Advice on advice

[Devor]

I think I may have misinterpreted what you said. I thought, in your last paragraph, you meant that the question was whether the critiquer actually has the ability to discern areas of improvement or not. I was disputing whether that is important or not. As has been stated many times, the greatest benefit a beta reader can provide is to point out if something works or not, not necessarily how to fix it.

I think there's too much noise in critiquing, and that some people need to stop doing what they're doing. Some people make it harder for everyone else.

(I'm not saying that about anyone here, or about anyone in particular. But I think we all have seen examples of people who give bad critiques.)

If what people want or want to say is "I like this, I don't like this," there's ways of doing that, too. I think Phil posted something about that a while ago, where you go through the text and insert specific labels like (+) and (-) and (?) and nothing else.* I don't mean to invalidate an approach like that, for instance. It's efficient, and doesn't pretend to be more than it is. It doesn't offer the kind of feedback you can get from an experienced writer, but that can be okay.

But that's different from grabbing a few bad sentences, viciously explaining how awful they are, and simultaneously giving someone the impression that it's all they need to fix because it's what you spent six paragraphs typing about. That kind of critique is just wasting everyone's time. So is a critique that imposes one style onto the writing of a different style that just isn't compatible.

Some people talk out of their ass. And not doing that is a requirement for the approach I was suggesting, of talking about three broader things to improve at a time, which I think is a good approach for a community of writers. That's all I was saying.


*I don't remember what the exact symbols were.

No two writers will write anything exactly the same. They employ different techniques and go about achieving engagement differently. Personally, I think tension is the most important element in making my work interesting. Robert Bevan would probably say it's humor. It would be stupid of me to presume he needed more tension when he really needed to make a scene funnier.

I happen to agree that building tension is one of the more important things you need to do in your writing. But it's not a blanket statement. There are reasons that tension works, and understanding the first principles behind tension will help you understand what kind of styles need to use it more than others. You mention Robert Bevan and humor, but tension can be a fundamental concept in many types of comedy, if it follows the setup/payoff cycle that many comedians use in their work.

That is, even a style as divergent as comedy can be learned, at least enough to give a helpful critique.

 

[Penpilot]

It just seems to me that most people are so in the dark about the actual state of their ability that they need to be told forcefully or they just won't get the point.

I've told this story before, but I think it bears repeating. I was in a writing class of 20 once. It was a mixed bag of experienced and new writers. For some it was their first experience with writing and a writing class. One writer presented the class with what I think was probably one of the first things he's ever written. One jack-hole decides to forcefully tell him what he thought of the piece. He went on-and-on, and you could see the writer's eyes just glass up.

I can honestly say it was one of the most awkward and unpleasant experiences in my life. And I don't think that over bluntness helped that writer at all. I'm pretty sure all they were thinking about was how not to break into full sobbing in front of 20 people.

This is one of the reasons I like face-to-face critiques. Sometimes it's easy to be too blunt when you don't have to look the person in the eyes. Bluntness is fine, but it's much easier to temper a comment with something as simple as a smile or a self deprecating joke when you're face-to-face.

 

[Steerpike]

I do try to keep the audience in mind. For example, I received a fiction submission from a fifteen year-old girl, and it was pretty poorly written. Instead of a form rejection, I sent her back a red-lined version with everything that I thought was problematic (and there may have been more red than black in the document when I was done). I didn't withhold any criticisms, but I also wrote a paragraph to her about how awesome I thought it was that she was getting into fiction writing at her age, and how many people who have been at it longer than her make the same mistakes, and I told her I saw potential in her writing (true) and to keep working at it.

I got what seemed to be a sincere thank you in return. I think I was able to tell her exactly why the writing didn't work for me, while at the same time not crush her hopes or make her think that she just sucked and that was that.

I'm much more likely to take that approach when I know I am dealing with kids.

 

[Jabrosky]

I do try to keep the audience in mind. For example, I received a fiction submission from a fifteen year-old girl, and it was pretty poorly written. Instead of a form rejection, I sent her back a red-lined version with everything that I thought was problematic (and there may have been more red than black in the document when I was done). I didn't withhold any criticisms, but I also wrote a paragraph to her about how awesome I thought it was that she was getting into fiction writing at her age, and how many people who have been at it longer than her make the same mistakes, and I told her I saw potential in her writing (true) and to keep working at it.

I got what seemed to be a sincere thank you in return. I think I was able to tell her exactly why the writing didn't work for me, while at the same time not crush her hopes or make her think that she just sucked and that was that.

I'm much more likely to take that approach when I know I am dealing with kids.

I was just going to suggest something just like that when it came to bluntness. Like you said, it depends on whom you're critiquing. I am all for honest critique, but I agree that beginning writers who need all the confidence they can get need to be handled with different gloves than, say, pretentious writers would could use a blow in their bloated egos.

 

[Caged Maiden]

I like to think I'm very good at delivering bad news.

I've critted for loads of great writers, plenty of mediocre writers who are working on specific elements of their work, and loads of poor writers who really want to learn to make their work better. For those peopel I crit for most often and have developed a personal relationship with, my comments often look like this: "This sentence is weak, consider restructuring." Now... when I say that to Phil or Steerpike.... I know they already know what I'm talking about and am relying on that knowledge to merely point out a place they need to work a little more magic into their work.

