3 Critiquing Points for Beginners

(Or, Newbie Tricks for Crits with Bling)

Critiquing when you’re a new-ish writer/critiquer can be intimidating, and I’ll be the first one to admit: I had no idea where to start. I began to write a bit later in life, and although I can’t see my life without writing at this point, I didn’t start with the traditional MFA upbringing. When these traditional writers, who had known how they’d had the calling from their first story they wrote in kindergarten to write beautiful, lyrical, literary work, well, I can't help that these guys are better than me. And they know what they’re doing because it’s in their blood.

I could have used a few pointers, especially when I first began critiquing. I feared I’d look as stupid as I felt. How could I tell someone to improve their art?

First of all, know that if a writer asks for a critique, s/he not only wants someone to point out his/her blind spots, s/he is sincerely appreciative when someone does. Still, it’s tough to know what to say after you’ve read something for the first time. After looking over the sampling of critiquers in my earlier post, I’ve come up with three points to make even the newest of critiquers review like a pro.

1.    Characters: As a writer, I want each character to breathe life into every passage, and to have an authentic and interesting point of view. When critiquing, focus on a few questions for each character:
~Does the character pop off the page (come to life and feel authentic)?
~Is the character interesting (quirky, mysterious, likeable/unlikeable)?
~Are the character’s actions guided by their goals/desires?
~Does the character have a specific and necessary role they fulfill within the story?

 

2.    Plot: You can look up a variety of typical plot arcs such as the chart below. Short/flash fiction may work differently, but if you review a story with a full plot, ask yourself these questions:
~Does the story stick follow a logical plot, or digress into too many subplots?
~Does the tension rise along the plot arch? How does it accomplish this?
~Are there any scenes that are not necessary to the plot arch?
~Is the resolution valid/meaningful compared to the rest of the story?

3.    Sensory Details: Writers want readers to see the world through the main character’s eyes. Therefore:
~Is each description necessary for understanding the character or the scene?
~Does the writer focus on each of the senses (sight, sound, touch, smell, taste)?
~Does the description pull the reader into the story or pull the reader out of the story?
~Is the description/sensory detail something the character would likely focus on?
~(BONUS!) Do the sensory details, overall, help support the theme of the story?

When a critiquer watches for the above points, the writer will see the feedback as helpful no matter how new the critiquer happens to be. There are many more things that can be critiqued, so I’ll touch upon additional points in future posts.

Critiques are all about one person's reaction to the story. It’s great to point out when something works, as long as the critiquer explains why it works (see any of the above points as a discussion point). The critiquer also needs to balance the review with things that didn’t work, or things that almost worked but missed the target. It’s the writer’s job to then take the critique and figure out what changes, if any, are required to accomplish what they want within their story.

The critique belongs to the critiquer, the story belongs to the writer.

~~~

Coming up: A critiquerly interview with historical romance author Courtney Milan.