Hello, writers and friends ofâem!
Near as I can tell, thereâre basically only three ways to write better and we needâem all: study it, practice it, and embrace criticism to learn more. It kinda circles around, notice?
WriteOn isnât a crit group, for several reasons. One is that exposing your real work here, with GOK how many rip-off artists among outside readers (outside the site) reading in, is a genuine risk. Maybe not huge in probability, but stil. akshul.
The WriteOn series index (constantly in revision to try to cover all the 14 years/800+ posts) includes the following set of entries, with links added (in the index, theyâre separate in Section 3.) Many posts indexed under one heading also are under others, of course:
Criticism, critique, and critiquing (see also specifics, e.g.Detail & Description â Hooptedoodle â Word choice â etc etc etc)
â Critique groups and writersâ/writing circles (reciprocal) WrĂ-grp
â Critique partners, including beta-readers (i.e., nonreciprocal: you wonât likely be critiquing anything of theirs, they may not be writers themselves.) WrĂ-part
â [How to] Critique and take criticism WrĂ-crit.
NOTE:
<big>SenSho, June 25, 2015 ⊠I don't think of Write On! as a critique group; it's too open-to-all to establish the safe zone that writers need to discuss their work [including both the writer receiving crit and those supplying it].
That said, I do think every writer needs some form of critique group, or beta readers... someone to tell them when they're barking up the wrong tree or perhaps not even in the forest.</big>
|
The index is faaaar from complete, because it takes a LOT of time to read past diaries and tag them for content while reading current diaries and tagging them too.
Still, if you meander through the index, some related headings that youâll find see-also cross-refs for include (or oughta!): Books & Magazines/Journals for writers and on writing â Professional writersâ organizations & conferences â Writersâ Workshops â Studying writing â Rules â Mechanics â Character â Feelings â Imagery & Metaphor â Narrator & Narration â Voice â Word choice âDrafts & Drafting â Methodology â Planning&Pre-writing â Revision âŠâŠ IOW, crit is both part of and the flip side of writing well.
<big>From the first (2009) this series has always been about becoming better writers than we were</big> ⊠even a minute ago. And â
we are going to live out Terry Pratchett's dictum that writing is the most fun you can have with your clothes on...
Someday this here recession, or depression, is going to end. Books [will still be with us in some form] because the Story is as old as humanity. When things perk up again, you're going to be a better writer than you are today, because you been working playing so hard.
â but without âhardâ we donât get there.
<big>Depending on who you ask (or where),</big> critique in fiction-writing means analysis focused on whatâs working and whatâs not, according to the person saying so. Sometimes compared to an entire genre or the entire field, other times in terms of whether the author succeeds simply in meeting the objective of he individual work. Either way (or other ways), the âsafeâ in safe-zone SenSho mentions, doesnât mean prioritizing being kind or nice to one another â thatâs supportive and friendly, but no contribution to writing better fiction. Cushioning the ego or personal feelings is not the kind of safety meant there.
Instead, itâs the kind of safety that protects oneâs investment of effort because everyone else in the circle wants their own investment of effort protected likewise. When theyâre all equally invested and reasonably equally skilled, theyâre trustworthy for making the process effective and can trust each otherâs mutual commitment to put sweat into the work x/s/he brings for the others to tear apart. Itâs reciprocity: none of them can risk doing a cheapjack job on their own writing or on critique, because that would sink the entire investment. The aim is to rise. They rise only together.
Mathematically, the sheer scope of labor involved means, in most opinions, that few circles can function well with more than 3 or 4 members, otherwise the workload exceeds the capacity of the members. Thereâs only so many hours in a day ... week ... reallife. The agreement is and HAS to be: check your ego at the door, listen well, do GOOD work so self and partners all gain. with not one speck of anyoneâs resources wasted, and donât imagine that some kind of growth model will solve any problems that arise.
