That's one thing I've learned from nanowrimo - just get the story down, and worry about the rest later.

But I am not very good at fixing my storytelling problems - it seems like if I don't get it essentially right the first time, I'm stuck. I'd love to be better at that. In short fiction it is not such a big deal, but in long works, it is daunting to have so much to fix, and so little idea how.

When I start to pare down the gut reactions I actually post, I start with wording issues, where something seems correct but a bit dry (so if you see a lot of these in a raw edit, it means that I'm not finding much else wrong in that passage). Then I start ignoring small typos and such. If I get to the point where I'd have to start ignoring language that is totally nonsensical, I cut the raw critique off entirely. Because I try to adjust the "sensitivity" of my error-spotting on the fly (and because I make mistakes), the level of critique can be pretty uneven, particularly when the text is a bit of a rambler (or patchwork revision) rather than a single "clean" draft (a first draft can be a "clean" draft as long as it was written in writing sessions rather than editing/patching sessions).

On more general issues (many of which will be noted next to relevent passages in the raw critique), I try to incorperate as many of those as possible into the critique I send back, whether or not I send back the raw.

Generally I'll send back the raw if there were a lot of small errors that really did need to be spotted by a reader rather than a machine (or the author, apparently) or if I felt that my comments in the raw have better coherency and context than I could easily replicate in the body of an email.

As for how you should critique, just find what works for you. If something bothers you enough that you want to make a note, then make a note. If you don't really feel like making a note and would rather keep reading, then keep reading. Try and sort out your general impressions of the text, and try and separate comments about your own feelings from comments about what you feel another person might feel about the story (ex. if you liked it but worry that the target audience would hate it, then say that clearly).

Things to avoid. Don't claim to do work that was actually done by a machine or someone else. If you run it through a spellchecker, tell the author. Same if you're reporting comments made by your roommate or whatever. Don't tell the author to quit writing. You can be brutally realistic about what you think the author needs in order to improve as a writer (as long as you're being serious), but leave the decision about whether to keep trying to the author. Don't humor the author. If you can't say anything honest, then don't say anything at all. Empty flattery will only confuse the writer and prevent improvement.

1) I tend to post comments in the body of the text, as reactions to what I just read, whether I suspect that my reaction will be resolved in the next few lines or not. This is to provide the writer with reader's reactions. Sometimes it is valuable, and at times I suspect it is irritating to the writer.

2) After that I try to comment in general, on things like POV, did I get whta I expected, was there soemthing that didn't work for me, etc.

One thing that I have not seen much of here, and that I fail to do myself, is to give my readers some direction with regards to the critique I am asking for. Examples of this would include:

Look for stilted language.
Does the dialogue work?
Do the POV shifts work or do they just annoy you?
Are there any logical inconsistencies?
Did I set a mood of expectant dread?

If the technical errors are too numerous to ignore (meaning I can't read the story fully first), then I start making suggestions on the first read through. Because often the idea of the story is very good, but the execution is what is making it difficult to enjoy that idea. So, I'll spend a goodly amount of focus on that aspect -- because once that's sorted, the rest of the story can be looked at as a whole...

I'm fairly vicious when I critique a story. I look for the obvious things like redundancies in phrasing, but not to be cruel. Only to point out that these are the places the writer should look at it during the rewrite phase. "Cut everything that isn't needed; Omit needless words that add nothing to the sentence or meaning."

Still, I get gigged on my critiquing style every now and then, therefore, I usually apologize in advance for the possibility at offending the writer for my technique and blatant biased opinions. But in a way, I look at it as if I were an editor of a magazine, newspaper or book, the writer has sent me their story for publication. I take out the red pen and mark away for what's best for "my" magazine. This, I know, doesn't suit everyone's preference. But this is exactly how I would like my stories critiqued.

But also, I do try to look at what the author is trying to acheive -- what are they trying to say? How can I best help them get there without taking away their own unique voice and style. Inevitably, my voice creeps in and I apologize for that. But one is hopeful that the writer who receives my crit will look at my reworked examples and find their own way to say it. After all, I'm simply saying that this section caused me to hang up for any variety of reasons -- and as an engineer I tend to think in quantifiable examples of how things "do" work, not an esoteric possibility of how they "might" work.

In many cases, there are so few flaws in the execution which leaves me to focus solely on plot development and character motivations, as well as continuity in a scene. Which is ideal! For example, if someone wrote: "The room was round and had padding on the walls. People gathered in the corners of the room and banged on the walls, the echoes resounding...", then I would point that out immediately as a continuity error. If a character suddenly changes personality for no apparent reason, or seems unreasonably out of character, I will comment on that, too. There may be a good explanation for this irrationality that comes later, but if it's too jarring at first, then it's simply too jarring at first.

If a writer opens a big can of worms by possibly not thinking through their technology / scenario fully, I'll comment and tell them some of the things that crossed my mind as I read it -- whether correct or incorrect in my assumption is sort of irrelevant, I feel.

After all, it's only an opinion; probably safely ignored unless other people say roughly the same thing I did.

Still, I realize I need to work on my critiquing style a bit... I'll get there eventually in time.

