FAQ: Crit Guidelines (February 1997)

[mbarker.livejournal.com]

FAQ: CRIT guidelines (February 1997)

CRITiquing, responding to the SUBmissions of others, is a vital part of this workshop. However, it is important to realize when you are writing a critique that it is not enough to simply be critical. In fact, the most important part of the critique is saying what worked well, not just pointing out problems.

CRITical nits

1. Where do I send a Critique?

Critiques may be returned by private email directly to the writer or be posted to [THE LIES]. Use the subject line from the original submission and change the SUB: to CRIT: to identify this as a critique. For example, the subject line might look like

-Subject: CRIT: Scribed in Jello (Romantic Farce)

Some reasons to use private email for crit:

1. to avoid embarrassing the author
2. to keep lengthy, individual comments or discussion offline

              Some reasons to use the list for crit:

1. to allow others to comment, especially on questionable calls
2. to provide mutual education to the entire list
3. to encourage insights and debate
1. What Should Be in a Critique?
1. Answers to Specific Questions

If the poster had specific questions, try to answer them if you can.

2. Quick Responses

These are fine. Say you liked it, disliked it, couldn't finish it, couldn't sleep after reading it.. whatever accurately reflects your impression of the piece.

3. Would you buy it?

A little bit more - when possible, you may want to note whether you would read it if you saw it in a magazine. Would you buy a magazine to finish the story if you started to read it at the news stand or bookstore?

4. Points to fix

Yet another slice of skin - Describe any points to fix, as clearly and accurately as possible. Some people can do this with a short comment, others do better with a line-by-line comment. e.g.

> comment, others do better with a line-by-line comment

comment at the end is the second time you've used the word, and isn't exactly correct. how about "format for commenting"?

5. Line-by-line editing

If you do this, indent the copy from the writer and mark it with "> " or "- " (many email programs and editors can do this automatically - see your manual). Add a blank line where you are going to comment, then insert your comments on a blank line between the copied parts (i.e. put a blank line before and after your comments to make it stand out from the copied material). REMOVE the extra copied material that isn't needed to understand your comments.

If you have general comments, you can include those either before or after the line-by-line edited parts.

6. Positive Points, Too!

Whenever possible, point out positive points. Let the writer know when they have done something good!

7. At least a clue about solving problems

When pointing to problems, suggest alternatives and ways to correct the problem. This is where I think actually rewriting a section can be very helpful in making both the problem and the solution clear. I also find that having pointed out a problem and tried to work out a solution myself helps me to understand the problem better, which means I have gained from doing the critique. However, be aware that some writers do not want to see rewrites (this doesn't mean you can't do them for your own education - just don't send them to writers who object to your efforts.)

2. Be wary of technical terms

If you want to use technical terms, this is appropriate. However, be aware that the person you are critiquing may not have read the same books on writing that you have (Jardon's Comments on a Theory of Mathematical Solutions to Conflicts isn't everyone's favorite reading?). So if you use special terms (or even common terms in special ways), you may want to include either a brief explanation (preferred) or a reference (less helpful, but better than nothing). You may include both.

You may also (when Jardon's forgotten tome is good enough) want to summarize and post a separate TECH: note explaining the terminology and system you know. Again, we are engaged in mutual education and development of creative potential. Your knowledge may be just the spark needed to help someone else - don't be afraid to let us know about it too...

3. No personal attacks

Personal attacks and similar behavior are NOT critiques. If you want to say something is poorly written, you must also suggest how it can be improved - and not simply accuse the writer of being a bonehead. Always critique the writing - don't assume the writer has a problem, they may have been deliberately using inner-city rhythms and wording no matter how difficult you find it to read...

Some Related Pieces on Critiquing

1. TECH: How do you critique?
one method of critiquing
2. TECH: An Editing Trick
editing by reading aloud
3. TECH: How to write wel, critique god, and revise bettor

and others coming soon . . .

TECH: Some Guidelines For Critiquing

[mbarker.livejournal.com]

original posting: Fri, 18 Mar 1994 01:30:03 JST

(Billy Joel's Storm Front wailing on the cd - Mitsuko bought me a new cd! tink's ready to rock and roll... we never knew what friends we had until we came to Leningrad...I don't mind the games I'm playing... crit!)