<big>A less-recognized advantage of participating in criticism: when we put serious sweat into doing good quality crit, weâre also upping our own writing skills,</big> just from the other direction: looking carefully at othersâ strengths and weaknesses helps illuminate to us our own. This is especially valuable because it can be very hard to see our own. Weâre too close to our own work. For example, thereâs too much going on inside our heads about the characters, setting and plot that we may fail to put onto the page in thinking itâs implicit there, or we may put more in than is needed. In learning to recognize these and other weaknesses in someone elseâs work, we absorb more about how to see it in our own.
This is why we canât learn much from non-sweated-over work â it tends to be full of common flaws the writer was too easy on self to get rid of, so weâre stuck with laboring over those and never get to more subtle ones. This is similar to the Rule of 20, that the first 19 ideas we have are pretty much the same everyone else can come up with. Working on the same obvious errors all the time doesnât let us develop skill for dealing with the others.
It can be hard to find crit partners for a circle, though. Even with the best of intentions, writers who havenât subjected themselves to writing classes and other forms of disciplined no-excuse study/practice geared at least toward pro level âwhere some significantly more expert individual or individuals judge quality of craftsmanship in detail and the progress overallâ or/and who havenât had to work under editorial demand ⊠are less likely to have developed writing OR crit skills that can do one another much good. Not a hard and fast rule, but generally how things pan out.
<big>WHAT MAKES editorial demand a tremendous asset to writers?</big> Well, because of the money riding on the outcome.
How crass!??!!
Actually, no.
In order for any kind of criticism in any field to prove its salt, there has to be something valuable to lose by not improving enough for there to be any hope of anything valuable to gain. True in technology, true in writing fiction. (Hell, true in relationships, true on the job, you name it.)
Example: from kindergarten all the way on up, we risk losing good grades and all the consequences of THAT if we donât constantly improve our educational attainments. Not a risk to take lightly, because for almost everyone trying to get an education, the consequences of that loss ARE gonna be financial lifelong: loss of ability to secure a good livelihood, simply put.
Editors in publishing (be it the newspaper, magazine, book, film, television business or etc) are tasked with responsibility for the writersâ work to be made certain of bringing A FINANCIAL RETURN to the business sufficient to cover the costs of paying the writer and everyone else, piling up a reserve to go do it again, getting the shareholders or owners their cut, and putting the material in front of the public who pay that money IF they consider the material worth their hard-earned cash,
Theyâre very particular, and very fickle, that public.
Editors are experts on that. Itâs a huge part of their job to keep current on what the public wants now, and what it likely will want six months to a year or more down the road when the editorâs newly acquired ms has been made into a book sitting on shelves and promoted online. Will the readers buy it? Only editors have the skills for a pretty good projection about that.
Of course, thereâs always been a lot of junk published because yeah, no few of the public do eat that up with a spoon. But notice, itâs almost always highly SKILLED junk that sells and keeps on selling.
Upshot:<big>the writer whose word-stringing skills donât measure up is not gonna be able to sell much.</big> Thereâs a helluva lotta competition out there, and itâs the buyersâ market, not ours.
End-use buyers: the readers. They get to choose what they spend their bucks and time on, free to pick what really bangs for them and ignore the rest. Itâs their verdict that stands.
But editors actually are buyers, too. And agents even before editors. If we want these professionals to put us in front of end-user buyers, we have to satisfy them that doing thatâll earn their company profit.
Say they donât know the writer from adam. They donât hafta. Nor care, neither. All they care about â and they gotta â are the words on the page.
Their first âcritiqueâ comes in the form of buying or not buying your ms. That judgement cannot be swayed by what the writer meant to do or hoped to do. Either nearly everything that matters IS on the page, or it ainât. And nothing that doesnât matter is. If they do buy the ms, only then will they engage in critique, but not the way equal-role members of a writersâ circle do. The editor has the power in this relationship and, from all Iâve read, the author had better be prepared to be the one doing all the sweat necessary to comply somehow, or risk losing that contract.
