# How to Give a Good Critique



## Garvan (Jan 25, 2018)

I may be new to this forum but I am not new to writing or to giving critiques so this comes from years of experience. 

1. Respect the writer's voice and vision - it is your job to help them find and better express both of these things - not conform them to the "popular" style of the time. 

2. Listen to what the writer wants to achieve - sometimes it is clear where they are going, other times you need to ask, but always listen. It is not your job to try and tell them what to write or how to write it but simply how to write it better. 

3. Your job is to help the writer become better at what they do - so please don't come with your opinions about preferring this style or that. Go write your own work like that - don't force others into the same box as you. The world would be very boring indeed if everyone was the same.

4. It is your job to see beyond the current box of popularity - people move in flocks, right now the stark style of Hemmingway. This is not the only way to write - don't tell people who don't naturally write like Hemmingway to write like Hemmingway. Rather take the time to find authors that match their style. Remember you are there to help them find their style, not make another Hemmingway. 

5. Make sure you point out what is right as well as what is wrong with a piece - surprisingly you do actually learn from hearing what you did right as well as what you did wrong. It allows the new writer to analyze their work and see how the wrote something well and learn how to repeat that feat. 

6. Don't ever take anything personally - always keep a cool head when dealing with new writers. Often they will react in an emotional manner - reacting back is the fastest way to lose the validity of your critique and peoples opinion in your abilities. 

7. Again remember that you are there to help them not promote yourself or share what kind of writing you like - shocking as it may seem, there are more critiquers out there that are more interested in making themselves look good than help you get better at writing. So please don't be one of them. And remember it is not about you it is about the writer! 

8. So by now, you are offended - good, get used to it, over the course of your critiquing career many a week is going to be spent feeling affronted, insulted and offended and you can never take it out on the person who has offended you - see comment about rule 6. As a good critiquer keeping a cool head is one of the most important things to do. 

9. Oops, I did it again! - people repeat mistakes, deal, keep calm and explain it all again. No-one said this job was nice or fun. 

So now... how good a critiquer are you? Have you listened to the writer? Can you keep a cool head? Can you share an opinion without imposing your vision on another?


----------



## bdcharles (Jan 25, 2018)

Great guide - thanks for this. 

I like to think I hit most of these marks, but by no means all. The thing I struggle with is 1) Respect the writers' voice and vision. I struggle here if I cannot see the voice and vision. The temptation used to be to impose my own but latterly, I have to, as a mentor, think of ways to help writers get in touch with their own voice and vision. I'm still working on that and shall let you know if I have any luck with it!


----------



## Garvan (Jan 25, 2018)

Ask - if you can't see, know that they can at least give you a guide. So ask. There is no shame in that.


----------



## Pete_C (Jan 25, 2018)

It's good that you've set yourself a series of guidelines to use when you're offering critiques. I applaud your initiative.

People critique in different ways, many less structured than yourself. I personally prefer a more 'on the fly' approach because it's not always possible to mandate for what you might find in any given piece of work.


----------



## bdcharles (Jan 25, 2018)

Garvan said:


> Ask - if you can't see, know that they can at least give you a guide. So ask. There is no shame in that.



You are right. And sometimes it works, and progress is made. But the issue there is that sometimes the communication or writing ability is simply not there yet, so the responses are not as clear as the vision itself. Other times I receive no reply - and as you know, time is a finite resource so ... you know, I have to choose what I put my own time into. But we persevere. I actually quite enjoy critting. I get alot out of it and it is pretty satisfying when someone has a realisation for their own work on the back of what I say.


----------



## bookmasta (Jan 27, 2018)

I do not give critiques very often, nor really clamor for them myself personally, but there are a few things I know that should be followed when critiquing someone's work. First, be respectful. Second, be constructive and not just critical. Third, if there is something you recommend altering, then give an example of how the writer may edit their work accordingly. If you are not able to provide a sufficient enough advice on how the writer might go about improving on the error you've noticed, then direct them to a source or resource that will be able to. Do not simply just say something is "not quite right." Fourth, do not just assume because you gave a critique on someone's work that they will automatically give a critique of their own your work.


----------



## qwertyman (Jan 28, 2018)

In most instances the writer's question is, 'would *you* read this book?' A critique is a personal thing, one has to apply one's likes and dislikes, on style, voice, structure etc. otherwise why answer the question? 

 The writer can ignore or apply, there is no forced imposition. I agree you have to be tough to say it and tough to take it.

Is your exit from WF anything to do with rule eight?


----------



## Darkkin (Jan 28, 2018)

One key element that was left out, it is never, ever a critiquer's right to say, their opinion is the right way, the only way to write a piece.  They didn't write it, the author did!  If the critiquer starts using phrases like 'I'm right...':  Major red flag!  Deer check and ask for quantificatations of the opinions being offered.  Specific examples.  e.g.  In situations like that a little logic can go a long way, and chances are if a critique is not wholly sound, too much based on opinion and not straight fact, the holes in the foundations of a critiquer's approach will show.  Context is the body of proof through which authors communicate, and are the bones of a piece.  It has to be able to support the weight of the piece.  This is something both sides occassionaly overlook.

If the foundations of a piece are sound, it should weather critique, the same truth applies to critique.  If its foundations are true, it should be able to weather the storm of quantification.  If not...Well, sandcastles at high tide.

Keep in mind that as readers, as writers, we have an obligation to be critical thinkers.  Something seems off, ask.  If something can be improved, illustrate.  And if you don't agree with an observation, demonstrate its viability with specifics contained in context.  Only by actively engaging with a tool can we learn how to wield it properly.

And as writers, I think trying to classify critique as good and bad is arbitary.  A more concise coding, effective.  Did the author find the tool useful, did the critiquer learn something in the process of writing the critique, or from the author's observations, (whose insight is just as viable as any reader's)?

 Lists are the easy part of writing, the work comes with its implementation.  I'm wondering if it might be smart to keep a collection of examples of the different permutations of 'critique'?   (Examples can be added, if needed.)

e.g.

effective (both the critiquer and writer communicate effectively, the critiquer with quantitative data, the writer with revision)
objective (critiquer has a point, author doesn't like it, but cannot refute observations with context)
subjective (middle ground both critiquer and writer have opinions, neither has quantification)
ineffective (critiquer's observations can be countered, point by point with quantitative context)
basic opinion (critiquer and/or writer base their observations wholly on opinion, no quantitative data)

Just some thoughts...

Addemdum:  If as part of a critique, a word is called into question.  Double check the meaning and the words's surrounding context.  (Pet peeve of mine, both as a reader and writer...)

- D.


----------



## Jay Greenstein (Jan 28, 2018)

> 1. Respect the writer's voice and vision - it is your job to help them find and better express both of these things


"Voice and vision?" Very uplifting...but also meaningless words. Does "respect" mean not to point out problems? Or does it mean to do the most you can to help because they deserve that? Be reasonable. A critique is usually done on the first three or four pages of the story. What "vision" is there in three pages? The inciting incident has probably not yet happened. So what you have is the pages whose job is to hook the reader and make them _want_ to read more. As Sol Stein observed: “A novel is like a car—it won’t go anywhere until you turn on the engine. The “engine” of both fiction and nonfiction is the point at which the reader makes the decision not to put the book down. The engine should start in the first three pages, the closer to the top of page one the better.”

If the writer hooks you, all is well. If not, there are problems. And both identifying and fixing those problems is the focus of any critique, not building up the writer's ego. I don't know about you, but if there's a problem I want to know about it, and I don't give a damn if the advice is snarled or given with a smile. My feelings as a result of learning of a problem are irrelevant. Eliminating them is what matters.





> 2. Listen to what the writer wants to achieve


The thing the writer wants to achieve is to hook the reader. Period. As E. L. Doctorow observed, “Good writing is supposed to evoke sensation in the reader, not the fact that it’s raining, but the feeling of being rained upon.” That's what the writer _must_ achieve. We're talking about three pages, not the goal of the novel, when it comes to critiquing.





> 4. It is your job to see beyond the current box of popularity


No, it's not, if for no other reason than that we're not in a position to second guess what will be popular next year. The job of the one critiquing the work is to look at it as if they were reading it in the bookstore and deciding if they will buy it or put it back on the shelf. Our goal is to say what moves someone reading the piece to say yes and what makes them say no—and why.
5. Make sure you point out what is right as well as what is wrong with a piece[/QUOTE]Noble sentiments. But if, for example, the writer, because they're missing data, writes a scene that doesn't address the three questions a reader always wants answered quickly. Suppose the writer presents a transcription of themself telling the story aloud, a chronicle of events, or a description of what a viewer would see in the film were they in the audience (the three most common problems)? In that case there is nothing to praise but the nice contrast of the letters against the background. One thing I've learned over the years is that if you find ten structural problems that will each generate a rejection, but end the critique with, "But with work this could sell (a meaningless statement) all the one who wrote the piece will get is, "but with work this could sell."





> 5. Make sure you point out what is right as well as what is wrong with a piece


See above. By definition, what's not wrong is right. If the writer's ego can't handle learning what needs to be fixed without meaningless praise they won't be able to handle the rejections that will be coming. 

One critical point every writer must internalize is that a critique is _not_ a personal attack. It does _not_ reference them, their potential and talent as a writer, _or anything but that piece of writing on that day_. Anyone incapable of accepting that will never achieve success as a writer. In fact, this article has direct relevance to how we should write our critique. In it, he talks about what happens when your submission is received. Our job is to help prevent  a given writer's rejection because of the things he mentions.

Ours is a difficult and demanding profession. Respecting the writer means treating them like a professional. And if you've ever seen what you get back from your editor, as the two of you ready the piece for release, you would realize that the kind of critiquing we get here, or on any writing site is a very gentle pat on the back compared to that.

My view? If we're critiquing a given piece we must assume that the writer hopes to write well enough that people who know only the professionally written and prepared work they've been reading all their lives will like it. And to help them with that, we can't simply say, "Well, this is how I would have written it." It would seem reasonable that unless we're giving only a reader's reaction (noted as such), we should take steps to know what readers in a bookstore, and the publisher's office react well to. In doing so, we not only help the one we're critiquing, we're helping our own writing.


I think part of the problem is that the term "critique" is too often taken to mean "opinion."
[h=2] Definition of critique[/h]     *Merriam-Webster: An act of criticizing;                  especially                  : a critical (see critical 1c) estimate or discussion                      *

a critique of the poet's work

 

an honest critique of her art

 



*Cambridge:* * A   report that discusses a situation or the writings** or ideas of someone and offers a judgment about them: *She produced a detailed, page-by-page critique of the book.


