Critique: Powerful Medicine If You Can Stand It

By John Beaton

Most of us find joy in writing and in sharing our work. Should we be satisfied with that or invite suggestions for improvement?

Comfort zones vary, but I’m solidly in the latter camp. Feedback, both gentle and robust, has benefited my writing immensely and I’ve thoroughly enjoyed the process. Here are some lessons I’ve learned.

1. Choose your feedback sources carefully. Friends and family are often too close to be an acid test. Ditto for some writers’ groups that lean toward mutual supportiveness. That said, these options are usually free, fun, comfortable, and helpful.

Some reciprocal critique workshops, available online or through writers’ associations, expose your work to people you don’t know personally. These tend to be more objective. However, the attentiveness  can be erratic and the tone ungentle. Be choosy. I’ve made good literary friends through such groups.

Professional editors and beta readers can give valuable insight into publishing industry constraints and expectations. But the quality varies. I’ve paid for manuscript reviews that, on a scale from 1 to 10, vary from 1 to 10.

2. Revise aggressively but keep your drafts. If you can tell good writing from bad, revision should never make your work worse. You can always step back.

And don’t be afraid of deep revision, even full rewrites. “First thought best thought” may turn out to be true, but you’ll never really know unless you’ve plumbed alternatives. In depth.

3. Accepting feedback is optional. You can take it or leave it. If you leave it, do so politely: “Thanks, I’ll consider that.” But first, ask yourself, “What made that thought cross the reviewer’s mind?” Often, an indirect adjustment is what’s needed.

4. Don’t take feedback personally. Even when the feedback is harsh, remember the reviewer has taken the time to read, consider, and comment on your work. Be respectful.

Spats will spoil your experience. Discussion for clarification is fine, but don’t engage in defensiveness or argument.

5. Premature detail. Debating “le mot juste” is okay, but only after you know the work in which it resides is solid. Don’t let reviewers draw you out of the forest into the trees too early.

6. Don’t let praise turn your head or tempt you to showboat. Someone says, “That paragraph is great.” Another opines, “It needs work and here’s why.” The former won’t improve your writing. The latter might. If you prefer praise to critique, that’s okay, but seek ways to share that don’t squander the time of serious reviewers.

7. Resolve conflicting advice early. One reviewer says cut to the chase. Another: you need more up-front backstory or readers won’t care about your protagonist when the action starts. Compare rationales and make a firm-ish decision early on. It can save you future rides on a flip-flop rollercoaster.

8. Critique your critiquers. Some editors help you write the work you want to write. Others push you to write the work they want you to write. Check bios and references for affinity with your work or lack thereof. Client satisfaction and the “fit” of qualifications, experience, and personal values and preferences are the points to watch for.

Happy writing and happy revising. And if you’re not paying for critique, be sure to reciprocate. That’s educational too.

P.S.: Feedback from the WordWorks editorial staff dramatically improved this article!

John Beaton writes and recites metrical poetry and has been a member of several writers’ critique groups. He was moderator at The Deep End workshop on the Eratosphere website for almost four years and is author of Leaving Camustianavaig. He has commissioned several professional reviews of an in-progress novel.