How Could You Shred My Baby? – Critiquing Writing – Part 6

Up to this point, I’ve offered insight on giving feedback to other writers about their writing. As you’ve worked to enlighten others, that same enlightenment reached within your mind to tweak your own writing. Now, others have gotten their hands on your writing. They want to return the favor.

Don’t do anything hasty.
Put down the scissors and back away from the table. We promise, we won’t harm the document.

Accepting a critique is about as difficult as giving one, if not more so. It’s not something that comes naturally to people. You’ve created something and opened it to the public for comment. Naturally, the creator feels protective of their creation. The overprotective parent complex, one might almost assume. This isn’t that far off. I offer three thoughts to consider as you receive comments on your writing.

Thought one: The person offering the critique is trying to help improve your writing. Listen to what they have to say.

This is a Big Important Thought here. You’ve placed the writing on the table for help. Don’t immediately start arming your defenses when the person comes back to offer their help. It will ruin the experience for all those concerned.

Your intent here should be to let the reviewer speak their piece. Make notes, either on a copy of the manuscript or a blank piece of paper. If they’re good, you’ll find both praise and encouragement woven through comments about uneven storylines, plot holes, and flat characters. Some of their comments might pull your ponytail or twist your gut. That happens. Hold your tongue until they finish explaining their reason. You might find that they offer a valid point after all.

It's not good to go into a critique expecting to defend your choices. It brings the ugly out of a writer. Listen to the opinions. Take the comments in context with the story you’ve had reviewed. Consider what the person offers. Remember that all they offer is opinions and you’re not obligated to use any of them.

Thought Two: The target of their comments is the writing, not the writer

With a good partner analyzing your writing, their entire desire points to improving the writing before them. As an extreme example, they may have a personal vendetta against the writer, but a good reviewer ignores personal feelings and focuses just on the written word. A person who writes a critique but can’t separate the writing from the writer actually is not a good person to write the critique. If you know a person has difficulty with such separation, simply don’t ask for their help.

Family and friends might find it difficult to point out problems, because they don’t want to hurt your feelings. They won’t be much help either.

When receiving a critique, know that some people search for mistakes. It makes them feel better. They want to swing hammers at the support beams. These beams are the story’s beams, not yours. That type of critique wants to make sure your story survives the harshest of editors. When they’re finished, it should. However, that also assumes you take at least a part of their advice.

Thought Three: Ask for clarifications if you don’t understand what they mean, but don’t argue with their comments.

For some reviewer’s comments, it might not offer enough help for you to consider the error that they felt that they found. Never be afraid to ask for clarification of a comment. Sometimes, the reviewer may not have the ability to elaborate. It’s the impression within their minds that just doesn’t fit. Perhaps what you thought a key turn of phrase doesn’t work with their experiences, but they can’t figure out a way to phrase it. Keep note of it, as it might be an area that you changed and the sentence doesn’t fit the new section but is a perfectly good sentence. I’ll touch on this more in a moment.

Under the same concept, don’t immediately jump at their comments and try to defend against what they tell you. What they give you comes from their experience and their way of looking at the story. Their experiences will color the story differently to your colors. If you found a subject matter expert, or SME, they could point to a piece of story that just ain’t right. (Yes, that I did on purpose.) Don’t argue what your research told you against what the expert tells you. The expert tends to win those arguments, because they have better research for their field.

I have had times when the comment about the change is vague. “This feels wrong,” they said. It didn’t help my edit. When I received it, I asked the person to clarify what they meant. It turned out my unusual phrasing didn’t work within the context of the story to their mind. With that clarification, I found it easier to rework the piece for better wording. I got the additional information without challenging the reviewer and we both got a better experience from it.

With this being American Football season, I’ll close with a football analogy. A critique is a hand-off of the ball to you, the runner/writer. Your objective is to weave between the defense/obstacles and get to the final goal – being published

The murderer is … the Bentley? – Critiquing Writing – Part 5

Now we’ve written the critique, we need to know how to present it to our fellow writers. If you’re working through email, it’s rather easy. Paste the text of your critique into the body of the email, perhaps attaching a file with the notes/changes directly in the document. You’ll receive a return email with questions for clarification, possibly, but not always.

It’s when you have to sit and face the other writer where things are a little different.

So far, I’ve come across a few scenarios which I’m going to mention up front, to give you an idea of what you’ll possibly face. Younger and/or inexperienced writers will be almost bouncing out of their seat in anticipation of your glowing review of their masterpiece.

Let them down easy.

They will want to defend their choices, their voice. Encourage them to reexamine the issues you spot. They may fight every comment or suggestion. Don’t feel offended. You’re offering an opinion, so they aren’t required to do anything you point out for their benefit. As long as you did your best to offer them constructive help, you’ve done your job.