*Dictionary.com:*noun                                                                         1. an article or essay criticizing a literary or other work; detailed evaluation; review.  

                                                   2. a criticism or critical comment on some problem, subject, etc.  

                                                   3. the art or practice of criticism.  

*

Collins: A critique is a written examination and judgment of a situation or of a person's work or ideas. *




*The Free Dictionary: *A critical evaluation or analysis, especially one dealing with works of art or literature. 

  To evaluate or analyze critically. 

[French, from Greek kritikē (tekhnē), _(art) of criticism_, feminine of kritikos, _critical_; see critic.] 
*Usage Note: *_Critique_ has  been  used  as  a  verb  meaning  "to  review  or  discuss  critically"  since  the  1700s,  but  lately  this  usage  has  gained  much  wider  currency,  partly  because  the  once-neutral  verb _criticize_ is  now  used  mainly  in  a  negative  sense.  The  use  of _critique_ as  a  verb  is  widely  though  not  universally  accepted:  In  our  2016  survey,  the  sentence _As mock inquisitors grill him, top aides take notes and critique the answers with the President afterward_ was  deemed  acceptable  by  63  percent  of  the  Usage  Panel,  while  62  percent  approved  of  the  sentence _Students are taught how to do a business plan and then they are critiqued on it._ But  a  substantial  minority  of  readers  are  annoyed  by  the  verb,  partly  because  borrowings  from  French  can  sound  pretentious,  partly  because  verbs  derived  from  nouns  sometimes  have  trouble  gaining  acceptance.  There  is  no  exact  synonym,  but  in  some  contexts  one  can  substitute _evaluate_ or _review._ ·  The  use  of _critique_ as  a  noun  is  uncontroversial:  in  our  2016  survey,  93  percent  of  the  Usage  Panel  approved  of  its  use  in  the  sentence _The committee gave the report a thorough critique and found it both informed and intelligent._


----------



## Kyle R (Jan 28, 2018)

Garvan said:


> 5. Make sure you point out what is right as well as what is wrong with a piece



I believe it's best not to think in terms of "right" and "wrong", at least when it comes to giving feedback. Critiquing from that perspective is almost guaranteed to generate arguments.

Better to simply point out what worked for you as a reader, what didn't work for you, and give your reasons why. :encouragement:


----------



## ppsage (Jan 28, 2018)

> Better to simply point out what worked for you as a reader, what didn't work for you, and give your reasons why.


#1


----------



## Bayview (Jan 29, 2018)

Jay Greenstein said:


> "Voice and vision?" Very uplifting...but also meaningless words. Does "respect" mean not to point out problems? Or does it mean to do the most you can to help because they deserve that? Be reasonable. A critique is usually done on the first three or four pages of the story. What "vision" is there in three pages? The inciting incident has probably not yet happened. So what you have is the pages whose job is to hook the reader and make them _want_ to read more.




I don't think in terms of "inciting incidents" but as I understand the terms, my inciting incidents almost _always_ happen in the first few pages, because it's my personal style to start the story as late as possible. That may not be your style, and that's fine. We have different styles. That's all.




> ...The thing the writer wants to achieve is to hook the reader. Period.



But you keep acting as if there's only one reader out there, and you're it.

There are very different types of readers looking for very different types of books. As a disciple of Dwight Swain, you're probably going for a fairly action-y, genre-y style, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that style, but _it's not the only one out there_. Some readers will like it, some readers will prefer something else. Critiques should recognize this.

My goal with my writing is to interest and entertain _my_ readers, not some generic "the reader". When I write YA I have a different voice and vision than when I write romance; when I write m/f romance my voice and vision are different from when I write m/m. They're different markets, and my writing needs to acknowledge that if I'm going to be successful.

If you've been in the business for a while, you've probably had the experience of getting conflicting feedback from professional editors. I had one book that got, from one Big Five editor, "I love her voice and I'd like to talk to you about another project she might be good to work on, but the plot for this one just doesn't work for me," and, from another Big Five editor, for the same damn book, "The plot was great, but this just isn't the voice we're looking for."

Less obviously, surely you've had some editors reject a piece and then some other editor pick it up with enthusiasm?

How do you explain these experiences if you're sticking to the right way/wrong way view of writing, with no appreciation for the subjectivity of it all?

I had a bit of a personal reckoning when I saw Twilight get so popular. I haven't actually read the book but I've seen enough excerpts (and read enough bitching from authors) to know that it breaks many of the "rules" of writing. But it got published and it had phenomenal success because it reached its readers. Not the other authors, not some generic "the reader", but _its_ readers.

I don't get too worried about the "say it nicely/say it harshly" business (although I've never had edits from a professional editor that were anything but constructive and supportive), but I will continue to disagree with your apparent belief that there's any kind of universally right or wrong way to write, once we're beyond the _very_ basic levels.


----------



## Pluralized (Jan 29, 2018)

Disagree with the notion that it's anyone's "job" to look into the "intent" that a writer has. The text had better stand on its own and survive being detached from its creator. The presumptuous nature of this 'guide' really turns me off. Anyone's time spent critiquing, particularly in this unpaid, voluntary realm, is to be regarded as exactly what it is. Free input from the sky, to be taken or rejected as the writer sees fit. Those with the patience and humility to absorb the constructive and sidestep the caustic will be better for it. 

And remember, not every writer is destined for greatness. Most aren't, in fact. So let's stop coddling anyone and everyone just because they possess the metacarpal functionality to type out some words. Be glad these resources exist and that people are willing to give you feedback for free, I guess is the main point I want to make. We should be thanking Zeus that we can even have this discussion.


----------



## sas (Jan 29, 2018)

Pluralized said:


> Disagree with the notion that it's anyone's "job" to look into the "intent" that a writer has. The text had better stand on its own and survive being detached from its creator. The presumptuous nature of this 'guide' really turns me off. Anyone's time spent critiquing, particularly in this unpaid, voluntary realm, is to be regarded as exactly what it is. Free input from the sky, to be taken or rejected as the writer sees fit. Those with the patience and humility to absorb the constructive and sidestep the caustic will be better for it.
> 
> And remember, not every writer is destined for greatness. Most aren't, in fact. So let's stop coddling anyone and everyone just because they possess the metacarpal functionality to type out some words. Be glad these resources exist and that people are willing to give you feedback for free, I guess is the main point I want to make. We should be thanking Zeus that we can even have this discussion.




Right on! And, I'm from the generation that never said, "right on"!  How many times can I say "ditto, ditto, ditto"?


----------



## Annoying kid (Jan 29, 2018)

Garvan said:


> it is your job...



Stop right there. It's _not_ my job. I'm not providing the writer a service by critiquing their work. I'm not being paid, nor did I sign up for be a WF Mentor. _I'd_ be doing _them_ a _favour_. Setting a list of terms and expectations of the critic reeks of entitlement, and a corruption of intellectual honesty. It's tantamount to being given a free gift - the gift of a complete stranger's time, and then complaining about how the gift was given. 

If you want us to approach it like a job, then pay us like a job.


----------



## Phil Istine (Jan 29, 2018)

I haven't read every singlesentence of this thread, so apologies if it's been covered.

Could part of the problem be that the word "criticism" has come to have negative connotations in general language use?  As writers (or artists), we have probably absorbed that a critic is one who assesses the merits and drawbacks of a piece of work - though not everyone chooses to focus on merits.

Although it's probably not the job of a critic, I do try to offer encouragement and suggestions along with my brickbats because under the facade, I'm quite a sensitive soul myself.  I feel this is an asset with my writing and with showing empathy to fellow writers.  That doesn't mean that I'll let someone become deluded.

I'm still wondering when everyone will find me out, though that feeling has lessened of late.


----------



## andrewclunn (Jan 29, 2018)

Make sure your critiques are at least three times as long as the work itself, otherwise you might accidentally be helpful.


----------



## ppsage (Jan 29, 2018)

Unless for some reason it's your job to judge the piece, in which case you're not really doing it for the author, writing advice, in a forum like WF, is never as useful as an honest and thoughtful reaction to the piece. What did it make you imagine, what did it make you see, what do you think happened, what do you think it means?


----------



## Terry D (Jan 29, 2018)

Annoying kid said:


> Stop right there. It's _not_ my job. I'm not providing the writer a service by critiquing their work. I'm not being paid, nor did I sign up for be a WF Mentor. _I'd_ be doing _them_ a _favour_. Setting a list of terms and expectations of the critic reeks of entitlement, and a corruption of intellectual honesty. It's tantamount to being given a free gift - the gift of a complete stranger's time, and then complaining about how the gift was given.
> 
> If you want us to approach it like a job, then pay us like a job.



If you plan to critique a piece, then you do assume the task, or job, of giving critique. Now you can either approach that task with the intent of actually helping, in which case it does make sense to try and give that critique in a manner that will be well-received, or you can take the lazy -- or mean-spirited -- path and just dump a bunch of crap onto the page and look like an ass. It's your choice. I'd like to think that most people who say, "Yeah, I'll take a look at your work," would try to do so to the best of their ability.


----------



## Annoying kid (Jan 29, 2018)

Terry D said:


> If you plan to critique a piece, then you do assume the task, or job, of giving critique. Now you can either approach that task with the intent of actually helping, in which case it does make sense to try and give that critique in a manner that will be well-received, or you can take the lazy -- or mean-spirited -- path and just dump a bunch of crap onto the page and look like an ass. It's your choice. I'd like to think that most people who say, "Yeah, I'll take a look at your work," would try to do so to the best of their ability.



Or I can do neither, and give my honest opinion. Without kowtowing to a list of expectations and without being intentionally mean spirited. If the writer only accepts views filtered through their list of demands, don't post work on a public forum. Or feel free to put critics who trigger them on ignore.


----------



## Terry D (Jan 29, 2018)

Annoying kid said:


> Or I can do neither, and give my honest opinion. Without kowtowing to a list of expectations and without being intentionally mean spirited. If the writer only accepts views filtered through their list of demands, don't post work on a public forum. Or feel free to put critics who trigger them on ignore.



What "demands?" The OP posted a list of suggestions of things for those who choose to give critique to think about. Nowhere did he 'demand' anything. There are many discussions about critique on this site and most of the recommendations boil down to versions of that same list. Honest opinions are fine. Most writers appreciate them, but the best critiques usually have a little more thought put into them.


