Critique: It's not one size fits all

There's an idea floating about writer-dom that if you've had critique from multiple sources but never really gotten any critique that you could take on board, the problem must be with you. Now, there's something to be said for looking at the common factor, and maybe sometimes it is you. But that blanket assumption ignores that (a) critique is very individual, and just because what works for one person doesn't work for another doesn't mean that the another is a prima donna, and (b) giving good critique is a skill, and there are a lot more people doing it than doing it well.

So I was very pleased a while back when somebody linked to one of Maggie Stiefvater's periodic critique partner match-ups, and I read the following: "I wanted to be critiqued, and yet I never wanted to act upon the critiques I got."

It's okay for her to say it, because she's a published writer. When an unpublished writer says something like that, they're just a whiny little wannabe who needs to learn to take critique and realize that they're not a special snowflake who shits rainbows onto the page. ;-) But when a published author, especially one with decent sales who wins awards and stuff, and who can point to her current trusty group of beta readers, says it, it becomes a home truth. Which she goes on to explain with: "It took me a long time to realize that I needed to find critique partners who enjoyed the same sort of story-telling that I did; critique partners who weren’t always suggesting that I turn my novel into the sort of novel that I didn’t want to write. Also critique partners who communicated in the same way as me".

Critique partners who enjoy the same sort of story-telling that I do. Therein lies the obstacle that I have yet to overcome, critique-wise. I have had brief bursts of it -- and when it's worked, it's been brilliant, and just what the then-stories needed. Unfortunately, those instances have been non-repeatable for various reasons. What has been repeatable is people who wanted something very different than what I was trying to achieve, or who were working at a so much shallower level than I was that it really wasn't getting to anything I needed. (Or as Stiefvater puts it in the link below, "Ultimately I realized that I needed to find readers with the same story-telling priorities as mine, or it was never going to work.")

And communicates the way I do -- that's another big one. The content has to be there, but it also has to be expressed in a way that computes in the author's brain. This applies both to critique-group methodology (I need discussion; clarion/Milford or Dunning simply do not work for me) and also to interpersonal styles. (I've mentioned before that while I'm all for understatement-for-emphasis by characters and I'm prone to it myself, when it comes to critique, I need people who can baldly state what effect the text had on them.)

Unfortunately, Stiefvater's match-ups aren't a good fit for me; aside from the challenge of navigating Google Docs, where she now seems to be doing it, most of the respondents are writing YA. Which makes sense, since Stiefvater's a YA writer, and more power to 'em, but not my tribe. However, some of the things she asks people to provide are definitely pointing in the right direction, and I should keep them in mind for future use. Genre, and a small sample (I'd go with more than one line, but that's me), agent/publishing status, etc.

I particularly like that she asks for "the last book you read that you loved and also the book you feel epitomizes you as a reader" -- which are not necessarily the same thing. Not that I ever expect anyone to match me on those, especially the latter.*

So what does all this tell me? Mostly it gives me another way to phrase what I already knew, and an established author to point to when I need to back it up. How to find those critiquers with the same story-telling priorities as mine, and compatible communication styles, remains a mystery.


~ ~ ~ ~ ~

* For the record, the last book I really enjoyed was Paige Orwin's The Interminables -- really compelling characters, along with cool worldbuilding and solid writing -- I kept wanting to get back to it when I wasn't reading it, which is something that happens all too rarely these days. And the book that epitomizes me as a reader? I think that honor has to go to Tea With the Black Dragon by R.A. MacAvoy. I love that book, and nobody but me seems to understand how marvelous it is.

If you can spot the common trait between those two, do please let me know what it is.