On the other end of the spectrum, you have the experienced writer. If a writer has received many critiques, or gone through the process a lot, they won’t seem to react to your comments. A pad of paper may sit near them, where they scribble notes about the spots you thought needed work. You’ll hear some comments, but nothing overtly like an argument. Otherwise, you receive thanks and that’s about it. These writers aren’t ignoring your advice. Assimilation of the concepts that you offered might require some thought. Perhaps you’ll receive a call or email at a later date asking about a particular comment you made on the story, seeking clarification. You might not. Everyone will react differently.

Now, let’s talk about the actual presentation.

I’ve found that most articles on writing critiques state that you want to offer a positive, then your negatives, then end with a positive. Psychology says that the last thing a person hears matters. Not always true. A bad comment will lodge in someone’s craw no matter where it’s heard.

My suggestion is to couch everything as an encouragement. Consider the attitude of the writer as well. If a writer looks tense, try to offer your comments in softer phrasings, so that they fall into cotton rather than brambles. Consider what help the writer wanted with the story. It’s a good place to start. If they gave no real instruction, start at the top of your notes, with the impressions, and work your way through your notes. As you cover important points, pause to see if you’ve explained it well or if the other writer is confused. A deeper review might be required for the other writer’s benefit.

If you don’t know the technical term for a problem, it doesn’t usually matter, except to the rule gurus. Explain what felt off and why. Sometimes just saying the phrase didn’t work for you during the reading is insight enough for the writer to look at it.

It’s a rare case, but you may have a piece that is so hard to read that you can’t. Literally, the writing just prevents your progression through the text. Don’t feel bad. It does happen. Take a breath. Organize your thoughts. Look at the writer you’ve agreed to help. Then POLITELY say that the piece needs work and why. Try to site examples to help them understand the problem.

Normally, I won’t give absolutes. Today, I’m going to repeat one I made earlier, because I feel it’s a Big Important Thought:

NEVER EVER state that a piece of writing is crap, garbage, or any other euphemism you can think of for horrible.

Imagine the fragile nature of almost any writer. Even with thick skin, when someone completely trashes a piece of writing, while still in the working state, it crushes the writer. Other writers are not our competition, or our enemies. They are our union brothers and sisters. They are compatriots in the march through the gates of publishing. It’s better for us to work with them to better everyone, than to crush someone away from the game.

As another thought, Karma has a way of coming back and crushing your spirit the same way, whether you believe in Karma or not.

How to Review a Poem - Critiquing writing - Part 4

A good poetry review or critique can take about three steps, to allow a person to garner the most from what they are reading.

1) Clear your mind and read the poem through one time. Make notes on your initial impressions. If the meter or rhyme scheme slowed you down, make sure that is part of your notes. Does a particular image jump out of the words at you? Are you sensing romance, hatred, or another strong emotion from the writing? All of these things will be noted when you write your review. Keep a "This is great!" section, so that you can offer positive as well as constructive feedback.

2) Read the poem through a second time, paying close attention to the details the poet put into the poem. What images does the poem convey? Are they trying to give one scene or multiple scenes from the poem? Are they being metaphorical, satirical, or literal? Is there a background to the poem, which is necessary to put the writing in context for the reader? Concentrate here on the actual verbiage of the poem, what the poem is saying. If you had not tracked the meter and rhyme before, pay closer attention to it here.

3) Read the poem a third time, this time watching for mechanical, grammatical, and other base items. How consistent is the poet's punctuation? Do they constantly switch between tenses? Is something misspelled? Was that done on purpose? This is your last chance to look at the meter and rhyme scheme. You may want to make additional notes on it, if either is a serious enough flaw to damage the poem. As you work though this portion, noting things to praise the poet for not making a mistake with is always helpful.

Now that you've read the poem and made your notes, it's time to write the review. Remember that poets are human and they like to have their egos stroked now and then. Open with something from that "This is great!" section, or a positive impression that the poem gave you. Don't use all your compliments at this one juncture, though. Next, detail your suggestions for the problems you spotted within the poem. That is important to repeat. Detail your suggestions. The poet has the option to ignore your review so making your suggestions sound like demands or requirements will guarantee they won't be taken. If you are going to suggest items outside of the basic grammar rules, offering a reason why or helpful rewrite for a single line would also be beneficial. Do not rewrite the poem for the poet. Finally, take the last positives that you have saved up and close your review with encouragement and a few more strokes to the writer's ego.

As a final reminder, remember, the type of reviews you leave behind, dictate the types of reviews that appear for your own writing.

The Extended Critique – Critiquing Writing – Part 3

Your critique skills are growing stronger, grasshopper. Now that we’ve developed the speedy critique, it’s time for the critique that takes time. Someone gives you a manuscript and asks for your opinion, with more than a day to tear the document apart.

