by Eva Marie Everson @EvaMarieEverson
Over the
past two months, I’ve written about two “rules” necessary to provide proper
critique within a critique group or one-on-one with critique partners.
Now let’s
take a look at the third rule, which is: Critique
the work … not your feelings about the work.
Here’s an
example: let’s say you are a police officer (or your family member works within
law enforcement) and one of the pieces being critiqued is about corruption
within police departments across America. Immediately something strikes you—the
writer only wrote from one perspective, and it was one not flattering to your
fellow men and women in blue.
What
should you do?
First
question to ask yourself is this: how well-written is the work? Did the writer
use captivating scenes, word choices, strong verbs? Are the sentences evenly
paced? Did your heart race in all the right places? If the answer is “yes,”
then start with that.
Now that
you have encouraged the writer with your praise (at Word
Weavers
we call that the first piece of bread in the cold sandwich method), now you can
kindly mention that, as a police officer, you are aware that there is
corruption within some departments, but you would encourage the writer to look
at this particular piece from another perspective.
“Let your conversation
be always full of grace,” Paul wrote in his letter to the church at Colossae.
“Seasoned with salt,” he said, “so that you may know how to answer everyone.”[i]
Of course you’ve heard the old adage, “You draw more flies
with honey than vinegar” … to which I always say, “But who needs more flies?”
I digress …
So, what do you
do if the piece is not well-written? What if this
writer has a clear axe to grind? What should you do then?
The same scripture from Paul applies. First, commend the
person for their passion and their strength to write about such a subject
matter. Then, calmly (salt shaken here) say to the writer, “As a police officer
myself, I can see that you have a hurt that you are trying to express. I’m not
going to comment on that right now—although I hope you will consider
interviewing officers or the family members of officers before you submit this
for publication. What I will comment on is here on line 4—you used the word walked, but I think a stronger
verb—perhaps a more accurate verb—is ambled.”
Now you have stayed within the correct critique style to be
heard, rather than just listened to. You
would have made a valid point (pieces such as these need both sides to be
well-written) and you have given the writer “writerly advice.”
TWEETABLES
First rules of critique for writers; "Rule Three" - @EvaMarieEverson (Click to Tweet)
First critique the writing, not your feelings about the writing - tips from @EvaMarieEverson (Click to Tweet)
In case you missed the other posts in the series, here are the links:
First Rules of Critique, "Rule One"
First Rules of Critique, "Rule Two"
First Rules of Critique, "Rule Four"
Another good point 🙂
ReplyDeleteVery helpful (and timely) words. This problem has, on a couple of occasions, been further complicated for our group when the person being critiqued had a higher level of expertise than the ones voicing the critique - even though the rules were agreed to in advance and work for us 99% of the time. Thanks to time limits, we eventually move on. Jay in Anderson, SC
ReplyDeleteAmen Ms. Eva Marie. Sometimes we have to lovingly help someone see that it really is a cow pie they're polishing, but we must also remind them that with time and effort it can bring forth beautiful, scent-filled flowers. God's blessings ma'am...
ReplyDeleteIt's hard to take your feelings out of a critique when you are passionate about a subject. However, the purpose remains to help a fellow writer grow.
ReplyDeleteThanks for reminding us, Eva Marie.
Thank you. I think that you gave sound advice about rendering objective criticism. I appreciate the reminder.
ReplyDelete