I originally entitled this article Experiencing Positive Criticism but then, after thinking about it, and even before I wrote this first (long-compound) sentence, I realized that through the years the majority of criticism I’ve received from critique groups, and others hoping to be helpful, falls into one of two categories:
1. Your grammar isn’t the way I think it should be, and
2. I would never have told/said/written it that way.
In other words, “my way of writing is better than yours and you should listen to me because I know better.” Well, at least it often seems like that is the message the critiquer is trying to impart, and if they are not saying it outright, then they are at least implying it. Right?
Wrong. Your critique partners are doing the best they can to provide some honest feedback for your writing based on their knowledge, experiences, and yes, their personal biases. Are they always right? Yes, from their perspective. The problem begins when their perspective doesn’t coincide with ours and we personalize the criticism. When this happens there is the tendency to reject the entire critique and overlook the nuggets hidden in the slough.
As writers, we must learn to accept another’s critique with aplomb and then scour through the fluff in order to focus upon those elusive pointers that help our writing become better than it already is. And, if we squint and look slant, there are nearly always gems waiting to be discovered. The trick, however, is to shut the ego up and listen intently to what is being said (or writ) between the lines for it is between the lines where truths often hide.
Before I go any further let me clarify that this article is directed toward complete works that may be read in a single sitting, such as those that may be submitted to a newsletter, magazine, or anthology. I have no intention of addressing critique feedback on novels, novellas, or any other form of writing not intended to be read in a single sitting.
Let’s take a look at some common criticisms and how we might approach them. To keep things simple I’ll start with some easy criticisms. Or, will I?
Spelling: Sounds like a no-brainer as, after all, there is only one way to spell a word. Isn’t there? Most of the time, perhaps, but I am originally from Oklahoma and words like grey, towards, and backwards (among many others) are part of my lifelong written vocabulary. But, darn it, they are no longer considered proper even though Merriam-Webster says they’re fine. Changing the way you spell regionally or culturally significant words may be painful, but must be considered in order for the writing to be deemed relevant and acceptable.
Grammar: A touchy subject, to say the least, but at least there is a guide that we can all follow. (Laughter follows) On my bookshelf alone I have five different grammar guides and on my computer reside six additional digital titles. Then, by golly, the Internet has even more opinions to guide, or confuse, depending upon the phase of the moon and placement of the planets. But, all is not in vain, for over the years I’ve found three useful rules of grammar in this writing world without concrete rules:
1. Use grammar the way those you’re submitting to want
2. Be consistent (and vigilant) in how you use grammar
3. Did I really write that there were three rules?
Punctuation: It evolves, you know, like all aspects of language. The rules of punctuation I was taught in grades 1 through 12 (apparently lacking because I never attended kindergarten) are no longer in vogue. Like, the way I was taught to use colons in setting off dialogue evolved over the years into commas, which were later lost altogether as they were replaced by nothing. The primary rule here, once again, is to be consistent whether you choose the old-fashioned or modern stylistic conventions. Of course, if someone wants to pay you to do it their way …
Style: “But, that’s my style,” is a common defense to criticism, which often deflects the critiquer’s real criticism, which is more often than not: “I didn’t understand that”, or, “I didn’t get it.” Our style evolves the more we write and with the more feedback we receive. The truth is our style always has room for improvement. Aw shucks, doesn’t everything have room for improvement? When the critiquer seems confused on how to phrase a critique, or make a specific identification of an issue, they may simply have gotten lost. Run with it, because their confusion is a golden opportunity to strengthen that section of writing, and acknowledge that a style that gets misunderstood may be strengthened. After all, isn’t the true measure of good writing being understood?
Sentence Length: This is a facet of personal style that is often critiqued based on the personal preference of the critiquer. Some writers like short, pithy sentences. Period. Other writers like to take their time in constructing long, elaborate sentences that are chock-full of disparate meaning and vague innuendo that slowly blossom and flourish into climaxes that may be surprising and/or unexpected or were simply there to turn heads and mislead the reader into making poor assumptions and jumping to wrong conclusions. Neither way of composing sentences is wrong. However, there may be a time when using short sentences is the more appropriate choice and times when it’s good to go long. Listening to criticism doesn’t mean you need to follow it but, oftentimes, it does prove useful.
This has been a light-hearted attempt to demonstrate that most critiques are often a mixture of useful and confusing advice that, in spite of their flaws, are usually of value. It is never about us as writers with egos but is always a reflection than emanates from inside the critiquer. It is, however, up to us being critiqued to take what value we can from it and leave the rest behind.
It is important to remember that language, and language conventions, constantly evolve and what was correct in our generation may no longer be the status quo. In fact, adhering to a previous standard may be seen by some as unusual (or worse), but the true test of good writing is being understood – always. So, pick your conventions, experiment if you will but be consistent, and always seek to be understood.
In a later article, I will take a look at the meatier, more relevant, areas of criticism that are the heart and soul of what a good critique looks at. These meatier areas of criticism are what we as writers need, should crave, and if the need arises – beg for. These areas include the all-important concept of structure, consistency in characterization, setting, tone/mood, and plot.
Samuel Thomas Nichols
