While writing itself is a singularly solitary undertaking, becoming a good—if not a great—writer is not. I say this to students, to clients, in fact to anyone who reads anything I post: if you want to improve your writing, you must be part of a critique group. This can be a simple critique partner, a local group that meets at members’ homes, or an online affair; but you must do it. Yes, it can be tedious. Yes, you in turn will have to read a fair amount of dreck. Yes, it will make you a better writer.
The Internet Writing Workshop, to which I often refer beginning writers, is one venue that demands much of the writer … and gives much in return. It offers critique groups for all sorts of genres, from poetry to novels to YA material, as well as a place for participants to discuss the writing life.
One such discussion recently centered around the critiquing process itself, and whether writers should be submitting finished work—or submitting it as they go along, so to speak.
My friend and colleague Rick Bylina had this to say:
I believe I’ve subbed and critiqued it all on NOVELS-L: novels being written on the fly and those polished to a high gloss. I prefer to submit and critique completed works. I feel that critiquing incomplete or works-in-progress is bit like me writing some of it for the author, and the story might lose some of the original essence the author intended. There is also a time factor involved with doing as much critiquing as I personally do, but that’s my problem.
In critiquing a completed work, I feel that I’m more or less pushing the author toward the higher standard that traditional publishablity might require. And I still think that is a valid goal for most writers despite the “rush” of self-pubbing or the promised riches out there. Outside validation from an industry professional is an admirable goal whether or not you ultimately choose that route to publication. The smack that an agent or valid editor gives your “baby” might be what moves you beyond of the friends and family marketing plan when you publish.
But I understand the flip side of the coin. Some people don’t have a good inner circle with which to bounce around an idea or two. When I smell that in the writing, I’m willing to give it a few chapters, and if the writer’s skilled and seasoned, maybe more than a few chapters. But there comes a point in every writer’s life when they have to own their works regardless of the feedback at an early stage, where two or three close comrades in the same genre might provide more to the point comments than a herd of talking heads on the Internet, jumping on a first chapter, because it is as “freshhhhhhhh” as a new car smell.
I don’t believe there is a right or wrong answer. Just make your writing the best it can be before you get it critiqued: don’t waste your time or mine.
I agree with Rick that there’s neither a right nor a wrong answer to the question. I have the opposite reaction: I want to be able to critique a work in progress, because I can help make it better as it progresses. There’s nothing more dismal than critiquing the same issue week after week after week; if you critique when the work is still being formulated, you (hopefully!) won’t have to do that.
What do you think? Let me know, and then you’ll be … beyond the elements of style!