with information. I clearly remember Rick Jackson looking at a poem of mine, and while there were probably a dozen things to change, he concentrated on only two of them. He was wise enough to know that I could get my brain around two major issues and work on those, while the other problems would keep for later. The writing process is hard enough without being hit with a laundry list of major problems to fix — especially when you have no idea how to do that.
So when I work with someone, I tend to concentrate on only two or three problem issues. Sure, I mark all the grammar, punctuation, and spelling errors I notice, but that’s mechanical. When it comes to structure, character development, the growing relationship, pacing, POV, tone, voice, and the myriad other things that could derail a story, I’ll pick the two issues that stand out to me as the largest problems.
Those are the problems where I’ll give it some real thought and consider how I would fix them. Sometimes I’ll offer those suggestions as a way of giving an example of correcting the problem, which is something I do for my regular critique partners, too. It’s all part of the process of exercising my “critiquing brain,” which I enjoy. And I often find myself learning a lot from critiquing someone else’s work.
There’s such a thing as information overload, and overload over too many critique sessions can start to feel like a beating. Every comment has to be tempered with kindness and objectivity, which I think will be the subject of my next post.
Till then, keep reading and writing.
5 Responses to “Critiquing, part two”
I wholeheartedly agree, Sandra.
I never dissect a book to pieces unless the writer specifically asks for it. I don’t usually offer suggestions on how to fix it unless I know the writer’s style pretty well.
I’ve actually abandoned critique partners who’ve had nothing but nice things to say about my work. It might be the suspicious girl in me, but I’m thinking, “Is she indirectly sabotaging my work by not telling me what crap it is?”
My CP and I have a system. We’ll tell each other upfront what we need from that particular critique. If I need her to be gentle, she is. When I’m ready for her to rip it apart, she does. And I do the same for her. We try to remember our ultimate goal is to get published (and continue getting published) and we remember we want what’s best for each other. I’m truly blessed this time around. ‘Course, it took me 6 critique partners before her to get to her!
I wrote about this not too long ago on my own blog, and commented that while mechanical observations are okay, I’m far more interested in learning about the reader’s experience with the work. What made sense? What didn’t? What did they feel when reading it? That sort of thing.
Unfortunately, most folks fall back on the tried-and-true clichés, like it was good and I liked it. Not offensive in any way, but certainly not useful, either.
Karmela, I can sympathize. In my case, when I run into people who can’t find anything to critique in my work, I know I’m likely hearing someone who a) isn’t a writer himself, or b) doesn’t understand what critiquing is about.
Chris, it sounds like you have a great system with your CP! It can take a while to find someone you mesh with. I critiqued for a few months with a romance writer who seemed to get annoyed with my work because it was so “not romance.” Maybe that’s why I fit in Bombshell? :-)
James, sorry about the “no preview” thing! Is this the post you wanted up? You’re dead-on on the beta-reading — that what we as writers need from some types of critique is to derive a sense of how the story is being experienced. My personal experience is that a critique reader functions very similarly to an editor; my editor provides me with symptoms, but it’s my job to figure out from there what the problem actually is. (Sounds like another blog topic….)