Advice on advice

[Trick]

I've recently taken up with a group of younger writers. They meet biweekly and several members are friends with my younger brother-in-law. I'm not exactly old but I have ten years of drudging my way through learning to write; an ongoing process as the MS inhabitants are aware.

They have... high school.

I would say that each is talented enough to go forward, some more than others. I cannot tell them, "well, my first published book..." fill in sage advice. I'm not there yet. But I feel they view me as more than I am; a flaw I have shared (and still share on my prideful days {all but Wednesday}), but still.

They read their work to each other in a coffee house and comment on each other's strengths and weaknesses. I tend to stay somewhat quiet until my turn comes to read. Afterward, they have little to say (it's ok, i get my much needed advice right here). Hearing someone read their own work is far from an audiobook. With perfect inflection and emphasis, every book sounds better than it reads. I got some copies of their work right after their last meeting and I don't know how to tell them that it all needs a lot of work. I'm not exactly an expert. I'm not even nearly one. But, in fairness, I know things they don't.

I don't want to hand back redlined messes of paper that make them hate themselves and I don't want to tread so softly that they fail to improve.

So, as the title says, I need advice on advice.

I welcome your insights.

 

[Philip Overby]

Something that I've read, and works for me, is the "Compliment Sandwich." I've stolen this idea and call it the "Phil Sandwich" but that's besides the point. I feel every writer has some strength or other that can be honed in on, while also highlighting a lot of their problems as well. The Compliment Sandwich works this way:

1. You did this very well.

2. These things weren't so good. (or if you're blunt "These things sucked.")

3. You also did this very well.

This allows you to "sandwich" two sections of good with one middle section of bad and/or needs improving. I'm of the belief that an honest critique doesn't have to be brutal in order to get the point across. However, if someone says, "Please be brutal" don't be afraid to hold back. You have to let people understand what your version of brutal is though.

Sure, you can red pen the hell out of them and show them how hopelessly far away from reaching any sort of goal they are. Mileage may vary.

If the point of the group is a friendly critique session, then I don't so the point in burying them. However, if they're taking writing very seriously, you may be doing them a disservice by holding back. I'd suggest gauging how brutal a critique can be by sharing one of your harshest critiques on your own work. If they cringe and say, "Wow, that was too much" then you'll have a better idea of how to handle things.

For me, I have students who write stories casually. They have no intention of trying to publish them or anything, so when I critique them I do very little other than suggest some words to clean up or some points they can highlight more. However, if someone is expecting a thorough critique with all of my "wisdom" (I use the world loosely) behind it, then it makes more sense to be more honest.

Bottom line is that I think understanding how serious these other people are is important to figure out. Some may say, "Unleash hell on them" but I don't see the point in that if they're being hobbyists. If they say "I really need this polished as I plan to submit this for publishing" I'd say spare nothing as you may be doing them a disservice by not telling them it's not ready. But there are ways to be critical and constructive without being harsh. It's a delicate line to balance.

 

[Feo Takahari]

First off, a more general statement that I've heard other writers say. Always find something good. Is the characterization strong? Does it have some nice turns of phrase? Are you interested in the world it portrays? Even one positive statement can help a lot in dealing with negative ones.

The rest of this is all stuff I've come up with from watching how fanfic writers progress from awful to good. This is not anything I've heard anyone else say, so take it with a grain of salt.

When fanfic writers progress, the first thing they learn is usually clarity. This includes not just spelling and grammar, but word choice, sentence order, and other factors that make it easier or harder to understand the story. If you're critiquing an author whose writing is hard to understand, focus in on that and don't bother with other issues (save maybe characterization--I'll get to that later.)

The second thing fanfic writers learn tends to be the specific voice and style they want to use. This is the hardest thing to critique directly, but you can work around it in two ways. On the negative side, you can note points where voice interferes with other aspects of the writing (particularly clarity.) On the positive side, you can observe points where the voice improves the story, and describe what you like about those points and how the voice could be applied elsewhere.

(Note that some authors become very, very indignant when you say that their voice interferes with clarity. Don't even bother trying to critique these people--just learn to avoid them.)

