The 3 Laws of Critiques

Often I'll have doubts about some section of a story, but I'll send it out for critique anyway. I hope it's good enough and nobody will say anything. The First Law of Critiques tells us why this doesn't work.

#1: If you think a story has a problem, others will too.

Other times I send out work too soon because I secretly want my critiquers to do my work for me. Just tell me all the problems -- those I know and those I don't -- and I'll fix them. But no critiquer can identify ALL the problems of a manuscript. In a story plagued with bad characterization, a critiquer won't notice subtle plot holes, and they'll completely ignore line-edits (that will likely be rewritten anyway). Thus we have the Second Law of Critiques.

#2: A single critique can only tell you about the most glaring problems.

So a critique comes back with problems you knew about. You just fix them and send it back asking for more, right? Well, no. You already know that when you've worked on a story for too long, you become blind to what's wrong with it. The same thing happens to critiquers who are asked to read the same story over and over.

#3: A critiquer's usefulness decreases with each revision they look at.

This is why it's a good idea to have multiple critique rounds, with different critiquers each round. But there are only so many people in the world willing and able to critique your stuff, which leads us to the point of this post.

Corollary: If you fix all the problems you can BEFORE sending out your work, the critique will improve your story and your craft beyond what you are able to do alone.

If you don't, you're wasting both your time and your critiquer's.

* NOTE: Professional editors and agents are capable of reducing the effects of the Second and Third Laws. Though, I would argue they are still subject to them, in the same way space shuttles are subject to gravity.

Nothing Like a Fat Man Dancing for His Dinner

For some reason, our culture has it in our heads that when we give somebody money, they are then in our debt. If I deign to grace a restaurant with my service, they sure as heck better do everything I ask. My taxes pay the salary of my kid's teacher, so they need to give my kid a break when I tell them to.

And I've invested time and money into [Famous Author's series], so they'd better deliver the story I want.

Guys, it's not like that. All the restaurant owes you for money is food. If you don't like the way they serve it, you leave. If you don't like the way your kids are being taught, you take them out of public school (or suck it up, because seriously, the teacher also pays taxes; that's just like the worst excuse for entitlement ever).

And if a book disappoints you, or a sequel isn't out and you've been waiting for years and oh my gosh doesn't the author realize how much you personally have invested in this series and WHY THE HECK ARE THEY BLOGGING ABOUT A BASEBALL GAME WHEN THEY SHOULD BE WRITING?!

Sorry.

You get it, right? The author does not owe you anything. They are not your personal entertainer singing for their dinner. Unless you paid them a four-to-six figure advance, they're going to write what they want to write, and you are welcome to buy it or not when it's done.

And if you don't like it, return it. I mean, as long as that stupid system is in place, might as well use it, right?

Sketchbook

It's been a couple of months since I posted any drawings up here. I haven't been drawing a lot in that time, but I started practicing again recently.

I've been watching these amazing how-to videos by Mark Crilley. They've really made me want to draw again (although every time I see what I come up with, I get that same stupid, "I'll NEVER be as good as he is!" feeling; I hate that). Among other things, I'm learning that there's no One Way to draw -- not even to draw manga. There are thousands of ways to draw a face, and they're all right!

It's very freeing, and (as I've said before) a lot like writing. Anyway, here's what's been going on in my sketchbook lately.

Air Pirates: Plan B

Heyya, mates. Sam Draper here again on account of Sunday's another Talk Like a Pirate Day. Like last year, Adam asked me to give you folks a lesson on speaking skyler. He...


Okay, you know what? I can't do this. I haven't written anything remotely Air Pirate-y in over 6 months. I've totally forgotten how to speak skyler.

But it's a good opportunity to tell you what's been going on with the novel, aye? (And for those of you whose hopes were dashed just now, I promise I'll let Sam write a post when I've got my head in the world again. Breezy?). First things first though. I've gotten a lot of new readers since the last time I talked about this novel, so here's the idea:

Hagai, a cowardly bookworm and the shame of his ship-building father, receives a package from his mother -- the mother who's been dead for 18 years. The package is a stone that gives him visions of the future. It leads him to an air pirate named Sam, and to more adventure than he ever really wanted. (More in my original query, here).

I've gotten no offers yet obviously, though I have gotten some partial and full requests (which is way better than last time). And while I still have material out there awaiting a response, it's time to execute Plan B.

Multiple people -- including an agent or two -- have said this story feels like YA. It's not (Hagai is 21, Sam a few years older), but it could be with a little work. Just a couple rewritten chapters and a few overhauls (though when I first thought of this plan, I thought I'd only have to change Hagai's age, which required no rewriting at all).

Point is, I'm excited. Really the only way to get over rejection is to work on something new!

Books I Read: Mockingjay

Title: Mockingjay
Author: Suzanne Collins
Genre: YA Science Fiction
Published: 2010
Content Rating: R for violence

Thanks to Susan Kaye Quinn, I got to read this book in the same year it was published -- the same month, even, which never happens. (Even better, I got to read it with my wife, who got hooked and caught up in less than a week).

I figure it's kinda pointless to tell you what this book is about, yes? Either you've read the first two, and you know. Or you haven't, and the last thing you want is a summary that could potentially spoil the earlier novels. I also don't want to spoil it, so I'll just tell you how I felt.

