I read a post on a friend’s blog yesterday about critiques and how people react to them. So I thought I would add my two cents. (I’m sure you guys are so thrilled)
When I first started writing seriously about two years ago I was a member of a critique group. I’m still in the group but haven’t participated in a while because mainly I haven’t had anything ready in a long time that I was willing to put out there.
But I do have three or four readers that I call on from time to time and their feedback is invaluable. They are readers, not writers, per say. When I need to know if something is boring, or if I’ve crossed a fine line, I’ll send them a piece and get their take on it. I’ve known these ladies a long time. Normally I tell them don’t worry about the typo’s and grammar stuff. I’ll fix that later, what I’m looking for right now is would you buy this story if you saw the back blurb, does the story intrigue you? Do you want to read on or do I shelve this one and start on something else? There have been times when they’ve told me they don’t get a story or that it moves to slow or there isn’t enough tension and ‘you need to tighten the screws a bit more’ I take them up on their advise all the time. I know exactly what they read and what genre’s they like. It makes a world of difference. But they are readers and these ladies don’t necessarily write.
Critique groups are a different matter entirely as they are formed up of mostly writers. A writer is far more intolerant than a reader. Because they write, they see all the glaring errors. Pov switches, continuity, focus, grammar issues, and redundancies not to mention dangling plot threads.
For a new writer this can be traumatic, especially if you have only been writing a short time. Ego is a delicate thing. I believe most writers at the heart of it think their work is not good enough. (I suffer horribly from this personality flaw) But still they (me) keep on writing because writers can’t quit and be happy. They just can’t. We won’t go into burn out here because that is a different issue.
For me, when I first started having my work critiqued I looked at it like a business, or school. While red ink can scare the bejesus out of the best writers, it is a necessary evil. There is no better way to learn than from those with more experience than you. However, there is a caveat to this: Know your critique partners. What is their history? Have they published? What are their specialties? You need to take everything into consideration. Look at the advice you get objectively, and decide what is good and what is not. The rules of writing are there for a purpose, but before you go breaking those rules you have to know them. But knowing your critique partners is just as good a rule.
See, someone who has been published in mass market is going to critique totally different than someone who has been published in electronic format, and even more so if they have been self published.
The writers, who have been through the gauntlet (New York) as I call it, have been through the blood and guts of the industry. What they are trying to help you learn, (by their red, blue, or green marks) is what it takes to polish a manuscript so that it shines so brightly no editor or agent would ever turn it down.
Does it hurt sometimes? Does it make you feel like you are a total and complete moron?
Sure it does.
But wouldn’t it better to have someone who is not a New York editor tell you these things? It’s kind of like learn it now or learn it later the hard way and let me tell you I’m sure those editors in New York do not have time to hold hands. They are busy people and they have more than one author/book to deal with on any given day. Which book/story do you think they are going to buy? The one that only needs little to no work? Or the book that needs a complete rewrite. Yeah, you know exactly what they are going to do—the path of least resistance baby.
You can’t blame them. They have a job to do. And while you may have a stellar story if it is not written well, it simply may take too much time to polish it up.
Which brings us back to critiques and critique partners.
Best rule of thumb. Divorce yourself emotionally when you submit something for critique. Expect the worse (you’re never disappointed this way) and try to learn from what your partners are telling you. Ask questions. Why should you do it that way? Learn, learn, learn your craft. And by divorcing yourself emotionally you become objective and by becoming objective you can look at your work with cold eyes and begin to see those errors yourself.
End of soapbox…(grin)
Edited to add: The best critiques I've received have been the ones that told me what I did wrong but ALSO told me what I did right. They balanced out the good with the bad. Makes it a bit easier to swallow. Thank God, they have always been able to find SOMETHING good to say.
When I first started writing seriously about two years ago I was a member of a critique group. I’m still in the group but haven’t participated in a while because mainly I haven’t had anything ready in a long time that I was willing to put out there.
But I do have three or four readers that I call on from time to time and their feedback is invaluable. They are readers, not writers, per say. When I need to know if something is boring, or if I’ve crossed a fine line, I’ll send them a piece and get their take on it. I’ve known these ladies a long time. Normally I tell them don’t worry about the typo’s and grammar stuff. I’ll fix that later, what I’m looking for right now is would you buy this story if you saw the back blurb, does the story intrigue you? Do you want to read on or do I shelve this one and start on something else? There have been times when they’ve told me they don’t get a story or that it moves to slow or there isn’t enough tension and ‘you need to tighten the screws a bit more’ I take them up on their advise all the time. I know exactly what they read and what genre’s they like. It makes a world of difference. But they are readers and these ladies don’t necessarily write.
Critique groups are a different matter entirely as they are formed up of mostly writers. A writer is far more intolerant than a reader. Because they write, they see all the glaring errors. Pov switches, continuity, focus, grammar issues, and redundancies not to mention dangling plot threads.
For a new writer this can be traumatic, especially if you have only been writing a short time. Ego is a delicate thing. I believe most writers at the heart of it think their work is not good enough. (I suffer horribly from this personality flaw) But still they (me) keep on writing because writers can’t quit and be happy. They just can’t. We won’t go into burn out here because that is a different issue.
For me, when I first started having my work critiqued I looked at it like a business, or school. While red ink can scare the bejesus out of the best writers, it is a necessary evil. There is no better way to learn than from those with more experience than you. However, there is a caveat to this: Know your critique partners. What is their history? Have they published? What are their specialties? You need to take everything into consideration. Look at the advice you get objectively, and decide what is good and what is not. The rules of writing are there for a purpose, but before you go breaking those rules you have to know them. But knowing your critique partners is just as good a rule.
See, someone who has been published in mass market is going to critique totally different than someone who has been published in electronic format, and even more so if they have been self published.
The writers, who have been through the gauntlet (New York) as I call it, have been through the blood and guts of the industry. What they are trying to help you learn, (by their red, blue, or green marks) is what it takes to polish a manuscript so that it shines so brightly no editor or agent would ever turn it down.
Does it hurt sometimes? Does it make you feel like you are a total and complete moron?
Sure it does.
But wouldn’t it better to have someone who is not a New York editor tell you these things? It’s kind of like learn it now or learn it later the hard way and let me tell you I’m sure those editors in New York do not have time to hold hands. They are busy people and they have more than one author/book to deal with on any given day. Which book/story do you think they are going to buy? The one that only needs little to no work? Or the book that needs a complete rewrite. Yeah, you know exactly what they are going to do—the path of least resistance baby.
You can’t blame them. They have a job to do. And while you may have a stellar story if it is not written well, it simply may take too much time to polish it up.
Which brings us back to critiques and critique partners.
Best rule of thumb. Divorce yourself emotionally when you submit something for critique. Expect the worse (you’re never disappointed this way) and try to learn from what your partners are telling you. Ask questions. Why should you do it that way? Learn, learn, learn your craft. And by divorcing yourself emotionally you become objective and by becoming objective you can look at your work with cold eyes and begin to see those errors yourself.
End of soapbox…(grin)
Edited to add: The best critiques I've received have been the ones that told me what I did wrong but ALSO told me what I did right. They balanced out the good with the bad. Makes it a bit easier to swallow. Thank God, they have always been able to find SOMETHING good to say.
1 Comments:
Hmmm. . .I have to wonder where my one email to you this week fell into all of this.
Post a Comment
<< Home