The third, or occasionally fourth, thing fic writers learn is plotting on a macro level. This is more than just making sure there's a beginning, middle, and end--they need to learn to prime Chekhov's guns, to develop a consistent theme and build it throughout the story, to use characters who work and cut characters who don't, etc. Note that critiquing this sort of thing is generally considered separate from the micro-level critique I talk about in the rest of this post--I don't really know a lot about how to discuss it, so I'll just move on. (If anyone else wants to talk about it, feel free.)

The (usual) fourth thing fic writers learn is flow and pacing on a micro level, which I maintain are two aspects of the same skill. I can and have described the techniques involved here*, but it seems like more of an instinctive thing for most authors, so it might be hard to be specific. If you don't know the details of what to say, go broad: "When I read this part here, it feels really rushed. Could you slow it down a bit, more like this part?" Or "You've got some nice details here, but there might be too many of them for what's supposed to be a fast, actiony scene. If you cut this and this, it'll feel less languid." (Just don't try this on authors who don't have a strong voice already--it can be overwhelming. And definitely don't try this on authors who haven't gotten clarity down yet--maximizing clarity impedes flow and vice versa, so they need to know how to balance them out.)

Interestingly, there doesn't seem to be a specific point where authors get good at characterization. They usually don't get good at worldbuilding until after they learn clarity, but I've seen some real personality from characters in narratives that were otherwise horribly unclear. This probably means that characterization can be critiqued at anywhere in the process. (Though I suggest making it less "I don't like this character" and more "This character isn't very sympathetic"--it gives more leeway for authors to intentionally write unsympathetic characters. Similarly, "It makes no sense for the character to do this" should be replaced with "I don't understand why the character did this"--the issue may simply be one of clarity.)

As a final warning, you may encounter authors who have really, really good sentence flow, but inconsistent characterization and/or jumbled plotting. Initially, approach these authors like any others, and critique them normally (being sure to include positives, as mentioned above.) If they become enraged at you, run like the wind and never look back. They often write in the same communities as a lot of authors with terrible flow, and they can recognize that their sentences just look better, so they've been known to convince themselves they're perfect and lash out at anyone who suggests otherwise.

I hope that at least hits the important points.

* Rule 1: when in doubt, write your sentences in iambs. It's amazing how many uses they have.

 

[Penpilot]

I agree with pretty much everything Phil said.

When I critique, I try to get a feel for who I'm critiquing. You never want to crush someone, so I try to get a feel if they can take a sledgehammer or not. IMHO the more trust you develop with someone, the more blunt you can be. When it's a long term relationship like you're describing, you can ease into certain areas. Stuff like grammar can wait because its generally cut and dry. Either it's proper grammar or it's not, so it can be addressed at later times.

Story is where things can get tricky. Watch your language. Avoid phrases like "You should do X" "You did X wrong" they tend to be confrontational, like poking a finger into their chest and telling them what to do. It's their story and what they do with it is up to them. Try phrasing things like "X didn't work for me because Y. If the story did Z instead. I think it would work better." Refer to the story not the person. It makes it clear that the comments are about the story not the author.

I always start on big picture issues, because a lot of the time as a writer fiddles and fixes the big picture stuff, the smaller stuff tends to go away or matter less. So if there are a mountain of issues, you don't have drop a big red ink bomb on them. You can instead focus on the big picture stuff and just mention some of the smaller stuff. If they come back with the next draft and all the big picture stuff is fixed, then you can start focusing in on the smaller issues.

Also I think a small reminder to them that all critiques are just opinions, which can be wrong, and that part of becoming a better writer is learning when to discard advice, will help them become a little less sensitive. So instead of a emotional response to a criticism, they have more of an analytical response. They'll ask is this information useful, and does it make sense? Instead of thinking they're telling me my story sucks. It also puts the power back into the author's hands. Instead of the critiquer being this all knowing judge passing objective sentence onto a story, the critiquer is acknowledged as just someone with an opinion that can be disregarded.

And finally, if you're about to deliver a red-letter-mess, be certain and careful of what you're saying. What I mean by that is don't just read the story once. Read it at least twice, and don't skim. Why? There's no quicker way to lose trust than to make it obvious that you didn't take the time to read the story carefully.

