Writing Groups / Feedback

[Steerpike]

Some good points by Brandon Sanderson:

 

[Jadeynot]

Some good points by Brandon Sanderson:

thank you the video was wonderful. keep up the good qwork. Very informative.

 

[JCFarnham]

Point three: Be descriptive, not proscriptive. I much prefer feedback like this. Tell me how and why it made you feel what it made you feel, don't tell me how and why "its wrong". Maybe that's useful sometimes, but more often than not its ... not.

For example, I'm more than able myself to fix technique to a level I'm stylistically happy with. What I would prefer to hear would be something like "I perhaps didn't engage with this the way you intended because...". By all means comment on the style, the grammar, what ever, but just know that usually it's the way it is for a reason. I say usually because I have a habit of missing parts of important words, eg, writing could instead of couldn't, but "most of the time" ...

Lot of good stuff in the vid, but that's the one that stood out to me.

 

[Ambora]

Thank you for sharing!

 

[Steerpike]

Lot of good stuff in the vid, but that's the one that stood out to me.

Yes, I think that is a good point. The other most salient point, in my view, is to help the writer with their story, and not rewriting it to be your story. That's probably the single biggest mistake I see on any writing forum that has a critique section. Unless the writer is specifically asking for advice on that sort of thing, I think it is a mistake to say "Hey, instead of having your MC be X, how about having them be Y." It is a conceit of the critiquer, presuming she can write the other person's story better than they can. A similar thinking is reflected in many line-by-line critiques, which I also tend not to like as a rule, mostly because you don't help someone learn by doing it for them.

 

[JCFarnham]

I made note of that point myself after I posted. Another point I wholly agree with.

 

[BWFoster78]

Yes, I think that is a good point. The other most salient point, in my view, is to help the writer with their story, and not rewriting it to be your story. That's probably the single biggest mistake I see on any writing forum that has a critique section. Unless the writer is specifically asking for advice on that sort of thing, I think it is a mistake to say "Hey, instead of having your MC be X, how about having them be Y." It is a conceit of the critiquer, presuming she can write the other person's story better than they can. A similar thinking is reflected in many line-by-line critiques, which I also tend not to like as a rule, mostly because you don't help someone learn by doing it for them.

This isn't exactly what Steerpike, I think, was referring to, but maybe I'm guilty of making too many suggestions sometimes.

Three reasons:

1. A lot of times, the writer seems to feel it's better if you give them a suggestion on how to fix a problem.
2. It's a lot easier sometimes to say: How about doing it this way? instead of launching into a dissertation on the theory behind the problem. I do my best to give the theory behind the problem, but it's not always straightforward.
3. Sometimes a line just sounds off, but I can't put my finger on why. Offering a suggestion on how to fix it at least gives some indication as to what I found wrong.

Overall, I'd have to say I'd rather a critiquer tell me how they would fix the problem. It helps explain the issue, and it gives me an option that I may not have come up with on my own. It's my responsibility as the author to completely disregard their advice if I think they're wrong, so having the extra information doesn't hurt.

 

[T.Allen.Smith]

I think how you choose to critique a work depends on the perceived skill of he writer.

A writer that knows their craft well may be more interested in the feel a reader gets or any inconsistencies that may be spotted. Critiquing every word may be too focused an approach in that instance since a skilled writer is more likely to make conscious choices when bending rules.

A writer who is in the beginning or intermediate skill range would probably benefit more from a line by line approach since it would offer more direction and guidance.

Either way the writer always can disregard a critique but it's important to take them all seriously.

 

[BWFoster78]

I think how you choose to critique a work depends on the perceived skill of he writer.

A writer that knows their craft well may be more interested in the feel a reader gets or any inconsistencies that may be spotted. Critiquing every word may be too focused an approach in that instance since a skilled writer is more likely to make conscious choices when bending rules.

A writer who is in the beginning or intermediate skill range would probably benefit more from a line by line approach since it would offer more direction and guidance.

Either way the writer always can disregard a critique but it's important to take them all seriously.

I agree completely. Great point.

 

[JCFarnham]

It's still worth considering not giving them unhelpful helpful advice no matter what the skill level. That whole help them to help themselves thing. A writer, to me, gets next to nothing from being told something is wrong. They might have picked up how to identify it themselves but chances are, if they're beginners that is, they'll be like "well, all right, I'll change it. Whatever, you must know your stuff."

Maybe paying too much heed to context isn't useful, maybe people can learn from anything you tell them no matter how harsh, but that never worked for me.

Different strokes?

 

[T.Allen.Smith]

Agreed JC. Different people learn in different ways.

Another thing about critiques... It's immensely helpful if the writer states ahead of time what they're looking for in the critique. It can be as simple as "tell me how my dialogue flows" or all the way up to "Tear it all to shreds".

Giving a good, well thought out critique takes time. I've always thought that giving the reader some direction on what your looking for is a nice courtesy.