Sorry to have been so scarce of late. Way too much to do in real life. I am far behind in critiquing. The current book is going much slower than I expected, and I expect the next one to be slower. Sigh.
A question for all you writers out there. With these critiques I've noticed I tend to write more on the manuscripts than other people do. I could probably go faster if I didn't make marks in every paragraph. So what would you like in a critique, an in-depth analysis offering word and rewrite suggestions, or a 50,000 foot view pointing out the major issues in a manuscript? Red ink spilled over the page, or a set of notes at the end?
I think if I could switch to the 50,000 foot view type, I could get through these much faster. I have noticed that as I go along in a novel critique the farther in I go the fewer marks I make. Now if I could just disengage the writer brain that keeps saying, "oo, oo, this would be so much better here."
7 comments:
Both! :)
In general I prefer the 50k foot view, but if there's not going to be major changes, the nitty gritty stuff is useful. I don't think the critiquer can tell if there will be major changes, though.
(On the other hand, some critters are better at one type of crit than the other, and I'd rather have the type they're good at. On the other other hand, I'm really happy to get any crits at all of any type.)
I'm also way behind. Two books I haven't even started reading, and I have to pack because we're moving the weekend after...
I'm with Elizabeth, I like a little of both.
Though, honestly, I prefer the method that works best for the critiquer. You can really tell when people are uncomfortable with one method or another and try to do it. So. Do what you gotta do, man.
Elizabeth, unfortunately I critiqued your novel first. And I'm glad to know I'm not the only one far behind. I think I was too easy on you all for only posting a partial. :)
Mer, I'm most comfortable going through scouring the piece, like I do with my own stuff. It's just that the time thing is sneaking up on me. Plus, I've found most critiques don't go into the depth I do, so I just may be an over controlling self-delusional wannabee editor.
Oh good, mine's not the one you're bogged down in. :)
I did say I'd rather have the kind of crit the critiquer prefers to give. And this book in particular I've stared at so many times that I think the little stuff will be useful.
Elizabeth, yours has been done for a few weeks now. I wanted to start and end with people I knew. I figured that would give me the motivation to get it all done.
Uhm....what is "50,000 foot view type"?
Hey Camille, a 50,000 foot view for me is an overall critique (things out of position, generally use a word too many times, might need to reconsider technology or subplot, might want to read this that or the other, merge characters, chapter ?? could be deleted, this isn't very funny). A nitty gritty critique is "I suggest using this word here instead of what you have, a "worm's eye view" of the story (like line edits and a critique mixed together, critiques on a paragraph and sentence level, this paragraph should come first, this line is out of time order, no transition here). I normally do both, mark-up the nitty gritty, mention some that are recurring, and then do the big things in the verbal critique.
I should I also try and point out positive things. Like "I like this", "Good imagery", "Nice pacing", etc.
Post a Comment