----------



## moderan (Jan 29, 2018)

Every writer should be required to be an editor at some point. There's nothing like it to make one 'get' how writing works. My critiquing standard, since the day I arrived (February 2004, under my original username), has been 'would I buy it'?
Not everyone here is a professional, or trying to be one. But that kind of work isn't (generally speaking) going to be of the caliber I like.


----------



## Jay Greenstein (Jan 30, 2018)

> But you keep acting as if there's only one reader out there, and you're it.


There is only one reader out there: the one who is using what your words suggest to them, based on their experience, not the writer's, to try to make the scene seem real. And since we all learned to read via the same type of school system, and have read professionally prepared work all our lives, we do all look at writing in the same way. And just like we expect consistent use of punctuation and grammar we expect a three act structure. We expect the story to happen, not be talked about by a voice we can't hear. It doesn't matter the kind of story, or the kind of reader. A reader expects the writing to provide context for what's happening.

The three questions a reader expects to have addressed going into any scene are universal: who am I, where am I, and what's going on. Without that we have no context and the words are meaningless. A reader expects to know what the protagonist's short term scene-goal is so that they will recognize when things begin to go wrong without the author having to step on stage to lecture them about it. They expect a scene to be structured for the page, not like one for the screen, because the mediums are vastly different, and have different strengths and weaknesses. But none of the things I mentioned, above are taught in school (or even mentioned), any more than how to manage tags, and viewpoint. 

Those things are universal to writing fiction for the page because our medium mandates it, and publishers require it. You can ignore it, of course. But you will not sell your work to a publisher if you do. And given that there is no way to know if a given writer hopes to eventually sell their work, no way in hell am I going to do anything but look at the work as if they were hoping to submit it. I'll mention that they're telling instead of showing. I'll tell them if they're providing a transcript of them telling the story on stage, or a chronicle of events. Anything else is a disservice to the one writing the piece.

As for my pushing my views, I don't. I have over fifty books on writing in my library, and I can quote book and page number for pretty much any point I mention. So you're talking to the wrong person. What I say is what you'll hear from agents and publishers at conferences and workshops. You'll read it in the books used in earning a degree in commercial fiction. That's why I always provide links to professional advice. Certainly you don't have to pay any attention to them. You don't have to pay attention to anyone...unless you want to impress people who are used to reading the books in the library, the bookstores, magazines...

So I have a question. What in the hell does everyone have against taking a little time to learn the skills of our profession from the people whose job is to know them? Pretty much no one gets a publishing contract without doing that. 





> How do you explain these experiences if you're sticking to the right  way/wrong way view of writing, with no appreciation for the subjectivity  of it all?


Because acquiring editors react to the _writing_. The structure they expect is a given, just as is proper spelling and punctuation. I've read slushpiles, and talked to many editors/agents. I've been through the process of publication more than once or twice. The vast majority of submissions are rejected before the end of the first page, most before the end of the first paragraph. Why? For the same reasons I mention in my critiques so often. The writer is still using the nonfiction writing skills we're given in our school days. And that's true of about 75% of what's submitted, which agents/publishers call, "unreadable." Of the remaining 25% all but three are viewed as unprofessional (their term, not mine). No way in hell can you become "professional" by floundering around doing what "seems right" because that judgment is being made by the nonfiction writing skills we practiced for twelve years in school—practiced till they feel intuitive.

You say that Swain is focused on action type books. Nothing could be further from the truth. He didn't come up with the things he talks about, he analyzed the techniques of selling writers to see what they have in common, and why it works. When he was teaching at the legendary commercial fiction writing workshops at Oklahoma University, the student list read like a who's who of American fiction. And seriously, if it's good enough for them...

His Motivation/Response Units mirror how we live our own lives, and you see it in use in every genre. It'ds not a matter of style, they're the nuts-and-bolts issues of fiction, and common to all genres. Before you write him off, I _strongly_ suggest you read the book, or listen to his workshops on writing and character development. I can't speak for anyone else, but two things happened when I did. The first is that I spent a lot of time slapping my forehead and saying, "Why in the _hell_ didn't I see that for myself?" The second is that after massive changes in my approach to writing, brought on by that book, I sold my next manuscript.

In reality, I'm not pushing my agenda, or one way of writing. I'm saying that if you want to be a success at _anything_. it's all in the becoming. We all love to read, and to write. We all sincerely want to please our reader. The advice we give each other is sincere and heartfelt. No one can, or should, deny that. But a sincere belief in anything has absolutely nothing to do with the accuracy of that belief, which iswhy I always say, "go with the pros."

The friendships, the conversation, and the feedback we get here is invaluable. And this is, withot doubt, one of the best sites on the Internet. But the way to learn to write for publication is not to seek the advice of those who, themselves, need such information.

Okay, I know, this is too long, and no one wants to hear it. But tilting at windmills is my weakness.


----------



## qwertyman (Jan 30, 2018)

Terry D said:


> ... Honest opinions are fine. Most writers appreciate them, but the best critiques usually have a little more thought put into them.


​
Do not ignore the avid reader.  They may not have any writing experience, and little analytical to say.  But they are the page-turner. A comment like, _a lot of waffle on page 48._ is gold dust to me.



			
				Jay said:
			
		

> ...The three questions a reader expects to have addressed going into any scene are universal: who am I, where am I, and what's going on.
> ​



So true.


			
				Jay said:
			
		

> ...They expect a scene to be structured for the page, not like one for the screen, because the mediums are vastly different, and have different strengths and weaknesses.​



For Literary Fiction I would agree. I don't see why a commercial storyteller can't construct a scene 'like one for the screen'. How does it automatically fail?  


			
				Jay said:
			
		

> But the way to learn to write for publication is not to seek the advice of those who, themselves, need such information.​



Logical, but ignore the precocious reader at your peril. If only there were pre-screenings for novels. If I had to choose between sending my script to a Book Reading club or a Lecturer for comment, I would take the former.

PS I have Swain's book...only up to page 23... too soon to comment.


----------



## Bayview (Jan 30, 2018)

Jay Greenstein said:


> There is only one reader out there: the one who is using what your words suggest to them, based on their experience, not the writer's, to try to make the scene seem real. And since we all learned to read via the same type of school system, and have read professionally prepared work all our lives, we do all look at writing in the same way. And just like we expect consistent use of punctuation and grammar we expect a three act structure. We expect the story to happen, not be talked about by a voice we can't hear. It doesn't matter the kind of story, or the kind of reader. A reader expects the writing to provide context for what's happening.



Even assuming this is accurate, which it clearly isn't (your educational experience was obviously VASTLY different from mine, and every time you tell me what _I_ learned or didn't learn in school, I'm baffled by your over-confidence)... there's still a question of application and interpretation. 

How much context does one reader want compared to another? It will vary. You seem to want things spelled out quite explicitly. I'm happy with much less. Neither of us is right or wrong, we're just different readers.

The first time I realized how different our taste is was with a piece put up for critique here, an atmospheric story about a boy awake in the night, being comforted by his older sister. It was lightly creepy, just a hint of strangeness around the mundane (but lovely) relationship between the two children. For me, giving that scene more concrete details would have killed the part that absolutely made it work for me - the ambiguity, the _hint_ of something being not-quite-right without being able to put your finger on it.

Neither one of us was right or wrong about the effectiveness of that piece _for us_. It worked for me, it didn't work for you. But when you try to expand and say the work isn't effective, period, then you're wrong. My reaction to the piece was clear evidence that, at least for some readers in some circumstances, it was quite effective.

You can argue that I'm some sort of anomaly, but I'm not sure how far you'll get.



> The three questions a reader expects to have addressed going into any scene are universal: who am I, where am I, and what's going on.



There are countless stories in which those questions are the heart of the piece, especially with short stories. If a reader doesn't have _any _of those questions answered, yes, I expect the reader would soon get frustrated, but how many speculative fiction stories have you read where the realization of "where am I" or "what's going on" was the climax of the piece? Lots, I expect.

 You're taking a guideline that probably makes sense in most cases and applying it universally without regard for the larger story. That's not a good approach.



> But none of the things I mentioned, above are taught in school (or even mentioned), any more than how to manage tags, and viewpoint.



I don't really expect to change your mind about the larger perspectives, but could you at _least_ stop telling people what they did or didn't learn in school? Yeah, a lot of my learning came from _reading_ literature rather than writing it or from direct instruction, but of course I understood dialogue tags and viewpoint before graduating high school. What the hell were you doing in your English classes if not reading and analyzing literature and figuring out why it was effective?



> You can ignore it, of course. But you will not sell your work to a publisher if you do.



I do ignore it, and I get published just fine. So...?



> So I have a question. What in the hell does everyone have against taking a little time to learn the skills of our profession from the people whose job is to know them?



I don't think there's anything wrong with reading lots of books about writing. They don't work for me, but I know lots of other writers who swear by them. (I'm not sure how many _top_ writers would say they learned to write by reading how-to books, but... maybe some of them?)

But reading the books is different from having _you_ tell people what's "right" and "wrong" with their work. You are not Dwight Swain. I've read his book (well, read the first few chapters, skimmed the rest--it really didn't seem useful to me - for _me_, and _my_ writing.) And from what I've read (and the parts I've gone back and re-read after hearing you proselytising about them), you're taking Dwight's general principles and applying them as absolute black-and-white rules. I don't think Dwight would appreciate that, given his dim views of writing to a formula.



> No way in hell can you become "professional" by floundering around doing what "seems right" because that judgment is being made by the nonfiction writing skills we practiced for twelve years in school—practiced till they feel intuitive.



Again, this does not apply to me or my writing. So, while I might agree with you if you tried a "It's much more difficult" approach, I can't go along with the "No way in hell" line. You're being black-and-white again, and I'm living proof of the shades of grey. It only takes one exception to disprove an absolute statement, but I really don't think I'm exceptional. I think there are lots of other authors like me out there.



> Before you write him off, I _strongly_ suggest you read the book, or listen to his workshops on writing and character development.



You're probably used to people disagreeing with you, so we probably all blur together, but as I said the _last_ time you suggested I read the book - I've read the book. I didn't find it compelling.



> I can't speak for anyone else, but two things happened when I did. The first is that I spent a lot of time slapping my forehead and saying, "Why in the _hell_ didn't I see that for myself?"



