Hatrack River Writers Workshop: Terms used in critiquing

This is topic Terms used in critiquing in forum Open Discussions About Writing at Hatrack River Writers Workshop.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://www.hatrack.com/ubb/writers/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=002165

Posted by wbriggs (Member # 2267) on :

Sometimes people say things I don't get. Maybe some of you can help me understand them.

"Choppy." Does this mean the sentences are too short?

"I didn't like the flow." ?

(And, any of your own ?'s, of course.)

Posted by Spaceman (Member # 9240) on :

Choppy is when you have short sentences that have a quick rhythm when you don't have fast action occuring. The feel is very abrupt.

Both questions can be addressed by an understanding of metric prose--writing with a destinct beat. You can knock your reader out of the story by suddenly shifting rhythm. That forces the writer to reword in order to keep the desired rhythm. some people do it naturally when they write (it doesn't sound right, otherwise) and some have to work hard at it. And some don't care.

Posted by rickfisher (Member # 1214) on :

Choppy can also refer to prose that doesn't quite seem to connect from sentence to sentence. For example, it's what would happen in a persuasive essay if you left out all the transitions: "on the other hand," "therefore," "besides," "next," etc. The same kind of thing can happen in fiction--sometimes even for the same reasons--but more often because information is omitted or because one sentence really follows from the one two or three earlier, rather than the one immediately proceeding. (One such occurrence would not make the text choppy, though; it has to be a common thing.)

[This message has been edited by rickfisher (edited June 27, 2005).]

Posted by HSO (Member # 2056) on :

You know, this topic is exactly my point -- and it's why I sometimes rewrite passages as explanation. If I only said: "This is choppy," then the author would likely have the same question wbriggs had: "What's choppy about it?" So, I either write a really long explanation of why I think it's choppy and what in my opinion could be done to fix it (without rewriting), or I say it's choppy and and show an example of something not choppy (which takes me far less time).

But that's all right, though -- because if there's anything about a critique an author doesn't understand, then the author can and should contact the critiquer for clarification. Don't skip over it or ignore it if you don't get it. Ask the critiquer to expand on it. Break their fingers if you have to. Why? Because, while you are writing something new, this might niggle away in the back of your mind for weeks or months, and you'll wonder if everything you're writing is choppy. So, don't be a statistic. Take charge! Bash skulls! Politely, of course.

Posted by djvdakota (Member # 2002) on :

Definitely critiquers should be clear.

Definitely writers should ask for carification on anything they don't understand.

Choppy can also relate to story progression, from paragraph to paragraph or scene to scene, like you took a pair of scissors to a well-told story and chopped it up, then reassembled at random.

Flow is pretty much the same thing. If it's choppy it doesn't flow. It's like riding a bike on a bumpy mountain trail. It's as hard on the body as choppy writing is on the mind.

Posted by Kathleen Dalton Woodbury (Member # 59) on :

This isn't what you asked about, wbriggs, but your topic title made me think of it.

There is a wonderful list of things to avoid in writing that has been compiled by a group of SF/F writers who encourage writers to not only read it but to pass it on.

It's called the Turkey City Lexicon and you can find it several places, but the first one that came up on Google was this:

http://www.sfwa.org/writing/turkeycity.html

I think I'll go post this link in the Ways to Critique area, too.