What is critique and why is it so valuable?
Critiquing is one of the most valuable tools a writer can have.
We often confuse critique with criticism. In common use, criticism is telling someone what’s wrong with something. We use the term “constructive criticism” to mean telling someone what’s wrong with something so they can make it better (which one presumes is different from “destructive criticism,” telling someone what’s wrong with something just to make them feel bad?)
Critique is not criticism in that sense. A critique is an informed response to the text.
An example may demonstrate what I mean by critique:
“Wow, that was really good” is a response but not a critique. (It is also not particularly useful to the writer.)
“This really made me feel like I was there” is better. It’s a specific response, but still not particularly useful.
“The details of the color of the sky and the sound of the wind really made me feel like I was there in the desert with your character” is a critique. Now you’ve given your response to the text, very specifically identifying what works.
Critique can also identify weaknesses—it doesn’t have to be praise. But it still needs to be specific and address the text. Not “I don’t like this” or “I don’t think children should read depressing things and the desert is depressing” but “I didn’t have a strong sense of where this story took place—maybe you could add some sensory details amongst the dialogue?”
Your critique is valuable no matter where you are on the spectrum as a writer. If you’re more experienced you may be better able to articulate your response, but even if you don’t know the technical term for something, you can still share your response and tell the writer what works or doesn’t work for you as a reader, and that is valuable feedback. And picture book writers can have valuable critique for novelists, and vice versa.
There is a double benefit to the critique process—you learn from having your own work critiqued, you also learn from critiquing others. Listening carefully, actively, and articulating your response to others work will help you identify strengths and weaknesses in your own writing.
Remember, most importantly, that this is always your work, and you decide which bits of feedback to incorporate or adapt and which to ignore (you will almost always get conflicting responses to a piece).
Ground rules for any critique group:
1) Don’t allow one person to dominate the discussion. Everyone’s work is worth reading, everyone’s feedback is worth hearing. (May need to set time limits for each person’s piece before beginning, based on “how much time” divided by “who wants to read”)
2) Stick to the text. If you disagree with someone’s point or their content, take it up outside the meeting, preferably over iced coffee. (The only exception is if there is a factual error, in which case your response should be phrased in the form of “I think you might want to double-check your sources for the size of the federal deficit” (or the fourth wife of Henry VIII or whatever you think the person has wrong).
3) Make notes as you are listening so that you can remember what you wanted to comment on! Otherwise you will either be so fixated on not forgetting that bit that you won’t really hear the rest, or you will hear the rest and when it’s time to critique you won’t remember what you wanted to say. (Some critique groups require copies, but there is a lot of value in active listening as compared with reading along, as well.)
4) Critique, don’t edit. Word order, grammar and punctuation are part of the editing process. (This is less of an issue when you don’t have copies.) There are different levels of critiquing: Conceptual, Structural, Textual and, (eventually and not generally in a group setting) Copy-editing. It’s often helpful if the writer tells the group before the reading “this is my first draft, I’m really interested to know if this works conceptually.”
Decisions to make – will copies be circulated in advance by email (and rules around those copies)? Or will they be passed around at the meeting? Or will it be “listening” rather than “reading?” Or at writer’s discretion?
Will you limit each person to a specific amount of time (figure out who has what, and divide the time?)
Some critique groups have a strict policy that the writer is not allowed to respond to any comments. Simply listen, make notes, and then when you go home decide what to do with the feedback. This is perhaps a bit draconian, but the idea is valid. There is no point in your explaining or defending your work to a critiquer. If something isn’t clear to the critiquer it’s not going to be clear to the editor or reader, and you’re not going to be sitting there explaining or defending the work to them. The work has to stand on its own. The only really valuable thing that can come out of give-and-take in critique is if you explain what it was you were trying to do, sometimes your critiquers may be able to make specific suggestions of how you might accomplish that. Other groups allow for more back-and-forth discussion between the writer and the listeners. This can be valuable, too, as the writer says “what I was trying to do was xyz” and one or more of the listeners may say “maybe you could try abc . . .” The give-and-take process can take more time.
If manuscripts are circulated, whether beforehand via email or at meetings in hard copy, it needs to be understood by all that they are ONLY for the critique group members and that they should be returned to the writer after the critique. If a member thinks their friend or mother would be a good critiquer for this particular piece, they must get permission from the writer before sharing the manuscript with that person. Never, ever, forward/recirculate someone else’s manuscript!
No comments:
Post a Comment