Crits for Water Interview with Agent Suzie Townsend

(Or, Following Great Characters Anywhere)

A charity water fact: Unsafe drinking water results in diseases like dysentery, parasitic infections, and typhoid fever, killing 10,000 people per day.

Suzie Townsend is painfully aware of this statistic, which is why she jumped at the chance to donate to the 2012 Crits for Water campaign. And her donation is huge: a full manuscript critique with a two-page write-up AND a follow-up phone call. Bid early and often. We’ve got a lot of lives to save.

Meet Suzie, and read what she’s revealed about critiques.

~~~

After teaching high school English for several years, Suzie Townsend is now an agent at Nancy Coffey Literary actively looking to build her list. She’s an active member of AAR, RWA, and SCBWI.

Suzie is specifically looking for adult romance (historical and paranormal) and fantasy (urban, science fiction, steam punk, and epic fantasy). In children’s books she loves Young Adult (all subgenres) and is dying to find great Middle Grade projects (especially something akin to the recent movie SUPER 8).

She drinks too much diet orange soda, has a Starbucks problem (those soy chai lattes are addictive), and lives in Brooklyn with two dogs who know that chewing on shoes is okay but chewing on books is not. Check out Suzie's Publisher's Marketplace page here. She also keeps a blog. And you can follow her on Twitter here.

~~~

NAE: After a writer gets back an in-depth critique, what would you recommend in terms of a review/revise process?

Suzie: My first recommendation would be to read all of the notes--just read them. I would even go as far to say that sometimes the best revisions come after reading the notes, thinking about them for a few days, and then devising a plan of attack. This works especially when there's a lot of work to do. I always recommend to my clients that they attack the easiest revisions first, that way they can build up to the harder notes.

Really though, I think it's important for every writer (and reviser!) to remember that they need to find the the best method for them.

NAE: What’s one of the worst mistakes a critiquer can make?

Suzie: Making it about them. It's important for every critiquer to approach a manuscript with the idea that this is about the book and about readers. When you're doing a critique, you're not writing a review or your opinions. You have to focus on aspects of the writing and the storytelling that don't seem to be working as well as they could be, explaining why, and offering suggestions on how to make it work.

NAE: When you critique someone’s work, what is your general process?

Suzie: It depends. I approach each project differently. Usually I read through the manuscript once and jot down thoughts about overarching aspects like characters, worldbuilding, plot, pacing, etc. At the end of that read, if I have a lot of thoughts, I'll reread and type up and editorial letter. In contrast if all of my thoughts are minor, then I'll reread and do some line edits.

NAE: Is there one specific thing that you gravitate toward while critiquing?

Suzie: My first concern is always the characters. Readers will follow great characters anywhere. The stakes are high when you love the characters because you care about what they care about whether they're trying to stop a terrorist attack or just graduate high school. But for me I always start out looking at the big ideas: characters, worldbuilding, pacing, and plot.

~~~

Crits for Water Quickfires – And, go:

1. Oxford comma?   Whatever. I'm not particular as long as I'm not confused.

2. Should "I like him too" have a comma before "too"?   It depends how it should be read.

3. Italicize or underline?   Italicize

4. How do you separate scenes: #, ***, line break?   Whatever.

5. What's your favorite verb?   Acquiesce.

~~~

Thanks for the interview, Suzie, and for such a great donation to the campaign!

Okay, everyone. If you’d like to see if you’ve created a great character that Suzie would follow anywhere, bid on her full manuscript and follow-up call here.

Crits for Water Interview: Author/Agent Lucienne Diver

(Or, Enhance the Vision) 

  

On your marks, critiquers/writers. My friend Kat Brauer means to raise $10,000 this year for charity water, and she’s rounded up a wave of authors and agents who’ve offered critiques. That’s right, my comrades-in-ink. You’ll have bucketsful of chances to bid on coveted critiques, while also helping people who will never be able to thank you. Every $20 earned for the campaign provides water for an individual for 20 years.

So, thank you.