I've had people nitpick away at stories, and from their comments, it's very obvious they haven't really read the story. They'll point to a spot and say you should add this element or be more specific about X here. And when I look at these comments, I'll realize those things are prominently present two paragraphs before that spot or right at the beginning of the story. Things like this tell me they're not really paying attention, so the weight and value their critiques carry aren't very high in my eyes.

Either read the story right, or don't read it at all. Otherwise it's just a waste of time for both parties.

My 2-cents.

 

[Svrtnsse]

I've not done much in the way of critiquing, but I've found that a format similar to this works out pretty well:

1. Most favorite thing.
2. Most room for improvement.
3. Something I would like to see more.
4. Something that's a bit unclear to me.
5. Character I got closest to.
6. Character that feels most distant.
7. Best idea.
8. Strangest idea (something I'm unclear on).
9. Other notable points.
10. Overall impression
11. Something I would like to learn more about if there was a sequel.

Now, admittedly, I made some of these points up while writing this, but the basic idea and most of the points really have been tried and tested. Also note that it sandwiches "good" and "bad" feedback and that the "bad" feedback points are formulated in a way that makes them seem less harsh.

 

[Devor]

The thing to remember is that everyone has room to improve. There's very few people who shouldn't have a page dripping in red ink if they could find someone capable of critiquing them. It's only your job to help them improve, not to get them to a perfect page. So you don't need to tackle everything, just a few points that will get the most important message across for where they are in their writing.

Don't drive yourself crazy trying to fix them. None of what they're writing now is going to get published. Just listen to what they read and pick the one or two things that they could do which would most improve their writing, and focus on that. There's no reason not to take it slow. As they improve expand into the next thing they can do to improve.

Keep it simple, focus on the most important thing, don't overwhelm them, and you will actually see them become better writers because of you.

 

[T.Allen.Smith]

PenPilot has a similar approach to me. I'm much more blunt probably, but I do believe the relationship between winter & reviewer is important. I've done crits for some people for years. The longer I work with them, the more I come to understand their vision & what they need from me. That takes time and it's good to be clear about this, with your partners, up front.

Secondly, the emphasis that your critique is only opinion is key. I used to think writers, at any level, should understand that point innately. They do not. If it's someone that I don't have an established writing relationship with, I take the time to make sure they understand that my opinion is nothing more than that. Further, debating the opinion is a good thing when done constructively. It grants the writer an opportunity to consider alternative approaches & it allows the reviewer to learn more about the writer's vision.

Next, don't tell someone how to improve. That's your way. Rather, give them options on ways you've learned to deal with a particular issue, but make sure they know these may not work for them. Delivering recommendations in this manner grants them the freedom to experiment with your ideas as well as others they may find more appealing.

Lastly, be honest. Honesty in this business is a gift. Nothing is more harmful than a critique where the reader only wants to please the writer. Readers, editors, & agents will be brutally honest, or even worse, dismissive of bad work. It's far better they receive a dose of reality from you while they have time to improve.

 

[Steerpike]

I usually take Phil's approach as well, though I do focus more on things I think are problematic.

Interestingly, I heard a report on NPR yesterday regarding the sandwich approach to performance reviews, and the researchers there said that using it actually hurts the process. They found that when a sandwich approach is used, the recipient tends tends to focus on the good comments at the beginning, and the good comments at the end, and the middle becomes a sort of background noise to them. The suggestion made by the researcher was that if there are substantial negatives, the best way for the person receiving the review to improve is for the commenter to focus exclusively on the areas that need improvement (i.e. by doing that, they saw the most actual improvement in the recipient).

I wonder how that would play out in writing critiques?

 

[T.Allen.Smith]

That's probably dependent on experience level. A mature writer, someone who's been at it awhile and that you've worked with a lot, will likely benefit more by just receiving the straight dope. They already know their strengths & weakness, and they know you're aware of them as well.

A newer writer might find a balanced approach more effective because you'd be highlighting strengths they may not be aware of at all while showing them areas to improve upon.

 

[Aspasia]

A newer writer might find a balanced approach more effective because you'd be highlighting strengths they may not be aware of at all while showing them areas to improve upon.