Quit rubbing your hands together. This isn’t time for you to play Evil Editor.

As with the quick critique, I’m recommending the spare paper to make notes on as you go. If you work better with the manuscript on the screen, open a second file to make your notes. The quick critique could probably fit all its notes on one page. The longer critique could easily span multiple pages, depending on what you find. You might be putting more explanation on the page than you did before, as well. So be prepared for the extent of the work.

Also for this type of critique, if you have any form of writing library, I’d gather it together so you can reference their concepts. I’ll explain why as we go through the steps.

Okay, we’ve gathered our supplies, so let’s get to work.

Step One: Read the story. If you’re comfortable with it, read it aloud.  Make notes on the spare paper about your initial impressions. Because you will be doing so much more with this critique, feel free to leave this section sparse.

Step Two: Second reading. This reading goes looking for the glaring show stoppers. A show stopper of this nature jumps off the page and grabs you. It won’t let you go. It could show up as grammar and sentence structure, poorly created or one dimensional characters, or any of a large number of things.  I can’t say more other than you’ll know what I mean when you spot it.

The problem may be so bad that it hurts even your inner editor. (It’s amusing watching that little creep curl into a ball, I know.) Make notes on each find, including a mark of some form within the manuscript, if the author permits it. Personally, I’d use a pencil to mark a physical document, in case a question early in the document gets answered later, so you can erase. If you’re working on screen, make sure you highlight in a different color, to make your notes stand out from their base text.

Now that we have hacked the surface issues, let’s see what’s below the surface.

Step Three: Third reading. Seek plot holes, character glitches, story problems.

Your eyes may start to cross from looking at the same story by now, but the extra readings become necessary. You needed to break through your reader’s eye to the editor’s eye, and as a writer, it sometimes takes an extra pass or two for that to happen. If you are writing a few of these in a day, once the first is complete, the subsequent might take less passes.

Plot holes come in two forms, really. Some appear in the show stoppers section. If they do, don’t mention them twice. It won’t help your fellow writer.  Others will be smaller, less obvious. Maybe early in the story, the main character picks up a 9-millimeter semi auto pistol, but in scene three, it’s a Colt 45 revolver. (I exaggerate, but it’s possible.) In both cases, the character still had a gun. Readers will pick on a small detail like this and poke holes in the story because of it. They will count shots taken, compared the count to the gun and its capacity. It affects the rest of their view of the story. So catching these before they get to print is important.

A character glitch might come from something about the character’s motivation. Perhaps the character willingly bashed the heads of puppies for three pages with spiteful glee. However, the henchman offering a puppy for such treatment doesn’t get a splash of puppy brains. The main character ignores the puppy. Did the writer explain the reason for the change of heart? If not, you’ve found a glitch. 

A change in the character’s name also counts as a glitch. If the author refers to a character as Joe for five pages, then you find him called George, note it. The writer may have changed names mid creation, but they never went back to make the change in the rest of the document.

While I don’t condone it, grammar errors are found during this pass.  Extra or missing punctuation, missing objects of verbs, passive sentence structures all get mentions here. Some of these may occur higher on the list of your critique checklist. A run-on sentence, to me, is a show stopper. To others, it could fall down to the third reading. Mostly, grammar is not part of the critique process unless you’re a final reader before the publisher or agent gets their hands on it.  Depending on what version of the draft the writer handed to you, some of these grammar issues may change with the next edit pass.

I’m going to repeat a Big Important Thought here. Once a problem is noted, try not to repeat your find multiple times. The harp is a beautiful instrument, but not when reviewing the writing of another.

Step Four: If you want to make one more reading, it’s done here. Most people I’ve spoken with tend to catch so much with the first three readings, they don’t need the fourth reading to know what they still have awaiting a comment.

This last read is a fine tuning read, beyond all the rest.  Check for sentences that just don’t feel right. Again, I can’t tell you exactly how to spot these sentences, you will just know.  Perhaps it’s a piece of dialogue that catches you just the wrong way. A turn of phrase that dates the manuscript might be worth a note as well. If you read it aloud earlier, find those bumpy spots in the reading. Read them aloud again, making notes on where you hit the pothole.

With your notes in hand, it’s time to return to the writer who asked for help. In a future post, I’ll cover the process of presenting a critique.  Just remember that an extended critique will take more time to review than a quick review. This isn’t a problem, but be sure to allow for the additional time. Remember to encourage.

With these two posts, I’ve offered thoughts on examining a short story or article. I’ve placed the points of order in how I go through the writing. As a matter of course, feel free to rearrange as is comfortable for your work process.

The Quick Critique – Critiquing Writing – Part 2

Okay, so you’re looking at this piece of writing in front of you. Someone requested a quick once over of the piece. The writer wanted your impressions. Perhaps they’ve asked for a specific something from you. This may be true more with genre writers, but anyone can ask for a focused critique. No problem.

