Salons and Rewrites
Tomorrow, I am guest blogging over at Magical Musings. Those women have a fantastic writers' blog, with interviews, guest bloggers, and some really thoughtful posts. So come visit . . . I'll be blogging about critique groups. And to give you some food for thought, I decided to talk about critiques here, based on . . .
Law & Order. You see, I am a HUGE fan of the Bobby Goren/Eames partnership on Law & Order Criminal Intent. And while I think Chris Noth is easy on the eyes . . . I cannot stomach his redhead b*tch of a partner's bad acting, generally unpleasant character, etc. So . . . I only watch Law & Order in re-runs. Given the well-documented state of my personal life and Fun with Demon Baby, the chance of me even getting to watch an episode once a month is slim. But since Law & Order is on TV 24/7 in any given time zone, thanks to syndication, I got to watch one last night, while Demon Baby decided to alternate between curling up on my lap and telling me he loved me (perhaps the only man who truly does) and bite me on the upper lip while kissing me (a technique I call the Shark Kiss).
Last night's re-run, in case you've seen it, was about a "salon" (a snooty way of saying a writers' group) run by a character played by Peter Coyote, and rampant plagiarism, murder of an aspiring novelist, sexually aggressive literary agents, and finally . . . the utter destruction of salon members' work when they would read for the omipotent Peter Coyote (who got hauled off to jail in the end . . . bet he'll have fun in Riker's).
When I watched the critiques he offered, they were more character assassination. The entire point of his critique was to publicly decimate the young writers and keep them eating out his hand, as if HE had the key to their becoming better writers. And because his character had some literary credentials, like many talented people, he was given a "free pass" on decency.
I have seen groups where the sole purpose is that kind of back-stabbing bitter critiques . . . and somehow, the members in it seem to think that there's more "honesty" with viciousness. I disagree. I can say the same thing . . . but without resorting to snark. It's how I choose to interact with my group . . . and it's what works for me. Honest, tough, but . . . supportive.
The other part of the Law & Order episode focused on a writer's unique "voice"--how it is theirs alone. And I relate this to another part of a critique group . . . the idea of what your critique partner should do for your work or to your work. In my mind, nothing.
Now, that can sound kind of crazy . . . isn't that the POINT of a CP? But if I got back a critique in which my unique word choices were excised with a CP's word choices put in their stead, I would scream. If you take two pages to tell your back story, for instance, and your CP cuts it so much you have fifty words, then he or she has effectively REWRITTEN your work--which impinges on voice. To me, a CP should say "this works, this doesn't." They might suggest words changes. They might even rework an awkward sentence here or there. But they shouldn't wholesale rewrite to the way THEY would write it because what, then, would be the point? It's a critique, not a rewrite. YOUR voice should be preserved. I have had 25+ books edited by four or five different editors in my career, and 25+ copy editors, and no one has ever rewritten a sentence. Did they circle a sentence and say "not clear" or some other comment that told me the sentence didn't work? Yeah. But it's my voice, my words. My job to fix it.
The whole show last night was pretty riveting . . . and it definitely got me thinking.
Thoughts?
And don't forget to visit me tomorrow at Magical Musings.
Law & Order. You see, I am a HUGE fan of the Bobby Goren/Eames partnership on Law & Order Criminal Intent. And while I think Chris Noth is easy on the eyes . . . I cannot stomach his redhead b*tch of a partner's bad acting, generally unpleasant character, etc. So . . . I only watch Law & Order in re-runs. Given the well-documented state of my personal life and Fun with Demon Baby, the chance of me even getting to watch an episode once a month is slim. But since Law & Order is on TV 24/7 in any given time zone, thanks to syndication, I got to watch one last night, while Demon Baby decided to alternate between curling up on my lap and telling me he loved me (perhaps the only man who truly does) and bite me on the upper lip while kissing me (a technique I call the Shark Kiss).
Last night's re-run, in case you've seen it, was about a "salon" (a snooty way of saying a writers' group) run by a character played by Peter Coyote, and rampant plagiarism, murder of an aspiring novelist, sexually aggressive literary agents, and finally . . . the utter destruction of salon members' work when they would read for the omipotent Peter Coyote (who got hauled off to jail in the end . . . bet he'll have fun in Riker's).
When I watched the critiques he offered, they were more character assassination. The entire point of his critique was to publicly decimate the young writers and keep them eating out his hand, as if HE had the key to their becoming better writers. And because his character had some literary credentials, like many talented people, he was given a "free pass" on decency.
I have seen groups where the sole purpose is that kind of back-stabbing bitter critiques . . . and somehow, the members in it seem to think that there's more "honesty" with viciousness. I disagree. I can say the same thing . . . but without resorting to snark. It's how I choose to interact with my group . . . and it's what works for me. Honest, tough, but . . . supportive.
The other part of the Law & Order episode focused on a writer's unique "voice"--how it is theirs alone. And I relate this to another part of a critique group . . . the idea of what your critique partner should do for your work or to your work. In my mind, nothing.
Now, that can sound kind of crazy . . . isn't that the POINT of a CP? But if I got back a critique in which my unique word choices were excised with a CP's word choices put in their stead, I would scream. If you take two pages to tell your back story, for instance, and your CP cuts it so much you have fifty words, then he or she has effectively REWRITTEN your work--which impinges on voice. To me, a CP should say "this works, this doesn't." They might suggest words changes. They might even rework an awkward sentence here or there. But they shouldn't wholesale rewrite to the way THEY would write it because what, then, would be the point? It's a critique, not a rewrite. YOUR voice should be preserved. I have had 25+ books edited by four or five different editors in my career, and 25+ copy editors, and no one has ever rewritten a sentence. Did they circle a sentence and say "not clear" or some other comment that told me the sentence didn't work? Yeah. But it's my voice, my words. My job to fix it.
The whole show last night was pretty riveting . . . and it definitely got me thinking.
Thoughts?
And don't forget to visit me tomorrow at Magical Musings.
Labels: critique partners, the art of critiques
posted by Erica Orloff at 4:16 PM
3 Comments:
I'll be there! I think the most valuable input we can get is how what we wrote affected a reader.
And about the viciousness, it's not just about decency. There's also the simple fact that if you phrase things negatively, the students rarely learn. So what's the point of going there?
Everything can be phrased in a positive manner. It's an art, but it can be done.
Hi Spy:
I agree . . . it is an art form. Most of the best editors have learned it.
E
I wish I'd seen that episode. Thursday night I was going over the from one of my two brilliant CPs. And yesterday I went over the critiques from my other CP. And again, they were brilliant. I took a quick glance over them now, and mostly they're "too much information" "too much going on in one sentence" "too much description". She also writes comments like "just love this scene".
I'm going over her sub now, and my critique has a lot of smileys. :)
Post a Comment
<< Home