Very true. I myself am a new writer : I have been off-and-on writing for quite some time but I don't have the solid experience and backlog of knowledge that a lot of you that have written, finished, polished, critiqued, reviewed, submitted have. I've started a lot of stories but have terrible trouble finishing them, thus I have very little experince critically looking at and evaluating my writing. I probably am not even aware what strengths in writing I may have! Having an experienced person really look at my writing and tell me : hey, this is great! So is this! would probably be an eye-opener for me. Wow, I didn't even know I did this well, but this experienced writer says I did! Of course the main point to critiques is helping the writer improve, so pointing out areas where improvement is necessary should be central. But don't leave off the good stuff, as well as the bad stuff! Perhaps you will help some fledgling writer find their voice. A fresh eye looking at a story can see strengths and weaknesses the author may not, and identifying both of these is important to the improvement of the writer and story both.

 

[Philip Overby]

Interestingly, I heard a report on NPR yesterday regarding the sandwich approach to performance reviews, and the researchers there said that using it actually hurts the process. They found that when a sandwich approach is used, the recipient tends tends to focus on the good comments at the beginning, and the good comments at the end, and the middle becomes a sort of background noise to them. The suggestion made by the researcher was that if there are substantial negatives, the best way for the person receiving the review to improve is for the commenter to focus exclusively on the areas that need improvement (i.e. by doing that, they saw the most actual improvement in the recipient).

I wonder how that would play out in writing critiques?

Well, my tendency is to not play up the positives nearly as much as what needs to be improved. So I guess I kind of use this approach, but I tend to not be so harsh. To me, there's a difference between being harsh and being honest. You can be honest without making people feel like crap about their writing. The point of a critique is to point out what works and what doesn't. I guarantee the people in the performance reviews aren't saying, "Well, Bill, your presentation totally sucked and you said 'um' like 25 times. I counted. 25 times, Bill." They're probably thinking of more constructive ways to highlight what needs to be improved. However, if someone does something good, why not say they did something good? Don't overplay it certainly, but say it was good.

I do agree I would more likely be a little more straight-forward with someone I know better. However, I don't think it's possible to form lasting critique partnerships if you're blunt right out of the gate. It's like dating someone for two days and saying, "Wow, your new haircut looks like crap." Sure, some might appreciate the honesty, but more likely than not, that's something you wouldn't say to an almost complete stranger.

Lastly, be honest. Honesty in this business is a gift. Nothing is more harmful than a critique where the reader only wants to please the writer. Readers, editors, & agents will be brutally honest, or even worse, dismissive of bad work. It's far better they receive a dose of reality from you while they have time to improve.

I agree, but again, there's a difference between honesty and brutality. There's a fine line. To me, nothing is more harmful than a critic that only wants to please him or herself. The point of critiquing is to help, not to impose will.

Edit: I'd like to add, I think asking people the equivalent of "brutality threshold" is a good idea. If someone tells me, "Tear it apart" then I'll oblige. I've done this before and people don't talk to me afterwards (that's only happened once though, and that was about 5 years ago or so). I guess that's not my problem though. It's also important to ask what the critique partner wants you to focus on. That way if you're not concerned with nit-picky things, then say that so the partner can focus more on characterization, plot, etc.

 

[Trick]

Thanks for all the 'advice squared.' I think I'll be talking to them about what they expect from a full critique before I hand anything back. I will definitely be applying versions of the critique examples you all gave. I like the sandwich along with clarifying that my opinion is exactly that. The worst thing that could happen is I make one of these kids feel like they aren't good enough to improve, and I will do whatever I can to avoid that. One in particular made sure I had actual copies of his work so I'll start with him.

I remember my first 'critique' though it was hardly that. A well-read friend of mine read my work and said, as he handed it back to me, "Details, man!" I came to learn that my writing was far too sparse and I still struggle with it somewhat, though on an entirely different level. I think his simple comment led to an improvement in my writing that cannot be measured.

Hopefully I can do even half as much with so few words.

 

[T.Allen.Smith]

I agree, but again, there's a difference between honesty and brutality. There's a fine line. To me, nothing is more harmful than a critic that only wants to please him or herself. The point of critiquing is to help, not to impose will.

Yes I can agree with that Phil. That's the other side of the coin. As a reviewer, imposing one's vision on the writer's work is equally harmful, I suppose.

