Regarding Critiques

[Diviner]

How can I know how to value and utilize critiques?

Recently I had a chapter up on another board. Three people were wildly complimentary, one saying she couldn't put it down and forgot entirely she was supposed to be doing a critique. Three others said it was slow and had no conflict and wondered why anyone would want to keep reading. (They said this nicely, so I think I have to take their points seriously.) The ones who liked it saw all kinds of hooks and promises of goodies to come, but I think what they liked were my characters and the world they inhabit.

Obviously taste is at work here, but what can I do with such disparate reactions? In one case one reader praised highly the exact thing another poked fun at. Nor were their reactions male-female responses, because on each side they are equally balanced.

What should I let guide me? I encourage people to be honest, but almost exact opposite responses are hard to reconcile.

[JSBulldog89]

Well, I can't really give you any advice, as I honestly don't know. But what I think is this: there's bound to be people that don't like your book, right? There's also going to be people that love your book. Readers all have different interests. Take the Harry Potter series for example. A lot of people love J. K. Rowling's masterpiece; other people completely despise it.

I hope this helps?

-Robert

[wurdwise]

My opinion is that you already have a good idea before you ask for a critique which parts are your story are stronger, where your prose flow, if you characters are well fleshed out, the basics, you know. The critique, for me, points out errors in grammar, over writing, small inconsistencies, checks my ego, finds flaws I couldn't see.

But when you come across one person who goes completely against what you and the rest of the critiquers think, I would ignore that input.

I guess what I am saying in a nutshell, is take what you need and leave the rest.

[azbikergirl]

Have you read these people's critiques of others before? I've found that some people tend to have a sort of malicious undertone to their critiques and "make fun of" stuff they don't understand or don't have the attention span to read thoroughly enough. But if the person who poked fun of your writing tends to be considerate and thorough with others, take a good look at what he/she is trying to say.

Otherwise, yea, I agree with Robert. Some people will like it, others won't. I can't stand some authors who are highly praised. It stands to reason that not everyone will like even the top-selling novels and/or writers. Maybe try to get a feel for the kinds of stories and writing both groups of people really like, and see if yours comes closer to one or the other. That may give you some insights, too.

[anatole ghio]

Three people were wildly complimentary, one saying she couldn't put it down and forgot entirely she was supposed to be doing a critique. Three others said it was slow and had no conflict and wondered why anyone would want to keep reading.

While it would be nice to believe that anything one writes has the chance to appeal to any potential reader, the truth of the matter is most of what you write will appeal to some people and not to others.

Outside of a writing group, try to determine who your ideal reader is and look for feedback from people who most fit your ideal. These people will most likely not have a writing background, so you will only be able to ping whether or not it worked with them, not how to improve the piece.

Inside of a writing group, try to identify the writers whose style most matches your own, or whose reading taste encompasses what you like to read. These are the people from whom you will tend to get the most useful critique.

- Anatole

[mr mistook]

I think it's important to take negative feedback into consideration, even when others are raving about your work. We all know how hard it is to get an agent or a publisher to read a manuscript, and when it comes to that point, you won't have the chance to sit with the reader and explain why such and such is the way it is.

Many times, after I've gotten negative feedback, I've tried to "explain" to the critic why they just weren't seeing things the right way. Whenever I've done that, I always end up realizing, "Hey, they're right, I didn't really think that out until just now."

[anatole ghio]

Many times, after I've gotten negative feedback, I've tried to "explain" to the critic why they just weren't seeing things the right way. Whenever I've done that, I always end up realizing, "Hey, they're right, I didn't really think that out until just now."

The first writing class I ever had was conducted in the following manner: after the piece had been turned in and read, the class would offer their comments and the writer was not allowed to reply throughout the process, after which the writer was allowed to ask follow up questions in order to clarify the points made by the students and then the critique was over.

The teachers reasoning was a reader would never have you in the room to instruct them on how to "properly" read your work, so it was best to get their comments whole and undiluted as this would better represent how they first responded to your writing.

I have come to agree with him: if you are arguing with your reader after the fact, something is already wrong. Your argument should be the piece itself and your writing should be clear enough for your meaning to be conveyed the first time around. Any confusion in the reader after the fact is a sign of confusion in your writing, not in the reader.

This is why I feel it is important to identify who your ideal reader is and listen to them after they have read your work; if your writing was good, they will respond.

- Anatole

[ElizabethJames]

We hate listening to the people in our writing group when they're ripping our work apart . . . *clenches jaw* . . . but it is almost always useful feedback. There are some things they say that we simply will not take to heart, though that is increasingly rare as we've learned to trust their instincts.

[XThe NavigatorX]

I've taken several workshop classes similar to the one Anatole described. They are very, very helpful.