And the main reason I didn't find it compelling was because I _didn't_ have this experience. I read a section, frowned at it, and said "Uh, yeah. That's... not new. You're using different terms to describe it, but the concept is as old as fiction."



> The friendships, the conversation, and the feedback we get here is invaluable. And this is, without doubt, one of the best sites on the Internet. But the way to learn to write for publication is not to seek the advice of those who, themselves, need such information.



But you're one of those people?!? You're not a super-successful author in disguise, are you? You've _read_ a lot of books by successful authors or successful teachers, but you're still working out how to write books that are super-successful, right? So if you have all the information you need, then what's holding you back?

It seems like you either don't have all the information (and if you've read and absorbed 50 books on writing, this is hard for me to believe) or like _there's something more than information involved in effective writing_. And in my opinion, it's your failure to see the "something more" that makes your critiques less useful than they could be.

You know what? I don't think either one of us is going to convince the other, and I really don't have the heart to keep having this conversation _and_ I don't like the idea of walking away and letting you continue to say things I strongly disagree with. So how about a different approach?

I'm not a fan of how-to books (have you picked up on that?) but I keep telling myself I need to spend some time with them. And one I've started, but never gotten far with, is Donald Maass's _Writing the Breakout Novel_. From what I've read so far, he's got some good ideas, and I feel like that's the stage you and I are both at in our writing - we can tell a basic story, but we're still figuring out how to make them really _zing_, how to "breakout" from our current level of writing.

You want to have an online book club? We could work through the book chapter-by-chapter, discuss what we're reading, bounce ideas around, see where we agree and where we (I'm sure) disagree...

Others would be welcome as well, of course. It might be useful, and more constructive than just typing the exact same arguments back and forth in countless threads...


----------



## Pete_C (Jan 30, 2018)

One point that has been missed is that many of the self-proclaimed experts who write books about writing don't actually tell their readers anything that the reader can't work out for themselves. I don't need to read a book to learn that when an incident occurs the first reaction will be a reflex one, followed by a deliberate or considered action. I've always known that, ever since I can remember being alive. No one taught me that, no matter how highly they rate their expertise in writing. It's all around me (and you) in everyday life. 

I don't need a self-promoting writing guru to tell me about the conflict/failure/reaction/outcome cycle because it's obvious. I've seen it in life situations that are interesting, in books I've read, in stories I've been told and in a variety of other situations. Few of us need to be taught these things, no more than we need to be taught to breathe.

The so-called experts, and those who also consider themselves experts because they've read all the books, forget one thing. Most writers are astute enough to figure it out for themselves. Having someone telling us we need to listen to their perceived wisdom doesn't work when that wisdom is obvious.

I don't believe that the knowledge is lacking in most writers (there are some...). The bigger problem for many new writers is that the writing process is slower than the thinking process, so they get things muddled, add too much detail, miss out necessary information, etc.. Then, in their excitement, they post it or submit it without going over it with a fine tooth comb.

A good critique should help the writer to revisit and fine-tune their work. It's not about lecturing people as if they're clueless; it's about reminding them that their writing and thinking are out of whack. They need to revise, revise and then revise some more.

I've never seen a writing book or blog, lecture or course, that told writers anything they couldn't work out for themselves via practice and thinking! Maybe those who don't apply themselves might benefit from such 'instructional' information, but few need it.

In a world where editors and publishers and agents are seeking something different, a formulaic approach doesn't fit. Critiques should aim to get the writer questioning their own work. Telling them it will fail is a nonsense, because no one (even a publisher) has that knowledge.


----------



## Terry D (Jan 30, 2018)

You can try to apply what someone else tells you works, or you can apply what someone else shows you works...




All of these -- and thousands more -- break the 'rules'.

The best books on writing I've ever read were written by authors willing to talk about what works for them, willing to describe their process, and not lecture the reader on what they should do.


----------



## Pete_C (Jan 30, 2018)

Terry D said:


> All of these -- and thousands more -- break the 'rules'.



It is interesting that in an ocean of 'me too' books, the real outstanding works, the classics, often stand alone because they are different in some fundamental way. 

Yes, there is potential in the publishing industry for more of the same, but why would anyone not want to strive to be the best they can be? More importantly, why would anyone else make it their mission to persuade others not to strive to be the best they can be?


----------



## Jay Greenstein (Jan 30, 2018)

> I don't see why a commercial storyteller can't construct a scene 'like one for the screen'. How does it automatically fail?


A scene on the page, like one on the stage derives its name from scenery, and focuses on the visual, and usually involves the action in one location, or one sequence (like a car chase.) The scene ends when the location changes or the action shifts.

But on the page, where everything must be spelled out one item at a time, giving the reader the picture that a viewer will see is impossible because it would take unending pages of detail, most of which the protagonist is ignoring. So with no other opetion we must focus on what matters to the protagonist, in the moment they call now. That reduces the amount of necessary detail to a manageable level. But that also changes the focus of the scene.

Check any book or article that defines a scene on the page and you'll find that it's a unit of tension. Here's part of Dwight Swain's explanation of the flow within one.





> _The scene in skeleton
> _
> To repeat: A scene is a unit of conflict, of struggle, lived through by character and reader. It’s a blow-by-blow account of somebody’s time-unified effort to attain an immediate goal despite face-to-face opposition.
> 
> ...







The short answer to the question, though, is that a scene in film and stage revolves around visual/aural issues and our medium cannot reproduce either.





> PS I have Swain's book...only up to page 23... too soon to comment.


Sorry, the excerpt is on page 48. :lol:


----------



## Jay Greenstein (Jan 30, 2018)

> How much context does one reader want compared to another? It will vary.


And that excuses providing none? I don't think so. Fully 90%, or more, of what I read from the newer writer provides no context because their memory of the story, and their intent for the scene, provides context as they read, along with the necessary emotion, so they never know it's missing. And because they don't recognize the problem they take no steps to to fix it, _until someone points that out_. It's not a matter of good/bad writing. They're unaware of the three issues that, addressed, will provide context because it's not part of the nonfiction writing skills we learn in school. Given that the problem is pretty universal, and that the number of people who sit down, write a story and sell it, is pretty damn close to zero, just maybe, mentioning it being missing in a critique makes sense.





> Neither one of us was right or wrong about the effectiveness of that piece _for us_. It worked for me, it didn't work for you.


Did it sell, as is? It neither worked for me nor didn't, because I don't comment on story. I limit my comments to structural issues that contribute to a quick rejection, or acceptance. My own views on how to write don't count, because I'm neither a teacher nor a successful writer. The one thing you want to avoid is saying, "I like it because that's how I would do it." That only works if the publishers are saying yes to our work. In fact, if we do say it's good based on that criteria, we pretty much should add, "But since publishers are saying no to the way I do it..."





> but how many speculative fiction stories have you read where the  realization of "where am I" or "what's going on" was the climax of the  piece?


None, because you misunderstand the question. "Where I am doesn't refer to big picture items. It refers to calibrating the reader's understanding of those three items to that of the protagonist. If our protagonist is saying, "Where it the hell am I?" The logical next step is for the protagonist to investigate, or at least think over the possibilities, thereby placing the reader into the character's viewpoint. And we do know where the character is, because as part of that examining and thinking we have become the protagonist.

The hopeful writer says:

He couldn't see a thing when he woke so he stood and extended his left hand before him and began to shuffle forward one step at a time.

That's a chronicle of events, as dispassionate as any other report. Who is "he?" Dunno. Where does _he_ think he is, and why? Dunno. What does _he_ think is going on? No clue.

Like most hopeful writers the prose dwells on visual details, like how he holds his hand (and which one it is), and an explanation of what shuffling is.

Who are we? Can't tell. Were are we? I'm in the dark about that. What's going on? No way to tell even what he thinks is going on.

Were it us living that situation:

I woke to darkness. A quick look around showed not a trace of light, anywhere. My first thought was that I'd gone blind, but the odor of mold, and the uncomfortable surface beneath me said that I wasn't in my bedroom, and a questing hand brought the news that the surface under me was damp, and felt like cobblestones.

_Shit!_ A bit of probing said that there was nothing above that I could reach, so I sat up and...

Done this way we know as much as the one living it does. And, because we're in the protagonist's "now" we know his/her impressions of the place, their mood and intent. So we know who we are, where we are, as the protag sees it, and, what s/he thinks is going on in that moment. And, rather then a summation, we have moved through time, just as we do in life, by noticing and reacting. And knowingwhat the character does we will have expectations as to what the protag is likely to do next because it's what _we_ would do were we in that situation. And that beats hell out of, "This happened...then that happened...and by the way, you need to know..."





> I do ignore it, and I get published just fine. So...?


An interesting claim, given that you link to none of your work, and provide no samples of your writing. I'm not saying it's not true, only that I believe only what I can verify for myself. And since, as an author, I'm sure you would like additional customers for your work, why not link to something of yours?





> I do ignore it, and I get published just fine. So...?


So what you're saying is that if someone reads a book on writing by a respected teacher, and does not become a best selling writer the book is at fault, and not to be respected. Such false equivalencies are irrelevant to the subject. Though I would be interested in What educational process you experienced that led to your writing as an acquiring editor expects in one of their authors. Fair is fair. I showed you mine... :tears_of_joy:


----------



## Kyle R (Jan 30, 2018)

I believe I mentioned it in another thread, but Swain's methodology (MRUs and Scenes/Sequels) is just one way to approach fiction. It's not the only way.

This is the beginning of E. Catherine Tobler's _(R + D) / I=M

_Grapes grew differently on Mars and no one minded. This trespass was for science, ask anyone.

Perhaps they shouldn’t have grown at all, but they did, into oblong coils that turned the color of copper under the days of long, if distant, sunshine. We found they were best at night, when they froze into slush.

We would sneak into the vineyard, just the two of us, silent as we always had been. We had heard the humans wish for this ability, to be naked under the Martian sky, stretching in our low gravity, bodies coiling however they might. They pictured Martians like grapes, though never noticed any of us in those early days. They didn’t then know how close they were to the truth. Our bodies grew as slender as the grapes did, tethered to the ground by delicate webbed feet the way the grapes held to their vines, spout-like heads spread open to collect whatever moisture the air produced. The leaves and coiled vines hovered in the air, held back by only the weight of the fruit upon them. Once plucked, the vine sprang back, looking much like we did when we jumped.

It didn’t take us long to perfect our system of thievery, though we would both argue we weren’t stealing anything.

