When Is ‘Good Enough’ Really Good Enough?

When do you consider your work good enough? When your critique partners have no more major comments? When it’s published? When it gets a starred review? When it wins an award?
Perhaps. But, for every answer, there’s a way to refute it.

 

‘It’s good enough for my critique partners, so it’s got to be good enough for an agent or editor.’
Maybe. It depends on how thorough your critique partners were, and how well you absorbed their feedback.

 

‘It’s good enough to get me an agent, so it must be good enough for an editor.’
Again, maybe. If your manuscript attracted an agent, then there’s at least one shining element to your story that she believes in. But that doesn’t mean she thinks it’s close to being done.

 

‘It’s good enough for my editor, so it must be good enough to greet the world.’
This depends on so many things. The editor could have been sold on that same shining element that attracted your agent, but that doesn’t mean the rest of the book has transformed into one big, shining story. It might have, or the editor might have gotten it to the point where the flaws were merely acceptable. Meaning, many readers may not notice or care about them, but the astute reader will likely catch them every time.

 

So, what about ‘My book got a starred review’ or ‘My book won an award’?
A starred review comes from an individual, so it means the flaws were overshadowed by the good parts for that one person. If another person from the same organization had reviewed your book, you might have gotten a different response. It all depends on taste. An award is bestowed by a group of people, and they agree that your work is deserving of this award. It’s still a small group, though. Much smaller than the rest of the reading population. So is this a good measure?

 

What does it really mean to say ‘my work is good enough’?

 

Let’s say you give your work to an agent or editor hoping she won’t notice a weak area in the story, or you assume that weak area is fine if she doesn’t say anything about it. Or, let’s say you rationalize away a voiced concern because so-and-so-author gets away with it in her books. Well, you can almost count on this coming back to haunt you, especially if you’re a debut author.

 

Once your work is out there, there’s no taking it back. If you (or someone else) notice a flaw in your work, other people will, too. Hoping, insisting, or rationalizing that something isn’t a problem doesn’t make it true. Instead, it sets you up for the firing squad that’s taken up residence on Amazon’s review forums. :)

 

For me, this is what it really means to say one’s work is good enough:

1. You have listened with an objective ear to the feedback from your critique partners, agent, and/or editor.
2. You have taken a good, hard look at the areas of concern (and put other successful books out of your mind).
3. You’ve done everything you can to resolve those issues, likely moving out of your comfort zone in order to do it.

There might still be a reader who catches something that no one else did. But, you know what? That’s okay, because, if you’ve done everything above, that thing will be so minor it really won’t matter.

How To Get The Most Out Of A Critique, Part Five

Last week, I talked about how to incorporate feedback from an agent or editor, and today I want to talk about the fine line between holding on too tightly and knowing the feedback isn’t right for your story.
Kill your darlings. People say that over and over again, but one could argue that all of your writing consists of darlings. So, how do you know whether a darling needs to go or stay? That’s a tough call. But there are ways to figure it out.

The first step is to figure out what kind of person you are. Are you resistant to change? Are you easily influenced? Are you easily overwhelmed? Knowing this will help you tremendously because it will affect your strategy.

Resistant To Change
If this is you, then the revision process can be a complete nightmare for your critique partners. Why? If you constantly resist input, they’re going to wonder why the heck you bothered to ask them to critique your work. One who is resistant to change can easily make himself believe that he’s holding on to the key elements of his story, when they may not actually be key elements. But how do you figure out the difference?

One way is to make a list of every single issue raised in your feedback, even the ones you don’t agree with. Then, take each issue one at a time and experiment with it. What happens to the story if you make this change? Is it better or worse? Or, what happens if you add a few tweaks to this change? Then what? I’ve discovered more revision gems this way than I can count. But if you don’t try, you’ll never know. So, give it a try, and you might surprise yourself.

Easily Influenced
If this is you, then I think you have the hardest time with revision than anyone else, because it’s easy to see the merit in other people’s comments. That leads to incorporating those ideas and suggestions in your story, even if they don’t fit. Then you end up with Frankenstein’s monster, and, eventually, the whole project will likely be abandoned. How do you keep this from happening?

Again, make a list of all the comments. Instead of experimenting with them with actual writing, just think about each issue one at a time, taking it through your story from start to finish. Does it affect the setting? Does it affect how the character views certain things? Are these better or worse for your story? It’s very important that you do not start revising right away. Instead, let your mind play with these ideas and see where they fall.

