Over the last few weekends, I’ve attended workshops to strengthen my revision skills. I focused on story and strategies to reveal the story that is uniquely mine to tell. It is wonderful to be in the company of writers sharing their own writing journeys. Some of the informal discussions among the writers covered the ground of critiquing. “Gentle guidance” was a phrase that was picked up and used again and again, or a variation on that idea. How does gentle guidance play out in the revision process?
Critique truths are hard to comprehend on a first reading. Putting the notes aside for a few days and reading the critique again works. As writers, we gradually begin to understand the comments or suggestions with less resistance. We need to take in the comments and respond with our revision. Or set the critique aside. Some reviewers can be off-the-wall with a particular critique. Sometimes the story is not one that intrigues the reviewer. Some comments are merited, while others would pull the writer away from the original intention.
First, consider the experience of the person providing the critique. Did he or she read the story carefully? Is it oral or written or both? Written critiques or written critiques with a face-to-face meeting by editors or accomplished writers can be extremely valuable. We can review what was said and written, and then, try to figure out the meaning behind the words.
In my experience, typical critiques from an editor are meant to move the writing forward. Their comments do not mean that if done, they would like to publish the manuscript. Some editors do very little critiquing and prefer to talk to a writer about other manuscripts the writer is working on. Bottom line, we can get great feedback or not so much. For a beginning writer it is confusing, since no one is going to say that the writing is dreadful. Better writing only comes from writing, writing, more writing, and learning in stages. Critique opportunities are a way to guide writing to the next step in learning.
In drafts of some of my early manuscripts, I had too many things going on. The result was a confusing tale and the true story was lost. So, while reviewers made what seemed to be crazy suggestions from my point of view, I was able to respond by rewriting a story that was clear. I had to find the story points that were essential.
The use of suggestions made in a critique is a sticky area. I question reviewers who say "do this" or "do that." The critiques I have utilized recently did not presume to suggest, but used gentle guidance. What is gentle guidance? In working through recent written, paid for critiques, I noted the way the critiques helped me to find and address the missing or confusing story threads.
Gentle guidance comes from a thoughtful reading and careful enumeration of strengths and challenges for that manuscript. SCBWI’s Gold Form for written critiques has this enumeration and space for notes on character development, plot/structure, language/diction, and voice. “Showing” allows positive guidance. “Telling” strays into negative and is not helpful to the development of a writer.
It helps to read a list of what works in the manuscript. Indications of what writing worked and what the strengths were support the writer. Clues to strengths in writing also provide the writer with a view of what to build on in the story.
Besides strengths, a list of challenges in the manuscript should be identified. My reviewers used questions to ask about the writing that was not fully realized. Often the written critiques stated what was not clear or missing with specific points from the story mentioned. This helps to focus in on revisions that answer the questions or challenges. Revisions can be done in a way that allows even more to be accomplished. Note the “even more” phrase because revisions need to raise the writing to a higher level.
Critiques can provide stepping stones across the swampy land of revision, but it is a writer’s responsibility to select the way to step across to a field blooming with wildflowers.