​Tobler doesn't follow Swain's mechanics of a scene—the writing (which starts out in the rather unique First Person Plural) establishes the voice of the narrator(s) (Martians), yes, but the structure of the story meanders in and out of time. There are, on occasion, loose scenes, with conflicts and resolutions.

Other times, there are simply "moments", full of lush description and atmosphere. And it works. Tobler is the _Shimmer Magazine_ editor, and a Sturgeon Award Finalist for a reason—she's learned that her fiction doesn't have to be bound by rules.


Another example:

*7 August 1944*

*Leaflets*

​​At dusk they pour from the sky. They blow across the ramparts, turn cartwheels over rooftops, flutter into the ravines between houses. Entire streets swirl with them, flashing white against the cobbles. _Urgent message to the inhabitants of this town_, they say. _Depart immediately to open country.
_
The tide climbs. The moon hangs small and yellow and gibbous. On the rooftops of beachfront hotels to the east, and in the gardens behind them, a half-dozen American artillery units drop incendiary rounds into the mouths of mortars.​
This the first "scene" from Anthony Doerr's _All the Light We Cannot See_—which won him the Pulitzer Prize for Fiction.

If we're talking in terms of Swain methodology, we could argue that Doerr is breaking a cardinal rule: he's writing from the perspective of an authorial narrator. There's no POV character here—it's just an invisible narrator describing things like a camera lens.

There's also no goal, no conflict, no resolution—yet Doerr treats it like a complete fictional unit. It's visual. It establishes the mood and the setting. It does the work that Doerr asks of it.

My overall point is that, yes, Dwight Swain introduced a useful approach to structuring fiction. And for the writers who like to write in that way, his book is full of great ideas.

But it's not the _only_ way to write—and it certainly doesn't need to be the only standard by which we measure works when offering feedback.

Just my two cents, anyway. :encouragement:


----------



## andrewclunn (Jan 30, 2018)

Be strong enough in your critique to be as ruthlessly blunt and honest as you wish others would be with you.  You're not critiquing to make friends, or even to help the author.  You're doing it with the express goal of wanting the piece to become as good as it can be.  Your loyalty is not to your or their fragile notion of self or ego, or anyone's reputation, but instead to the work itself.


----------



## Jay Greenstein (Jan 30, 2018)

> I've never seen a writing book or blog, lecture or course, that told  writers anything they couldn't work out for themselves via practice and  thinking!


One would think that were that true the rejection rate wouldn't be 99.9%, and agents wouldn't call fully 75% of what they get unreadable.

As I do about once a year, I looked at the NYT bestseller list to check the background of successful writers. Four of the five top writers last year either have a degree related to writing, worked in the industry before selling their first novel, or like Dan Brown, were taught writing in college by a visiting writer. The lone exception had a parent who was a CEO of a communication company working in the media, and worked for a TV station. I do that survay pretty much every year, and year after year, the results are the same.

So can you "figure it out for yourself?" The real-world seems to say no. And a reasonability check seems to say that every profession has specialized knowledge and tricks of the trade that must be leaned and mastered. But let's check the situation here. If, as you say, people don't need books on the subject, courses, and such things, How many of us achieved a publishing contract (and with whom) with no other help but a site like this one. No books on writing. No classes, workshops or conferences, and no mentoring by a successful writer? Who, for example, offered you your first contract?


----------



## Terry D (Jan 30, 2018)

Do any of those credentials you mentioned for those NYT bestsellers mention reading Swain or Stein? 

Of course many successful writers have backgrounds which include writing related jobs and education. Many of the folks here have, or have had, writing related jobs and education. Writers will naturally be drawn to those endeavors. I've taken creative writing courses, I worked as a stringer for a local newspaper, I've read books on writing, the former two taught me much more than the latter because I was forced to write, not study writing, write. What I've argued all along, and what I hear others saying, is, what taught me the most; the only thing I would consider indispensable, is reading good fiction and using that to improve my writing. This argument only keeps perpetuating itself because you seem to refuse to accept that other intelligent adults know what works best for them.

Yes, 99.9% of the submissions received by editors and agents are rejected, but you know what? 99.9% of the folks who set up an easel in their spare bedrooms never sell a painting either, just like the 99.9% of the guitarists, drummers, and singers practicing in their garages never get a paying gig. So what?  You have said that you've studied writing for a long time and know what publishers want, yet where are your publishing credits? In a competitive business like publishing even the most educated usually fail. 

I'll wrap this up with my usual mantra; I've never heard of a successful author who didn't credit their success to reading (a lot) and to writing (a lot). Words printed on a page hide _nothing_. If you look you can see how it was built. It's not cooking where you can't see what proportions of eggs to flour were used in the making of a cake, or how the chemical reactions between acids and proteins affect the flavor of a soup. The writer leaves all of his ingredients on the page, all her punctuation choices and word choices are right there. The proportions of nouns to adjectives are there, verbs and their modifiers are there, sentence length, scene structure are there to be seen and understood. You can learn to write good fiction by reading and looking at and listening to how it was put together.


----------



## Bayview (Jan 30, 2018)

Jay Greenstein said:


> Done this way we know as much as the one living it does. And, because we're in the protagonist's "now" we know his/her impressions of the place, their mood and intent. So we know who we are, where we are, as the protag sees it, and, what s/he thinks is going on in that moment. And, rather then a summation, we have moved through time, just as we do in life, by noticing and reacting.



So you're an advocate of  deep POV. I like it too. But it's hardly the only successful POV out there.

And it's strange to me that you're critical of the first example for explaining what "shuffling" means but aren't critical of this one for explaining what "dark" means...?



> An interesting claim, given that you link to none of your work, and provide no samples of your writing. I'm not saying it's not true, only that I believe only what I can verify for myself. And since, as an author, I'm sure you would like additional customers for your work, why not link to something of yours?



There's a link to my website in my sig line. It's there in every post. (It's a crappy website, but my books _are_ on it.)



> So what you're saying is that if someone reads a book on writing by a respected teacher, and does not become a best selling writer the book is at fault, and not to be respected. Such false equivalencies are irrelevant to the subject. Though I would be interested in What educational process you experienced that led to your writing as an acquiring editor expects in one of their authors. Fair is fair. I showed you mine... :tears_of_joy:



I don't understand - you want me to tell you what formal writing education I've had? None.

As discussed, I took high school English, and then I took a few English classes in university, but they were literature, not creative writing. I went to law school and that probably helped me develop some precision.

But mostly I've learned to write by reading my ass off. Reading _everything, always_. When I started writing I stopped reading for a few years, but other than that I've been a voracious reader (mostly of fiction) my whole life.

Now that I'm writing, I experiment, try new things, see what works and what doesn't in a given piece. That's it, for me.

Others will learn better differently, of course. Lots of room for variety!


----------



## Jay Greenstein (Jan 30, 2018)

> Tobler  doesn't follow Swain's mechanics of a scene—the writing (which starts  out in the rather unique First Person Plural) establishes the voice of  the narrator(s) (Martians), yes, but the structure of the story meanders  in and out of time.


She doesn't follow accepted structural norms, true, and, does a _lot_ of info-dumping. Her latest publisher, Apokrupha, someone you never heard of, seems to have only a few offerings, and they're pretty bad. 

She doesn't have one publisher who likes her enough to keep her on. That's not a good sign, which usually indicates poor sales for whatever they said yes to the first time. Some of her novels are self-published, and the latest, released last year, ranks 371,133 from being number one. Her others aren't doing as well. That is not the ranking of a successful writer, so I'm not sure you want to use her that an example of how making up your own structural issues works.

 Hell, I have a novel that ranks a lot better, and I'm nobody special. I don't do any promotion, ands it was released in 2013.  True, Water Dance is free (because it's the first in a series), but I shouldn't come close to the ranking of a competent author's story released only a few months ago. So I don't think your example serves to prove your point.


----------



## Pete_C (Jan 30, 2018)

Jay Greenstein said:


> She doesn't follow accepted structural norms, true, and, does a _lot_ of info-dumping. Her latest publisher, Apokrupha, someone you never heard of, seems to have only a few offerings, and they're pretty bad.
> 
> She doesn't have one publisher who likes her enough to keep her on. That's not a good sign, which usually indicates poor sales for whatever they said yes to the first time. Some of her novels are self-published, and the latest, released last year, ranks 371,133 from being number one. Her others aren't doing as well. That is not the ranking of a successful writer, so I'm not sure you want to use her that an example of how making up your own structural issues works.
> 
> Hell, I have a novel that ranks a lot better, and I'm nobody special. I don't do any promotion, ands it was released in 2013.  True, Water Dance is free (because it's the first in a series), but I shouldn't come close to the ranking of a competent author's story released only a few months ago. So I don't think your example serves to prove your point.



I hear she speaks highly of you.


----------



## Pete_C (Jan 30, 2018)

Jay Greenstein said:


> One would think that were that true the rejection rate wouldn't be 99.9%, and agents wouldn't call fully 75% of what they get unreadable.
> 
> As I do about once a year, I looked at the NYT bestseller list to check the background of successful writers. Four of the five top writers last year either have a degree related to writing, worked in the industry before selling their first novel, or like Dan Brown, were taught writing in college by a visiting writer. The lone exception had a parent who was a CEO of a communication company working in the media, and worked for a TV station. I do that survay pretty much every year, and year after year, the results are the same.
> 
> So can you "figure it out for yourself?" The real-world seems to say no. And a reasonability check seems to say that every profession has specialized knowledge and tricks of the trade that must be leaned and mastered. But let's check the situation here. If, as you say, people don't need books on the subject, courses, and such things, How many of us achieved a publishing contract (and with whom) with no other help but a site like this one. No books on writing. No classes, workshops or conferences, and no mentoring by a successful writer? Who, for example, offered you your first contract?



Okay Jay, you asked so I'll answer. I've been on WF for over 10 years and only made 300 odd posts. Here's why. A good few years ago someone quite like you was throwing their weight around, embellishing their worth, and when I challenged their attitude they demanded, much as you have done, that I provide them with my credentials. I decided not to for one simple reason; I had nothing to prove. I can't be bothered to deal with arseholes, so I opted to not use WF for a while as a result. Now, on my return, a few people who were here back in the day make me realise that WF is a place with some (note I say some) decent people.

