Last month I participated in an online critique class offered through Savvy Authors. Instructor--Melinda Pierce. Why? Being a good critique partner is a whole new realm for me. I've edited newsletters and yearbooks, evaluated and scored many pieces of writing (as an English teacher), but no one ever listed points to look for in critting [Melinda's word] your writing partner's work.
Ah . . . sounds so simple? Just point out all the "errors" you find. Easy, peasey, huh? Wrong. Melinda started by listing four points that every critique should be: Positive, Constructive, Specific, and Honest. Good points. No one rewrites for the author; the critter provides positive feedback in a back and forth exchange.
I enjoyed the class and "meeting" the other writers and reading the works they shared. A benefit I hadn't expected was learning more about POV and deep POV. Before this experience, no one had explained the difference between author's POV and character's POV. I get it now! Talking heads is something I've had trouble identifying.
So, I'm ready to find compatible writers who would like to form a crit group. I'm also borrowing Melinda's critting. It sounds so much better than critique.
"Critique" has such a negative connotation. Unfortunately, I've had a fair share of negativity. I've stopped writing several times over the past ten years because of Negative, Deconstructive, Non-specific comments. A good example: "I didn't finish. It didn't hold my interest." Okay. I accepted that. Would have been a better crit if the reader had been specific about why she lost interest.
