posted
I've spent a lot of time and effort trying to get my friends to seriously critique my work in the past. Invariably, they've always seemed excited and offered to, and maybe read a single story, but don't go much beyond that, so I still kept looking. Only recently did I find out how good online critiquing works, and at least now there's always a place to get my stuff looked at.
That's the good part of on-line critiques. The only problem I'm starting to see with it is that invariably everyone is an author on some level on their own, and most read a story with the intention and mission of tearing it apart, so they try to dissect it, maybe too much. I don't find this bad at all, but I wonder if sometimes the critiques go too far and tear a story down unfairly. It would be nice if there was a site or place where you could get a story read by a reader who wasn't interested in writing.
Does anyone else feel this way, and does anyone else know of a site where someone can do this?
posted
I think there needs to be both. I wouldn't sugggest that any writer rely on just readers or authors as critics. I think both have their place, and I can definitely say that many authors have helped improve my work. I think that maybe the pure reader critique would be useful just like a final dress rehersal is useful for plays.
Posts: 326 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not sure if Carina (the old slush reader at RoF) is still updating the Zen Pen http://thezenpen.com but that's something to consider.
Otherwise, I say keep looking for wise readers. It would be a priceless thing to have. But writers will probably always be your best bet, just because of availability (i.e. willingness to trade critiques).
quote:I wonder if sometimes the critiques go too far and tear a story down unfairly.
Personally, I never try to dissect it and tear it down unfairly. I try my best to give in depth critiques based on my personal opinion and knowledge base, because that is what I'm looking for with my work.
quote:
It would be nice if there was a site or place where you could get a story read by a reader who wasn't interested in writing.
Does anyone else feel this way, and does anyone else know of a site where someone can do this?
There are tons of people and sites just like this. The problem, as I have found it, is that 'non-writer readers' tend to give you critiques such as "That was fantastic! More more more!" or "That sucked." That's what sent me running for Hatrack.
posted
Readers are something that every writer must groom for themselves. you'll come across them from time to time. The last one I found was looking in the SF/F section of the local used book store at the same time I was there. We got to talking and boom, reader.
Posts: 2 | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote: I don't find this bad at all, but I wonder if sometimes the critiques go too far and tear a story down unfairly.
This only happens when a reader attacks you, the author, personally. It's rare, but it happens. It's happened to me. Neverthless, critiques, no matter how presented or how critical, are simply opinion. Nothing more. You won't please everyone, so don't bother trying. People are biased in what they like. It's not intentional, but if they don't like it, they don't like it. Writers, whether established or learning their craft, are invaluable critiquers. Many, if not most, have learned the hard way. They may suggest things that don't sit well with you, but that's usually a style choice. When it comes to critiquing characterization and plot and pacing, then it's almost always a fair nit.
Anyway, getting crits is good. It helps us see our work through another perspective, biased or otherwise. Critiquing the work of others, however, is far better, in my opinion.
posted
As has been said, when putting your story up for a critique, you are asking, "What's wrong with this?"
A reader browsing through the books or magazines will ask, "What's right with this?"
The First Five Pages painted the image of a overworked slush pile editor who is the Ultimate Critter, looking for any flaw, so they can toss it, and proceed with the next manuscript in the pile.
Thus there doesn't seem a good alternative around the process. Sooner or later, it'll be critted by someone.
posted
I can see the value in reader feedback, but I think you'll have to look hard to get past those prone to "That's good" or "That sucks" comments. When you find some that give detailed feedback, keep them.
Personally, I value the feedback of my peers. Most of what I write I hope to submit to an editor, though not all does get submitted. An editor will look at my manuscript more critically than any writer, so I want to the manuscript to be prepared for that.
posted
I agree that getting critiques is good, and there's nothing worse than only hearing that someone liked a story. I honestly don't mind if I get only what's wrong with a story, and yes it is only someone's opinion. I take every opinion seriously, good or bad, decide whether it has merit or not, and then act accordingly. Every author should. After all, another author may have the best advice to give.
I think the comments about what's wrong will yield the most benefit early on in the editing of a story, but also might be the most harmful as the story gets closer to being polished and ready. I think a person reading a story that is trying to find what's right as well as what's wrong, might be a good thing too, but usually only as the piece gets closer to being done.
I just don't know because most critiquers seem to think that all a critique is for is to show what's wrong. Maybe that's because that's the mindset we're in when we critique? I don't know, but I catch myself doing it too. I definitely don't agree that an author is asking for only what's wrong with a story when they submit it for a critique, and I always try to give both, and not just with blurbs. I think that they're asking for an honest read and want to know both what's right and what's wrong. If it's mostly wrong, then so be it.
In the end, it's always the writer's decision what to leave alone, what to take out, and what to add. I just think that sometimes it might be better to get a read from somebody who is looking for more right than wrong.
posted
I tend to give pretty thorough, if sometimes harsh critiques. But my critiques are always an honest revelation of what was going through my mind as I read. My personal plan for my novel is to use a writer-based critique group to catch the technical errors that writers are trained to look for, and then to send it on to a couple of friends to see if it's engaging to them. I think feedback from both writers and non-writers will be valuable because they will bring different perspectives. I don't think it would be wise to use only one group or the other.
In the end, however, the writer must take those critiques and choose whether to use the comments or not. While spelling, grammar, and POV issues may be no-brainers, many of the critique comments end up being commentary on style. That's the point where you have to trust your own writerly instincts.
posted
It is true that when I give a crit, no matter how fair I try to be, I only focus on what is wrong. Equally true is that the editor will be reading in a fail/pass capacity. They'll be looking for reasons to reject you, and then they might possibly get interested in the story. That said, I've had crits which were really splitting hairs, and I understand that there's a point where I leave the story as it is. It may not be perfect, but it's time to move on to something else regardless.
Posts: 1075 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would rather have a more critical critique than the opposite. Like someone already said: It is someone else's opinion--choose the comments that you agree with and disregard the rest.
You can always tell your critiquer what you are looking for. For instance, "I'm just looking for a general critique to see if the plot, POV, and/or characters are working." Normally, when I look at a story, I do a line crit, but if you don't want that much--well that's even easier for me.
posted
I try to focus on what's right with a story. Not that I overlook problems, almost all stories have them (even after being published).
I don't bother to give much in the way of feedback if the story as a whole isn't working for me at all. There's just no point. When I give feedback, I have to feel that I understand something about what the author is trying to do. If I can't see any point in a story (or if the point that I can see seems uninteresting), I'll just say "I don't get this." It isn't always a fault in the story, some common human themes just don't appeal to me.
If I think that a story is really great, I say so. I'll also give suggestions for improving it, though occasionally with a caveat like "I don't want you to mess this up on my account."
Most stories I critique fall somewhere in the middle, I can see good things about the story itself, but there are various issues keeping me from fully enjoying it.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
