This is a second of two posts from the archives, revisiting the topic of bad critiques.
A critique can be either a beneficial or a devastating experience, and the difference doesn’t always depend on the person giving it. The attitude of the writer on the receiving end also has an effect.
Last Friday I blogged about harsh critiques. Today I’m offering some practical suggestions based on critique experiences in some of the writing groups to which I’ve belonged.
FOR THE GROUP
- If you are in a group where reading of manuscripts is done during the session, you may have to limit the word count of each reading and set a time limit for each critique so that everyone that wants to participate will have sufficient time to do so.
- Having copies of the manuscript for each person allows people to mark typos and grammatical errors directly on the paper, thus leaving the group free to discuss larger issues. The author can collect the copies to use later for line edits.
- After reading is complete, allow a moment or two for reflection before beginning the first critique.
- Some people find it easier to respond than others. The group can easily develop a dynamic in which the same people always respond and others remain silent. Agree ahead of time that every person in the group will respond once to the entire piece before additional input is allowed.
FOR THE INDIVIDUAL RECEIVING A CRITIQUE
- Participating writers may be at different stages in their manuscripts — still working on early drafts of a first novel, doing revisions, or preparing for submission and publication. When providing your material for critique, consider advising others members of the group what stage you are at and the type of feedback you are seeking.
- If asked, feel free to clarify why a particular point has been made, but don’t try to rationalize your choice of words or argue with those offering their opinions. You may not like the suggestions but you are not obligated to put them into practice. If you feel too defensive to accept possible negative input, don’t submit the piece for critique.
FOR THOSE GIVING A CRITIQUE
- Critiquing the work of others is a balancing act. First practice active listening. Then respond pleasantly, don’t attack. Be helpful and honest but not harsh, providing positive feedback in a polite and respectful manner. Consider what you like about the manuscript. What did the author do well? What were the strengths?
- Only then mention the things that did not work for you. Do not critique the choice of genre or subject matter. Be specific about what you didn’t like about the writing and why, but remember that your opinion is only that… an opinion. You may offer suggestions for changes, but realize that your wording may not be right for the author and he/she may not opt to use your suggestions.
- This isn’t the time for a line by line edit. Mark any glaring grammar problems, word choice, spelling or syntactical revisions on the manuscript. Then move on to consider the following points:
- Opening – good hook, active not passive scene
- Characters – strong, MC motivated to solve dilemma
- Point of view – consistent
- Plot/Story line – credible, interesting, flows well
- Narrative – show versus tell; no author intrusion; minimal backstory
- Language – “purple prose”; overuse of adverbs and adjectives; passive tense
- Dialogue – conversational and not artificial; not used for info dumps
- Conflict – builds throughout
- Ending – satisfying and logical; not necessarily happy
- Style – suited to the genre and theme
The point of a critique is not to tear apart a manuscript but to point out strengths and weaknesses, and encourage the writer in making the piece stronger. Remember that newer writers are often exceptionally sensitive about their inadequacies. Without a tactful approach, a thoughtless critic can do irreparable damage to a fragile morale.
The reverse of this, of course, is that the purpose of putting one’s work out for critiquing is to obtain opinions and suggestions. If the possibility of a negative response is unnerving it may be that the writer is not ready for this stage quite yet.
A bad critique is worse than no critique. Setting out the ground rules first lets everyone know how to proceed and what to expect. In a one-on-one critique encounter this is especially important.
Now it’s your turn. Have your critique experiences been positive or negative? What would you add to the above criteria to make them more useful?
~ ~ ~
2 thoughts on “Critiquing #2: Writer Bashing (or, What Good is a Bad Critique?)”
This is a fantastic post! Thanks!
Thanks, Charlie. Useful critiquing is harder than I expected. 😉