Thanks to Skye for another
intriguing blog hop challenge! This time, it’s about whether or not we work
with a critique group or partner.
Over my sixty-plus years as
a writer, I’ve had varied experience with critique partners.
My first experience came in Grade
4 at school when my teacher, Mrs Ting, went above and beyond in her response to
my stories. She not only marked spelling and grammar but put little comments in
the margin and actively encouraged me to write at home as well as at school. I
used to bring in my “home” stories and she’d mark them for me. My handwriting
was terrible, so that was pure dedication.
My high school English
Expression teachers, Mrs Collis and Mrs Rockliff, were equally engaged so I was
very lucky.
At home, I had my elder
sister, who is also a writer. She knows my writing inside out, and always puts
her fingers on my chief weakness which is a general avoidance of drama. Decades
on, she remains my best critic.
When I started in the
publishing business, my editors wrote long and detailed assessments and
suggestions for my mss. I didn’t always agree with their points, but eventually
I came to understand they were critiquing from a publishing view rather
than an artistic one. They always wanted more explanation and simpler words
than I wanted to write. Readers won’t understand this… That always
puzzled me. Why wouldn’t they? I understand this, and my IQ is nothing
unusual. Besides… there are such things as dictionaries.
The first critique groups I
entered were in the age of the internet. For the first time I encountered
writers who worked in my genres but who lived in the US, Canada and the UK and
New Zealand. I found the styles and ideals very different. American writers always
wanted more explanation and every step of a journey detailed, whereas the UK
writers, like me, were content to use bridges and allusions. The differences went
far beyond a trifling difference in spelling. The tone was different.
I once mentioned in a forum
that I could pick the difference between an Australian writer, a UK writer and
an American from a single paragraph without any tell-tale or/our/am/amme
spelling or placename on show. I was surprised at the hostility this brought
down on my head. Prove it. In a blind test, three writers, UK, US and
AUS, produced a paragraph of narrative and a fourth member posted it.
I had no trouble proving my
point. I will admit that if a Kiwi and Canadian had been tossed into the mix I
might have had to back down.
How did you do that?
Easily. The tone was a dead
giveaway. People often mention British humour as being different from American humour.
Well, this is like that.
Fast forward to the 21st
Century. I belong to an international critique group where I am constantly
reminded that critique comes from many directions. Some members simply paraphrase
what I wrote. Some fix on a word (Mrs) and enquire why I missed the period. Others
jump in at Chapter Eleven and ask why I didn’t describe the main character. Still
others query my syntax… got? Surely you mean gotten?
I continue to post to that
big group though, because their comments are salutary reminders that not
everyone has the same mind furniture as I do. The experience has improved my
own assessment and editing work because I have learned to always take into
account the author’s cultural background and the culture of the expected
readers.
I also occasionally swap mss
or published books with writer friends who will either critique or review as
required. Again, these trusted allies (Hello, Dr Bob!) keep my feet on the
ground and make me see my work as ithers see it.
I would like to belong to a
physical critique group, but as far as I know there isn’t one close enough for
me to attend. Also, in rural areas, the chance of finding enough writers at the
same level writing the same genre (or for the same age group) is low.
So… I go on critiquing and
editing for others, using all my own experience of being critiqued, and providing
the kind of service I would wish was more available, more understanding, and
more affordable for more people. The more affordable is a strong point.
A paid critique such as I provide is less likely to be subjective because I and
my fellow editors know when we’re being subjective. It’s intensive work—much
more difficult than writing—and yet to price it at its intrinsic value would put
it out of reach for the people who might need it most. My rates are well below
the minimum wage and still some clients have to ask for extensions and payment
plans.
In an ideal world, they’d
find a capable critique partner with extensive knowledge, no axes and no preconceptions...
maybe they'd find their own version of Dr Bob or my sister!
Please check out my fellow bloghoppers for their post links...
Victoria Chatham
Bob Rich
Anne Stenhouse
Diane Bator
Skye Taylor
Comments
Post a Comment