Easily Overwhelmed
I think most people fall into this category, especially when you’ve got a group of people giving you feedback. Or, if you get some suggestions from an agent or editor, you can easily feel overwhelmed because of the potential for a connection. But there are ways to deal with it.

Make a list of everything, but not in the traditional way. You want to deal with each issue individually, so make your list such that you can only see one thing at a time. You could use index cards, for example, or use another sheet of paper to cover the rest of the list so you can only see one new thing at a time. Then, deal with only that issue. When you know for sure whether you should keep or discard it, move on to the next. Keep doing this until you reach the end, and don’t worry about how long it takes to get there.

There is another thing you should do regardless of what kind of person you are, and that is…

SLEEP ON IT

After you’ve made your list, set it aside and get a good night’s sleep. Or a week. Or a even a month. When you’re not actively thinking about the list, that’s when you should return to it because that’s when your brain will be the most objective. You’ll be able to see things that you probably wouldn’t have when it was all fresh. And, any emotion associated with the feedback will have had a chance to settle, and you can better assess what’s right for your story.

Really, though, it all comes down to you as an individual. The only way you’re going to figure out the best way to deal with feedback is to experiment with various systems and see what feels right. If you haven’t done this yet, get to it. :)

How To Get The Most Out Of A Critique, Part Four

Last week, I talked about how to incorporate a critiquer’s feedback into your work. Today, I want address what happens if that feedback comes from an agent or editor.
It’s one thing to dismiss feedback from another writer, but it gets more complicated when it comes from an agent or editor. After all, they’re the ones who can get us to that coveted that Published and Listed status. All of a sudden, the stakes have gone up.

When an agent requests your full manuscript, what’s the first thing you do? You cheer, of course! A request is a good thing, which could lead to other good things. And if that agent likes your story but has a few misgivings, she might offer you some advice to revise. If she really likes it, she might even invite you to resubmit. This is great cause for celebration, closely followed by nauseating nerves. This could be your chance to snag an agent, so you want to do your absolute best work. Plus, agents have their fingers on the pulse of the industry so if you do what she tells you to do, it’ll be all right. Right?

Wrong.

It’s easy to get caught up in revising for an agent or editor because they are directly responsible for getting you published. The problem is that you can lose sight of your story and focus on doing what she says, which may or may not work. If it doesn’t work, then the agent/editor is going to say no, and you might be upset and frustrated because you did all that work for nothing.

It’s possible that, after all that work, your story really is stronger and the agent just didn’t love it enough to take it on. Or, it’s possible that you did all that work for nothing. How do you know which is true?

An agent just a person and not much different from a fellow critquer, except that she has more insight and experience with respect to the industry. But she doesn’t have more insight into your story than your critique partner does. She can’t, because she’s not you. No one has better insight than you do.

I’ve heard many writers lament about doing revisions for an agent only to be turned down. This sometimes turns into a complaint about how the agent demanded they write the story for her instead of letting them stay true to the story. The writers almost always swing to the other extreme and they proclaim that they are through with writing for other people and will only write for themselves—often coupled with an aversion to feedback.

These writers don’t know it, but they fell victim to the idea that if they do what an agent tells them to do, it’ll get them published. Which they’ve just proven isn’t always true. So, what do you do about that?

You write for you, of course. :) To do that, you use the same methods to incorporate feedback that you used with your critique partner.

The difference is that you have more to lose, i.e. the agent or editor could pass on your story. This sucks, but that’s how it is. Blindly following an agent’s advice won’t necessarily get you anywhere, either. Therefore, it’s even more important that you assess an agent’s feedback with a critical eye, because she’s likely revealing flaws in your story that you need to address. BUT, that doesn’t mean you need to fix the problem in the exact way she suggests. She doesn’t know the story the way you do, and could unknowingly be introducing other problems. In fact, if you don’t take her advice and fix the problem in a different way, she’ll be impressed. It shows that you have a good head for revision, and she’ll be more inclined to want to work with you.

It’s complicated, but there’s not really a way around that. All we can do is write the best story we can, then stay true to it as we strive to make it better. A good agent or editor will recognize and appreciate that.