With someone I'm less familiar with, my comment might look like this: "This sentence is weak because you've replaced action words (-ed) words, with (-ing) words, creating less immediacy. I'd try to restructure this sentence using more immediate wording, to best convey the impact you hope to achieve with this sentence." This too, is intended for a good writer who missed a little boo-boo in their work and needs to fine tune things. They know what I mean but the small explanation will help to soften what could potentially feel like a blow. It takes longer and honestly, with good crit partners, we're way beyond feelings. We'd rather read short comments and thank our partners for simply pointing out weak places without all the "whys".

If I knew I were critting a passage for a brand new writer... one who hasn't shown their work around and is new to the crit process, my comments would look more like this: "This sentence is weaker than you probably want it to be. The wording you chose (-ing) words, instead of (-ed) words, have impacted the immediacy of the sentence in a negative way. Always remember that (-ing) words are weaker. It's fine to use them, but try to make as many of your sentences "immediate" by using (-ed) words as possible. Also, by restructuring this sentence (putting the subject first, rather than second) you will make it an active sentence rather than a passive one. It's important to use passive writing for impact sparingly so it doesn't lose said impact. I do however, think the description was good, but try to play with this kind of restructuring in other sentences that don't feel awesome to you. That way, you'll keep the tone or immediacy throughout this section."

Okay... so... I don't think I've EVER told someone I liked their work if I didn't. In fact, I rarely find myself "liking" much of anything, including my own work at this point. It's about fulfilling a goal. Either the sentence/ paragraph/ scene works toward the goal or it detracts and needs to be shortened, strengthened, or cut.

That being said... tact is an important part of getting/ giving critiques and while you always hope your time was well spent in delivering a crit for someone, if you say it in the wrong way, your comments go in one ear and out the other.

Personally, I've critted for people who think they are great writers and I've found their material...lacking in ways. I'm sure they would also call mine "lacking" but use their own words. I'm always happy to help a new person, but they need ot knwo what they're getting into when asking me to crit. I'm not unkind ever, but I'm honest, straightforward, and dare I say... a little hard to please? But I'm always happy to help.

I always advise people to find crit partners at their own level. Nothing is worse than having a talent/ experience disparity the size of the Grand Canyon. The weaker writer will not be able to keep up and will be discouraged. As I progress down this road, I always remember where I started, two years ago and recall how I felt when I got torn apart by someone in email. It didn't hurt that he didn't like my work... what hurt was that he said he didn't think it was the best I could do. But you know what? He was right. A mistake I never repeated. I always present the best possible material for critiques now and if I am sending someone a first draft, I SPECIFICALLY tell them as much and ask for a crit on ONLY plot and pacing OR WHATEVER. It's no good to send someone a sloppy first draft to crit... Frankly, it's rude. However, new writers have very little choice, because that's what we all write and they don't necessarily understand what the next step (edited) looks like.

So.... any time someone wants to send me their work... whether it's a novel, short, or outline... I crit to the best of my ability. If it's a sloppy novel with POV switches and inconsistencies every other line, I simply note in the crit (after a dozen or more times of pointing it out) that I will no longer pause to comment on that particular item. That they ought to look carefully through the work on their own time and zap them all out.

I'm always polite and thoughtful and I'd like to think that by having me crit for them, new writers are not only getting the fast-track lesson on how to edit their own work, but also getting many helpful suggestions about missed opportunities, the process of critting and editing, and also how to separate yourself from your own words enough to get a good grasp of how good it actually is.

My heart goes out to all the people who feel disrespected after giving a good crit to someone who didn't appreciate it. It also goes out to all those peopel who feel like they've put their work on the chopping block and watched it get brutally butchered with a saw by an uncaring beast on a deadline. I think if you offer to crit for someone, you are entering into a verbal contract to do your best and they are vowing to at the very least appreciate your time, even if they don't take a single bit of your advice.

 

[Philip Overby]

What Caged Maiden says make a lot of sense. I mean, you can probably tell when reading someone's work for the first time where they are in their "journey" so to speak. I've gotten work ripped apart before and maybe there are people that think I just started writing. However, I do have stories I think are great and ones I think suck. I believe everyone does. However, a more experienced writer may do this thing where they try to mold you into the way they think about writing because that's the way they think about writing. That's the danger sometimes.

For example, when I was younger, I wrote lots of gory horror stories. I had several people tell me they were complete crap and just excuses to shock people. Looking back on it, I realize they were right to an extent. I did have people tell me that I had skill in constructing memorable images though. So that was something to hang my hat on. "OK, I'm decent at imagery at least. Now what can I work on?" Of course, I should work on everything, but sometimes honing in on weaknesses can be one of the most beneficial things a critique partner can do for you. I still use lots of violent imagery, but I try to make it mean something now instead of just randomly throwing it out there.

I don't know of this makes sense, but I think nurturing other writers strengths and honing in on their weaknesses is helpful. Just telling them how horrible they are (like Penpilot's example) doesn't help if the way you tell them isn't constructive.

 

[Steerpike]

Another thing that makes a difference is the context of the critique. My private critiques may be different from things I post in a forum because a forum will be browsed by new members of varying skill levels and you don't want them to see things that make them afraid to post and send them elsewhere.