Overall, I liked it as much as I did Catching Fire. Everything fit, and there was plenty of tension to go around (especially towards the end). There were only a few times where I could see the author's hand nudging the plot in a specific direction. In the end, there were things I wished had happened, but it felt right.

I'll talk more in the comments, but with spoilers. So don't go there if that's not what you want.

On Telling the Truth and Staying Friends

Ever gotten a critique like this?

This story is terrible. The plot is trite, and your prose made me throw up in my mouth. No one could believe that a doctor would fall in love with a terrorist. The space monkeys were an obvious deus ex machina. And the last thing editors want to see these days is more vampires. Drop them.

Obviously English is your first language, but I'll help you anyway. You've got too many adverbs: swimmingly, roughly, curly, crouchingly(?!)... There's too many to list! You should have AT MOST two adverbs in your entire story. And for God's sake, USE A SPELLCHECKER.

Ouch, right? But what if everything the critiquer (we'll call him Roger) said was 100% accurate? Does that justify his comments?

Well, yes and no. If Roger's point was to vent his frustration, then by all means, rant away! Most of us live in free countries, and speech is one of the things we get to be free with.

BUT if Roger wants the author to actually listen to him -- if Roger wants to help -- his critique is almost worthless even though it's completely accurate!

A lot of people believe that softening words means backing away from the truth, so they present their harsh comments without apology. But critiques like Roger's only make the author angry and defensive. And an angry, defensive person does not -- perhaps cannot -- listen to rational arguments. The author gains nothing from this critique, and Roger has wasted his time.

Fortunately it's possible to soften your words without sacrificing the truth, and it will help the author actually listen to what you have to say. Let's look at some ways Roger could have done better.

1. Phrase everything as your opinion (because it is). The story is not terrible; it didn't work for you. The plot is not trite; it only seems so to you. 
2. Don't command. Either soften it: "I think the vampires make it a weaker story." Or word it as a question: "Would it better without the vampires?"
3. Don't quote rules and authorities. (A) There are no rules in publishing and good is subjective. (B) Unless you are the authority (i.e. you're the editor to whom the author has applied, or you are part of the secret cabal that defines the rules of the English language), you shouldn't speak as if you are.
4. Assume the author is as intelligent as you are. Remember when you were starting out and thought kind-hearted dark elves were just the best plot device ever? Or how about yesterday when you sent out 20 queries addressed to Martha Bransford? We all make mistakes and we all need to learn. But we don't all have to get beat down because of it.
5. Critique the story, not the author. Whether you think this is their first story, they're ten years old, or they learned English over the internet, that has nothing to do with helping their writing. In most cases, it's just insulting.
6. Don't use caps or exclamation marks. As Strongbad says, "Do you know how many Internet etiquette laws you're breaking by typing in all caps like that? Well... you're breaking one: Don't type in all caps."

Now, let's see if we can help Roger say exactly the same thing, but in such a way that the author will be predisposed to listen:

I'm sorry, but there was a lot in this story that didn't work for me. The plot felt a little cliche (to me anyway). I had trouble believing that a doctor would fall in love with a terrorist. I didn't see the space monkeys coming, so that part ended up feeling like a deus ex machina. Lastly, I'm not sure about the vampires. Not that you can't do them, but I feel like I've seen a lot of them lately (also I recently read a post by Anonymous Blogging Editor that made it sound like they were a dying trend; you can read it here: [link]).

As far as your prose goes, I felt like there were a lot of adverbs: swimmingly, roughly, curly, crouchingly, etc. A good guideline that's worked for me is to include at most two adverbs in a story. Also, I saw a few misspellings. You probably just missed them on your own proofreads (it's easy to do, I know!). If you haven't already, try running a spellcheck just in case.

This probably sounds harsh, but keep in mind all of this is just my opinion. If you don't agree, then don't worry about it :-) Good luck with your writing!

As you can see, it takes more words to be nice, but it's worth it if you want the author to actually listen. The first critique goes unheard at best, and at worst makes enemies. It's a waste of time to even write it (unless you want enemies, of course). The second critique however has a chance of being heard, and also of making you a friend, and we all know how important that is.

If You Don't Know Your Audience, Create One!

Writers often hear that we're supposed to know our audience so we can write for them. It's good advice, but what if you don't know what your audience wants? What if you're not even sure whether you have one?

I say great! Write whatever the heck you want!

Take this blog, for example. When I threw up a couple of Venn diagrams on Wednesday, I knew you guys would eat it up. How did I know that? Did I do intense market research as to what kind of pictures my average blog reader enjoys? Did I run a survey of what you guys want to see in my posts? No! (Well, yes, but it didn't work).

You may not be aware of this, but I CREATED YOU! Not in the metaphysical or biological sense, but as a collective. See, I put those diagrams up because I like Venn diagrams. It's the same reason I post charts, graphs, formulas, flowcharts, and more Venn diagrams. I'm a geek.

But here's what happens. I post, say, a comparison table of the Emperor and the Lord Marshal. Someone new comes along, reads it, loves it, and sticks around hoping for more. And because I'm a geek, eventually I do post more, and waddyaknowmyaudiencelovesit.

You see? And I didn't do anything except be me. Granted, there is some filtering going on. (I don't bore you with the meteorology of the Air Pirates world, for example). But my point is that you don't have to make people like you or what you write. Just do what you do -- in the most interesting way you know how to do it -- and eventually the people who like that kind of stuff will find you.

And bam. There's your audience.