EDIT: By the way, Hatrack has some quality critiquers to model yourself after if you desire, each with their own unique way of going about it, yet all similar in a way, too. All of them excellent in my opinion Some of them are (in no particular order): Survivor, mikemunsil, Christine, MaryRobinette (when she's not working herself to death or getting stuck in airports), Keeley and a whole host of others which would take a while to list out. To learn from them is to have your story critted by one of them. Of course, I can't seem to follow my own advice... hmm.

My thoughts on prose are pretty simple. Good writing must be clear, simple, and pleasant sounding. Sometimes you can sacrifice simplicity to make it more pleasant sounding, but you can never sacrifice clairity to make it sound better. Also, "style" isn't something you can "develop." You just write as well as you can, and revise as well as you can, and edit as well as you can, and if you do all of this, you'll begin to uncover your "style." Those writers who are usually associated with great styles of writing--James Joyce, Ernest Hemingway, William Faulkner--they just had a good ear, and were able to make their prose sing. But they didn't always achieve it--the great danger of having an ostentatious style is that you're writing will seem mannered at times (look at Hemingway or Faulkner when they're at their worst). So don't think so much about your "style" as writing clear, simple, and pleasant-sounding prose.

http://www.hollylisle.com/fm/Workshops/one-pass-revision.html

Other than that....

1. I always work from hard copy. Editing on the screen is just annoying, and it's much easier to decipher a line you accidentally crossed out than resurrect a line you accidentally deleted.

2. Revise, as others have said, for story first. Otherwise you end up wordsmithing stuff you don't need to, 'cause you're cutting it.

How... eh. Unfortunately I do this by instinct, a feel for the story, which is hard to articulate. I'll try.

I'm a character writer, so what I look at first is who's in the scene. Where did I see them last? What are they feeling? Are they acting par to character, or acting out a scene merely because I, the writer, need such-and-such a thing to happen? Does one character show up too often, or not enough? Is there a disposable character in the scene, someone who only exists for this scene and could easily be replaced by existing cast? It's not just that I work best with character - it's that every single person who reads my stuff comments on the characters first. They'll forgive me on some errors, but not on a misreading of character.

Thus, I guess lesson one is know what's important - to you, and to your readers. Are they reading for the people, the places, the things, the plot, or something else? Focus on that first, because it's the area where you will not be excused.

The next thing I look at is the plot, because that's my weakest point. Hey, if you left it up to me, I'd have people floating around talking for the whole damned book, and things would only happen to give them more to talk about. *grin* So I take notes in the margins as to which bit of the plot this follows; I track my plot threads through the book. I try to think like a reader. If I were on page 99 of a mystery and only had X amount of information, would I be frustrated or intrigued? If I were reading an action story and the action suddenly paused to give me a diatribe on the character's home life, how annoyed would I be? If a book brought up a really interesting plot thread and then dropped it, just how long would I read before I stopped being intrigued and started being pissed?

So that's two more important points. The first is recognize your weakness. Let's face it, we all have one area we're good at and a corresponding area we suck at. Doesn't mean the final draft sucks... it just means paying a lot more attention to your blind spots in the rewrite. The second is to read like a reader. This isn't your baby, it's a book you picked up off the shelf, and you aren't accepting any excuses for the faults. Read, and remember all the things that have annoyed you about other people's books.

The next thing I pay attention to is description, both of places and things. This is science fiction, after all. People are expecting some detail in the setting, but they don't want huge infodumps. So I make sure I haven't put all the information in one great indigestible lumps, but that I have put it in there somewhere. I make sure I've either adequately researched or been adequately vague in the description of any tech laying around. I make sure I'm not contradicting myself - talking about someone drinking from a cup in freefall, for example. My tendency is to err on the side of too little detail, but that's okay; I have lots of first readers willing to jump up and down and yell about whatever detail I leave out and they want.

And that's a final point. You want, and I mean want, to find yourself some good first readers. It's not insanely difficult; there are usually writer's groups, online or off, where you can trade crits for crits. But get a few and load them down and then treat them like the gold they are. It's possible to catch all your mistakes yourself... but much, much harder.

Finally, once all the rest is shaken out, I turn to grammar and sentence structure and the rest. I put this last quite advisedly, because in my experience you will not find a first reader to do it for you. Oh, they'll point out an error or two - but to find someone who will go through and correct all the mistakes in wording in a whole novel isn't just improbable. It's impossible. Only you know how those words should really sound; only you know, and only you care enough to fix it. Editors, professional or casual, certainly don't.

I usually read the final draft of my novel aloud. Yes, the whole thing. You'd be amazed how many trifling errors you can catch that way.

Readability and story comes first when I read something. If I found the story to be enjoyable then read it backwards and look for errors. Then I will read it again and make notations on what I liked and did not like about each section. Make suggestions and return it to the writer.

quote:

---

I have edited nearly one hundred stories last month....

---

Gag Gag cough

About your question (and pardon me if I'm redundant--I have not read all the posts), but I thought it interesting that you actually answered it for me. For me, editing is largely about questions. What questions come up for me as I read? What questions do I feel it is important that the writer answer in his narrative? It's the questions that cue a writer into where they need to work, IMO. Everything from, "What did that last sentence mean?" to "Will this character's actions become important to the story?"

I think his point of doing at least one edit not on screen is interesting. We've had a few discussions about the magic of printing on paper. On screen edits are, perhaps, too easy. And also easily forgotten about.