How To Get The Most Out Of A Critique, Part Three

Last week, I talked about how to give an effective critique. This week, I want to go over how to incorporate feedback into your own work after you’ve gotten a critique.
Remember the critique I told you about last week? The one with this underlying message: Nothing about your story is good, and my way is the only way to make it better. Even though the critiquer never said this outright, her statements and observations were made with such confidence and assurance that it’s easy to believe she knows what she’s talking about—which makes that underlying message even stronger, and puts an incredible amount of pressure on the author to follow her advice.

In my opinion, this kind of critique is far more dangerous than one that rants. The arguments appear sound, and the lack of emotion makes it difficult to dismiss. But does that mean it’s valid? Not at all.

This was just one person’s opinion, and she didn’t have the same insight into my story that I did. Fortunately for me, I knew the heart of my story and recognized right away that she didn’t see it, so I actually stopped reading and set her critique aside. But what if I hadn’t been so sure of my story? This critique was so compelling and sure of itself that it could have led me in the wrong direction, and then I’d have been struggling to write a story that’s half mine and half someone else’s. That never works.

Which leads me to another point: if you don’t know the heart of your story, you are not ready for feedback. Let me say that again. If you don’t know the heart of your story, you are not ready for feedback. Here’s why.

If you don’t know what your story is about, then how can you improve it? So many new writers pound out a first draft and then send it off to a critiquer, eager for ideas to make it better. That’s admirable, but it’s also dangerous. If you don’t know the heart of your story and you get a critique like I did, you could find yourself in a whole mess of trouble. You might end up abandoning your story down the road. But if you know what your story is about and where it needs to go, then feedback is a good thing.

And now, finally, we get to the real question. How do you incorporate feedback into your story?

The very first thing to do is read through the comments, then set them aside for a few days. This will allow your brain to process the information, as well give your emotions time to settle. When you come back, you’ll be more open to the idea of change.

For the suggestions that you know won’t work, simply move on. Or, take a closer look at what’s behind the comment and see if the critiquer misunderstood a part of your story, which you could make clearer. Make a note of this. Also, make a note of the things you like, agree with, or ring true to you. If you’re not sure, then add it to the list.

Once that list is complete, go through it with a critical eye and compare it to the heart of your story. For the things you know will work, turn them into a Revision To-Do List, or some similar way to track the changes you intend to make in the next revision. For everything else, take a good, hard look at them. Do they really, truly mesh with your story? There might be some fantastic ideas and possibilities in this list, but that doesn’t mean they’ll work. It might be difficult, but let those things go.

Sounds good, right? Well, what if those brilliant-but-doesn’t-quite-work ideas came from an agent or editor? Then what do you do?

I’ll be talking about that next week, as well as what it means to write for yourself. :)

How To Get The Most Out Of A Critique, Part Two

Last week, I talked about how to get what you need from a critique, even if it doesn’t seem helpful at first. This week, I want to talk about how to critique others’ works, because learning how to effectively critique goes a long way toward getting what you need from critiques of your own work—if you know how to deliver an effective critique, then you know what elements you need when you receive a critique of your own work.

But first, I’d like to give an example of what not to do.

I recently went through my drawer of old critiques. Some were filled with amazingly insightful comments, and a few were not-so-helpful. There was one in particular, though, that put the other unhelpful critiques to shame. When the critiquer first gave it to me, I didn’t realize just how insensitive it was. In fact, after a quick read-through, I think most people would consider it helpful. But now, years later, the harshness is glaringly obvious. To me, at least. Here’s a high-level breakdown of what it contains.

First, she had nothing positive to say about my story aside from one general comment about the potential for a compelling premise. Which, when you think about it, isn’t really positive. The rest of the critique pointed out all the flaws of the manuscript. This is part of the point of a critique, yes, but the manner in which flaws are revealed is key. This critiquer didn’t rant or shred my work harshly, instead subtly infusing it with condescension (I didn’t even notice this the first time I read it).

She threw out my entire story and rewrote it the way she thought it should be written. She changed the entire plot, structure, and delivery. None of this was phrased as suggestion—they were commands, as is ‘do this’ and ‘do that’—and she made no effort to discern my intentions with this story. Instead, she created her own idea of what it should be and commanded me to adhere to it. The underlying tone was this: Nothing about your story is good, and my way is the only way to make it better. I can’t think of any situation where this is acceptable.

Here’s a list of elements that I think make a good critique, which the above critiquer clearly did not follow.