When I first started doing crits I firmly believed there was a right way & a wrong way. It took a long time before I understood there are many different approaches to writing, all valid. Still, there are some tenets I cling to because I believe in them deeply. These come from my experiences. It's what I know to work for my writing. It's all I have to offer, but now I understand it's not the only way.

I used to do a lot of critiques on the Showcase Forum. I stopped because there's a key element that's missing, the relationship. Often, it seemed as if writers, submitting their works for the first time to strangers, were looking more for applause than growth. They'd get angry at honest opinion, given in the sincere desire to help. Why? Isn't that the purpose of critique, to hear about issues we may not be aware of and open up opportunities to improve? To listen to opinion?

The problem was two-fold. First, I didn't have time to learn about their vision. Secondly, most never expressed what they needed from critiques. There was no basis for relationship or understanding.

I still do crits for people, but I do them privately. However, I make sure to establish the relationship first and set expectations. By understanding what the writer needs, I can focus my energy.

For the most part, it's the writer's responsibility to set expectations but the reviewer has some stake in this as well. It's the reviewer's responsibility to attempt to understand the author's vision. Just a few simple statements and questions, up front, can start the whole shebang off on the right foot. To do otherwise is going in blind. There's too much potential for disappointment and hurt feelings down that road.

Being a good partner is a learned skill. Doing critiques for people is one of the best ways to help your own writing too. You can learn so much by evaluating another's work. But, all involved parties need to understand that no one is the expert and everyone is learning. Some partners will be more helpful based on experience and relationship. Others may just be learning how to review effectively. There's little value in emotional reaction, especially with people that are offering precious time to help us improve. It's advantageous to grant them the time and knowledge they require to understand our needs & goals.

 

[Philip Overby]

I still do crits for people, but I do them privately. However, I make sure to establish the relationship first and set expectations. By understanding what the writer needs, I can focus my energy.

For the most part, it's the writer's responsibility to set expectations but the reviewer has some stake in this as well. It's the reviewer's responsibility to attempt to understand the author's vision. Just a few simple statements and questions, up front, can start the whole shebang off on the right foot. To do otherwise is going in blind. There's too much potential for disappointment and hurt feelings down that road.

I'd say I'm the same. I rarely do public critiques anymore and I guess it has more to do with the relationship aspect you mentioned. If I don't know people I'm critiquing, I don't know what their reaction will be. There's also the whole "he said something bad about me so now I'll say something bad about him" aspect that I think goes with people who aren't used to the process. It's not helpful. The key word for me is helpful. If something isn't helpful, leave it out. If it's meant to just get a dig on someone or make yourself look wiser than them, leave it out. If it's meant just to make someone feel cheerful about their work, leave it out. If it's helpful, whether good or bad, keep it.

I agree ten fold that it's really up to the writer to give some guidelines to what they want. For example:

"I just wrote this. Please check it out. I would like special attention to the following:

1. Did you feel like my main character is active enough?
2. Are there any aspects of the setting that are not clear?
3. I'm having trouble getting my magic exactly right. Did the explanation feel too info-dumpy or was it interspersed well enough that you could understand it?"

Things like this I can work with. So I believe it's the writer's responsibility to say what they want from this relationship. If they want a pat on the back, it might be better to share your work with friends. If you want an in-depth, honest, helpful critique, then sometimes finding the right person may take some trial and error.

I'm currently not really doing any critiquing right now since I'm just too swamped with my own projects. However, I've had some great partners over the years, so I'd love to jump back into it at some point.

 

[BWFoster78]

The problem was two-fold. First, I didn't have time to learn about their vision. Secondly, most never expressed what they needed from critiques. There was no basis for relationship or understanding.

I definitely get more out of beta reading and being beta read from people with whom I have such a relationship. However, I'm reluctant to abandon the Showcase and other such venues, and I absolutely cannot afford to spend the time necessary to ty to build a relationship first.

It's not a perfect solution, but I pretty much start with critiquing a small section of the writing with brutal honesty. If the writer responds well and seems open for more, I will invest more time. If the writer reacts poorly, I say "at least I tried" and move on.

 

[Addison]

In my experience, you need to find a balance with the critique just as much as in writing with balancing showing and telling. The good and the bad.

