>>> Item number 20844 from WRITERS LOG9311B --- (298 records) ---- <<< Date: Sun, 14 Nov 1993 10:33:28 JST Reply-To: WRITERS Sender: WRITERS From: Mike Barker Subject: TECH: Re: critiquing First, hi Tim. Glad you've joined us. as a side issue, you need to send jobs to LISTSERV, not the writers list. You may also want to use narrower margins to allow comments on future writing. This is discussed in my draft FAQ on submitting and critiquing. You'll see my note about getting a copy of the overall FAQ. If you get that and read it, there are directions about getting the FAQ about sub and crit. I'm also going to resend that FAQ in two parts, so everyone can see it without having to pull up a copy. I'll be very interested in your comments on that FAQ. I do have some comments on your essay... - As writers, we all want to constantly improve our craft, to get better and - better. Having been a member of a local writing and critique group in - Sacramento for two years now, I have found that the most valuable critiques - tell you very specifically - 1) what's wrong with the story, and WHY - 2) what's right with the story, and WHY good points. I also like to provide some suggestions about how to fix the things that I think are wrong, or at least less effective than they might be. I think it can be a very helpful part of a critique to let the writer know what you "saw" in the story and what affect it had on you, too. This helps the writer to see if they have managed to convey the message they intended. For example, while I think you were trying to provide some guidance in how to critique, I was somewhat offended and put off by the tone of your piece. I don't think that was what you intended, but that is what I felt on reading it. I think the main reasons were the insistence on there being only one right way to critique, only one right reason to write, and the implicit demand that I set aside whatever I may be doing and dedicate more time to doing things according to the one great church of tim. Can you understand why this might not be the best way to convert, unless you prefer a small band of "one way" believers? - The recent critiques I have read of "Tongue in Cheek" did neither, and I - suggest to the authors of those critiques and to others that you are doing the - author of the story no favors. If all we ever do is pat ourselves and each - other on the back, then we will never grow as writers, never polish our craft, - and almost certainly never get published. close, but.. psych 101 teaches us that REWARDS (such as pats on the back) ARE the most effective way of encouraging desired behavior. As whatever I am, I really want people to write. Therefore, I prefer not to take actions that discourage writing, even when that writing isn't quite along the lines I prefer. I do agree that we need to push our craft, to move onward - but there is a very fine line between encouragement (which most of us need from time to time) and political "glad-handing" which I try to keep in mind. I think part of the "trick" is to pat each other on the back while also pointing forward to paths yet untrod. - (I don't know about you, but to me - that is the acid test: if you're not already published, then you should be - working your ass off to get published; if you aren't then you're not a writer, - you're a dabbler, a diletante, a wanna-be. This includes those too lazy to do - market research.) I assume you think that offending people is a good rhetorical move? someday someone will explain this to me, perhaps. sorry, tim, but what you are doing is trying to discourage competition, to close off other paths than the one you have chosen, and I find that to be a very poor approach. Let me toss you a statement that we've heard here from the "other side" - artists come in many flavors, in their own ways, and never worry about minor commercial matters - and automatically tromp all over the commercial ass buster. If you are trying to get published, you can only generate trash. (roughly paraphrased by me) Before you explode - I don't buy either approach to writing as absolute categories. I'm sorry, but writers come in too many different packages to fasten down in these narrow ruts. I also see your "acid test" as one of the best damn ways I know to get myself into a solid, ugly "writers block." I've been there, didn't like it, and don't really want to try it again. why is it so important to smash those who aren't following your path? I mean, you are trying very hard to discourage anyone who isn't ready for your "crusade," - basting them with "you're not a writer, you're a dabbler, a diletante, a wanna-be." what if someone said "you're not a writer, you're a hack, a plot-boiler, a sweaty grunt?" I mean, if we are writers, we should be careful with our language, and perhaps consider the impact on the reader, don't you think? Incidentally, I believe diletante is misspelled. Don't be too lazy to use a dictionary in checking your work - the word is dilettante. too lazy to do market research? ah, me, you do have a way of pre-judging, do you not? It is rather frustrating to be so lightly judged and cast aside, isn't it? - With that in mind, and having roused the ire of, I'm sure, - more than a few on this list, does a good writer, a real writer, deliberately try to "rouse the ire"? for no better reason than to coddle his own egotism? I think there are other ways to present your points that would make people accept them and try to follow without having to descend to aggression and abuse. That old mule fights the whip, but pulls all day for one carrot. May I suggest that you might want to think about why having everyone fall into lockstep with your program is so important to you? Honestly, I don't believe writing is a competition - there is plenty of space for all kinds of writing, all kinds of writers, and many different approaches. The only person you really need to please is yourself. - here is the critique of "Tongue in Cheek" that I - sent to the author by private email, with (very) slight modification: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- - First, what's wrong: according to sales principles (yes, they can teach too), management training, rules of human interaction, and quite a few years of personal experience, this is the wrong beginning. As I recollect, the most effective approach is to start with positive, in particular affirming the person. Then present the problem. Then provide suggestions for improvement. End with positive affirmation of the person, and (if possible) of some aspect of their work. So, for example, you might have started by admitting that you are new to the list, and thought enough of this piece to want to critique it, since the writer is obviously quite good. You might also provide a bit of your "philosophy of critiquing" just to let the writer know what is coming. Obviously you care about your writing, so you may want to add this kind of approach to your already careful critical "bag of tricks." - Cute at first, but it fizzles from the middle on. By the time you got - halfway through the court scene I'm asking myself, "So what?". I think it's this is very good, providing him with fairly clear indications of the effect on you as a reader. - because the story doesn't really deliver on the moral. For us to feel like since I don't think he provides a moral, it might be good to describe the moral you drew from the story. - Randy has been