DO:

• Ask the author where he is in the process. Is this a first draft? Tenth draft? The level of feedback is different for early drafts vs. later drafts.
• Ask the author if there any areas he wants you to focus on. Does he have any questions for you?
• If the author has included a list of questions with his manuscript and you don’t understand one or more, ask him to rephrase.
• Make a concerted effort to understand what the author is trying to accomplish. What is the heart of this story? If you can’t figure it out, ask. Then you can tell the author whether it’s it coming through, or if it’s obscured in places.
• Read the manuscript more than once, possibly with some time between readings. This is key, because you will make connections the second time through, and have a better understanding of what the author is trying to accomplish. This will help you to make your comments more effective.
• Point out what works. There is always something that works, even if you have to search to find it. But you need to find it and let the author know what he’s doing well. If there are many areas that work well, don’t assume the author knows this because he may not have figured out his strengths yet. Helping him to identify his strengths is just as important as identifying weaknesses.
• Keep a positive tone throughout the critique, even when pointing out areas that need work. If you sound like you believe the author can write a better book, then he will be more likely to believe it of himself. And then he’ll do it.
• Watch your phrasing. Keep your feedback in the realm of suggestion, not commands (as in ‘you need to do this’). Focus on the problems you encountered and explain why you think they’re problems. If you have a suggestion for fixing it, state it, but if you don’t then that’s okay. It’s not your job to fix the manuscript; it’s the author’s.

DON’T:

• Don’t get frustrated, angry, or upset when critiquing another person’s work. These emotions always come through in your comments, and end up sounding harsh. Sometimes disrespectful. If you get frustrated, make a point to come back and edit your comments before sending them off to the author.
• Never never never rant. If you feel the need to rant about this story, do it on your own paper. Don’t send it to the author.
• Don’t ignore any questions that the author has presented. If you don’t know how to answer a question, then tell him that. He might come back with a clarification, and then you’ll be able to answer it.
• Don’t lie. You aren’t doing anyone any favors, and can actually do some damage.
• If a story isn’t your cup of tea, recognize that and move on. Do not attempt to rewrite it. This story is not yours to do with as you will, and you're not being as helpful as you might think.
• Don’t tell the author what he has to do in order to improve her book. You don’t have the same insights that he does, and you could be completely wrong. Instead, phrase it as suggestion.

I try really hard to follow this when I give a critique, and I truly hope that the author finds the information helpful. After all, that’s the point of a critique.

Does anyone have anything else to add?

How To Get The Most Out Of A Critique, Part One

I realize this is a huge topic, so I won’t even try to cover it in a single blog post. It’ll be a series of posts (just to give you fair warning :) ), and I’m going to break it down to what I see as the key elements:

1. How to get what you need from a critique.
2. How to critique others’ works.
3. How to incorporate feedback into your work.

Today, I’ll start with how to get what you need from a critique.

The serious writer knows that feedback is essential to writing a good story. But any ol’ feedback won’t do—you need usable feedback. The stuff that will push you and propel your story from pretty good to great. Right? Right. There’s a pretty big problem with that, though.

Feedback is dependent upon another person, and that brings up a host of questions. Did this person ‘get’ my story? Does she know anything about writing or the publishing world? How much experience does he have? And, the ever-popular ‘who does she think she is, anyway?’

These questions certainly have an impact in what kind of feedback we get for our stories, but you can still get what you need even if it sounds like it’s way off base. There are some things you absolutely should do, and some things you absolutely should *not* do.

DO:

• If you have concerns about certain aspects of your story, prepare a list of those areas and include specific questions with your manuscript when asking for a critique.
• If there is something in the feedback that doesn’t make sense, ask for clarification. The information might be a gem if phrased in a different way.
• If the critiquer has issues with the characters and you don’t quite understand why, see if he would be willing to look at it from alternate viewpoints to provide additional details. This way, you can to determine why the critiquer had problems. Then you can fix them.
• Take a step back and pretend to look at your work as though it’s someone else’s. This will help you to see the flaws more clearly. And, it won’t hurt as much. :)

DON’T:

• If you’ve asked for clarification on an aspect of your feedback and it still feels wrong, don’t try to convince the critiquer why his advice won’t work. Just let it go.
• Never, never, *never* go into a conversation defending your characters. This always ends badly, for both of you.
• I know this is easier said than done, but never take a critique personally. Nine times out of ten, the critiquer never intended personal harm to you. Instead, try to look at it from his perspective so you can understand what he meant to say. If he did intend personal harm, then his opinion is worth nothing because it’s likely filled with untruths.
• That said, never summarily dismiss an entire critique, even if it’s harsh and tactlessly shreds your work. There are likely a few gems hiding in there. I’ve experienced this one, and it’s hard to deal with. But it actually made me feel better that I fished at least a couple good things out of the vitriol.

