Nothing is worse than reading an obvious first draft -- messy and ungrammatical as hell -- to your group, wanting basic content/concept feedback, but getting line-edits on the grammar instead. Makes me want to punch someone in the head.
And here I've been always line-editing messy, ungrammatical work in critique situations and thinking I was doing the most helpful thing possible by giving them the benefit of my grammar ear. Also, if the grammar is really, really bad, it's hard for me to even SEE the content/concept behind it. I think I'm sort of a Grammar Nazi.
Of course if someone says upfront that they know there are typos/grammatical issues and want us to ignore them and focus on other things, I'll do my best. But I love it when people in the critique group which sees my rough drafts point out typos or repetitive sentence structure or the fact I've become fixated on a word ("Susan, did you notice you have Anna describe something as 'odious' three times in two pages?"). Makes it easy to come straight home from the meeting and correct any glaring errors right away. So I've really been trying to do unto others as I'd have them do unto me.
become fixated on a word ("Susan, did you notice you have Anna describe something as 'odious' three times in two pages?")
Ah, the "word of the day" syndrome. I've done it frequently.
YAY, Betsy! Woohoo! I know that feels good.
the shimmering wonder that is Their Art
snerk.
Various online fic groups say, every now and then, that they wish people would tell the badfic writers that it's badfic instead of praising them. I see so many kickass ideas and/or brilliant characterizations that get torpedoed because either their characterization or their plot sucks like an Electrolux. Maybe I should just bite the bullet and take the folks who say they want constructive criticism up on their requests--with an actual eye to being helpful instead of just saying "Oh, god, never darken my screen again"--but there has to be a more constructive way to help than just to say, "The voices are terrific but the plot is stale."
How do you actually help someone improve characterization or plotting? I'm pretty good at it, but, well, it's just something I can do. I don't know how I do it. How do you teach someone a new way of thinking?
When I get something back from beta redlined for grammar, I ignore the beta. I have a friend who is an editor, and I send my stuff to her for editing after it is beta read. I'm looking for a critique of the story. Does it resonate with you in some way? Did it make you laugh? Do you "get it?"
If I lost you, how so? If it bores you or becomes confusing, tell me.
"You ended this sentence in a preposition" tells me nothing. It's an essay, it's written how I speak, mostly.
This is why world-weary people (me, for instance) ALWAYS ask what sort of beta is wanted. "Do you want a copyedit? Do you want me to check logical flow? Do you want me to let you know my emotional reaction? Or something in between?"
Some people can't ever improve, but if it's inexperience that's making them write badly, you can suggest things like "You tell us Kara is brilliant and difficult to get along with, but all she actually does is get a cup of coffee and look at a map. Maybe you could give her things to do to illuminate those apsects of her personality-- she could see something on the map no one else noticed and be obvious about what idiots they were for not seeing it." For plot you might have them write out, without embellishments, only what actually happens in the story, and then examine the bones of the action to see what can be changed or amped up, doing a lot of "what if".
When I get something back from beta redlined for grammar, I ignore the beta. I have a friend who is an editor, and I send my stuff to her for editing after it is beta read. I'm looking for a critique of the story. Does it resonate with you in some way? Did it make you laugh? Do you "get it?"
My feeling is, if you can't give the type of feedback that's being requested, that's fair -- some people are much better at the big-picture feedback -- content, resonance, etc. -- and some people are such fabulous line-editors that what they do should rightly be called art.
And there's no shame in being strong in one and not the other, as long as you know your strengths when asked for feedback, so that you can say, honestly, "Hey, I'm much better at line-editing; if you'd like me to look at it when it reaches that stage, I'd love to," or vice versa.
How do you actually help someone improve characterization or plotting? I'm pretty good at it, but, well, it's just something I can do. I don't know how I do it. How do you teach someone a new way of thinking?
I expect it depends on whether the person is willing to learn; and how systematic you can ask them to be. Some people do stuff like sit down and chart their characters, assign them keywords and groupings of symbolic imagery, and then go through writing with the chart always in mind -- I can't do that in advance; it makes me feel as if I'm done and don't need to actually write anything. I can, however, get through a draft, read through it and
find
the keywords and images, and then revise the mis-matching parts to match.
I think that finding is something that can be done in a group, or between a writer and firstreader. Similarly, a firstreader might be able to do something like chart the actions of several characters, to show how it's physically impossible for Characters X and Y to visit Character Z without seeing each other, etc. etc.
This is why world-weary people (me, for instance) ALWAYS ask what sort of beta is wanted. "Do you want a copyedit? Do you want me to check logical flow? Do you want me to let you know my emotional reaction? Or something in between?"
Yes, this. My basic group rules are simple: serious writers (not the same as published writers; those two terms, in my world, are not interchangeable). Tell us what you're looking for.
If I need grammar fixes, I'll say so, and honestly, I don't recall ever saying so. Also, Susan, at our group, we read aloud; that, in and of itself, is not a useful venue for grammar editing. Ours will typically go something like:
Email ahead of time: who's reading tonight? OK, that's Bea, Reen and Stephanie, plus me. Four out of six have new work to read.
Dinner, catchup, dessert, coffee/tea, ok, who wants to go first? Bea, with the angels novel (which kicks serious ass, as it happens)? Cool. Is this new, or is it revised earlier? And Bea will get some commentary on grammar, because English isn't her native language - she's German - and occasionally trips over something. So, she's asked us to note anything that rings badly in that line; depending on whether it's new or revised, she'll tell us what she's looking for.
Stephanie next, a very intense and very well-written novel about a shrink at SF General Hospital, discovering the truth about her mother's suicide years ago. Steph writes superb dialogue and has a vivid eye for setting, but she's told us, up front, that she has trouble structuring scenes, the ebb and flow, what should go where, so we know to mark what she read last time, and go from there with input.
I'll go third, and mine is generally the same: next scene in Weaver or Famous Flower or Matty or Cruel Sister, how does it flow, what I need all mentioned above. I get some interesting takes on word usage: Americans seem to have a stronger meaning to "adore" than the English do, for instance. It's extremely helpful and I get excellent edits.
Reen, hopefully conquering her yes-buts, will read a scene and be nice and upfront about what she's unhappy with, or concerned about. We work from there.
No one in my group ever says "Oh, whatever, I don't care."