I am lucky. No; I am very fucking lucky. Since the age of 15, some 40 odd years ago, I have only had one job: writing. It has paid for my home, my travels, my hobbies (all expensive - motorcycles, hunting, my own brewery) and has allowed my other half to not work at all. In my field I have pretty much covered every role at some point or another, successfully. I have never had to seek representation or publication. I know my craft. I know my business. I appreciate my good fortune.

i willingly try and give anyone new to writing any help I can. I can't help everyone. I only know what I know and for many it won't be appropriate. I learned everything I know by writing and writing and writing. Unlike you, I didn't do a whole bunch of other things and the turn to,writing with the aid of self-help books. All I've ever done is write. 

Unlike you, I don't look down on others. That's why I don't hark on about me and what I've achieved. I've only gone this far because you are clearly trying to bully people on WF and thought you'd have a pop at me. That's not a good idea. Indeed, it's a fucking bad idea.

You need to learn humility, preferably before someone forces you to learn it. Now, with the greatest of respect, wind your neck in a bit.


----------



## qwertyman (Jan 31, 2018)

Jay said:
			
		

> A scene on the page, like one on the stage derives its name from scenery, and focuses on the visual, and usually involves the action in one location, or one sequence (like a car chase.) The scene ends when the location changes or the action shifts. And…?
> 
> But on the page, where everything must be spelled out one item at a time, giving the reader the picture that a viewer will see is impossible because it would take unending pages of detail, most of which the protagonist is ignoring.


You ignore that the camera is selective. The Director like the Writer makes the selection. 




			
				Jay said:
			
		

> So with no other option we must focus on what matters to the protagonist, in the moment they call now. That reduces the amount of necessary detail to a manageable level. But that also changes the focus of the scene.


I think you are downgrading the imagination of the reader. A writer can say, ‘it’s hot’ the reader draws on his/her own perception of heat. The Director will show sweat patches and bright sunlight -where’s the problem?



			
				Jay said:
			
		

> _The scene in skeleton_ To repeat: A scene is a unit of conflict, of struggle, lived through by character and reader…Scene structure is as simple as _a-b-c:_ a. Goal. b. Conflict. c. Disaster…



How about?  Goal…conflict…revelation.    Goal…conflict…encounter.  Goal…conflict…challenge.    Goal…conflict…decision.    Goal…conflict…confusion.    Goal…conflict…etc etc etc 
All of these and more are scenes.  As long as the conflict is maintained the story survives. The skill of the writer is to work the conflict through various levels of pace and peaks of climax. I think the boxer example is a naïve one.

What has this to do with _- __I don't see why a commercial storyteller can't construct a scene 'like one for the screen'. How does it automatically fail?_



			
				Jay said:
			
		

> …But of most importance, if the protagonist achieves his/her goal the story ends because the problem has been solved. By ending it with a loss that forces the protagonist to lick his/her wounds and rethink their method, we provide a break in the action that will allow the reader to "catch their breath," and calibrate their expectations for the immediate future to that of the protagonist, so the reader's response to events will mirror that of the protagonist.


 
‘Don’t give a protagonist an even break’ Qwerty

The reader doesn't want to ‘_catch their breath’_.  When the plot has reached an intermediate climax, leave it dangling and switch to a sub-plot.



			
				Jay said:
			
		

> The short answer to the question, though, is that a scene in film and stage revolves around visual/aural issues and our medium cannot reproduce either. I don’t accept readers cannot translate descriptive narrative into visual images.




On aural issues, inflections and emphasis in dialogue are very difficult to indicate on the page and compete poorly with an actor’s ability to communicate them. When I read a Cormac McCarthy novel I know it can be done.
I write scanty visual narrative and, expect a lot from dialogue to place atmosphere, character, plot and practically everything else before the reader.  

I know this is a tough ask and a big percentage is likely to fail. But that’s where I start and anything less is compromise. Any insight into how I can reduce the failure rate is warmly welcomed, hence the question.  Thank you for the answer, but I think it belongs to a different question.


----------



## Kyle R (Jan 31, 2018)

Jay Greenstein said:


> Some of her novels are self-published, and the latest, released last year, ranks 371,133 from being number one. Her others aren't doing as well. That is not the ranking of a successful writer, so I'm not sure you want to use her that an example of how making up your own structural issues works.


Commercial success is a tricky beast, and probably a discussion best saved for another thread. I know of Tobler through her short fiction (she appears quite frequently in many of today's top SFF markets), and you can see a list of her works here. I'm not aware of any self-published novels by her, though. Perhaps you're confusing her small-press publications for self-pubs?

To be fair—if we're going to use commercial-fiction success as the only measure of an author's worth, it seems logical to turn a critical eye toward Dwight Swain's own lack of it. He achieved relative fame for his _Techniques of the Selling Writer_, and rightly so—for writers seeking a technical, nuts-and-bolts approach to fiction, his is a seminal (albeit dogmatic) work.

But his own foray into prose fiction (his SF novella, _The Transposed Man_) curiously languishes in obscurity—and this fact is certainly worth considering (even if only as a minor aside) when weighing the merit of his techniques.

Personally, I found his _Techniques_ to be highly instructive. A bit bombast in its delivery, sure, but his approach certainly resonated with my own analytical approach to the craft. My wife, on the other hand, found his approach creatively stifling, and openly expressed a distaste for it. She tried to approach fiction in a Swain-ian way and gave up after we both agreed that it did more damage to her writing than help it.

So, in my opinion, it's not for everyone. Show his guide to Nora Roberts, for example, (who has openly stated that she's never once read an instructional guide on how to write fiction) and she'd probably chuck the thing into the trash—_while_ whipping out another best-selling Romance.


----------



## Darkkin (Jan 31, 2018)

I've heard Roberts speak at several RWA workshops.  She is a treat to listen to and one of my favourite guilty pleasure authors...She doesn't preach box writing.  A recipe, yes, verbatium style writing, no...:wink:

Writing is a creative form of expression, and needs to be adaptive to the individual.  To follow another's recipe blindly, is to cook without tasting.  So critique that is presented as, 'Here's your box, sit in it, so you conform to my preceived standards...'  I have to nod, say thank you for your time and move on.

Effective critique gives one the tools and ingredient needed to create one's own winning recipe.  Taste and experimentation are all part of the process.  Consider why you like certain writers and apply those observations to your own work.  Write as you like to read and you will find the middle ground.



- D.


----------



## Jay Greenstein (Jan 31, 2018)

Pete_C said:


> I hear she speaks highly of you.


Who wouldn't? :lol:


----------



## Jay Greenstein (Jan 31, 2018)

> Do any of those credentials you mentioned for those NYT bestsellers mention reading Swain or Stein?


Seriously, is that the best response you have to learning that some successful writers studied writing technique? To ask if they read a specific book?





> the only thing I would consider indispensable, is reading good fiction and using that to improve my writing.


Consuming any product helps you to appreciate the difference between the good and the bad. It _does not_ teach you to create one matching it. You've been watching TV all your life. Can you build one. Can you direct a TV show? Write one?

Ask any ten friends what's different about the first paragraph of every chapter in half the novels in the library and you'll be luck if one in ten can tell you without looking. And if we can't see something so glaringly obvious—something we see so damn often—please don't try to tell me that you can look at fiction, food we have delivered to our table in the restaurant, or your TV set, and somehow intuit the process.

Reading is important. But every damn one of us here love reading. It''s why we become writers. Yet in spite of that, and though the words and the plot change, the majority of submissions sent to agents and publishers are written like either a high school fiction writing assignment or a transcription of the author telling their story aloud. You would think that all that reading would teach us what a scene goal is. But mention it in a workshop and the attendees look at you blankly. Most have never heard the term. So read? Hell yes. But learn the basics, too. Without that, you may self-publish, because anyone can do that. But you will never get a publisher to say yes.





> 99.9% of the folks who set up an easel in their spare bedrooms never  sell a painting either, just like the 99.9% of the guitarists, drummers,  and singers practicing in their garages never get a paying gig. So  what?


You ignore the fact that tose people are not trying to successfully submit their work to a publisher. And of course you're ignoring the fact that they actually take art classes, and read books on how to paint. So they're hardly an argument in favor of not reading any books on the profession they're trying to practice.

But lets use real-world examples. You insist that reading books on writing for publications is unnecessary. Okay. Has it worked for you? The proof of any argument is in the success of the methodology being advocated. I'm not saying that if it didn't work for you the idea doesn't work. Only that were you one of those on the NYT best seller list, or in my local book store like the people writing those books it would make your point, graphically. Without it, it's an opinion.





> You have said that you've studied writing for a long time and know what publishers want, yet where are your publishing credits?


Okay. My first sale was a romance to Neighborhood Press (since gone out of business, but it wasn't my fault, honest.

The second, third, and fourth went to Double Dragon, which was the top Sci-Fi ePub. Three others, short stories, went to Polymancer, who, in addition to their gamer's magazine published Polygraff, a Sy-fi magazine. 

But that aside, you're not really arguing that if I read a book on writing that's nearly fifty years old yet still sell better than most novels, and has 235 stellar reviews in which many people give him credit for their writing careers, and didn't achieve greatness, the book must be bad? Seriously?





> I've never heard of a successful author who didn't credit their success to reading (a lot) and to writing (a lot).


And mashed potatoes have no bones. Both statements are true, but so what? It speaks not at all about the value of an education, formal or otherwise. Nor does it adress the necessity of either having or omitting one. And though you may not have noticed, no her has ever argued against the value of reading. 





> If you look you can see how it was built. It's not cooking where you  can't see what proportions of eggs to flour were used in the making of a  cake, or how the chemical reactions between acids and proteins affect  the flavor


Nonsense. You can't even see where the editor suggested changes, and why. If it was as obvious as you say, People would know why you can't simply transcribe yourself speaking aloud and expect the reader to hear the emotion in the narrator's voice, as they do. But they don't, and just about half the stories we see posted by new writers are just that, a transcription of the storyteller's words, minus the stage directions and performance notes one would expect with such a script. And the other half would not be writing a chronicle of events, all telling and no showing.