My approach - I usually start by reading it straight through, as a reader. If there is a rough point or question, I note that, but this first pass, I'm reacting, pure and simple.

Pause - what was the message? did I understand what was happening? Was it interesting - or did I have to force myself to read?

Second pass - look at the technique. Is there a hook and question for the reader at the beginning? Is the real start of the story positioned well - or does the writer have to fill in too much background or spend too long wandering in background before finally getting to the story? Conflicts? Resolutions? Characters developed? and so forth...

double-check the senses, setting, physical movement, and so on, since these are weaknesses of my writing.

I usually read sections out loud at this point, especially to check wording and rhythm.

This is where some reading in "how to write", critical theory, and so forth can help - but it isn't really necessary. What is necessary is trying to think through why this wording, why this scene, why this part of the story affects you or doesn't quite hit.

Third pass - wherever I've got a question, comment, hitch, whatever, explain it. usually I put in some scribbled hints at how I would try to fix it - not necessarily finished rewriting, but some suggestions about how to fix what I saw there.

also note the good stuff - where dialogue really is used well, a nicely turned phrase, or anything that sparkles.

This step probably is the most important for exercising my abilities - honing up the problem makes sure I know how to fix it when I stumble over it in my own writing.
 
Fourth step - not really a pass - consider the work as a whole, and tag on any overall comments or suggestions.

Fifth step (for my own work, not for the list) - select from the suggestions and hints and rewrite the whole thing from beginning to end. Read it out loud. Double-check, revise, and polish that sucker until it shines... then set it aside and wait a while, and try to read it as a stranger would.

I've got several checklists and other "helps" for critiquing. Doubt if I'll get them all typed in real soon, but I'm sure other people have some they use, too.

Poetry - I use the same approach, except I depend far more on reading aloud, thumping out the rhythms (yes, I sit there and tap my fingers), letting my mind finger the word play and conceptual intricacies, trying to "grok" the whole (if you like that old-fashioned slang). I consider poetry as one variation of writing, not a completely separate field, and I expect to see the same kinds of things I see in any piece of writing in it. Compressed, distilled, perhaps even crystallized into forms that seem too rich for words, but not inherently different.

I mostly look at trying to get my mind around what I think the writer was trying to do, then looking at how well it worked, and suggesting where I can some alternatives to do that. Since I've been on both ends of the communication exchange (writer and reader), it isn't that hard to decide whether I "got the message", then look for what in the message did or didn't work, and let the writer know what I thought happened on my end of things. As a writer myself, I can often suggest some alternatives. Obviously, it's the author's job to pick and choose, to rework or not, to make the message a medium carrying their sparks and fire out to set the world alight... but sometimes I can point out a path or two for them to try.

I usually try to make sure the writer knows I'm talking about the work, not about them. Hell, they've already taken the big steps - they wrote it, they put it out in public - I'm just helping them polish the rough edges so that it really is sharper than the sword. I'm not interested in making them cut their own throat with it, just a vein.

(that's one slant on crit's. I wonder how far I contradicted my own faq on the darn things.)

[If anyone wants to read the faq on crits, please see

http://community.livejournal.com/writercises/57654.html

If someone wants to rewrite, expand, or otherwise make the faq fit our current understanding of this important workshop activity, I'm sure the author would be happy for the help. If someone wants to write another one - go for it!]

and now, I return you to the regularly scheduled irregularities...

hope some of you will feel free to join me in the sandbox. got to get those castles up!

TECH: The Earthquake Test

[mbarker.livejournal.com]

original posting: Sat, 25 Jun 1994 18:35:02 JST

MZB (Marian Zimmer Bradley) mentioned in an interview "the earthquake test" as one of her ways of judging stories.

The earthquake test turns out to be simple. She merely stops at points during the story and asks herself - "If an earthquake happened right now and killed all of the characters, would I care?" If the answer is no, the story gets rejected.

It's an interesting test. I assume when she mentioned stopping, she meant at the "natural" breaks in the story - transitions, scene changes, etc. At those points, the reader can easily set the story aside unless the writer has made them care enough about the characters to want to find out what happens next.

You might want to test your own stories this way. At the transitions, ask if you have made at least one character really interesting and involving to your readers. Would you care if an earthquake happened right now and killed all of your characters?

If not - *sigh* revision time!