Nothing has ever been written that everybody likes. You should listen to every critique that rings true to you. Don't ever change something just because you want to please someone. Change it because the advice makes sense to you.

[Diviner]

Maybe I don't need to add this because it is already understood, but I have that tendency when up against negative feedback to think, they are right, I couldn't write a credible shopping list, why do I think I can write a novel?

When I have that little voice agreeing with the ones who don't like my writing (I never think it is good enough), I find it doubly hard to just go ahead and do my own thing.

I have only been working seriously at writing novels for, perhaps two years, although I have spent a fair amount of time and energy on short stories--alas, unpublished so far-- and poetry--two poems published. The deeper I get into the writing, the more ways I see I can go wrong, so why wouldn't I believe the naysayers?

Don't get me wrong. I like my stories. It is just my writing I worry about, that and structure, not to mention conflict.

Gaagh!

[Medievalist]

One way of determining the potential usefulness of a critique is by how specific it is.

An over reliance on descriptive adjectives, good or bad, or exclusively general comments without specific references or examples drawn from the text, might be signs of something that is more of a review than a critique.

[Writing Again]

Lets look at this: At work I know ten people who actually like to read. Of those ten people some do not read horror at all, several read horror but dislike or hate Stephen King. Of these ten people there are two who are in love with Stephen King and everything he writes.

If this average holds then Stephen King earned $40 million dollars in 1998 -- Only pleasing 2 readers out of ten.

I think I'd be happy pleasing only 1 reader out of ten -- Or even one reader out of 20.

How to handle negative feed back -- I usually find that negative feedback gives me ideas for improving my writing -- But I seldom make the changes the critics suggested.

[maestrowork]

Critiques are simply opinions. People are different. Opinions are different. Glean from them what you can. Consider everything, but don't lose yourself in them.

[pianoman5]

An analogy from sport occurs to me.

In those sports where there is a subjective element to performance, e.g. diving, gymnastics, ice dancing, synchronised swimming, the highest and lowest judges' scores are eliminated, and then the remainder are totalled/averaged.

In the same way, if your readers exhibit a wide spectrum of opinion, from fulsome praise to snaky criticism - both of which are thereby suspect - you could discard those extreme views and concentrate on the rest.

[Jamesaritchie]

You have to know who the critiquers are, and how they go about critiquing. The last thing you're after is anyone's opinion. It just doesn't matter whether or not a critiquer likes or dislikes your writing. Like and dislike has nothing at all to do with quality.

No matter how well you write, some will dislike it. No matter how poorly you write, some will rave about it.

A good critiquer can absolutely loathe your writing, but can and will put personal taste aside and tell you what's right and wrong with it on a technical level. A good critiquer is one who knows what makes editors buy and reject stories.

You have to weed out the bad critiquers and find the good ones, and it isn't easy. I know the standard advice is that if nine people tell you something is wrong, and one tells you it isn't, you should ignore the one and go with the nine. Sometimes this works, but I've found that just as often it doesn't.

Quite often, the lone opinion comes from the only critiquer in the group capable of putting aside personal bias, and who isn't judging by like and dislike.

Good critiquing should never, ever be based on opinion. When this is the case you can't believe anyone.

There's always another option, of course. One writers have been using successfully for centuries. Just write the story and send it to an editor. The truth is, most people in an average writing group won't know a publishable story from a poodle. An editor will.

But if you do use a critique group, avoid people who critique from like and dislike, or through ignorance. You have to take time to look around and find the rare individuals who know what editors really look for. A good critiquer really can hate your writing and still critique it very well.

[Nateskate]

This is always the hard thing in life. There are two ways to look at it, and determining which applies is often difficult.

1) Some people don't want to hurt your feelings, and one is being honest. But I doubt that. Generally speaking, you can read between the lines when people are giving "Faint Praise". If they loved it and want more, then generally they are being honest. If they are just trying not to offend, it's like at a dinner, "That was good...no, I don't want more...I'm full." If they want more, they are generally being truthful.

2) Yet, you can make the best of a Genre and it won't please everyone. Some people like meatballs, and others hate them. You can make the best meatballs in the world, and a vegetarian is going to loathe them.

So, you have to realize that no matter how good you write, someone is going to hate your style and content. LOTR was panned by some critics. And you have others who begged Tolkien for more.

And then there is "salt to taste". One will say it is too descriptive, another say its not descriptive enough.

[Maryn]

JamesRitchie, I agree wholeheartedly with your words on critique. Someone who really knows how to critique doesn't have to like your genre, or your story, or your characters, or you.

My observation is that very few critiques online, here and elsewhere, are really going to help the writer improve his work enough to make the difference between a sale and languishing. Not that they don't contain anything useful--you see instruction, suggestions, and encouragement, any or all of which can be a boon. The trouble is, people are too nice.