And the point that pretty much no first time writer gets—but should have if you're right—is summed up in the words of E.L. Doctorow:

       [FONT=&quot]“Good writing is supposed to evoke sensation in the reader, not the fact that it’s raining, but the feeling of being rained upon.”
[/FONT]


----------



## Jack of all trades (Jan 31, 2018)

Authors who never studied writing

Ray Bradbury --  Fahrenheit 451
Maya Angelou -- I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings 
Truman Capote -- In Cold Blood
Mark Twain -- The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn and others 
H. G. Wells -- The War of the Worlds and The Time Machine
Jack London -- The Call of the Wild and White Fang
Augusten Burroughs -- Running with Scissors 
Charles Dickens -- Great Expectations and others
Jack Kerouac -- On the Road
William Faulkner -- The Sound and the Fury and others 
Jonathan Franzen -- Strong Motion
Robert Ludlum -- The Bourne Identity 
Sue Monk Kidd -- The Secret Life of Bees
Harper Lee -- To Kill a Mockingbird

Feel free to add to the list.


----------



## Jay Greenstein (Jan 31, 2018)

> I think you are downgrading the imagination of the  reader. A writer can say, ‘it’s hot’ the reader draws on his/her own  perception of heat.


No. The beginner says, "It's hot. And that's classic "telling." The knowledgeable writer has the character wipe the sweat away. That's showing that it's hot.





> How about?  Goal…conflict…revelation.     Goal…conflict…encounter.  Goal…conflict…challenge.     Goal…conflict…decision.    Goal…conflict…confusion.    Goal…conflict…etc  etc etc
> All of these and more are scenes.


I think you're refering to Goal Motivation & Conflict, which is the title of Deb Dixon's book, and the three central issues of any scene. BUt that aside, you're arguing with someone who is an honored professor, someone who used to fill auditoriums when he want on tour with his all day workshops. I'm not the one to clarify, only a student. Why not go to the source and take a look? I spent a good part of the book slapping my forehead and saying, "Why didn't I see that for myself?" I also found myself going to the six unsold novels I had laying around, cursing my stupidity and spending days fixing things I'd gotten wrong. And that happened about every two or three pages through a good part of the book. Try it. Like chicken soup for a cold, it can't hurt. It may not help, but since we can't address the problem we don't see as a problem, it might just transform your writing for the better. Read a few of the more than 200 reviews for the book, some of them saying they sold their work as a result of the book.





> The reader doesn't want to ‘_catch their breath’_.  When the plot has reached an intermediate climax, leave it dangling and switch to a sub-plot.


John Rice Burroughs was the master of that. He invented the cliff hanger, where he gets Group A into terrible trouble, switches to Group B and does the same, then goeses back and Rescues Group A, before placing them in mortal danger again. But.... When he rescues a given group the tension drops, and he took time to allow the audience to calm down, so he can bring them to excitement again. Without that, a steady level of danger becomes boring. That's why stories are arranged into scenes and sequels. Here's the section from, _Techniques of the Selling Writer_,  that follows the one I posted:





> _The sequel in skeleton_
> 
> A sequel is a unit of transition that links two scenes, like the coupler between two railroad cars. It sets forth your focal character’s reaction to the scene just completed, and provides him with motivation for the scene next to come.
> 
> ...





> On aural issues, inflections and emphasis in dialogue are very difficult  to indicate on the page and compete poorly with an actor’s ability to  communicate them. When I read a Cormac McCarthy novel I know it can be  done.


Of course it can be done. Writers do it every day. But you cannot do it with the report writing skills we're given in our school days, nor with the tricks of verbal storytelling. They've been developing techniques to do the job in our medium for centuries. Not taking advantage of that, and trying to, in effect, reinvent the wheel, is not the fastest way to become a pro—assuming that you don't get sidetracked into a blind alley by some issue you're not aware is an issue. I don't know about you. But I subscribe to Bill Mizner's view:                   If you steal from one author, it’s plagiarism; if you steal from two, its research.


----------



## Terry D (Jan 31, 2018)

We often retread old paths in on-line forums, especially as new members come and go, so sometimes it's good to take a look back and see what's been said before without the baggage of current relationships and personalities involved.

This link:

http://www.writingforums.com/content/5-reviewers-handbook.html

Has been hanging out in the Prose Writers Workshop as a sticky for years. The advice is still as good today as it was when it was first posted


----------



## Jay Greenstein (Jan 31, 2018)

Kyle R said:


> Perhaps you're confusing her small-press publications for self-pubs?/


Amazon lists some titles as using them as the publlsher. And her other publishers are tiny and epub only, with fairly poor editing, from what I see.





> To be fair—if we're going to use commercial-fiction success as the only measure of an author's worth, it seems logical to turn a critical eye toward Dwight Swain's own lack of it. He achieved relative fame for his _Techniques of the Selling Writer_, and rightly so—for writers seeking a technical, nuts-and-bolts approach to fiction, his is a seminal (albeit dogmatic) work.
> 
> But his own foray into prose fiction (his SF novella, _The Transposed Man_) curiously languishes in obscurity—and this fact is certainly worth considering (even if only as a minor aside) when weighing the merit of his techniques.


The man was a teacher, and needs to be judged on that, if we're discussing the value of his textbook.  But if you insist on that as a measure, his associate, and head of the department, Jack Bickham, whose teachings mirror Swain's, sold about forty novels. Swain also specialized in short stories, and was under contract, at one time, for 25,000 words a month to pulp magazines, under a variety of names. That has to count, too.



> Show his guide to Nora Roberts, for example, (who has openly stated that she's never once read an instructional guide on how to write fiction) and she'd probably chuck the thing into the trash—_while_ whipping out another best-selling Romance.


Nora's a really nice lady. She tells the story about her first conference. She'd just sold her first novel and it was doing really well. While there, a fan stopped her and gushed over how much she loved her work. Then, she turned serious and said, "So tell me. Why don't you write with a consistent POV?"

Nora says she shrugged and made some inane excuse, like, "It's just how I do it." Then, leaving the woman, she hurried back to her agent and said, "Quick...what in the hell is POV?"

She's known for constant head hopping in her romance novels, and did so because she had not a clue of how to handle viewpoint. She learned, and sticks to one viewpoint when she writes under her other names, but since it seems to have become her trademark, she's stuck with it in romance.

Aside from her writing, in personal interactions, this is one classy—and unflappable—lady.


----------



## qwertyman (Feb 1, 2018)

Jay Greenstein said:


> No. The beginner says, "It's hot. And that's classic "telling." The knowledgeable writer has the character wipe the sweat away. That's showing that it's hot.


 You made the point you can't write a novel like a film script. It would take too many words to describe what the camera shows in one shot. I replied, why not?  Trust the reader, say 'it's hot', (or a market place, a jungle or a court room) they will paint in the background. I was not promoting 'tell', the word 'say' should clarify that. 

Please don't adjust the question to suit your answer.


I don't want to pick away at this until it disappears up it's own oxymoron...okay I will.



> No. The beginner says, "It's hot. And that's classic "telling." The knowledgeable writer has the character wipe the sweat away. That's showing that it's hot.​


 No it's not, its showing that the character is either, ill, nervous, scared or hot. 
This is qwerty, finding something in the text to pounce on, which is an easy point-scorer but has little to do with solving the question.
​


----------



## bdcharles (Feb 1, 2018)

> The beginner says, "It's hot. And that's classic "telling." The knowledgeable writer has the character wipe the sweat away.



I wonder if there is a spectrum of show and tell, and a need to control the reader through each. To me, it hinges on how "sedentary" the writing is, which verbs are chosen, how much development they contribute, how important the subject of the clause is to the scene (eg is it background/setting or is it an active thing, the focus of the story), whether the pace and flow allows for it and so on. So to illustrate this simply, we could write:

*1 *Something is busily existing. "It's hot" - this is very background-ish. The verb is "is", which is not very active but a mere statement of existence, so the voice might be quite spartan and a writer might want to bolt something else onto here as the main focus. An example that comes to mind is the opening to _The Bell Jar_, with the bold text being the sample of what I'm talking about



> "*It was a queer, sultry summer*, the summer they electrocuted the Rosenbergs, and I didn't know what I was doing in New York."



So here, the weather (no she didn't! Yes, she did!) is the setting. It is not the thing of note; it barely matters other than as an excuse to use the words _queer _and _sultry_ and to contextualise the piece. The things of note are the electrocuction of the Rosenbergs (though again that is more specific setting and tone) but primarily Esther Greenwood's being in New York. No-one is wiping any sweat from proverbial brows till the second paragraph, although this piece of tell is lost in among some other show depicting Esther's perception of her current place and time. So in moderation, at select spots, such tell can arguably work. 


*2* Something, busily existing, interacts in a notable way with a person, object, etc. Here we might write prose along the lines of "I pumped bullets into the sheriff, under that hot sun". Let's take an example form Mark Haddon's _The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night Time_:



> On the fifth day, which was a Sunday, it rained very hard. *I like it when it rains hard*. It sounds like white noise everywhere, which is like silence but not empty.



Leave aside the first sentence because that is more like an example of point 1 (though still relevant here), the bold text implies that rain is occurring, but it's in context to Christopher Boone - he likes it. That way, we get it told to us while we are being shown, or living, something else. If I say "I like it when it rains" that suggests 2 things: one, that it is probably raining or has been round about this time, and two, that that affects me, makes me feel a certain way. Importantly, that will then affect the reader: they are in the company of someone in a good mood. So this is kind of a layered approach, very mixed up, although remember that the order is important: start with something general, swoop in via interaction of thing and person, and then we're in their head, experiencing as they do. Tell->interact->show/experience, to mirror the narration: see the setting->see the character->be the character.

*3* Experience something now! This is the essence of show. Make us live the thing; palm the slick wetness aside. I suppose an example is in both the above, where we are privy to the narrator's thoughts, experiences, actions. They might experience rain as a white hiss, or the thought of an execution as a disturbing notion while navigating the subways and streets of a city and batting perspiration from our eyes. But without the tell-heavy framing, I wouldn't have a clue. If I read this:

"It sounds like white noise everywhere, which is like silence but not empty."

I'd be lost. I mean, that could be anything. So - mix and match, use what is appropriate, when it is approproate to do so, for the story and the voice. Manage readers from general setting into specific experience in a fluid motion.


----------



## Bayview (Feb 1, 2018)

I think there's definitely a spectrum of show and tell, and there's definitely a time for each. If we "showed" every damn thing in a novel our pacing would go to hell and we'd never get anywhere.

I'd say the standard is to "tell" the basic stuff, the little details that get us from scene to scene, and then "show" the few significant details that will make the scene vivid.

Like:It took two days of backbreaking labour for the barge to be raised. At least, it looked backbreaking from the observation post Ken set up for himself in the shade of the banyon tree.

