I’ve blogged about the importance of critiques before–both giving and receiving. Some recent experiences have brought the subject up again. I’ll probably have more than one blog on this topic.
The first subtopic of critiques is “Not Your Kind of Story”. Sometimes, you read a story and know that it’s just not one you would have continued reading if you’d picked it up in a magazine or anthology. If it’s a novel, it’s one you would have put back on the bookstore shelf or stopped after the first few pages. It’s just not your kind of story.
In that situation, if I’ve agreed to do a critique, I will go ahead and read the piece. I try to be up front about it in my critique and say right at the beginning that it’s not a story that appeals to me. That doesn’t make it a bad story. Very few stories are going to be universally liked. And I appreciate it when a critiquer does the same for me. Let me know right at the start that this just isn’t your cup of tea.
With that out of the way, well, there are certain things a critiquer can still help you with, points of clarity or occasionally style that apply to all types of stories. Things that can be hard to spot in your own work. And I will still mention, if applicable, the parts of the story that just didn’t quite work for me–getting from point A to point B didn’t quite make sense or the ending didn’t feel satisfactory. I could be wrong on some of those points because I’m not as familiar with the conventions of a subgenre I don’t read, so stating that up front is important.
It’s nice if you can include one or two things you like about the story anyway. Usually there is something–a particular bit of imagery or an original bit of worldbuilding. Something. I’ve been reminded recently that I’m not always as good as I should be about remembering to do that.
What a critiquer shouldn’t do however, in my opinion anyway, is tell you that you should have written an completely different story. Someone else should be the main character or the story should be about something else entirely. Those aren’t helpful critiques. They don’t apply to the story at hand. Worse, those comments tend to cloud the critique and make it difficult to respond to the parts that might be helpful. That really makes the whole process a waste of everybody’s time.
As you know well, I agree totally. And in fact, beyond what you talk about where a critter basically comes right out and tells you to write a different story, if the majority of the criticisms are focused on things basic to the nature of the story, its much the same. Thats what I call RE-constructive criticism. Its usually polite and well meaning, but in the end adds up to either “I don’t like this kind of story. Heres how to turn it into one I would like.” Or alternatively “I dont think editors like this kind of story…etc.”
This is why I feel communication and discussion between critter and crittee is important. Ideally, we should tell a bit about our intentions with a story when we put it up for criticism…and critters should try and find out, either by asking or simply by paying attention to what they are reading…what those intentions are. But most of all when one crits someone elses work, you should leave your own taste at the door as much as possible.
LikeLike