posted
After a very long discusion about arguing with critiques, I'm interested: what do you like to see in a critique? What's your idea of the perfect critique/critiquer?
Posts: 189 | Registered: Jul 2005
|
posted
I wrote a 3300-word article on this about a year ago. I'd sum it up for you but I don't want to.
Seriously, though, maybe another day. I've got to try a little bit of BIC or my nove will never get done. I know there are about a million (ok, maybe not that many) archieved topics on this if you do a search.
Sometimes (especially first round) I want anything and everything you can think to mention. What worked/didn't work? What confused you? What made you laugh? Was it too slow? Started in the wrong place? Too much/not enough dialogue? General impressions? Et ceterra...
Othertimes I'm looking more for a general edit. I've done everything I want to do to the plot and the characters, now I want to make sure that the t's are dotted and i's are crossed (oops, strike that, reverse it ). I want to be sure I haven't misused a word and that overall spelling and grammar are where they should be.
The there are times that I've decided I'm not sure I like a particular section in a story. I try it one way and then another. All I want to know is which one goes over better with a potential audience.
In each case, I try to let my readers know up front what I expect (deep crit, whatever they have time for, general edit, which is better).
I find the more specific I am when asking for a critique, the more appropriate the response I get.
[This message has been edited by Robyn_Hood (edited August 09, 2005).]
posted
Recently I’ve decided that what I like best is a critiquer who reads the entire story once, and then goes back and critiques. This avoids a ton of meaningless comments and I think until a reader sees how the story functions as a whole many things can be overlooked or misconstrued. I also like to know what is wrong and what works as well. Posts: 397 | Registered: Mar 2004
|
posted
I think the adjacent thread pretty much sums things up. You have to read all the comments, but by doing so people won't be required to post the same thing over again. Also, a SEARCH on the word "critique" should pull up a bucketful of past discussions on the topic.
Posts: 2026 | Registered: Mar 2005
|
posted
kickle, can you give me an example of a "meaningless" comment?
I don't think you can assume that readers and editors are going to read the full piece before making judgements about it, and a critique that lets you know how the reader reacted *as they were reading* can be incredibly valuable. If there's a passage that's confusing readers or boring them or making them shake their heads in disbelief, I want to know, because those are the paragraphs where an editor or reader will put the story down and move on to something else.
posted
The main thing I hope to receive is an honest attempt at explaining what works for a reader, and and honest attempt to explain what doesn't. I say "attempt" because I realize it is difficult sometimes to hit the nail on the head.
Posts: 612 | Registered: Jul 2005
|
posted
I agree with you Beth that immediate reactions are important. Perhaps what I should have said is that readers need to go back and see if some comments need to be clarified or deleted, after they have critiqued a story as a whole. What I find is that some readers, not editors or experienced readers, tend to get so involved in looking at a story as individual sentences that they forget what they have read previously and don’t see what the next sentence says. For example, I received the comment “when did she mount the horse?” this particular action happened in the previous sentence. I suppose it all comes down to the writer having to uncover the real reason for a critique’s comment, but sometimes having to do so is frustrating. I also would agree that this depends on the level or critique that is being given. By the time a story reaches an editor this should be a mute point. Obviously I am talking about short stories not novels. Thank you Beth for making me rethink and clarify.
[This message has been edited by Kickle (edited August 13, 2005).]
posted
Something along the lines of "This is bad / wrong because..." and then going into detail about it. "Bad / wrong" could be just about anything, from the big picture of the idea, down through the characters and plotting and style and background, all the way down to spelling and grammar.
Posts: 8809 | Registered: Aug 2005
|
posted
I just have to ask: How much of a critique should a person give?
I've had issues lately with spending so much time doing a critique that I get exhausted and am getting bummed with the process. Am I maybe giving too much help? Some of the pieces are just in need of so much help I find it difficult to know what to point out and what to let go. How much should I say? When should I shut up and let stuff go. My inner editor is shrieking from trying to hold it back. But I don't want to plow over the piece with the red pen.
posted
thanks for explaining, kickle! I see what you mean. I often go back and revise my comments like you're saying.
pixydust, if it's making you feel miserable and burned out, then yes, you're doing too much! Maybe not as much as the story needs, but too much for you.
Here's how I do it: I read through the story relatively casually. I'll make quick notes of my initial impressions. Then I go away for a day or two and come back to it, and go over the story more carefully. I like to take some time before making my final comments for perspective, and to see what kind of *lasting* impression the story has, in addition to my first impressions.
If I think there are big structural issues, I don't bother with the smaller stuff, and just focus on top three or four big issues. I don't want to overwhelm the author (or myself) with an exhaustive list of what I think needs fixing - and besides, by the time the author fixes the top 3 major issues, that may well make anything I've said about the lesser issues irrelevant.
If the story holds together ok, then I'll look at the smaller issues. But usually if the story holds together at a high level, the writing is pretty solid at a lower level.
If the author has said "I think this is ready to go out and all I need is a last-minute quick review for typos," I am very skeptical and pay *even more* attention to the structural issues, to make sure the author isn't deluding themself about the manuscript's readiness. But I am cynical and don't trust most authors to accurately assess their work. No doubt the authors would rather I just gave them the kind of feedback they requested.
posted
Thanks Beth. That's kind of the way I was thinking too. And you made a good point about if they fix the big things then the nit-pick stuff will change anyway. I don't know why I didn't think of that. I'm trying to help, but I think I'm just overwhelming the author and myself.
I'll work on just focusing on structure and leave some of the other issues alone if they become too overwhelming. It just seems to be getting harder. My inner-editor is a lot louder then she used to be.
posted
I worry that my critiques are too detailed, that is, I flag everything that bothers me even if it's a fairly minor nit. I don't expect the author to change it all; I'm just trying to convey my thought process as I read. I had one author tell me I gave "too much information." *shrug*
I figure if I had a reaction to it, someone else may, too. I think the author is better off being alerted to the fact that something created a reaction, even if he/she chooses to leave it as is.
Yet, I hate to appear impossibly difficult. I personally would rather someone give good, honest feedback--even if it isn't what I want to hear. And thus I give the sort of critique I would like to have back. But for some reason I always feel like I should apologize afterward.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
