The Objectivity of Critiques

Thoughts on Receiving Critiques
by Rebecca Coleman,
Author of In Stereo Where Available, now available from Medallion Press

When my novel Desperado City was being critiqued, I ran up headlong against a whole lot of personal prejudices. One woman called my teenage characters "foul-mouthed kids" and told me the novel was nothing but a bunch of oversexed teenagers who didn't know how to respect their elders. If that's not a prejudiced view, I don't know what is. But you know what? Although those criticisms were harsh and prejudiced and sometimes downright mean-spirited, they caused me to make major and overwhelmingly helpful changes to my novel.

I realized I needed to amp up the deeper meaning I intended in the story and add in some meaningful and fulfilling relationships between the teenagers and the adults in their lives. I still maintain that this critiquer (no longer on the list, as far as I know, although I could be wrong) should have been much less abrasive and taken my story far less personally. At the same time, to this day, she is the critiquer I love to hate and hate to love because her comments forced me to write at a higher level.

To become better writers we're here to bury our writing, not to praise it. You may not like your readers' reactions, but your writing career is composed of readers reading, not standing on a stage while your fans throw roses at you. Criticizing the preferences of various readers is absolutely self-defeating. If you don't like a critter, don't crit for them. If you don't like their crits, throw them out. Cultivate the group of critiquers whose comments help you improve your work.

Don't we all know that already?

If the reader doesn't see something, it's because you didn't put it in the story. You might think you did, but the reactions of your readers indicate that you did not. That is what I'd call "helpful feedback."

As a critter I try to read with broad objectivity. For example, I don't like crime novels, but I can appreciate good writing within the crime genre and crit accordingly. Last year I critiqued a fantasy novel from head to toe, and nominally I loathe fantasy -- but the author is a great critiquer and a terrific writer, and I believe her book will have broad appeal within its audience of fans.

Let's put it this way. What I want is critiquers who will help me beat my novels into publishable shape, mainly by shaking me out of my delusions about my own writing. And I got that on the IWW, so all's well as far as I'm concerned. If all you want is someone to tell you if [read: "that"] your story is interesting and if [read: "that"] your characters are well-drawn, then it's a lot more time-efficient to hand your novel to your relatives than to spend time returning critiques.

If you're going to spend the time reading and returning crits, you should have much higher standards for criticism than that. Are you politely criticizing your critiques in your thank-you letters? Bad idea. Do your crits for others say the story is fine and developing well -- in an effort to give such a simple and broad read -- when others are saying the story is dreary and the writing sucks? If either of those things is true, that probably explains your frustrations. You won't cultivate a devoted group of really good writers that way.

One last thing. If you're hoping to sell your work at any point, you'd be well-served to allow people to criticize your work on their terms, not yours.

Reviewers -- both professional and of the Amazon variety -- don't give two craps about your opinion of your own novel. They don't even seem to realize books are written by human beings with feelings, who might see the review. Arguing with readers doesn't improve your work.

The only thing that does is good writing.

---

Find the Rebecca's novel here ...