BWFoster78
Myth Weaver
In another thread, we touched on the subject of critiques – what should be covered and how it should be covered. I thought it would be a good idea to go into a little more detail. Here’s my idea: we post something that our commenters say that really annoys us, tell why it annoys us, and suggest ways to improve the comments.
1. My pet peeve from commenters: telling me how my character should react.
I show Bob being pushed by Joe. In response, I show Bob bursting into tears. The commenter pipes up, adamantly, with: Bob should push Joe back.
2. Why this annoys me: there are a couple of reasons.
First, people react to stimuli differently. There are a myriad of responses to being pushed. You could (just to name a few):
Laugh
Cry
Turn the other cheek
Exhibit Zen-like calmness
Become passive aggressive
Push back
Pull out a gun and shoot the guy
Any of these responses make sense depending on the character and the circumstance. Who are you to say that pushing back is the only acceptable response?
Second, characters are defined by actions. Let me develop my character! The fact that Bob burst into tears tells me something about him.
3. How I’d prefer the comments address this:
Pointing out flaws with characterization is an important function of the commenter. Sometimes, we, as authors, get so focused on how things are playing out that we don’t take the necessary time to think about whether the details make sense. The main thing when making comments on the character is to remember that I, as the commenter, do not have the full backstory on the character. It’s quite possible that the author has a great reason for having the character acting in the way that he does. I need to point out potential problems, not argue vehemently that a character can only act in a specific way. My job is to make sure that the author has considered all angles, not to have the author write it the way that I would.
Let’s say that Bob was presented as a cop. Then I show him crying in response to a guy in a bar pushing him.
Potential problems:
A. The action is counter to expectations. It’s important that the author consider the expectations of the reader. It’s okay, even encouraged, to go against expectations, but the author has to do it consciously.
B. The action seems unrealistic. Tell the author that there is a perceived inconsistency with the writing. If Bob is shown crying in response to being pushed and he’s never mentioned again, the reader is going to finish the story and go “what the crap?” If he’s revisited later and his wife, who used to playfully push him, is shown to have recently died, the character action makes a lot of sense.
C. The action seems in conflict with previous character development. If Bob has been shown a lot and he’s always acted like a tough guy, crying in response to being pushed will be jarring. It may be that the author had attempted to show his emotional turmoil leading to this break down. Letting the author know that you perceive a conflict indicates that characterization needs to be strengthened.
1. My pet peeve from commenters: telling me how my character should react.
I show Bob being pushed by Joe. In response, I show Bob bursting into tears. The commenter pipes up, adamantly, with: Bob should push Joe back.
2. Why this annoys me: there are a couple of reasons.
First, people react to stimuli differently. There are a myriad of responses to being pushed. You could (just to name a few):
Laugh
Cry
Turn the other cheek
Exhibit Zen-like calmness
Become passive aggressive
Push back
Pull out a gun and shoot the guy
Any of these responses make sense depending on the character and the circumstance. Who are you to say that pushing back is the only acceptable response?
Second, characters are defined by actions. Let me develop my character! The fact that Bob burst into tears tells me something about him.
3. How I’d prefer the comments address this:
Pointing out flaws with characterization is an important function of the commenter. Sometimes, we, as authors, get so focused on how things are playing out that we don’t take the necessary time to think about whether the details make sense. The main thing when making comments on the character is to remember that I, as the commenter, do not have the full backstory on the character. It’s quite possible that the author has a great reason for having the character acting in the way that he does. I need to point out potential problems, not argue vehemently that a character can only act in a specific way. My job is to make sure that the author has considered all angles, not to have the author write it the way that I would.
Let’s say that Bob was presented as a cop. Then I show him crying in response to a guy in a bar pushing him.
Potential problems:
A. The action is counter to expectations. It’s important that the author consider the expectations of the reader. It’s okay, even encouraged, to go against expectations, but the author has to do it consciously.
B. The action seems unrealistic. Tell the author that there is a perceived inconsistency with the writing. If Bob is shown crying in response to being pushed and he’s never mentioned again, the reader is going to finish the story and go “what the crap?” If he’s revisited later and his wife, who used to playfully push him, is shown to have recently died, the character action makes a lot of sense.
C. The action seems in conflict with previous character development. If Bob has been shown a lot and he’s always acted like a tough guy, crying in response to being pushed will be jarring. It may be that the author had attempted to show his emotional turmoil leading to this break down. Letting the author know that you perceive a conflict indicates that characterization needs to be strengthened.
Last edited:
