I would love to find a writing group like AlphaMercs to join with - but I refuse to get a facebook account lol
Very good article here! Especially on learning the art of knowing when advice given is good and when its not. I've just started writing short stories and my big goal right now is to get published in a Rac Press antho. I've had some people - even those published - look at my work and I'm already learning you are very right when you say that just because they are in a group doesn't mean they are right! Especially when it comes to the "rules" of writing. Like "show don't tell." If someone cannot, when giving me feedback, just quotes rules and a list of authorities to back up those supposed rules without any clarification on where there is a genuine problem and how to fix it, I'm far less likely to take their critique seriously. There is, unfortunately, a lot of bad writing technique getting pushed out there by supposed authorities who are going around to writing seminars and conferences peddling their brand instead of writing more books....
Have you been reading Harvey Stanbrough's substack? That last sentence is right out of his playbook! Are you on Discord? I know there are a few places, such as Sarra Cannon's Discord, where you can match yourself up with other people to start your own group. I also know that AlphaMercs are looking at phasing in some "sub-groups" for writing in the future. Where they will help tech/overwatch people to help them improve their writing and get published. But they/we don't really have the bandwidth to add a lot more all at once.
Some things that are important (And you could start one right here through advertising on your substack - but it's currently best practice to use a private discord for the actual critiques) is to have your rules established up front, so that they have to agree to start, and then if they aren't following the rules they can be removed much easier. And yes, real life sometimes gets in the way and there can be easements for that situation.
1. Rules - you must critique 2 other people before you get one of your own critiqued.
2. You must continue to critique other people's work as you want more of your own critiqued.
3. Use a system that is measurable, such as the A, B, C system, or something like it, so that you don't get the comments like: "Cool", or "that sucked", or worse yet, "you suck".
4. Most people have to learn how to give feedback - so using some of the techniques that have been discussed in the comment is great. When you onboard someone, make sure they understand the process.
5. Don't be afraid to remove someone from the group that only wants their own work done, or fights back at everything that the other critiquers say, that way lies madness. If they can't take useful critique, given within the rules, then they aren't ready for critiques yet. And that's okay, but they don't belong in your ecosystem, as it just makes everyone resentful and tired.
6. Everyone needs to be of a similar goal - ie to improve and get published. They don't have to be the same publishing goals, or the same level of development or skill, just similar goals to improve and to work and learn.
I do Scribophile and get many helpful critiques and a few not so helpful.
After reading one critique done for a beginner writer I follow, I got frustrated and wrote a short article on my webpage (before I joined Substack) about how critiques need to be fitted to the writer. The critique had used terminology above the writer's comprehension without doing anything to explain the terms and the writer was at a loss as to how to use the comments.
I remember years ago when when a few people told me to "show don't tell" and I had no idea what they were talking about. It took awhile for me to understand the concept and much longer get how to do it properly (well, mostly there).
I have a BS and MS in Engineering and many years in the workforce doing technical writing, but it did little to help my fiction writing. Only through the help of willing, patient people and other sources was I able to improve to where I am in my writing - and I still have far to go. I assume most beginning writers won't be much better than I was. When doing critiques, we need to be clear on our advice, especially when it comes to beginning writers.
Actually, no. lol. But I was a home school teacher for all grades Pre-K through HS for 25 years...Plus a Master Instructor of Cosmetology, plus teaching in church, all ages at different times. Plus voice instructor and music instructor....I've learned a few things about presenting material so that the student can learn it in there way. (Dealt with kids with dyslexia, too!). I'll have to give your essay a look!
I think you may have problems with that link, so sending it the hard way.
Critiquing Far Above the Writer's Level
"You cannot learn calculus until you master algebra. And, sometimes, all you need to learn is algebra."
I have struggled long to improve my writing from something acceptable for typical engineering-related documents to fantasy stories worth publishing. One discovery I made during this process is that there are many highly educated people in the writing profession who do not know how to help others with their writing. Early in my engineering consulting career, I was taught that we need to make our writing understandable to the common person so they can understand our advice. So, it surprised me to find that many people, in a profession which emphasizes clear writing, cannot write clear critiques that beginning writers can comprehend and use.
Not every beginning writer fully understands "show, don't tell". Same goes for passive and active voice. For the average person, these are often foreign concepts. And even if they are familiar with them, as many beginning writers learn once they get advice from those better trained, they are still difficult to navigate. The first few times people told me to "show, don't tell", I had no idea what they were talking about. The advice was next to worthless. It took me years to grasp the concept well - and I still struggle with it.
Good writing is good communication. Most people learn only the basics.
For math that is addition, subtraction for the bare basics, then multiplication and division. The better educated know geometry and algebra - and often find they have no use for it. And calculus? Who cares, except a tiny minority. As a professional engineer, I never used calculus despite being required to take three levels of it to get a BS in engineering.
Most adults can write - at the bare basic level. If writing is a small part of their profession, they must learn at a higher level of complexity (multiplication and division level). For good writing, they have to learn the level above that. Most story writers are struggling at the next level (geometry and algebra level). They are not ready for the calculus level work - giving them calculus equations will not help them do algebra.
So when critiquing a beginning writer's work, saying "show, don't tell" or to use active voice instead of passive voice is often not helpful. The irony of such advice is that when saying "show, don't tell" - it is actually 'telling' the beginning writer what to do and not 'showing' them how to fix the issue. Explain the issue - clearly - at the level the new writer can understand. If you are such an expert at writing, you should be be able to communicate your advice at the level your audience can understand - and use.
Expecting people to understand those complex (for them) concepts because they are "writers" is not useful. Amateur writers do not need to write at professional level. Help them master the basic level of story writing. Their stories can still be enjoyable to read. Some stories by grade school kids are fun to read. However, many professional level written stories are not what most would call entertaining.
Critiques should be useful for the writer to help them create a better story. Once the writer improves to the next level, then and only then, can they be expected to understand, in general, what is needed at the next level of writing. Also, one needs to ask, do these beginning writers want or even need to go there to accomplish their writing goals.
One technique for writing critiques that I've heard of often is "the sandwhich method". You say something good, the criticism, something good as a closing. It makes it easier for the person receiving the critique to absorb the information and not get defensive or beat themselves up for a perceived failure. The goal should be to help the person get better, not stop them in their tracks.
Agreed, that can help. But, it's also important to look at the people in the group and see if they DO have your best interests at heart. Many people/groups only have their own interests at heart, sadly.
I agree about making sure the group has your interest at heart. I've been in broader ones where you're encouraged to find people you match with. You could also read other people's critiques and on occasion I saw people get frustrated and a bit needly in their comments. I was always worried about coming across a bit mean, so I saw Leeron's comment and added another tip in case someone found it useful.
Yes, seeing how someone else critiques, can be a warning for you, and can be a help for you! You might come across a way they are critiquing someone else's work, that gives you ideas on how to critique better.
I have also found that critiquing work for other people sometimes helps me see where I might have the same flaw in my own.
There are subtle differences when doing writing into the dark and how and when you might critique or get critiques, in my opinion.
I'm so happy that you have found other people to work with for improvement!
A tip that I feel should be more well known - using “I statements” in your critique, presenting it as a personal take/opinion, makes the criticism feel much less threatening to most people. It also encourages you to figure out exactly what problem you’re experiencing.
Eg “this is confusing” -> “I found this hard to follow”.
“The character makes no sense” -> “I can’t figure out why the character made that decision”.
“Boring. Dnf.” -> “My mind kept wandering as I was trying to read. The writing wasn’t capturing me.”
Having a formal checklist makes sense for a critique group, it’ll also encourage rounded feedback. Otherwise you’ll just get “yay!” or “ugh” from different people depending on whether they overall liked the piece or not.
I had a class on communication and they focused on the "I statement" as a conflict resolution.
The examples they used were more genreral: "You're always late. Now we'll miss the movie." versus "I'm annoyed that you're late. We'll miss the movie now."
The examples were also in Finnish and worked better. But the point was avoiding language which defines the other person and using language focused on your own experience of the situation. I agree with Leeron that the technique should be more well known.
I helped start a small writers group where we do writers sprints, and read scenes to each other. The first rule I had was to always be kind with critiques.
Most of the writers I work with are first timers and it takes a specific type of person to work with them. After a couple of years, we’ve become comfortable with each other and realize that we’re trying to help each other become better writers.
If you feel uncomfortable with the group, then it’s time to look for some other group. When you have a bad group, it is really really bad.
I would love to find a writing group like AlphaMercs to join with - but I refuse to get a facebook account lol
Very good article here! Especially on learning the art of knowing when advice given is good and when its not. I've just started writing short stories and my big goal right now is to get published in a Rac Press antho. I've had some people - even those published - look at my work and I'm already learning you are very right when you say that just because they are in a group doesn't mean they are right! Especially when it comes to the "rules" of writing. Like "show don't tell." If someone cannot, when giving me feedback, just quotes rules and a list of authorities to back up those supposed rules without any clarification on where there is a genuine problem and how to fix it, I'm far less likely to take their critique seriously. There is, unfortunately, a lot of bad writing technique getting pushed out there by supposed authorities who are going around to writing seminars and conferences peddling their brand instead of writing more books....
Have you been reading Harvey Stanbrough's substack? That last sentence is right out of his playbook! Are you on Discord? I know there are a few places, such as Sarra Cannon's Discord, where you can match yourself up with other people to start your own group. I also know that AlphaMercs are looking at phasing in some "sub-groups" for writing in the future. Where they will help tech/overwatch people to help them improve their writing and get published. But they/we don't really have the bandwidth to add a lot more all at once.
Some things that are important (And you could start one right here through advertising on your substack - but it's currently best practice to use a private discord for the actual critiques) is to have your rules established up front, so that they have to agree to start, and then if they aren't following the rules they can be removed much easier. And yes, real life sometimes gets in the way and there can be easements for that situation.
1. Rules - you must critique 2 other people before you get one of your own critiqued.
2. You must continue to critique other people's work as you want more of your own critiqued.
3. Use a system that is measurable, such as the A, B, C system, or something like it, so that you don't get the comments like: "Cool", or "that sucked", or worse yet, "you suck".
4. Most people have to learn how to give feedback - so using some of the techniques that have been discussed in the comment is great. When you onboard someone, make sure they understand the process.
5. Don't be afraid to remove someone from the group that only wants their own work done, or fights back at everything that the other critiquers say, that way lies madness. If they can't take useful critique, given within the rules, then they aren't ready for critiques yet. And that's okay, but they don't belong in your ecosystem, as it just makes everyone resentful and tired.
6. Everyone needs to be of a similar goal - ie to improve and get published. They don't have to be the same publishing goals, or the same level of development or skill, just similar goals to improve and to work and learn.
Then you can decide what rules work for you.
Hope those helps
I do Scribophile and get many helpful critiques and a few not so helpful.
After reading one critique done for a beginner writer I follow, I got frustrated and wrote a short article on my webpage (before I joined Substack) about how critiques need to be fitted to the writer. The critique had used terminology above the writer's comprehension without doing anything to explain the terms and the writer was at a loss as to how to use the comments.
I remember years ago when when a few people told me to "show don't tell" and I had no idea what they were talking about. It took awhile for me to understand the concept and much longer get how to do it properly (well, mostly there).
I have a BS and MS in Engineering and many years in the workforce doing technical writing, but it did little to help my fiction writing. Only through the help of willing, patient people and other sources was I able to improve to where I am in my writing - and I still have far to go. I assume most beginning writers won't be much better than I was. When doing critiques, we need to be clear on our advice, especially when it comes to beginning writers.
I absolutely agree! That's what I was talking about above, as well.
I wouldn't teach someone fractions, or even multiplication tables using Calculus terms!
Thanks for adding your experience and perspective!
From your reply, it sounds like you already read my little essay. I did mention calculus.
Actually, no. lol. But I was a home school teacher for all grades Pre-K through HS for 25 years...Plus a Master Instructor of Cosmetology, plus teaching in church, all ages at different times. Plus voice instructor and music instructor....I've learned a few things about presenting material so that the student can learn it in there way. (Dealt with kids with dyslexia, too!). I'll have to give your essay a look!
I think you may have problems with that link, so sending it the hard way.
Critiquing Far Above the Writer's Level
"You cannot learn calculus until you master algebra. And, sometimes, all you need to learn is algebra."
I have struggled long to improve my writing from something acceptable for typical engineering-related documents to fantasy stories worth publishing. One discovery I made during this process is that there are many highly educated people in the writing profession who do not know how to help others with their writing. Early in my engineering consulting career, I was taught that we need to make our writing understandable to the common person so they can understand our advice. So, it surprised me to find that many people, in a profession which emphasizes clear writing, cannot write clear critiques that beginning writers can comprehend and use.
Not every beginning writer fully understands "show, don't tell". Same goes for passive and active voice. For the average person, these are often foreign concepts. And even if they are familiar with them, as many beginning writers learn once they get advice from those better trained, they are still difficult to navigate. The first few times people told me to "show, don't tell", I had no idea what they were talking about. The advice was next to worthless. It took me years to grasp the concept well - and I still struggle with it.
Good writing is good communication. Most people learn only the basics.
For math that is addition, subtraction for the bare basics, then multiplication and division. The better educated know geometry and algebra - and often find they have no use for it. And calculus? Who cares, except a tiny minority. As a professional engineer, I never used calculus despite being required to take three levels of it to get a BS in engineering.
Most adults can write - at the bare basic level. If writing is a small part of their profession, they must learn at a higher level of complexity (multiplication and division level). For good writing, they have to learn the level above that. Most story writers are struggling at the next level (geometry and algebra level). They are not ready for the calculus level work - giving them calculus equations will not help them do algebra.
So when critiquing a beginning writer's work, saying "show, don't tell" or to use active voice instead of passive voice is often not helpful. The irony of such advice is that when saying "show, don't tell" - it is actually 'telling' the beginning writer what to do and not 'showing' them how to fix the issue. Explain the issue - clearly - at the level the new writer can understand. If you are such an expert at writing, you should be be able to communicate your advice at the level your audience can understand - and use.
Expecting people to understand those complex (for them) concepts because they are "writers" is not useful. Amateur writers do not need to write at professional level. Help them master the basic level of story writing. Their stories can still be enjoyable to read. Some stories by grade school kids are fun to read. However, many professional level written stories are not what most would call entertaining.
Critiques should be useful for the writer to help them create a better story. Once the writer improves to the next level, then and only then, can they be expected to understand, in general, what is needed at the next level of writing. Also, one needs to ask, do these beginning writers want or even need to go there to accomplish their writing goals.
Well said!
Sorry, I did not give you the link.
https://molackmagics.wordpress.com/
See the post 'Critiquing Far Above the Writer's Level'
I did not think you had, but your reply was spot on.
One technique for writing critiques that I've heard of often is "the sandwhich method". You say something good, the criticism, something good as a closing. It makes it easier for the person receiving the critique to absorb the information and not get defensive or beat themselves up for a perceived failure. The goal should be to help the person get better, not stop them in their tracks.
Agreed, that can help. But, it's also important to look at the people in the group and see if they DO have your best interests at heart. Many people/groups only have their own interests at heart, sadly.
I agree about making sure the group has your interest at heart. I've been in broader ones where you're encouraged to find people you match with. You could also read other people's critiques and on occasion I saw people get frustrated and a bit needly in their comments. I was always worried about coming across a bit mean, so I saw Leeron's comment and added another tip in case someone found it useful.
Yes, seeing how someone else critiques, can be a warning for you, and can be a help for you! You might come across a way they are critiquing someone else's work, that gives you ideas on how to critique better.
I have also found that critiquing work for other people sometimes helps me see where I might have the same flaw in my own.
There are subtle differences when doing writing into the dark and how and when you might critique or get critiques, in my opinion.
I'm so happy that you have found other people to work with for improvement!
A tip that I feel should be more well known - using “I statements” in your critique, presenting it as a personal take/opinion, makes the criticism feel much less threatening to most people. It also encourages you to figure out exactly what problem you’re experiencing.
Eg “this is confusing” -> “I found this hard to follow”.
“The character makes no sense” -> “I can’t figure out why the character made that decision”.
“Boring. Dnf.” -> “My mind kept wandering as I was trying to read. The writing wasn’t capturing me.”
That works well with the formula that we use in the AlphaMercs.
A- What is Awesome to me in the story
B- What is Boring to me in the story
C- What is Confusing to me in the story.
Some also use D and even E, but I can't recall what those are off the top of my head.
Adding the "to me in the story" as you are suggesting, I think can help not be an attack on the writer.
Having a formal checklist makes sense for a critique group, it’ll also encourage rounded feedback. Otherwise you’ll just get “yay!” or “ugh” from different people depending on whether they overall liked the piece or not.
I had a class on communication and they focused on the "I statement" as a conflict resolution.
The examples they used were more genreral: "You're always late. Now we'll miss the movie." versus "I'm annoyed that you're late. We'll miss the movie now."
The examples were also in Finnish and worked better. But the point was avoiding language which defines the other person and using language focused on your own experience of the situation. I agree with Leeron that the technique should be more well known.
Thanks for the nod, Tiff. Glad you see my advice as helpful.
I helped start a small writers group where we do writers sprints, and read scenes to each other. The first rule I had was to always be kind with critiques.
Most of the writers I work with are first timers and it takes a specific type of person to work with them. After a couple of years, we’ve become comfortable with each other and realize that we’re trying to help each other become better writers.
If you feel uncomfortable with the group, then it’s time to look for some other group. When you have a bad group, it is really really bad.
Absolutely! Thanks for chiming in.