>>> Item number 9944 from WRITERS LOG9303C --- (40 records) ------ <<< Date: Mon, 15 Mar 1993 17:05:02 JST Reply-To: WRITERS Sender: WRITERS From: Mike Barker Subject: TECH: How do you critique? - Craig: I've been skewered for "rewriting" in the past, but this is the - way I think I can best critique. Sorry if you're offended. I like it when several people have mentioned problems with rewriting. Question - how do you critique? The technique I know best (it's the one I like to use when I have time) starts with a first read-through at normal speed, just to get a feel for the piece. Then I read through again, slowly, marking points where I have trouble with words, sequence, etc. Then (3rd pass), I start adding what I would do, the questions I have, the alternative wording I'd suggest, etc. Finally, I often have a few general comments or questions to drag up to the front, highlighting these major notes. I may go over it a time or two more, depending on whether I've noticed something specific to look for or caught myself missing something, but there are at least four main passes. I've always thought providing alternatives (rewriting, in anyone's terms), was a crucial part of the critique, both explaining the problem and providing positive suggestions for how to improve it. Just saying something is not good - cripes, I hate that myself, and don't want that to be the last word. And even if I don't like something, if I can't figure out a better way, what good does it do to point it out? This rewriting also gives me a good tryout of my own skills - how would I do this? Can I think of another way to work this? Etc. Incidentally, this is why I rarely seem to get comments/critiques done - it takes me a long, long time to grumble through a piece. Apologies if I'm doing it wrong - I'm just too lazy to pass up the chance to sharpen my own skills by trying to do what I consider a good critique. So - how do you critique? mike