The Down sides of Critique

While I definitely advocate participating in a critique group to test your writing and get constructive feedback, there are down sides of critique that need to be addressed.

Individuals give critique based on their own experience. Sometimes this leads to critique that is not useful - for example, when they are not familiar with your genre and expect it to fit a different style. You can ignore most of that.

Sometimes they just heap praise on everything that is read, because they don't have confidence in their own ability to comment. Start by asking for a specific point of comment and eventually they'll grow as a critiquer.

And sometimes a member of your critique group asks the questions that make you realize you need to start all over (again) with major changes in the plot and characters.

That's good critique, but it's also a bummer when you thought the novel was done - at least until you roll up your sleeves and get to work making your story better.

That's where I am right now. I thought the manuscript just need a light polish.

One question made me realize a secondary character really has to take the lead - and appear in the opening scene. I'll have to go through the entire manuscript to make that change work throughout the story.

Another question made me revisit the core mystery - what is in that envelope? I'm updating a novel I first wrote forty years ago. What was in the envelope then simply doesn't have the necessary punch anymore.

The easiest question I'd already been asking myself - will my idea work for the accident? I'd already decided to consult with an expert, which has now been accomplished. The details will be adjusted accordingly.

So, the down sides of critique are that sometimes you need to ignore the advice - and sometimes you need to let it lead to a complete do-over.

What Comes First when You are Writing?

There's no iron-clad rule saying what comes first when you are writing. There are people who outline an entire book - they may also create complex histories for their characters and descriptions of every scene.

Personally, I start with a situation. I throw my characters into it and see how they develop and deal with it. In Tough Times, I wanted a teenage boy to deal with taking on responsibility for his young siblings, with racial issues on top. In Running Away: Maggie's Story, the situation I wanted to show was one I encountered when I was a probation officer for teenage girls - several of them had been abused by someone the mother brought into the home and, because they'd been acting out, their mothers didn't believe them. In both those stories, the characters kicked in and dealt with the situations in ways I'd kind of expected.

That doesn't always happen. When I started writing Peg's Story: Detours, I knew she was Maggie's mom, she'd run away at the same age, and her parents thought she was dead for ten years. I wasn't sure why she ran away or why it took her so long to go home, but I thought she'd pretty much follow my detours through my twenties. Well, as I met her parents and her best friend (secondary characters), the reasons for running away fell into place. But when she got to the bus station, Peg took over and became her own character with her own story - she shocked me so much I put the story aside for months. Then I saw women who had been trafficked being interviewed, and I recognized Peg. I still got to use a few bits from my own journey, but her story is definitely not mine and not at all what I'd expected.

In On Writing: A Memoir of the Craft, Stephen King says "The situation comes first." (p. 164) and that he lets the characters take the lead as they develop.

Nice to know it's not just me.

How Much Description

In On Writing: A Memoir of the Craft, Stephen King says "Description begins in the writer's imagination, but should finish in the reader's." (p. 174).

It was a relief to read that, as I am generally spare in my description - giving the reader elements of the environment that are key to the story or the character's experience and leaving the rest to the reader's personal experience.

However, I recently submitted a piece to a critique group that led to my introduction to the term "White Room Syndrome" - I had jumped straight into dialogue and gave no hint of the setting for the better part of a page. I knew where the characters were, but I had neglected to tell the reader!

Now I am re-reading King's 11/22/63 and he is not the least bit spare in his description. His character travels back in time and shares his full sensory experience of the era - lots of details, since the story is about the experience of living in a different time - but not every detail. Where a writer loses me is when there are paragraphs on end that give minute detail about the setting and costuming and little or nothing about the story. As King also says in On Writing, "it's not about the setting, anyway--it's about the story, and it's always about the story." (p. 176)