had, we need to know what a great thing his tongue is (was). - You need to *show* us, not simply tell us. A single line like "his tongue was - a thing to be worshipped" is not enough. Who worshipped it? Randy? or the - women in his life? And if so, how did they express their admiration? (Let's - see some examples. Did women fight for dates with him? Was he asked to a lot - of parties because he could do marvelous party tricks with his tongue?) The - only reactions you show us from coworkers are negative (disgust, etc), so that - only makes Randy look like an insensitive jerk. I tend to end up quoting parts, and providing my own rewrites. While the questions you provide are good ones, and should help the writer think about the piece, I find it helpful myself to be shown what to do, instead of simply asked and told. You do a little of this with your hints that perhaps women fight for dates, or he does party tricks. Still, I end up "interlining" my comments into the text. - In other words, you have not shown us any basis for the claim that his tongue - was marvelous; the only person who seems to think so is Randy. It would be - funnier (and a much better comment on these politically-correct times) if he - had been admired all his life by others because of his tongue, if it had gotten - him lovers, gotten him promoted, made him popular, etc. Then when Delores wins - her suit, poor Randy is to be pitied, not jeered. It would heighten the effect - even more if thereafter Randy developed a phobia about his tongue and could no - longer satisfy his lover(s) with it, nobody in the office wants to see him do - party tricks with it, etc. In short, his life becomes *very* sad, and not just - because of a failed movie-of-the-week. This seems to me to be describing a very different story from the one you are critiquing. Admittedly, it can be effective to provide a different plot and recommend places to expand or shrink, but I'm not sure if I agree that this would be a funnier piece. As you say, you have turned it into a tragedy, with a rather predictable outcome. - Boiled down, it comes to this: we don't care about Randy because he looks - like a jerk. Even in a short, humorous piece we *must* care about the - characters or there is no story, and no point in relating it. For this piece - to work, we must like Randy and sympathize with him, so that his descent into - disfavor seems unjust. descent into disfavor? he became supreme court aardvark, didn't he? incidentally, are you pregnant or just suffering from tapeworm? I think it is good that you have pointed out some "keys to writing" to back up your specific comments. I think I would be a bit less dogmatic about the results of not following them, but that is partly a stylistic choice. - Second, what's right: - It's a very cute and funny premise. This story could be really good. Keep - working on it. I've had some stories go through 3 or 4 critique cycles before - they really flowed. Ok, you've got the positive. Of course, I'd like some particulars - line-by-line comments make it very easy to say "this phrasing is good" or "I laughed at this point." - -------------------------------------------------------------- - - Now if it seems I've been tough on the author, I have, BECAUSE THAT IS THE ONLY well, from your example, I'm tempted to let this slide, but... I think you misstated the point. You have been tough on the piece (not quite the way I would be, but that's unimportant). However, you have done a good job in NOT BEING TOUGH ON THE AUTHOR! And I think that is critical. Smash, burn and destroy the piece - fine. But take care not to bash the person. That is one of the keys I see to doing a good critique, and too many people make the same mistake you did, of saying they are being tough on the author. I have to admit, I have trouble getting it right, but I consider this one of the most important parts of my writing critiques. I do consider critiques to be a specialized and interesting exercise in writing. I consider one of the hard parts of doing them to be encouraging and supporting the writer at the same time that I provide detailed dismemberment of their offspring. It's a bit like trying to perform surgery on a wide-awake patient - you have to get the local anaesthetic or nerve block in the middle first and then keep telling that head that what you are doing down here in the bowels really doesn't hurt. - WAY TO HELP HIM (or any writer, myself included). Polite, congratulatory maybe it is my age, but I rarely am this certain that I know "THE ONLY WAY" to do anything, let alone help people. Sometimes I have some suggestions about ways that seem to work for me, but that's about as far as I go. - critiques serve little purpose, except to make the recipient feel good, but and keep them writing and help promote group membership and keep YOU writing and help avoid the feelings of "no one is reading my stuff" when you don't hear from anyone for weeks and ... there are a few other reasons and purposes that these can meet. Frankly, while I prefer detailed critiques and prefer doing that kind myself (mostly because I learn a lot when I do that), I am also happy to hear even one word from anyone on the list. A polite, congratulatory critique may be the first step for someone on this list, and I certainly love to see someone making that step, because once they do that, we can talk about how to do more effective critiques, and start playing pattycake reward and strokes to keep them growing. Or we could just smash everyone who hasn't had the experience, is short on time, or otherwise has difficulty being able to do the one and only, blessed in bond and ruined by time, hardcore real professionals' kind of presentation. probably certified by the professional writers institute, to boot. - good feelings will not help you get published. And THAT should be the aim of - us all. Good feelings do help people get published, Tim. They help them continue in the face of discouragement, unbelieveable turnaround times, personal difficulties and all the other idiocy that makes up the normal publication routes. They even help them decide which of the many aims in a writing life they will dedicate their time and efforts to, whether that is the simple one of being published, the more subtle one of writing well, or even the social one of being part of the writers group that hangs out at this saloon for a while. By the way - I appreciate the fire and drive I see in your piece, but think you would catch more flies with a little honey and some consideration for the wide varieties of writing and life that I am sure you have experienced. Tell me, did your group in Sacramento use some of the popular checklists for critiquing, or some books on writing? Which ones (there is a list in one of our FAQS)? Would you like to prepare a TECH piece summarizing either the checklists or some favorite books? How did you handle limiting submissions and spreading out the task of critiquing? I really think this is an area that could use some organization and information. Perhaps you could help us with it, after you take a look at some of the thoughts on the subject that we have. Thank you for commenting - and I look forward to your participating on the list. If you have a chance, I would be very pleased to hear from you about my little pieces on how to submit and critique. I am also interested in hearing your reactions to this critique. tink