Hatrack River Writers Workshop: Critting Theory

This is topic Critting Theory 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=004129

Posted by WouldBe (Member # 5682) on :

Corollary: A novel or short story can be launched in thirteen lines; therefore; critting can be launched in an equal amount.

I.e, the meat of criticism can stated in the first 13 of the criticism; anything after that is gravy.

True or false?

This is not aimed at anyone. It is just a thought I had while try to reduce one of my own comments.

Posted by Wolfe_boy (Member # 5456) on :

1. True, a critique can be had in as little as 13 lines.

2. False, a helpful critique can need more than 13 lines.

Therein lies the difference; the amount of criticism offered/required. The meat of it, which is to say the readers impression, is short and often binary - like or dislike, with some reasons. Offering suggestions for improvement are what will stretch a short, functional critique into a longer one, worthy of the time the critiquer spent reading the initial piece, meditating on it, and writing a thoughtful response.

Jayson Merryfield

[This message has been edited by Wolfe_boy (edited August 03, 2007).]

Posted by oliverhouse (Member # 3432) on :

I don't think the statement holds. A critique is more like journalism or analysis than like a story.

A story can captivate in a few words without giving you anything of substance. A critique can tell you the substance in a few words without giving you enough information to fix any issues the critiquer has.

I respectfully suggest that Master Wolfe has overstepped slightly by saying that no helpful critique can fit into 13 lines; very short critiques can be helpful. A person once gave me a critique that probably could have been condensed to "Choose what you want this to be: a story or a treatise." At the time, that was exactly the course correction that I needed. That said, more detail often helps expose the specific language that slowed you down, or where the characterization was off, or whatever.

Interesting question, though.

Posted by Matt Lust (Member # 3031) on :

I think a helpful critique quite often needs to see more than the just the first 13 to really aid in helping with a story.

It may have a hook, and be well written and yet be off topic/not appropriate to start the longer story.

but for the first 13 I think agree with wolfe on this. Short critiques are not always best.

[This message has been edited by Matt Lust (edited August 03, 2007).]

Posted by Christine (Member # 1646) on :

That doesn't really make sense. The *meat* of a story is not in the first 13 lines. You just start it in 13 lines. From a F&F point of view, I can decide in 13 lines if I think the project is worth reading the rest. But even if I don't want to read more I would never presume that I got the whole gist of the story in those 13 lines.

I've almost never read a crit that wasn't worth reading all the way through and the couple of times I did, it had nothing to do with a line count.

Posted by Matt Lust (Member # 3031) on :

I think it was the OP's notion that since F&F is restricted to 13 lines that in theory there is perhaps no need for crits of first 13's to be more than 13 lines as well.

For myself, I believe that long crits work as long as the critter is explaining something in depth such as a technique to achieve a desired end.

Since I am given to contextual and connotation critiques, I am apt to need more than 13 lines because what I am asking for is often more of a subtle thing than a strict grammatical or otherwise technical detail.