When the workers finally had the last of the mud rinsed away and a proper viewing platform built, Ken ensured he had a supply of cool gin-and-tonic in his canteen and ventured down the grassy slope to the shoreline.

From a distance, the barge had seemed small and he'd questioned why he'd gone to the bother of having it raised, but as he approached, the scale changed and his decision seemed wiser. The barge, canted drunkenly toward its starboard hull now that it was on land, was at least twice Ken's height, and the timber beams that supported its deck were as big around as he was. [and then some more stuff about the barge that I can't come up with because I know nothing about boats and have no idea why I started an example that deals with something I don't know about!]​
The point being, obviously, that I wouldn't "show" the details of the two days of labouring to raise the barge because they aren't important to the story I'm telling. If I were telling the story of one of the labourers, and she'd been doing things that were important to _her _story during those two days, then I would have "shown" those days.

But I couldn't just ignore those days--they're important to the cohesiveness of the narrative time frame. So I "tell" them, quickly and efficiently, and then get on with the good stuff. About barges, apparently.

So back to our main point... it's not always easy to be sure, when given a passage for critique, what the author's overall goal is. Are the lines about something important that should be "shown", or something less important that should be "told"? If the critique just spouts rules, without considering how those rules may or may not apply to the piece in question, I don't think the critique is valuable. (And this obviously applies beyond the show/tell spectrum).


----------



## bdcharles (Feb 1, 2018)

I do think that there is good and bad telling, as with any other aspect of writing. Word choices, narrative flow, all that stuff still applies. So for example:



> It took two days of backbreaking labour for the barge to be raised. At  least, it looked backbreaking from the observation post Ken set up for  himself in the shade of the banyon tree.



is different from 



> It took two days of difficult work for the boat to be lifted painstakingly up from the bottom of the canal. At  least, it looked difficult from the observation post Ken set up for  himself in the shade of the banyon tree.



The difference here is simply in the appropriateness to the setting and general vividness of words like difficult/backbreaking and raised/lifted, plus excess detail where it may not be needed.


----------



## NathanielleC (Feb 1, 2018)

On the subject of critique, I have a few thoughts. I agree with what the OP said and most of the following comments have made some valid points. 

One writer's group I was with preferred the term 'feedback'. Semantics may seem trivial to some but I like the term feedback as opposed to critique because all I'm really doing in the end is reading the work you've presented to me and giving you my perspective on it. My perspective is limited by my own experiences and my own world view, so you're free to dismiss what I've told you or take it on board as you see fit. 

I suck at editing. I always need someone to point out all of the technical errors I've made. It used to annoy me but now it's a relief when I see well established authors releasing manuscripts with more editing mistakes than a 9th grade book report, because at least I know that the professionals aren't perfect either. So I can't help you with editing except to point out the occasional typo and to suggest simpler sentences in place of overly clunky ones.

As someone giving you feedback, if there's something in your story that I don't understand, I will tell you so but I won't presume that you've made a mistake. One time someone titled their story with a word I thought was a mistake. I looked it up and found that the word would have made sense to people familiar with what the story was about. Not everyone is going to Google a plot point or a word usage in your story but I like to give you the benefit of the doubt in believing that you know what you're doing. And if you did in fact make a mistake there, now that I pointed it out you can save face and correct it or I can explain further why it didn't work for me in that instance. Its up to you either way.

I can't promise I won't bruise your ego. But my feedback will always be given with the intention of helping you improve.


----------



## Bayview (Feb 1, 2018)

bdcharles said:


> I do think that there is good and bad telling, as with any other aspect of writing. Word choices, narrative flow, all that stuff still applies. So for example:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I'm not sure those differences really tie in to the show/tell distinction, at least as I understand the words. Are you saying one version is more "tell" than the other?


----------



## bdcharles (Feb 1, 2018)

Bayview said:


> I'm not sure those differences really tie in to the show/tell distinction, at least as I understand the words. Are you saying one version is more "tell" than the other?



No, I'm saying they are both supposed to be tell but one (yours) is decent while the other (mine) is ... a bit meh


----------



## Bayview (Feb 1, 2018)

bdcharles said:


> No, I'm saying they are both supposed to be tell but one (yours) is decent while the other (mine) is ... a bit meh



Oh. Yeah, okay... you still have to pick good words, whether you're showing or telling!


----------



## qwertyman (Feb 1, 2018)

'Tell' in first person narration, as in both BD's examples, has a different relevance. It reveals character.

*It was a queer, sultry summer**, the summer they electrocuted the Rosenbergs,* ...is an interesting opening, but when it continues*...and Esther Greenwood didn't know what she was doing in New York." 

*The reader realises that the first sentence is not attributed to Esther, but to an omniscient narrator, and not necessarily how she would view it. Thus revealing (showing) nothing about Esther.

***
In the second example:
*On the fifth day, which was a Sunday, it rained very hard. **I like it when it rains hard. It sounds like white noise everywhere, which is like silence but not empty.
*​*
Same thing; the first-person narrator is autistic and everything he says contributes to the reader's understanding of Christopher Boone's world. ​*

Yes, yes qwerty, but what relevance has this?

'Tell' in first person narration - is also a 'show'.


----------



## Jack of all trades (Feb 1, 2018)

It boils down to this : 

An interesting story, with realistic characters, and an easy to read style will keep the reader reading. They (readers) don't care if you used five exclamation points in your 76,000 word book. They don't care if you use sixteen -ly adverbs, either. A lot of the "rules" of writing are not known by readers, so they aren't looking for those things.

A boring section is a boring section. It can be either "show" or "tell". That's why critiques are best when the specific problems of that piece are pointed out.


----------



## Phil Istine (Feb 1, 2018)

Kyle R said:


> I believe I mentioned it in another thread, but Swain's methodology (MRUs and Scenes/Sequels) is just one way to approach fiction. It's not the only way.
> 
> This is the beginning of E. Catherine Tobler's _(R + D) / I=M
> 
> ...



A pity there isn't a double like button.

Thank you, Kyle.  As a newish writer I was starting to become a little hung up on formulae - concerned that I was doing it wrong if certain elements were missing from a scene.  But I'm not a naturally logical thinker when it comes to the arts.  Those quotations you posted nailed it for me.  Yes, some formula is ok if I'm in back-to-basics mode, but it's not compulsory.  For much of my life too many rules have felt unnecessarily restrictive, I'll be damned if I'm carrying that over into my writing.

I'm barely beginning to discover the artist in me, and it's a long time since I've felt so free.


----------



## Pelwrath (Feb 1, 2018)

The writer does need to develop/have a thick skin and not take such personally. (Something that I've been working and and gotten better at). The one providing the critique should include good and bad(improvable) elements.

I've been told that some members here could find fault in a critique of Poe, Asimov and Dickens. If you can find improvement there, should you be able to find good in a much younger inexperienced writers work?  If you're weak on SP&G then don't mention that, concentrate on where your strengths are but, be honest.  Not every writer is a master of using periods.


----------



## Jay Greenstein (Feb 1, 2018)

> I wonder if there is a spectrum of show and tell, and a need to control the reader through each.


Pretty much everyone confuses show and tell, and assumes that show refers to visual detail. It's doesn't. Another word for show is viewpoint. You could also say it's response. Instead of telling the reader it's hot, the character responds to the heat, in the moment, in a way that makes the reader know what the character knows. If you can make it part of another line, like, "He wiped sweat from his forehead as he studied the horizon," it's background detail—enrichment to a line that makes it secondary detail, and gives ambiance. What matters to the protagonist is the horizon, so that's our focus. But had the author stepped in and told the reader it's hot, in a line of its own, the heat gets unneeded importance and detracts.

You can tell the reader that the character in a scene is wearing a cloak and that it's cold, or have him/her pull it more tightly against them as they wait. Too often we go for precision, and tell the reader the temperature. But as someone observed, in our own point of view, there are only four degrees of cold: "cold...very cold...too damn cold...and it's fucking cold." Everyone views a situation and responds differently. But it's that difference that makes a given character, and story, unique. And that's what we need to show.





> "*It was a queer, sultry summer*, the summer they electrocuted the Rosenbergs, and I didn't know what I was doing in New York."


This line is setup and background, provided by the writer, and not part of a scene, so of course it's telling—and needed. The words "it was" tell us it's an overview. And because it's an intro, or words used in sewing scenes together, we don't expect showing. But once the scene-clock begins ticking it should stop for nothing, and what matters to the reader is what the protagonist is noticing and responding to in real-time, in the moment that character calls now. Interrupt that with an authorial interjection that doesn't directly support the action and you still the scene-clock and kill any momentum the scene may have built in the reader's mind. 

Of course the author uses telling. It has its place. But its place isn't within the protagonists moment of "now." Make sense?


----------



## moderan (Feb 1, 2018)

"Show" is inference. The writer does not present the object, s/he merely refers to it, and its qualities are determined through interaction.
"Tell" simply presents the object. It is static unless acted upon.


----------



## Bayview (Feb 1, 2018)

moderan said:


> "Show" is inference. The writer does not present the object, s/he merely refers to it, and its qualities are determined through interaction.
> "Tell" simply presents the object. It is static unless acted upon.



Yeah, actually, this is the definition of the terms that I usually prefer. I got sidetracked with my barge example!

I do still think that there's a time for show and a time for tell (just as I think there's a time for summary and a time for detail).


----------



## moderan (Feb 2, 2018)

Bayview said:


> Yeah, actually, this is the definition of the terms that I usually prefer. I got sidetracked with my barge example!
> 
> I do still think that there's a time for show and a time for tell (just as I think there's a time for summary and a time for detail).


Absolutely. Elucidation can be invaluable, especially if you're telling the reader about something really novel. You can't always infer what something IS. Hard SF, for example, is often pilloried for the infodumps, but not all readers have grad-level science and might not understand how the plot revolves without those sequences. Hal Clement's work, for one example, isn't accessible to people without some solid scientific education. And he's judicious with the dumping, but his stories are ALL science. Pure Golden Age.
On the other hand, Proust for Bruces. 

ETA: Also, I'll be doing critiques in a month or so: Grand Fiction Challenge. Schedule permitting, I'll even pen a Judge entry. See you there!

ETA2: Also, I _personally_ critique like an editor. I look at your work as if you're trying to get me to write you a check then and there. This is the FASTEST way to learn, by submitting your work to professional editors. But it isn't always pretty.


----------

