To my mind, there are two main parts to a crit. The technical stuff and the overall construction. You can deal with the technical stuff and the piece will sometimes still be far from good. However, it will be improved.
There is a difficulty when critting, not to want the person to “write like I do”. I try hard not to let my personal taste intrude, which means dealing with the superficial stuff first, so I can see the wood for the trees. I also like to get into the text so I can highlight the actual places someone is going wrong, or where something doesn’t quite work. With a beginner, this usually means pointing out the unnecessary words. The beginner thinks this is “style”. (Just as I did a few years back.) It is; beginner’s style. When the piece has the glaring beginner errors we were all prone to at one time (and I still am, occasionally) then it’s easy to make vast improvements just by cutting some of the trash out of it. It’s sad that some of this trash is the darlings the writer has lovingly crafted and they are reluctant to “murder their darlings”. Furthermore, they can see that as an attack on their “style” and will accuse the critter of wanting them to “write like I do,” when what the critter wants them so do is write (and self-edit) like a writer.
A piece of writing is like a bit of steak. You need a bit of fat to keep it tasty, but too much and the consumer will gag on it, and the piece will be indigestible. Cut the fat. The meat will still be there. You can cut out loads of trash and still keep the meaning.
I look back on some of the pieces I wrote a few years back, and I cringe. I thought they were good… and others said they thought they were good. Maybe they were good, but they certainly weren’t that good. It’s not until someone who knows what they are talking about says, “Gee, this isn’t good, you know, but if you do XYZ, then it will be so much better,” that the writer makes progress, providing they listen and keep their shirt on.
Which brings me to clichés. I like to highlight them when critting. In speech they are fine, and sometimes they convey accepted meaning in the same way a single word does. But often they are unnecessary, lazy, and need culling. Worse, sometimes, are the places where the writer has translated the cliché into their own, clunky words. (Though if the piece is tongue in cheek, this can be very witty.)
What most beginner-writers don’t realise is that it takes practice, and it takes a guiding hand (or book) to make progress. When you’re confused about what exactly is wrong, it helps if someone shows you. I had a Road to Damascus moment a few years back when someone got into my text and showed me what was wrong with my work. If that person hadn’t, I doubt I’d have ever understood what professional writers were telling me. Some writers are more talented than others, but they still had to learn what works, and what needs to go. We all did. We all do. We never stop learning.
As a postscript, I look at what I've written here and I remember a few years back when experienced writers told me exactly the same sorts of things. I sat there sulking rebelliously with my lower lip stuck out, thinking, "Yeah, yeah, I'll show you." No. They showed me.
M
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Excellent post, Moccasin. One problem with accepting criticism is that all writers, whatever their experience and stature, take criticism personally. It's impossible not to do so but it IS possible to overcome the knee-jerk reaction and begin to learn, as you have obviously done.
It bears reiteration: informed criticism, whether by another (experienced) writer, by an agent or by a publisher, is NOT aimed as a personal insult. It is a genuine attempt to help the writer improve and progress. To react to such comments by hitting out and making accusations of jealousy and spite, is futile. Any novice writer who cannot grow beyond this is probably doomed to lurk at the bottom of the slush pile.
Gerald (Better not post my full name - writers with a grievance can be scary people!)
Did you tell someone the truth, then Gerald?
Thanks to those who have commented. I'm sorry if others have tried and the blog wouldn't let them. I've changed things round and hopefully this will work better.
Anon, if someone is paying for an honest critical appraisal of their unpublished novel, the least the reader can do is tell the truth - which is what I do. I do not make my points in order to wound, and I am not deliberately unkind or hurtful. I tell the truth which is what they have asked for and this is where novice writers delude themselves.
I have had writers say: 'Tell me the truth about my writing and my book, I can take it'when what they want me to say is:'This is wonderful.' But this is not my brief - it is not what I am paid for.
When I write a report on a wannabe author's work I am careful to identify and praise what is good and what works well. I am equally careful to highlight what does not work and what, in my opinion (which is both informed and experienced) is not well done.
I analyse why this should be and offer suggestions that should be of help towards improvement.
At no time do I suggest the author writes in a different style (ie like me) nor am I gratuitously hurtful. Novice writers need to take on board the fact that a critique of their work is NOT a personal insult, however much their feelings are hurt by being told that their writing is longwinded and ponderous, their punctuation and spelling are poor, their plot full of holes and their characters cardboard cut-outs.
This, dear Author, is what you need to know or you will never, ever progress.
A critique is NEVER PERSONAL! And in many years of providing such a service I have never, ever, come across anyone who offered a gratuitous insult in a critique, although I have come across many amateur authors who believed they had been dealt such a thing.
Gerald
Post a Comment