More on Critiquing

Further to this BC philosophy/explanation members should remember that just because a critique it 3,000 words, doesn't make it a good critique. For example I can quote the whole of your story back para by para, comment on each paragraph, point out typos, mention other stories your story reminds me of, include generalised comments like, "A common error with dialogue is.." then list ten errors and note you make error 4 and 7. That's padding out a crit to make it seem more worthy.

I also know how to write 3000 words on a story where, in fact, you can't tell what I think of it. That's easy. That's a common "crit" at XXXXXXX, for example:

I sat down with Shiela, my ever-loving, we were going to watch a repeat of The West Wing, but I said I had this story written by an Englishman about swimming the English channel. I'm a good standard college swimmer and my wife once swam across Chesepeake Bay so our interest was aroused. We left The West Wing on "record" (there are elements of dialogue in TWW that made me think of the character Hank, BTW).. so Sheila and I opened a nice bottle of Ernst & Gallo Cabernet Sauvignon and read your story together.

Reading "Swimming to Calais" made me think of all that training I did in college. It made me think about how if you want anything worthwhile you have to work damn hard (like I did for my degree in aeronautics and like Sheila did for her damn-tough MBA from Harvard (she's in municipal stocks these days, good basic, health care etc but can turn in a million bucks in commissions... so when it's time to say "let's have a baby" it's going to be tough to trade in the Porsche, right?")

CONTINUE THUS.

WHEN IN DOUBT DO A LINE EDIT. POINT OUT EVERY TYPO, EVERY MISPLACED COMMA. NOTE EVERY REPETITION OF A WORD.

WHATEVER YOU DO, DO NOT COMMENT ON THE ACTUAL STORY'S STORYNESS


Our critiques are not always long (but see a debate elsewhere).

THE PURPOSE OF THE CRITIQUE IS NOT FOR WORKSHOPPING.

THE PURPOSE OF THE CRITIQUE IS NOT TO GET TO AN ASSSESSMENT OF THE STORY'S "WORTH"

THE PURPOSE OF THE CRITIQUE IS NOT TO FIND EIGHT READER RESPONSES.

The purpose of the critique is to make the CRITIQUER make his statement, clearly, unambiguously.

"I think this could win a first prize as it is."

"I think this is already publishable on paper, eg in Cadenza"

"This might make it into an ezine, but it needs work."

"This has serious weaknesses and needs a lot of work."

"This is very ordinary, dry, telly, and drags."

"This is beginnerish."

"This is total junk and the author should be tortured to death."


WHY do I ask for Colin to stand and be counted, say what he thinks? Why do I want Tom to give a mark, make his view clear?

Because:

Going naked, making your statement forces you to decide, to clarify your opinion.

Without that public decision it's far too easy to "roll" and go along with the majority view. Without being forced you might think "Oh, it's probably above 90 and I doubt it's over 105, but it might only be an 87 and it could, I guess, stretch to 109..."

Vague, vague, vague.

So if you've not been forced to look, see, think, decide, if eight critters say 107-110, yeah you can go with that. If they say 89, yeah you can go with that too!

So in Boot Camp we don't allow members to discuss a story unless they have posted a formal critique. Argument after the fact without a crit is a way of cheating. With your crit up there you either argue your points and show you're right, or learn why differing marks have pegged the story better than you did.

By BEING WRONG you learn. By conforming you stand still or go backwards.

In BC the critique is not any individual critique but the whole thread, the GROUP of critiques, the summary grids (show weaknesses) and then the discussion.

It's the argument that counts. Stories that score 94-94-95-95-95-96-96-97 teach us nothing. If we all agree and give a bland middling score what it there to discuss, where are the learning points?

I have got into a habit, along with the longer part of the crit to quickly summarise each mark

Like this

11 Opening… Only just, very cold mechanical feel
10 Character… AUTHOR pulling strings, sometimes painfully
10 DV… Cold, telly, mechanical, forced. Much dialogue hammy and unreal
09 Plot … Structure killed story, melodramatic and very forced second half
08 Theme... Very confused thematically. Words forced in line. Yuck.
10 Show… Author aware always, forced dialogue, telly bits, planted showoffy words
10 Language... Ability to essay and dictionarise does not mean good language. No SOUL
10 Pace… Seriously slow, dragged out, made worse by total lack of real emotion
10 Ending… Like drama written by local rep. IDEA might be good but horrid execution.
00 Bonus…
88 Total…


This is to represent what it's like as a judge or an editor. We have little time. Our decisions are often fast (at least to narrow the field) and only when we are down to a handful of stories can we have time to STUDY them.

So in Boot Camp I ask for quicker critiques and longer discussions later. We need to be able to "see" stories fast because (a) that's how it is in the real world, and (b) seeing others teaches us to see our own. When we self-crit and adjust, the decisions need to be mostly automatic and instantaneous so we don't engage our left, analytical brain. This auto-edit-as-you-go should not be confused with serious editing and rewriting after the story has been set aside a while.