Just noticed that in referring to Casel’s piece, I typo’d Hardcore Critique Guidelines into Hardcare Guidelines. Aside from wanting to make the correction, I’m wondering if this wasn’t a Freudian slip…
Care is an essential element of the process; care on the part of the writer to observe certain rules of story—aside from that flung-out first draft just to keep up with the mind’s warp-speed production of ideas—as well as care in the reader’s honest evaluation of the work. Obviously, not everyone will like everyone else’s style of writing or the concept of the story line. But well-written stands out in a piece that is easy to read because of the flow, sense of building conflict to climax in a story arc, or grammatically correct so that the reader is not interrupted by awareness of improper punctuation—think of McCarthy’s Blood Meridian here; most readers will complain at first about the lack of punctuation and long sentence structure until you get used to it and find how skillfully he has used his knowledge of the rules to break them beautifully.
Care also comes into play in the way critique is voiced. Obviously, “this sucks” is not a pleasant thing for a writer to hear, and somewhat rude for a reader to offer. Even if the piece truly does suck, there is a nicer way of saying that, (critique your own words, first!) as well as pinning down why it didn’t work and offering suggestions; i.e., it was slow, it was unclear, move the action up a bit with dialogue, add background through imagery, etc. On the flip side, honesty is the best policy here; don’t rave about something that obviously needs work. All it shows is a lack of interest or belief in the author’s ability to improve it.
Another point to make here is that it doesn’t take a writer to make the best suggestions to another writer, often a writer’s inclination is to come up with another twist, a different scenario, a dead body for the last page, because one idea triggers another as a natural effect. That’s why reading is so important to writers; despite my worry of inadvertent plagiarism, reading is merely a textual rather than another visual experience. But any lover of reading is the best critic of all. Pay attention to what these people say: “It made me feel…I saw the pain coming…Man, I was really hoping he’d make it out alive…” You’ve got someone hooked—and if you have let them down anywhere within your story, beg them to point it out to you.
Even the most willing-to-accept-criticism author is bound to feel a little hurt by even the best critique. After all, it is almost like telling a parent, “hey, your kid’s kind of small for his age, isn’t he?” Try asking the parents of a one-year old if he’s walking yet. I know that my first reaction to suggestions on my work is not always an excited, “yeah, yeah, that’s it!” until after I stop the bleeding. Why do you think that the initial name of our local writers group was Garmhos — the Go Ahead, Rip My Heart Out Society.
But know this: It always heals.
The Lost Children: A Charity Anthology
You know, we’ve gone over this critiquing issue before. And I still disagree most vehemently with some of what you say on the subject. I just don’t think that writing, as the art form that it is, is really subject to technical examination. Except on the grammer, punctuation, and spelling type issues of course. }:)
This is, of course, just my opinion. And just because it’s my opinion and preference doesn’t mean I’m going to shout anybody’s comments down unless I hear something like “Your piece is very emblematic of the decline of Western Civilization”. That kind of artspeak-esque drivel would be too much for my battered restraint to handle. :-Þ
Jason
Goodness, most vehemently? But I honestly do understand where you’re coming from, and agree that art should not be forced into a box designed by arbitrary or even established standards of those who are somewhat in control of the art and literary world, meaning, the critics. Even you negate the saleability of a piece as meaningless to its value, there remains the idea of wanting it to be seen and appreciated by others.
What, in your opinion, falls under “technical examination”? I don’t think you are referring to exposition, plot, story arc, dialogue, conflict, etc., as these seem to be similar to punctuation in writing, as necessary elements. Interpretation, then? What do you feel makes a story a great story, or even worthwhile reading? You are, in my opinion, an excellent writer, and many of the elements are incorporated naturally into your work. What then, are you putting into your writing or seeking out in what you read?