![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
Not every match went as well as hoped. That's to be expected. Finding a beta, first reader, or critique partner is all about finding someone who is critical of the manuscript, supportive of the author, and can give feedback the author needs in a manner in which the author can accept it.
Being a first reader is not easy. It takes a lot of skill, clarity, and willingness to figure out what the manuscript needs to reach its final goal (which is usually, but not always, publication.)
I've been thinking a lot about it, and came up with five things first readers, writers, and critique partners can do to make the process easier.
1. Tell your critique partner what kind of feedback you're looking for before they start reading. Be specific. If you want to know if the dialogue is snappy, tell them so. If you only want to hear what works in the manuscript, say, "I'm just looking for what you like about this, not what doesn't work." If you want to know if the characters are believable, if the ending is clear, if the descriptions are overwhelming, if the pacing is too slow--say that before your reader ever gets their hands on your work. That way you both have the same expectations going into the event.
2. If a writer tells you all they want is for you to tell them what worked in a manuscript, just tell them what worked. If you can't help but blurt out all the annoying things that need fixing, you might not be a good match for the "positive only" writer.
3. Do not make it personal. Ever. Remember, there's a living breathing dreaming person behind those words on the page--and also behind the reader of those words. If you are a critique partner, your basic intent should be to give feedback that will improve the story--not feedback to tear down the writer. "This didn't work for me because the setting was unclear..." is a perfectly good way to give feedback. "Your description sucks" is less helpful. And writers? arguing with your beta readers won't get you as far as asking clear questions: "what was it about the forest scene that was unclear?"
4. Listen. When you get feedback, put your writerly ego aside and listen as if the work being critiqued were not yours. Be willing to entertain the critiquer's suggestions long enough to see why, specifically, they are giving that feedback.
5. If you find a problem in the manuscript and come up with a solution that would fix it for you (the reader) do not get a big head about it. Being excited that you've found a solution is awesome. Lording it over the writer, or being condescending just makes you look like a jerk.
How about you? Do you have any tips that make critiquing a better experience?- Mood:
thoughtful - Music:"Love You Madly" -- Cake
Blogs & Newsletter
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/openid-profile.gif){kind=small}
Comments
What drives me nuts is when people tell me where to put a comma or whether it should be a "that" or a "this". Luckily my CP from your meet'n'greet does not do that :D
:)
True story.
Not a helpful critique though....
:)
Hi Devon,
I saw this last night, and I thought you'd have 50 comments by this morning--as I remember the amazing amount of interest your original post generated. It was awesome!
I'm wondering now about how productive it is to trade work with complete strangers. I mean . . . this certainly could work, but there are a lot of different reasons why people attempt to get fiction published.
I have one friend who is soooooo bitter about not being able to ever get a novel published that I'd never use him as a Beta reader--he smiles a lot, but he's really angry. I feel sorry for any young writer who handed him a manuscript.
At this point, I only trust J.C. and Jac and my editor at Roc. They are all really interested in helping to make the book a success.
Jac (my daughter) called me last night with some notes on the first six chapters of MEMORIES OF EVVY, and she did not pull any punches but she was so helpful. I can trust her 100% to be honest and constructive.
However, there are advantages to having complete strangers reading our work. Jac often says things along the lines of, "But it's possible that I just know you too well so I already know the kind of man you find attractive versus the kind of man I find attractive."
Hah!
For those of you reading this . . . how can we make the prospect of trading work with a complete stranger a little emotionally "safer?"
Hmm. I'm not saying that very well. What I mean is, if I give a manuscript to a stranger, I am going into that suspecting our critique relationship probably won't work out. I've been in many, many critique groups and have probably had over 100 people critique me over the years. I know that some people (who are awesome readers and writers) just won't "get" my stuff, or they won't have the kind of feedback that's useful to me. I can pretty easily say, "well, they aren't a good match for me and my writing right now" and usually let go of their feedback with little or no emotional damage to me.
To me it's not a matter of if they're good enough or I'm good enough, or if they're right or I'm right it's just that what they have to say isn't helping me for my stage of development as a writer, nor for my writing process and the manuscript at hand.
That being said, I have had strangers absolutely nail the problem in my manuscript, and I have been very grateful.
I think a big part of being critiqued is learning how to sift through the information and decide if it's useful to you and your work. If it feels like emotional warfare, it's not good for you. It should never never be personal, and a good critique partner knows how to be honest and NICE.
But yes...I know what you mean. Handing work to strangers, especially if the other person has an unhealthy agenda (and you won't always know it until AFTER they've given you their feedback), can really take a chunk out of a writer's confidence, be emotionally damaging, and set a writer back.
It's tricky to receive a critique. You have to be both stubbornly confident that your writing is good (or at least salvageable), and believe that it can improve, (or why else were you giving it to someone to critique) and know what information being given to you is something you can use, or something that doesn't ring true to you.
Trusted beta readers are worth their weight in gold. :)
I received a critique recently (from a supposedly professional source) which included the phrase "...the author failed catastrophically to..."
It didn't really matter what the critiquer had to say after that. That phrase made it personal, not professional.
Sorry you got that feedback.
:(
For me it was very much "Ok, I can see my characters and the story so clearly but I have no idea if anybody else can. Let's find out." The result was something that could best be described as a roller-coaster ride...
I definitely think that giving honest feedback is essential but never in a manner that tears the writer's heart out. If you can't find a single good thing to say about what you're reviewing I think you should excuse yourself from the critique. I was contacted by Colleen (great lady) and she said, before she read my first chapter, that it could very well be that my story wasn't her cup of tea and I shouldn't take it personal. I was far more relaxed with her reading because I knew she would give it a try, but it could be that my style just wasn't for her. If that was the case she would say so and not critique.
Anyway, I'll stop now;D. Being a reader is far harder than I had anticipated and finding somebody who gets you/your writing AND can tell you what you need to work on is no easy feat.
That way, if you're reading for a "positive-only" author, you can cherry-pick what works for you. Or, if you're an author, narrowing the critique's focus can get you more useful feedback if you point your reader to your weak writing suit.