posted
Sometimes I'll get a set of critiques, and everybody nails the same problem, and . . . I know they're right.
Sometimes I'll get a set, and everyone dislikes the story, but for different reasons. I didn't explain X enough. I spent too much time on X when it should have been on Y. Why didn't we get more of so-and-so's childhood? Etc.
I've come to believe that in these cases, there *is* something wrong with the story, but my critiquers can't put their finger on it -- and neither can I. My method for dealing with this recently has been to wait for OSC to comment, in class, and then it's all cleared up. I'm about to lose this particular resource as the academic year is ending :~(, so: how do you diagnose the real problem, when that happens?
I do have this, from class: if they say something is too long, lengthen it -- or cut it. It wasn't interesting.
posted
I think you're right. I know sometimes there is something wrong with a story, I can't put my finger on it, but I can't just not comment. I gotta say something, don't I?
The majority of my generalised disquiet about a story I have read, that unspecific feeling of disatisfaction, comes from recognising a lack of structure in a piece. Not, mind you, knowing how to fix it, but just not trusting the way the story is organised.
posted
Have you asked OSC this same question? I'd be really interested in what he has to say about self-diagnosing problems when you know something just isn't right, but aren't sure what it is.
For my part, I write pretty lengthy critiques because I try really hard to explain my thought process. While my perceptions may easily be off base, if the writer knows where I'm coming from, I'm hoping the comment will help them isolate the issue that bothered me.
When I get critiques back that don't ring true, I either disregard if I feel it's the critic's specific bias, or take their comment into account. Several times I've lengthened the story to add more pertinent information and felt the story, overall, improved as a result. Problem is, I'm so dang long-winded to start with. *sigh*
posted
Assuming you won't have OSC on your staff, I'd take the critique back to the group, and briefly summarize the critique's give so far (assuming here, and that some of them are beyond the 1st 13). Then, ask for more critiques from people who'd be willing to look for something other than what has been offered.
Have you tried not paying any attention to the story for a month or so, then going back to it, hopefully refreshed?
Seriously, though, I know what you're talking about. I think this is just one of those times when practice, practice, practice comes into play. The mor eyou write and the more you critique, the more you know what the problem is even when other people don't.
A couple of hints:
1. Don't use the same set of critiquers all the time. Their comments stagnate and their usefullness wavers. Get some fresh blood and a fresh perspective somtimes.
2. Walk away from the critiques and the story for a while. When you come back maybe even months later, you may even understand the problem without reading the comments.
3. OSC isn't the only person who knows how to nail those critiques. It is a gift, but one shared by many people. See if you can keep looking until you find one such person and try to convince them that you are just as valuable to them as they are to you.
posted
Look for the questions that OSC's critiques answer or ask. Compile a list of them.
After you write a story, set it aside for as long as you take to clear your head of the story. Then pick up the story and apply those questions to the story. You'll be giving yourself an OSC crit on every thing you write.
When I get conflicting crits. I start with remembering what I was trying to do with the story and apply the critiques that do not force me to stray from that ideal. Sometimes I'm creating a story that will be completely unmarketable, but usually I'll end up with a better version of the story I tried to write.
If I get conflicting critiques, then I have to evaluate which critiquer(s) I trust best.
posted
Christine is right: find someone you can trust, and have them read the story. And nothing beats practise to tell the problem from the signs.
OSC's Wise Reader system also works well for me, mainly because I have a first reader who is just that (ie, not another writer). My opinion is that as writers, we sometimes find it harder to focus on reader experience.
posted
That's true, although I find that if I try and just read the story through without looking for problems and then go back through it trying to find what works and what doesn't, I can usually get an overall sense of the story and how to critique it effectively. It's when I start out by analyzing each word/sentence/paragraph, the first go-round that I distance myself from the story enough that I can't quite sum up what may be wrong with it.
Then again, sometimes I can't sum it up no matter what I do.
[This message has been edited by Smaug (edited April 19, 2006).]
posted
If your critiques come back with a variety of suggestions, that may mean that there are a number of different solutions.
I do this all the time, I send a critique where I suggest that the writer do half a dozen contradictory things. Every so often the writer fails to realize that I was using do this XOR that, and thus tries to do both.
I'm not insane--well, not just insane. I mean that there are times when a writer has to make a choice about what kind of story this is going to be. Is it about the character's struggle to reconcile with his past or are we saving the girl here? If you're writing something that can't seem to make up its mind as to whether it's about the perils of technology or the allure of gentle kisses...don't be surprised if your readers have to take a flying guess which it is.
posted
Probably they're all correct...I've gotten different answers back from different people who've seen my stories, and usually they all raise some different valid point. I can certainly accept that my story has multiple things wrong with it. I might not necessarily *do* what anybody *says*, 'cause possibly (but not always) I liked it the way I had it...but I'm hopeful I'll learn from what has been said and make the *next* one better...
Posts: 8809 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I always critique DURING my first... and only... read through. In my opinion, it more accurately reflects the mindset of the reader, who won't be reading your story through once just to get a feel for it, then reading again for comprehension.
My brain will hit a question, and it yanks me out of the story or creates confusion at THAT point, not after I've read through the whole thing. It doesn't matter that the answer comes up a paragraph later... I flag the point where the confusion starts for me. Sometimes it works for the entire story, sometimes it doesn't. But it points out to the writer WHERE I began to veer off track, which I think is helpful. When I critique for someone new, I always explain my process to them so they understand why I've flagged passages at a certain point.
posted
At first I had trouble understanding how that was relevant, but I suppose you mean that when the critique sticks to first impressions, it's more likely to avoid the "prescription based on incorrect diagnosis" problem.
I comment on my way through, but I usually also give comments at the end.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
