|
|
KATHERINE BRANDON
Gina's Alter Ego
Gina's Alter Ego
All Critters Great and Small
by
Gina Ardito
by
Gina Ardito
What makes a critique a great critique? Is it due to some glimmer that sparks an "aha!" moment in the
author? Well.yeah, sometimes. But it's also about reading an excerpt the way an editor or agent might,
picking out the gems and finding the flaws. A great critiquer helps polish a work so that it becomes the
shining manuscript in the slush pile for her partner.
No matter how long you've been writing, you've got opinions about books you've read. That's what a crit is: an opinion that details what worked for you and what didn't. You want to give a critique you'd like to receive on your own work, using the aspects of: focus, trust, details, and respect.
FOCUS on the work. Never critique while distracted. If you can't give an author your undivided attention, your comments won't be worth anything. And believe me, the author will notice if your critique shows you didn't bother to read the entire excerpt or read it while watching Oprah.
TRUST that the writer has done her research. Mention anything that doesn't seem right to you, but don't comment on historical accuracy or weather patterns unless you're sure of your facts. Remember that truth is often stranger than fiction. I once had a contest judge advise me I should scrap a historical character from a story because I made him out to be cranky all the time and his
descendants might not appreciate it. Well, gee. The man suffered all his life from dysentery, two shattered ribs that had never healed properly, a drooling problem, chronic abdominal pain, frequent bouts of malaria, and a water retention illness known as "dropsy." I'd think those maladies might make him a bit testy. Historical records bear me out.
Still, if a scenario seems a little too outré for a reader, the critiquer has a responsibility to mention why (s)he has a problem with it. The author may decide to revise, even if the details are 100% accurate. The choice, however, always remains with the author and not with the critiquer.
Critiques should have DETAILS. Give the author something to work with. Whenever possible, be specific about how to fix errors such as POV, purple prose, or dangling modifiers. Is the pace slow? Show those sentences that seemed overly long and suggest scenarios which might speed things up. Provide concrete examples of where the author has gone astray.
If the story flows smoothly, don't fall back on "Good job," or, "I found nothing to pick on." Note those instances that you believed were exceptionally well done. Did you laugh out loud at a funny piece of dialogue? Admit it. Did you admire a certain turn of phrase? Tell the author. Writers are an insecure breed: we need lots of validation. And if something works, we want to be able to incorporate that skill again and again and again. The two words, "Good job" at the end of six pages of manuscript tells a writer nothing about what worked and what didn't.
RESPECT the world your partner is building. Do not correct it or tear it down. Unless what's presented requires more hands or titanium than a character is allowed, do not overstep the bounds of possibility.
Never belittle the work or the effort. Reassure the author that her work is worthwhile. Be sure to couch all suggestions in a pleasant and encouraging tone.
Don't rewrite an author's voice. Before suggesting a different way of wording something, ask yourself, "Does the change alter the meaning being conveyed? Is my word choice better or merely different?"
If you and a critique partner consistently butt heads, neither of you should be too timid to send a private message that says, "Clearly we don't have the same style and can't find a middle ground. There are plenty of other writers whose works might benefit from your advice or storyline. Sadly, I'm not one of them." No hard feelings, no insults, and no grudges. Sometimes writers just don't click. There's no sin in admitting it and allowing each of you the chance to move on.
Anyone who presents something for critique is taking a huge chance. Remember the courage such a leap of faith requires. And ultimately remember what a critique is meant to do: by suggesting improvements to another's work, you not only increase his/her chances of publication, it increases your chance that you'll catch those errors in your own work, hence increasing YOUR chances of publication.
Critiques should be a win/win situation. If they're not, neither of you is fully benefiting from the experience.
No matter how long you've been writing, you've got opinions about books you've read. That's what a crit is: an opinion that details what worked for you and what didn't. You want to give a critique you'd like to receive on your own work, using the aspects of: focus, trust, details, and respect.
FOCUS on the work. Never critique while distracted. If you can't give an author your undivided attention, your comments won't be worth anything. And believe me, the author will notice if your critique shows you didn't bother to read the entire excerpt or read it while watching Oprah.
TRUST that the writer has done her research. Mention anything that doesn't seem right to you, but don't comment on historical accuracy or weather patterns unless you're sure of your facts. Remember that truth is often stranger than fiction. I once had a contest judge advise me I should scrap a historical character from a story because I made him out to be cranky all the time and his
descendants might not appreciate it. Well, gee. The man suffered all his life from dysentery, two shattered ribs that had never healed properly, a drooling problem, chronic abdominal pain, frequent bouts of malaria, and a water retention illness known as "dropsy." I'd think those maladies might make him a bit testy. Historical records bear me out.
Still, if a scenario seems a little too outré for a reader, the critiquer has a responsibility to mention why (s)he has a problem with it. The author may decide to revise, even if the details are 100% accurate. The choice, however, always remains with the author and not with the critiquer.
Critiques should have DETAILS. Give the author something to work with. Whenever possible, be specific about how to fix errors such as POV, purple prose, or dangling modifiers. Is the pace slow? Show those sentences that seemed overly long and suggest scenarios which might speed things up. Provide concrete examples of where the author has gone astray.
If the story flows smoothly, don't fall back on "Good job," or, "I found nothing to pick on." Note those instances that you believed were exceptionally well done. Did you laugh out loud at a funny piece of dialogue? Admit it. Did you admire a certain turn of phrase? Tell the author. Writers are an insecure breed: we need lots of validation. And if something works, we want to be able to incorporate that skill again and again and again. The two words, "Good job" at the end of six pages of manuscript tells a writer nothing about what worked and what didn't.
RESPECT the world your partner is building. Do not correct it or tear it down. Unless what's presented requires more hands or titanium than a character is allowed, do not overstep the bounds of possibility.
Never belittle the work or the effort. Reassure the author that her work is worthwhile. Be sure to couch all suggestions in a pleasant and encouraging tone.
Don't rewrite an author's voice. Before suggesting a different way of wording something, ask yourself, "Does the change alter the meaning being conveyed? Is my word choice better or merely different?"
If you and a critique partner consistently butt heads, neither of you should be too timid to send a private message that says, "Clearly we don't have the same style and can't find a middle ground. There are plenty of other writers whose works might benefit from your advice or storyline. Sadly, I'm not one of them." No hard feelings, no insults, and no grudges. Sometimes writers just don't click. There's no sin in admitting it and allowing each of you the chance to move on.
Anyone who presents something for critique is taking a huge chance. Remember the courage such a leap of faith requires. And ultimately remember what a critique is meant to do: by suggesting improvements to another's work, you not only increase his/her chances of publication, it increases your chance that you'll catch those errors in your own work, hence increasing YOUR chances of publication.
Critiques should be a win/win situation. If they're not, neither of you is fully benefiting from the experience.