Ninja Science First, Announcements Later

(Or, some of NOT AN EDITOR’s favorite things.)

So I’ve been skipping around the writerly forums asking a question: “What do you like to look for when you critique someone’s work?” This is my attempt to establish a baseline, of sorts, using ninja-like data collection techniques that would likely fall on the weaker side of scientific discipline. It’s only been a few days, but answers are slowly but steadily pouring in. I’m planning on gathering a few hundred or maybe a thousand more responses, tabulating the results, and reporting them here next week. Feel free to throw your own response in the comments below, if and only if you haven’t already done so elsewhere since we don’t want to make my head spin during tabulation.

Have I left you hanging in suspense? I’ll wait for your heartbeat to slow down. Okay, well, I’ll share some teaser responses in the meantime.

On plot:

My strongest point is plotting…I always go for the big picture first.

On Character:

Character first, second and fourth.

On Tension:

…It comes down to: how can things get worse?

On Writerly Development:

If I have a weakness I'm currently working on in my own writing, similar problems jump out at me most when I critique.

On, er, Multiple Personality:

I try to critique like a reader, and not a writer.

On Using Euphemisms and Legend Keys:

"I wanted more" means "You didn't say enough."

"What a wild ride!" translates to "I didn't understand a damned word!"

There are plenty of memorable responses that I could share, but then, I’d never get to my announcements. And I am so unbelievably excited about this news that it’s difficult for my ninja fingers to type without bouncing in my seat. *puts down Diet Coke¹*

~This shall be dubbed Announcement the First~

Without further, um, sips from icy cold cola: We, my critiquerly friends, are going to embark on some interviewesque discussions with fabulous critiquers/writers. Because after I traveled around several cyber-writerly places asking you "the question," I wondered how several other people, in particular, would respond to the same line of questions. People you may already know.

~Henceforth, Announcement the Second~

One guest interviewee is scheduled to visit our very own blog on THURSDAY. And in the spirit of our post a la suspense, NOT AN EDITOR will have to leave you hanging on WHO this fantastic, horrifically funny author/blogger is.

Although, I’ve given you a few clues already. Let’s see who picks up on them. But for those of us who need a few more hints: She’s hip. She’s gone through a career change. Her significant other is a computer savant. She took a break from blogging for a bit, and returned last week, much to the happiness of her followers.

Who is our very first, very honorable interviewee? Your guesses in the comments below.

~(Minor) Announcement the Third~

I believe we’ve founded a word, and I’m not sure how to make it official, other than announcing it here. The word, which I’ve used several times, is CRITIQUER. I can’t believe it isn't considered a word already, yet spell check twitches every time I type it. Please, use critiquer freely on all writerly/critiquerly forums and blogs. Not critique-er. CRITIQUER. Join me. Make it real.




¹(Caffeinated addiction of choice. Not coffee. It's never been coffee. Don't hate me.)