posted
So there's a time when I have a viewpoint character, and I know he's wrong, and I want the reader to know that I know he's wrong. OSC suggests, have him misunderstand something that is pretty obvious. Then the reader will likely get it.
I also note this with characters that are imperfect. I'm afraid readers will lose sympathy when I point out the fault, before getting to where I point out a redeeming virtue. Possible fix: give the virtue first. Possibly.
I also got these critiques of some stories I've done:
* One about what happens when the VR hookup fails and MC has to deal with reality. Some critiquers say they kept fearing that we're going to find a "surprise" ending that we're still in VR. I fixed this by having MC say to himself, boy, you can tell the difference in this and VR; this is all grimy.
* One in which primitive people don't abandon their goddess when modern people who don't believe in her, show up. One critiquer said, "I kept being afraid the goddess would turn out to be real." I never did figure how to head this off.
I wish readers would just trust me. But since I live in this world, not Wish World ... I may as well accept that I have to do more to make them. I don't have the answers yet, just some interesting questions, which you may or may not relate to.
posted
One important distinction between critiquers and the 'average reader' to note is that critiquers are LOOKING for flaws. Most (not all!) readers are prepared to take on trust that if it's in print, it's not flawed.
So, to an extent, critiquers do not represent the 'average reader' and what bothers them isn't necessarily a guide to what might bother someone reading your story in a magazine.
Most readers will trust you. Most critiquers would rather point out what seems to be a flaw, as that's, ultimately, why they're reading the story in the first place.
In my experience, readers are more likely to relate to a flawed character. They have flaws, too. A character who comes across as perfect is more likely to put them off. If the character has nothing to learn in the course of the story--if there's no character arc--the story will be less engaging.
posted
Very true. OSC said during the critique portion of bootcamp, on more than one occasion, that the problems we pointed out are things we would have let slide if we read the same story published.
Posts: 2 | Registered: Aug 2010
|
posted
That may or may not be true. "Let slide" as in not bother to mention to the author, sure. I don't give feedback to people who haven't asked and can't do much about it anyway.
Of course, I don't have a different reading style for reading and critting. The only difference is that I'll "soldier on" for a crit a lot longer (and harder) than if I'm just reading for myself. I think most critters don't do that. I don't know why, though. It would seem obvious to simply read something the way you usually do, except that when something bugs you, you can just make a note and continue rather than taking a dinner break.
If readers are thinking that there's going to be a "surprise ending", then there isn't anything you can do about that. The more you say "no, really, there's not going to be a surprise ending", the more those readers will think you're trying for a surprise ending.
In your first case, I don't really understand why any rational person would "fear" the surprise ending described. Besides, wouldn't you have to break POV to deliver it? In the second case, the whole point is that the goddess didn't suddenly become any less real just because some unbelievers showed up. Exactly how would she "turn out to be real" in the hypothesized surprise ending?
posted
As someone who writes stories with twists, I find that my regular readers often expect twists. So I try to lead up to the twist they're expecting and then give them a different twist.
Posts: 1517 | Registered: Jul 2003
|
posted
By "let slide" I mean not notice as terribly important. You may read the same for critiques as for pleasure, but many people are looking for flaws when reading for critique. That was his point.
Posts: 2 | Registered: Aug 2010
|
posted
That is the exact reason why I like to read a story I'm critiquing, twice. The first time I just sit back and read, the way I would read any other story. I only make a comment if something completely tears me out of the story. Then I go through it a second time to find the things that didn't work as well given the big picture.
quote:One critiquer said, "I kept being afraid the goddess would turn out to be real." I never did figure how to head this off.
This sort of thing happens sometimes. For me, if only one critiquer makes a comment about something, it has to really resonate with me otherwise I won't worry about it. Same thing goes when I get conflicting comments. I go with the one that rings truest for me.
You aren't going to please everyone all the time, hard as you may try. Not everyone who reads your story will be part of the intended audience. Some critiquers recognize when the story just isn't their taste, and they tell you that up front so you have a better context for their feedback.
[This message has been edited by Robyn_Hood (edited September 08, 2005).]
posted
I hate to say this, wbriggs, but I have done this in some crits I wrote in the past. Every time it was because the story was cliche. It's very hard to gain your reader's trust with a cliche story.
To me this indicates that your story has reminded your reader of an episode of Star Trek or Stargate SG1, or a movie like The Matrix or Kill Bill, or a book like Lord of the Rings or Harry Potter.
The two plots you mention, about the VR hookup and the goddess, sound pretty chiche to me. Because I have seen such stories before I would be unlikely to trust you and likely to try and guess the ending.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