There are three types of critique, which follow the same type of rejection letters a writer can get.
1. "No Story for You!" The worst rejection letter to get and the worst type of advice to get. This type is all brutally negative. Like the in-laws that come over and pick at everything in the house, even if there's nothing wrong. Whatever good feeling the writer had, their confidence, you didn't just take it away you punched them in the face before you took it.

2. "Dear John/Jane." This is in the middle. It's not as bad or harsh as the first, but it's the type that I've witnessed more. It's like a Dear John letter. "Dear writer, your story was quick, fresh and described with simple eloquence. But overall I give it a four on a scale of one to ten. The sentence structure was choppy. Your descriptions only focused on one sense. There was more telling than showing so overall it felt like an enjoyable text book." This is how these critiques are. They start with the good to help the writer relax but they keep the positive simple and quick but then they hit with an in-depth look at the negative. If you spend just as much or more time with the positive as the negative then this critique would be great. But that's what the third is.

3. This is THE critique you want to give and get. It's also the rejection letter you want. This one builds more on the positive and less on the negative. Ex; "Dear Writer, thank you for your submission. Your idea is new and fresh. The writing you sent showed me you have a perfect balance of showing and telling and a great talent for making the setting an integral part of the scenes. I really enjoyed following your protagonist, Jessalyn Meyers (unique name too). Unfortunately this isn't quite what we're looking for. It was an enjoyable work and I have no doubt that you will see it in a publisher's hands soon. Good luck." In some cases they will even add another lit agency that they know will take your story. This is the type of critique you want to give. Unless you see kindergarten grammar and complete novice mistakes (no balance, terrible pacing etc) then don't bother with mentioning it. Come on there's good in everything. Find a balance, give it straight, honest, but gently.

So that's my input. Hope this helped.

 

[BWFoster78]

3. This is THE critique you want to give and get. It's also the rejection letter you want. This one builds more on the positive and less on the negative. Ex; "Dear Writer, thank you for your submission. Your idea is new and fresh. The writing you sent showed me you have a perfect balance of showing and telling and a great talent for making the setting an integral part of the scenes. I really enjoyed following your protagonist, Jessalyn Meyers (unique name too). Unfortunately this isn't quite what we're looking for. It was an enjoyable work and I have no doubt that you will see it in a publisher's hands soon. Good luck." In some cases they will even add another lit agency that they know will take your story. This is the type of critique you want to give. Unless you see kindergarten grammar and complete novice mistakes (no balance, terrible pacing etc) then don't bother with mentioning it. Come on there's good in everything. Find a balance, give it straight, honest, but gently.

I'm not getting balance out of this example. It seems like it's a heap of praise with no actual criticism. It wouldn't help me at all if I put a piece of writing on the Showcase and got a response like this:

Brian,

Loved the writing and the story. Great tension and character. Overall, though, it just wasn't for me.

Maybe it all depends on the motivation of the person putting up the work.

I want to learn to be a better writer. Any comment that can help me achieve that end, I appreciate.

 

[Addison]

Yeah that wasn't the best example for the third one. Sorry.

 

[T.Allen.Smith]

Although I understand the sentiment, there's a big distinction between critiques from agents or editors, in the form of a rejection letter, and critiques given by peers.

 

[Penpilot]

I agree ten fold that it's really up to the writer to give some guidelines to what they want.

Absolutely. I remember being in a new writing group and people were just feeling each other out. I specifically told everyone that what I was bringing each session was a 4th draft and that they should be ripping it a part. But even then they were afraid to.

When I'm being critiqued, I keep my mouth shut and listen. I take notes, I nod, and I say thank you for all the good suggestions. I did this for a few sessions until one critiquer stopped to asked if I was OK. She thought maybe she was being too harsh and hurting my feelings. It wasn't even close to being harsh. It was like being hit by cotton balls. Then, everyone else brought up that I didn't give them much in terms of a response to their comments, ever.

I had to explain myself and we all had a good laugh. I had to reinforce that they couldn't hurt my feelings, even if they said the story sucked. I also made sure that I gave them more feedback on the feedback, letting them know my reactions to it. This evolved into something that instead of straight critiques for stories we would have discussions. This allowed me to gain more insight as to where the critiquer was coming from. Sometimes they didn't know exactly what a problem was, but their comments would give me enough, so that I could figure it out myself.