 

Personally, I recommend having a piece of paper and pen or pencil with you when working any critique. It allows you to make notes on your impressions without marking up the manuscript with unnecessary marks. With computers, it’s easier for a writer to give you a throw away copy of the story. However, the scrap paper offers more space for notes, so it’s worth having handy.

 

Knowing your strengths and weaknesses will assist you in this process. If your writing has issues with shifting point of view, touch on the subject if it jumps out at you, but don’t concentrate on the subject. With all that said, here’s what you do.

 

First step: Read the story. Duh. The first pass won’t be a deep reading. You just want to get a feel for the voice, the style.

 

On the scrap paper, write down impressions of the story as you read. Include both good and bad impressions. I’ve had a sheet that started with “Great Opening!” followed by a series of notes on shifting point of view, only to praise two more unique phrasings I’d not seen before. If something in the story freezes you midsentence, that deserves a notation as well.  Draw a line on the page to separate the initial impressions from the next step.

 

Step two: Go through the story a second time. This pass requires a bit deeper reading. You’re reading this time for show stoppers. Find that sentence that took looking at five times before you figured out what the writer wanted to say. If the writer gave you a throw away copy, note the issues on the manuscript. I’ll use a pencil and draw a bracket around the offending sentence. If jargon or other story specific piece grabs you and won’t let go, question that as well. Make notes about each piece you’ve found on your paper.

 

With critiques like this, two passes may take all the time you have available. With the second pass complete, now you want to present your findings to the writer. Go through your notes with the writer, giving a small explanation on what you’ve found. I’ll cover this a little more in another post.

 

Before that post, however, let me give a Big Important Thought on the subject of critique writing.  Normally, I won’t give absolutes here. I don’t feel it’s my place. Today, I’ll make an exception.

 

NEVER EVER state that a piece of writing is crap, garbage, or any other euphemism you can think of for horrible.

 

Pay attention to what you find in others’ writings. It may be you’ve seen it before – in your own.

Helping Fellow Writers – Critiquing Writing – Part 1

Now that we’ve gotten out of the cave and found a group of like-minded writers, we find a new wrinkle to smooth in our quest as a social writer. Someone handed us a copy of THEIR writing and wants us to offer our opinion.

Feeling better? Smelling salts does that to the head when you faint.

I realize that the feet don’t feel fully stable on the ground of your own writing. To now take someone else’s writing and poke its weak points doesn’t feel right. However, I have a secret for you. Finding a fault in another’s writing will help you detect faults in your own writing. You’ll be better able to identify issues. Over the next few posts, I’ll take you through critiquing another’s writing. With this post, I’ll introduce you to my thought process concerning critiques.

There must first be one ground rule placed on any critique that you do. The writing is your target, not the writer. Even the most hated of enemy asking for a critique needs to have some hope of an honest critique. So when you read anything, forget WHO gave it to you and just worry about the writing on the page before you. With that ground rule in place, let’s move on.

I have found that two situations exist where you may find yourself asked to review another’s work and give your opinion. The first situation happens at almost any time. You’ll be talking with another writer about your latest project. Your conversation partner whips out their manuscript, or portion thereof, and asks for an opinion on the spot. This may also happen at a writer’s group, at the beginning of the meeting when everyone arrives. In this situation, you won’t have time to delve deep into the story minutiae. A few quick reads of the piece and they want your answer.

The second situation contains a bit more planning concerning your time and opinion. Perhaps through email or snail mail, a fellow writer may send you a manuscript with a request to dig into it. With the writing group, you get a writing piece from a group member prior to the next meeting. Sometimes it’s a day or two, sometimes you get a week or more.  Either way, the piece is in your hand for an extended period. Now is the time to pull out resources about plot, characters, and genre to challenge the manuscript at hand.

In both cases, you want to do your best to offer the other writer insight into what they gave you, without changing the story to your style. That’s a Big Important Thought, so I’m going to repeat it.

Offer help and insight without changing the story to your style.

It’s a temptation to look at a sentence and say “That’s not how I’d word that.” However, that’s not your job as a person critiquing the manuscript. Your job is to find the rough spots, the glaring errors, the show stoppers that causes a reader or editor to slide to a stop and refuse to proceed.

Don’t be afraid to look at a piece and not find anything wrong. Honestly, a writer may hand you a story that reads like a great piece, with nothing so glaring that a spell checker wouldn’t locate it easily. It’s rare but it does happen. In that instance, tell the person! Don’t TRY to find something wrong, because then it becomes rewriting to your style.

Over the next few posts, I’ll cover the actual technique of a valuable critique. I’ll even offer a few thoughts on critiquing poetry, since poets will ask for help as much as story writers.

Just remember, your support means a stronger story for both yourself and your critique friend.