by Lazarus Black
First, this is NOT a rant telling writers to not argue with a critique. There are bad critics out there who insist that they are allowed to say whatever they want - no matter how rude and/or ignorant - and writers need to just sit quietly and take the abuse. There are other bad critics who take a position that the critic is allowed to espouse vagueries, poorly defined cliche's, ill-coined terms, etc. as if they are gospel to be "grokked" by the author who meditates upon them until divine inspiration strikes their sins away. And then there are the bad critics who cannot form cohesive thoughts, yet insist on taking over a conversation with non-sensical and non-specific "advice".
But there are good - even great - critics out there eager and willing to help you make YOUR story better at representing YOU.
My advice to writers accepting critiques is to insist on logical ones. Sounds like a simple thing - but it's not.
Learning to write properly outside of a formal environment like a university is doubly difficult because one is swimming in a sea of the blind leading the blind. Unsuccessful writers advising others is less-than-productive.
Personally, my only claim to success is that 1. I won a writing award judged by world famous authors, university professors of writing, and internationally famous writing instructors. 2. I am an extremely successful artist and art critic who judges an international art competition for professional artists who has successfully translated my skills for learning and teaching one creative process for the other.
My advice to writers accepting critiques is to insist on logical ones.
What to Expect Out of a Good Critique
When seeking a critic's advice, you should specify the kind of advice you are looking for (spelling, proofreading, language, character voice, plot points, descriptions, etc.). Then you should expect to receive the following:
1. The critic must provide specific praise on what you wrote well, no matter how small. Hopefully, more than that. And this must always be first. No exception. Because no element in a story is out of context. Something that is a "flaw" in one story can be a "feature" in another. When a critic praises a work as having value, they are at least claiming to understand the context of the story and will be focused on pointing out the "flaws" that don't help or improve that story in context. And if they point out a "flaw", the writer can at least decide if the critic's point has value in context or if the critic somehow misunderstood the context and something else the story needs fixing to change the critics' interpretation.
A critic who does not praise first is just dumping gibberish that may or may not have value, but requires the writer to do way too much work to sift through - and some of it may simply be abuse.
2. The critic must provide all their advice with specific examples. And you, as the writer supposedly benefiting from that advice, have every right to request (even demand) examples from your work to learn from. If a critic provides a cliché or platitude and refuses to acknowledge it is not a critic. They are are wind bag wasting your time.
It's one thing to say "You have over-written your story." and something completely different to say "This paragraph is an example of redundancy. The first, third, and fourth sentence say almost the same thing but in different ways. Pick one or merge them and then find the similar places in the entire story and condense them as well." or "This information may not be necessary for the reader, or at least not at the particular place you have it now." Without specific examples, the critic is really not interested in helping you. They are interested in professing generalizations to seem cool. And their generalization. may not apply at all.
3. The critic must understand your audience, even if they are not your audience. A critic must be honest about whether they are the audience or not and present their advice in such a way as to navigate any prejudice they may have - including bowing out if it's too difficult for them.
Sometimes a critic may not be the audience, but may still have very valuable advice on how to reach your audience. Or may have advice that transcends an audience about other - non-audience specific - elements. For instance, I wrote a story about a Queer woman meeting her love interest (another woman) for the first time, and lust got the better of her for a moment. Two straight women authors read the story. One thought the couple was cute while the other thought the lust wasn't believable and came from a "male gaze". When my gay daughter read the story, she jumped for joy and laughed at the "male-gaze" comment. "Oh no, dad. I would totally motor-boat that [love interest]."
4. A critic must be able to answer questions about your story without balking, guffawing, or being irritated in any way. That defensive behavior is your red flag that they didn't actually read your story. They may have run their eyes over your words, but they didn't absorb any of it. Some may even attack you for it. "Don't be defensive about your story!" they might say, as if the catching them in their failure and prejudice is somehow the problem in that situation. If you write an epic, they should not tell your shorten it. If you write a thriller, they should not tell you to focus on the romance. If you wrote a complex character study, they should not preach Save The Cat. By the end of the work, they should understand what you want the story to be and help you get there.
Once published, readers should understand the story pretty quickly - but while you are still learning and still drafting, that may be unclear. A good critique will help identify it and shape it into what you want it to be. And instead of saying "Get rid of the romance - the REAL story is about how technology affects magical creatures." a good critic will say, "There are two story ideas in here that are confusing to me. I don't know which is most important. Pick either the romance or the technology aspect and lean more into that." Of course, with specific examples on where it is confusing and willing to discuss how it confuses them. If they can't explain themselves, they are just filibustering.
Reading comprehension is a collection of skills taught in grade school. But not everyone gets As in those curriculums. Those that didn't, should not be pretending to offer advice using those skills.
Of course, these are just some ways how a critique should (and should not) unfold to help you best.
How to Accept a Good Critique
If properly presented by a good critic, how should the writer accept advice?
1. Thank them for appreciating your story and take that to heart when contextualizing all of their other comments.
2 . Absorb their comments. When presented with context and examples, you should be able to evaluate their comments with less visceral contempt. A properly phrased comment will lead you to say "Oh! I can see how that part can be better for my story." or "I can see how the critic thought that. I disagree, but maybe they thought that because something before it confused them that I should address instead."
3. Ask them if they have the time/ability to answer questions about their comments. Sometimes they will and sometimes they will not, even if they are willing to.
4. Write down in detail any questions or arguments you have with their comments. Do NOT send them to the the critic unless they agree. But writing them out is a great way to help yourself wrap your own brain around the issue. More than once, i have written out an argument against a change and eventually came to realize that my argument was flawed and the comment had value I had originally missed. And maybe it was because the comment was just a part of - or a slightly skewed - description of the real issue that needed fixing. You could even bring your questions and comments to another critic for assistance understand them.
Ultimately, it is always easier to get a better critic who will help more.
How to Handle a Bad Critique
This is tricky. Obviously, the best advice is - when possible - simply ignore that person and move on from them without ever considering their advice ever again.
Here is what I do:
If the critic doesn't praise anything in my story before listing off it's flaws, then I suspect they don't know how to critique and anything else they say will be either wrong for my story or too awkwardly described to have any value. If in person, I have interrupted them to ask "Did you find anything of value in my story?" This gives them a chance to correct their error and get the critique on a better track. But once, a critic actually said, "No." and then went on to lecture about how the only literature that should ever be written should be Sapphic Romance or Slice of Life. Sigh. SMH.
If the critic is too happy to pontificate vagueries, then I have pestered them for examples. Again, this is a chance for them to get back on track. Maybe they didn't think they were being vague because their particular clique uses these terms very specifically and they don't realize others don't share it. This can quickly dissolves them into a defensive mess, often admitting they didn't read carefully or at all. Then, at least I don't have to worry about them in the future.
If the critic might be providing advice from an outsider's perspective, it's easier to just thank them for reading and ignore everything they said. If anything, some of their "advice" may have even been destructive (even deliberately).
If the critic is rude when being asked to discuss details of the story (as opposed to politely saying they do not have the time or ability to do more), then I get out of the situation as quickly as possible. They are only there for their ego and the abuse and may even just like to argue for as long as possible.
Ultimately, it is always easier to get a better critic who will help more.
As always, pardon any typos. I got a little passionate about this one and kept going.
Good luck!
Related Blogs: How to Critique - https://www.lazarus.black/blog...