As part of the campaign, check back here for critiquerly interviews with the donating authors/agents. I’ve pledged to help spray the news everywhere. And hear this: these people are fantastic.

Ready, set, go.

~~~

A charity water fact: Over a billion people lack safe water. That accounts for one-sixth of the world's population.

That’s why author/agent Lucienne Diver has donated a 20-pagecritique to the 2012 Crits for Water campaign (available now, April 11-12). This woman does it all, and one lucky Crits for Water participant will win Lucienne’s full attention.

~~~

Lucienne Diver is a literary agent with The Knight Agency.  She has over eighteen years experience in the areas of fantasy/science fiction, mystery, suspense, romance and young adult fiction.  She writes the Agent Anonymous articles for the SFWA Bulletin, as well as the Vamped young adult series for Flux Books and the Latter-Day Olympians series for Samhain Publishing, beginning with Bad Blood.  Further information is available on The Knight Agency website: www.knightagency.net, her author site: www.luciennediver.com and her blog: http://luciennediver.wordpress.com.

~~~

NAE: After a writer receives an in-depth critique, what do you recommend in terms of a review/revise process?

Lucienne: I recommend waiting a few days after reading the critique to even begin the revision process.  Let the comments sink in, give your back-brain a chance to work on the solutions.  Also, this gives you the distance to react practically rather than emotionally to comments.  We all want to hear that our work is truly wonderful, and hopefully your critiquer will let you know where things have succeeded as well as where they've failed.  But the real benefit of a critique is discovering weak points so that they can be corrected before they become a reason for rejection.  Review and revision gives the writer a chance to make the work all it can be.  Once you've gone through the revision, read the whole work over again to make sure that you didn't introduce any inconsistencies or redundancies or skip over anything that might have been too overwhelming to tackle the first time through.  You'll be amazed at how many errors remain no matter how many times you've read a work.  The more read-throughs you do, the more you'll catch.

NAE: What is one of the worst mistakes a critiquer can make?

Lucienne:  There are two types of editors or critiquers: those who help the writer enhance his or her vision and those who try to impose their own. Don't be the latter.  Remember, it's not about how =you= would write the work.

NAE: What is your general process when you critique someone’s work?

Lucienne:  Because I represent over forty authors, many of whom write multiple books a year, I don't often get the chance to do a second read before critiquing.  This means that I read once, but very carefully, making notes as I go about inconsistencies, problems, sections that happened too quickly or two slowly and all off that sort of thing.  My approach is different depending on whether I'm reading material that's about to go out on submission or a manuscript that's already under contract.  In the case of the former, I do line and copyedit as I catch things, because I don't want anything at all to distract an editor from the quality of the writing.  On the former, I know that the editor, copyeditor, etc. will sweat the small stuff, and I mostly make comments about bigger issues.

~~~

Thanks, Lucienne. If you’d like Lucienne to enhance your work’s vision with a 20-page critique, follow thedirections here (available April 11th). 

Good luck, save lives, and thank you again.

Managing Feedback that Hurts

(Or, Extra-Snarky Review? Bygones.)

In 1997, I had a favorite show, Ally McBeal. It was one of those lawyer/trial shows meets Sex in the City meets an adult version of Glee. Both ridiculous and serious. Loved. It. Unisex bathroom and all. Anywho, one of the partners of the law firm, Richard Fish, went around verbally cutting down his subordinates at every conceivable juncture. But the only apology from him was one word: Bygones. And it was rendered right after the verbal slaying.

When I worked in the Corporately World, I dealt with about a hundred e-mails a day. *cue the shuddering* I worked in a global company and because of the differences in time zones, e-mails were the only way to communicate efficiently, and these messages served as black-and-white proof of "conversations/agreements." Sometimes, though, in the fast-paced, get-it-done environment, I had to deal with some pretty snarky messages. In fact, they smarted enough for me to wince at times, especially when the snarkiness centered around something I'd done, that I put my name on and took pride in.