If not, thereâs another risk: once an author is known for not complying, word gets around and thatâs kinda all x/s/he wrote.
Agents and editors will sometimes put sweat in if the material somehow inspires them to it. Certainly end-use readers often put up with a lot of high weeds to struggle through, if everything that matters to them is also there, not high weeds alone. But thereâs a tough equation to that, too: a high proportion of weeds by definition means low proportion of crops to harvest. Good crit helps us keep weeds to a minimum and cultivate (sorry) a high-yield of crops, at least relatively.
<big>So, it boils down to a fundamental trait writers have or they donât: </big>a driving need to CONVEY whatâs in their heads TO other people. âConveyâ as in âdeliver the goods.â The whole way. Expecting readers to meet us halfway wonât cut it until theyâre our fans, happy to cut us some slack.
Some writersâ driving need is simply that writing was or is part or all of their paying job: livelihood is motivation and incentive like no other for developing skill: you want to get paid for, to keep a roof over your (&familyâs) head, food on the table, clothes on the bod, and please-god not have to take a lot of grief along the way.
If the job is writing grant proposals to secure funding, your writing had better be able to interest and engage the potential moneybags right off the bat, or you may find yourself out on the bricks and in the bread line ⊠like when no funds came in for your erstwhile employer to cover your pay.
If the job requires producing textbooks or instruction manuals, those products better up student grades and optimize employee performance, or you may end up en route to the soup kitchen.
If the job involves informing the public (in whatever way your employer desires) or persuading the public to put their own elbow-grease or cash into something putatively worthwhile, your boss at that job is a lot like an editor: if itâs demonstrable that your writing delivers the goods, your boss/editor says you get to keep your job, and do it some more. Then if you grow your skills, youâve even got a shot at promotion or finding even better employment not far down the road. Maybe as your own boss, and doing well at it!
<big>All this is why skilled writing/crit partners able and willing to put sweat into work each other sweated over, in order to grow one anothersâ skills, are pearls beyond price.</big>
GOK weâre all gonna make lotsa mistakes no matter what. The idea is to not repeat the same ones, only make new ones that help us grow.
Fighting, rejecting, or trying to explain the writing to explain crit away only wastes that priceless opportunity. â If you have to explain it, that means itâs NOT on the page. At best, itâs not on the page soon enough. Either way, itâs NOT THERE. â And being allowed to get away with that, is the surest route to going on making the same mistakes over and over and over â a bad habit of growing weeds and drowning the harvest.
The alternative: develop a taste for receiving criticism and an eagerness for acting on it. Accept it, value it as the treasure it is, show that you know itâs a treasure by taking action to correct the flaws that were found. Taking action also rewards who you got it from âat least by not making them have to deal with that flaw again â and that helps to keep crit coming.
These are skills useful for yourself AND for others, so you can look around to find or build a safe-zone little writersâ circle of colleagues ânot family, not pals, but truly committed fellow writersâ who fully invest in doing hard work and donât let each other get away with crap.
I hear itâs possible to zoom privately with realworld crit partners if thereâs none right in your neighborhood./town. I dunno how âsafeâ that is unless you already know the partners so you know theyâre trustworthy, just happening to be too far distant for getting together in some realworld meetspace.
Maybe experienced crit-group members here can shine some light on that?
Meanwhile, <big>a couple of low/reasonable-cost ways to find and develop real-world crit-partners and writing circles whose seriousness, ethics and candor you can gauge about whether itâs reliable:</big>
- take nightschool college classes in writing and combine that discipline with getting to know students and faculty there â some partnerships may arise.
- Local arts/culture civic bureaus often have lists of specialized interest groups that might include local chapters of professional writersâ organizations that may allow you to join even if youâre not a professional yet. Professional organizations can implicitly as well as explicitly enforce hewing to codes of ethics about not ripping one another off, and if they do support crit circles, the professional members of those circles mean business. Because it IS their business to write, and to say in business they need to keep doing it well.