Too often online critiques offer praise where it doesn't seem due. It's not unusual to see really bad writing--terrible mechanics full of obvious mistakes, not just poor writing--and a pedestrian idea that's clearly a rip-off of something highly popular, and nobody says anything negative, or at most suggests spell checking and tweaking some small aspect.

Offering the authors no real critique gives them unrealistic hopes for selling it. They'd be better served by someone able to be honest.

Maryn

[Diviner]

You have all made some helpful suggestions, as well as making me more aware of what I should do when I critique. I thank you for taking the time to share your insights.

I still don't know how to think about the divergence when one says "no conflict" and the other says "lots of hooks here, I can hardly wait to see what happens next." Taste in literature may be at work, one reader in tune with subtle nuance and the other wanting an action thriller. I am trying to find out where they are coming from, what books they admire and enjoy, but people are not always forthcoming.

Most of the people who are looking at my work have not been published but almost all are trying to be. Two outsiders clamor for more of the story, too, but they are friends and decidedly partial. But I will place my confidence in the one published author who assured me my work was publishable and the agent who would like to look at it when it is finished.

I like to get the critiques that point out awkward language because that is easily fixed once it is brought to my attention, but in the future I will scrutinize very closely the credentials and biases of those to whom I show my work.

I thank you all.

[pianoman5]

One of the difficulties casual critiquers struggle with is separating their subjective response to a piece (and their perceived emotional duty) from objective appraisal. Many writers circles use a critiquing grid or scoring system of some kind to standardise the process and make it consistent.

If you don't want to go as far as that, you could use, for example, Victoria Crayne's site (http://www.crayne.com/howcrit.html) as a reference point, so everyone is working off the same page and evaluating according to a bunch of sensible criteria.

[anatole ghio]

Someone who really knows how to critique doesn't have to like your genre, or your story, or your characters, or you.

I agree with this. The important factor that distinguishes a qualified reviewer from an unqualified one is a knowledge of the form that you are working in. It's not as important that the person reading your work like the form that you work in, as it is they know and understand the tropes of whatever form you are utilizing to tell your story.

The difficult part in finding a good reviewer is most people tend to read the genre or style they most like and avoid the style they don't like... so it's pretty rare to find someone who can review your writing if they don't appreciate the form you work in, since they will likely not have read much of the form and be in the dark about the operating principles active in your style.

Again, I think finding a good reader means finding someone who either writes the same way you do, or reads the same writers you do; anyone who does not meet this criteria will more than likely not be qualified to give a good critique.

The only exception will be someone who is a professional or near professional, i.e. a teacher or agent whose living is dependent upon knowing many genres.

Do not hold your breath looking for either of these. Your time will be better spent among your writing associates where your chance of finding an ideal reader will be much larger.

- Anatole

[Diviner]

"Again, I think finding a good reader means finding someone who either writes the same way you do, or reads the same writers you do; anyone who does not meet this criteria will more than likely not be qualified to give a good critique."

Thanks, Anatole.

I find this scary. I don't know anybody who is struggling with Historical fiction, which is what my WIP is. And I am not having much luck finding lovers of the same writers, either.
(Anne Tyler, Margaret Atwood, Andrea Barrett)

I am not experienced enough to have great confidence in myself, but I may have to forgo the help of others. The only thing about your statement that I am not sure I understand is why I should want a writer who writes the same way I do. Shouldn't I want someone better?

[maestrowork]

"Again, I think finding a good reader means finding someone who either writes the same way you do, or reads the same writers you do; anyone who does not meet this criteria will more than likely not be qualified to give a good critique."

I don't know if I agree with the first part. I agree that finding someone who reads a lot and who reads the kind of things you write (genre, etc.) would be helpful. But I think finding someone who "writes" the same way you do would be dangerous. All you may get is validation, and not honest opinion. As for someone who reads the writers you do -- I don't know what it has to do with "your" writing... unless you imitate the writers you read ("I write in a Grisham-esque way.")

I think we need to find a diverse group of readers who read a wide spectrum of books, and if they're writers themselves, they should be diverse as well. The quality of the reader/critter lies in his or her ability to critique not based on his or her own liking or style, but on what is universally acceptable as good writing (good characters, real dialogue, etc.) If they have experience in your chosen genre, great. But yeah, why would you want someone who writes the same way you do? What's the purpose of that?

[anatole ghio]

The only thing about your statement that I am not sure I understand is why I should want a writer who writes the same way I do. Shouldn't I want someone better?

Interesting. I generally feel good about my writing and although I always strive to better myself in all endeavors, I feel like when I have finished a piece, I have written something worthwhile.

I therefore assume if I find someone who writes the same way I do, I have found a good writer.

In any case, change it to read, "find someone who writes in the same style or vein" and it will then include someone who writes BETTER than yourself.

- Anatole