These emails left me with a What Do You Mean You Hate It Are You Stoopit reaction. I wasn't alone. My co-workers also received like-worded emails, and we'd collectively commiserate on the misfortune of working with Corporately Stoopitness. However, snarky emails flew like autumnal flocks, and after a while I came up with a strategy.

1. Never respond to a snarky email right after reading it. Have a cup of (*insert favorite work beverage here, diet coke works for me*). Or wait until after lunch. Sleep on it if necessary (though not during work hours). But here's the magic I'd discovered: the email doesn't sting quite so much after giving it some time to settle.
   
2. After an appropriate amount of time has passed, re-read the message while imagining a non-snarky tone. Use Elmo's voice if necessary. Consider whether Stoopit had just been careless on the delivery, and didn't really mean to snark all over your day. Sometimes the snark turned out to be a self-inflicted figment of my imagination.
   
3. Go back and do some investigation. Maybe my work was not as perfect as I thought I was, or maybe my initial conversation/email was abrupt. If whatever I'd done had been at all unclear, incomplete, or otherwise misunderstandable, then I'd fix it. Pure and simple. Boom.
   
4. If there was something in the snarky email that was unclear, that perhaps could go snarky or not, I'd follow up (taking care not to set off an email war). To do this, I used questions. Do you mean this or that?
   
5. Sometimes, the person was being snarky just to be snarky. But maybe she had a bad day. Perhaps she hated me. Or. Maybe I'd just pick up the phone and talk it out. (I actually made more career-long comrades this way than I can count. Usually, the person was having a hellish moment and lashed out, and she needed someone, AKA me, to talk to about it.*)
   
6. Rarely, when no reasonable resolution to the issue could be found, I had to accept Snarky Emailer as my arch rival and try to avoid her in future corporately dealings. Bygones.
   

Receiving a snarky critique on my writing, I must admit, stings thrice as badly as an average, snarky corporately email. Sure, I want feedback and I'd like to improve and all, but I don't want to feel Stoopit. Or sad. Or like I'm wasting my time on writerly efforts. It can hit my Achilles heel more acutely when it's on a public forum. Because now? Every can see that Snarky Reviewer thinks I'm stoopit, and how-o-how does one recover from such humiliation? Well, everyone has their own way of dealing with things, but taking from my corporately experience (I just knew it would come in handy—erm—eventually), here's a few ideas.

1. Don't respond to it right away. It's always nice to get back to the critiquer and thank them, but sometimes, it's not possible at the first pass. Especially when the comments feel unnecessarily snarky. So have a cup of (*insert favorite writerly beverage here*). Eat a meal. Sleep on it. Listen to Mozart. Dance a jig or two.
   
2. Re-read the critique to see if the snarkiness is self-inflicted. It's hard to know what the true tone of the writer is behind the review without telepathy (which has always been an issue for yours truly), so try to read it in a simple, calm tone.
   
3. Go back and see if there is anything valid in the feedback. The critiquer read your work and put some thoughts together. They may be way off, or they may be right on. Figure out which it is and revise as appropriate.
   
4. Maybe she didn't mean it? Sometimes the critiquer left off in the middle of a thought, so a statement came across the wrong way (I've done that!), or maybe they meant to be funny but it came across as mean-spirited. Follow up with her. It might be worth your while.
   
5. Maybe you like her. For a critiquer you've known for a while and with whom you'd rather maintain a writerly relationship than not, you could approach her and find out what is behind the comments. Maybe it reminded her of something difficult from her past. Or maybe she was especially crabby that day for other reasons.* Maybe she didn't take the time to re-read her comments before sending them off, and didn't realize how it affected you.
   
6. Maybe she's bad news. Some critiquers leave people skills behind during reviews, who are Snarky For The Sake of Snark. When this is the case, it's best to just part ways. And that's okay. What you need for your work is constructive, thoughtful feedback. Take the high road, thank them for their time, and then pursue other critiquing relationships.
   

Spending too much time and energy on the Snarky For The Sake of Snark reviewers is a waste of your talent, time, and energy that could be better spent on your writing craft. Move on and don't look back. 


Bygones.


 
*Not that I condone displaced snarkiness.