Critiquing is a difficult business because, as writers, we pour our hearts and souls into our work. We need to, because that’s what makes it come alive. As a result, it’s hard to hear criticisms. But it also comes with the territory. What starts with a critique partner is just going to continue with an agent and editor, so the sooner we know how to deal with it, the better.

Constructive Criticism and the Calm of Objectivity

"Criticism may not be agreeable, but it is necessary. It fulfils the same function as pain in the human body. It calls attention to an unhealthy state of things." - Winston Churchill

I used to read these words to myself before reviewing a critique of my work. It put things in perspective, and allowed me to remove my personal feelings from my work - thus, allowing me to see my work objectively, so I can accurately assess whether the critiquer has brought up valid points. After all, I'm a writer, and I want to be the best writer I can be. Therefore, I need to be able to absorb critiques in a constructive way.

That said, there are things that can upset the zen of my objectivity. I call them unhelpful critiques. :) An unhelpful critique is probably different for everyone, but here's what's unhelpful for me:
1) Critiquer laughs or scoffs at any part of my story.
2) Critiquer is patronizing or condescending, or tells me that I'm doing everything wrong without suggestions on how to fix it.
3) Critiquer ignores any questions I have, or areas of focus I have requested.
4) Critiquer wants to change the story or characters based on his/her taste, not based on what is best for the story.
5) Critiquer does not understand the story and, instead of merely stating this, "teaches" me how to write properly.
6) Critiquer offers no positive reinforcement.

If at least one of these elements appears in a critique, I had trouble keeping my objectivity...and I was more inclined to not listen to future suggestions from that particular person. This could be bad, because that critiquer could have great advice - and just a poor way of delivering it.

So, after many deep breaths and walks around the block, I created a new method for receiving criticism. I read through everything once, let all my emotions out during that first read, then set it aside. When I'm sufficiently calm (this could take an hour or a week...depending), I pick it back up and wrench my objectivity back into place. :) I strip the critiquer's personal info from my mind and focus only on the criticism. If it's good, I make a note to incorporate it. If it's bad, then I set it aside with no more emotion than a yawn before bedtime. After all, the critique isn't personal. It's meant to help improve my writing. So why should I let my emotions take over, and my objectivity fall by the way side?

Objectivity is such a wonderful thing. To me, it's like a warm blanket because I know I'm looking at things as they are. Not as I want them to be, or afraid that they might be. It also allows me to see things through other people's perspectives. Say, a reader was confused by a certain passage in my story and went off on a completely wrong tangent in her critique. If I look at it from her perspective, knowing less about the characters and plot than I know, then that confusion could make sense and I can make a note to clear things up. Then, when the story goes back through critique, I can focus on that same reader's reaction. Usually, it's pleasant surprise. And the fact that I listened to her, even in a way she didn't intend, makes me feel warm and fuzzy inside. :)

So, what makes a good critique? It's different for different people because we don't all have the same strengths and weaknesses. A good friend of mine is terrible with grammar, but great with plot. I'm good with grammar, but not so good on showing my characters. So when I ask for a critique, these are the things I find most helpful:

1) Critiquer finds holes in my plot.
2) Critiquer notices when characters are acting "out of character."
3) Critiquer points out the things that work well in the story - dialog, strong scene, strong character, good use of all senses, etc.
4) Critiquer tells me his/her reaction at key points in the story. This might include guessing at the story's outcome, pointing out that a certain revelation was predictable/not predictable, or comments on the character's growth (or lack thereof).
5) Critiquer addresses any questions I posed either before or after the story, and avoids the problems I already know about.
6) Critique is phrased in a constructive and encouraging manner.

These kinds of critiques usually come from experienced critiquers. And when I get one, I always make a point of thanking the person for being so professional and thoughtful. After all, we're trying to make this our profession, right? So why not treat our work with the professional respect we know it deserves? :)