WriteOn regulars who are in NaNoWriMo year round âor anything similarâ may be able to tell us whether those are good places to find genuine, trustworthy fellow writers serious about striving toward professional quality in their craft, whether to sell it in any conventional sense or not.
<big>How to deserve the privilege of receiving criticism:</big>
- Donât complain about your readers â agents, editors, end-users, beta-readers, anyone â not âgettingâ what you mean or underappreciating your work. Those responses themselves are valuable, and itâs the writerâs job to make good use of value received, not resent it.
- Donât come back over and over to ask for help correcting flaws repeatedly pointed out to you, for which youâve been given actionable input. Especially if youâre chosen to not act upon that input. Itâs the writerâs job to solve the problem, by studying and working harder and reading more widely in his/her genre â if the input didnât âworkâ, find other methods on your own; inputters have no obligation to burn up their own time and effort playing doctor for other writersâ shortcomings.
- If crit is offered in the form of a question, itâs not a request to be told more about the book or story, itâs a way of something âsomething is missing from the pageâ Doesnât matter if whatâs missing is remedied somewhere later in the ms â the question shows that thatâs going to be too late. Doesnât matter if the writer thinks itâs irrelevant. Only matters what readers consider as stumble-points. Learn from it and fix the problem, donât give a guided tour instead.
- Be gracious and appreciative to anyone who offers crit. Even if you paid them for the job. Choosing to be gracious and appreciative helps the writer remain in the âitâs my job to make this story workâ mindset rather than the resistant mindset that makes a waste of crits who generously bothered to give help. The writerâs response also is part of his/her reputation and in this field that can matter A LOT. Even if youâre absolutely sure the crit is useless to your work, STILL say âthank youâ and some form of âthis could help, so I appreciate your taking the time and thought.â No snark/sarcasm. A ways down the road, crit you thought useless may suddenly transmute in your understanding into something you CAN in fact use. Assume that thatâs going to happen, no matter what the crit was, and be grateful for it.
- Donât crit others on the basis of your own tastes or personal preferences, but only on the basis of whatâs missing or what doesnât work or other objective (hopefully trained/skilled/studied) basis. This too is part of your reputation, and it tells writers whether you are reliable or merely satisfying yourself.
- PLEASE ADD MORE DOES AND DONâTS IN THE COMMENTS!
Final note about crit, a technical point: a font thatâs good for the end-use readerâs immersive experience âpart of the literal design of a published bookâ is NOT necessarily good for purposes of reading critically. Thatâs why, even after electric typewriters came in, agents and editors often still specified (e.g., in Writersâ Market), only accepting mss to read printed in roman/serif fonts and not justified. It might be related to some research studies in typography finding that a simple seriffed font like that is best for accurate reading comprehension vs block type fonts (e.g., the Helvetica cousin youâre likely lookinâ at right here) are better for speed. When you get to know your crit partners, ms font might be something to discuss and agree upon for best crit results.
<big><big>Challenge:</big></big> Try to keep it under 200 words.
Your / a protag has made a mistake, or was seriously rong about something. Maybe lives hang in the balance. Or the profit margin. Or the milk for the kidsâ dinner all spilt.
Write the instant of realization of the mistake/problem, and what happens in the next moment.
Use your own characters, or strawbaleâs set of practice/stock ones:
<big>Goodson Lecoeur, a wage-earner with a passion for doing the right thing, and Cyril Bribbage, his fussy middle manager, who can be ally or antag as needed (Corporate/legal/office drama or comedy).
Athena Moonbright, modern witch. Feel free to supply her with a coven, familiars, friends, a love interest⊠or not. (Urban fantasy or supernatural romance.)
Lan Starhom, captain of the Comet. A ship, a crew, a mission or a disaster... or maybe this is a sailing ship in a post-industrial future? (Sci-fi)</big>
|
or any of the other character sets (couldnât resist!) in our Quest and other genre casts.