Just because I didn't post over the summer doesn't mean I was goofing off. When the outside temperatures hovered over 100 degrees F. for most of the summer, I could barely step outside for more than a few minutes. Except of course, for the multi-hour-long drives to and from one of my favorite small fantasy and science fiction literary conferences -- Austin's ArmadilloCon -- from which I returned bearing gifts of insight.
The first insight is, don't wait until the last minute to write a short story. But the result, messy as mine was, was my ticket to ArmadilloCon's writing workshop, an adjunct to the regular conference. I love this workshop! Comments from its critique group years ago enabled my first published short story to see the light of day. Several more have also benefited from the experience.
The second insight -- more like a question -- is, how the heck does one writer critique another's writing? For anybody looking to join a writing critique group, or establish a new one, or wondering why those they're in keep going off the rails, ArmadilloCon's offered some help.
The staple method is called the Milford style. Many of us may already be familiar with this one, but here's a basic review:
- Read each writer's story in advance
- Sit around as one by one the readers deliver their critiques without interruption
- Authors take notes of the points made
- Once all critiques are given, the author may respond without interruption
This can work. But -- it can get repetitive. And boring. And bog down in minutia. And although the form theoretically eliminates arguments, without a strong moderator and time limits, it can go so, so wrong. (I speak from sad experience.)
 |
| Image by StockSnap from Pixabay |
It's also possible to use the Milford style of critique without advance reading, by having each author read aloud, preferably while providing shared copies to the others. But that places more limits on the amount of material each author is able to present.
And, honestly, just because you're a great writer doesn't mean you're also an engaging verbal reader. (Cue confusion. And maybe snores.) Reading aloud further penalizes authors who may be shy in groups or not fluent in the language of the group's majority or who may have physical/speech difficulties.
So, enter an alternative writing critique method introduced by this year's ArmadilloCon workshop -- Mary Robinette Kowal's ABCD Critique Style.
Robinette Kowal divides critiques into the three categories of a clinical trial:
- Symptom -- "this is the reader's reaction"
- Diagnosis -- "this is why"
- Prescription -- "this is how to fix it"
Initial critiques, however, will only deal with the "symptom" phase. These include:
- Awesome -- "don't fix it!"
- Bored -- a pacing issue
- Confused -- an order of information problem
- Disbelief -- violation of reader's sense of how the world of the story work (hint: extraterrestrials and unicorns are seldom found in the same world)
(Robinette Kowal adds, "stream of consciousness reactions such as 'don't go there!' are also fair.")
May readers who are confident of their own writing skills still provide notes about such line editing issues as spelling, punctuation, and grammar? Maybe, in on the copy. Not by alluding to them in the verbal critiques. And no, absolutely no readers should offer diagnoses or prescriptions without being asked.
Although the workshop members at ArmadilloCon were writers themselves, the Robinette Kowal method, unlike the Milford style, adapts easily to critiques by beta readers. These are readers who are, preferably, just ordinary people who enjoy reading. That's because the ABCD method is only about the story and its flow. Not about how many spaces the writer put after the end of sentences. Or whether they used American or British spelling. Or, well, you get the idea.
And writers, don't argue about the symptoms! They are true. It's our job to address and fix them, not deny their existence.
No comments:
Post a Comment