The Writer's E-Zine
Home
Writers' Village University -
F2K: Free Fiction Writing Course -
ePress-online
Writers' Village
University Membership Information
Craft of Writing
Nannette Croce
The Objective Reader
How Outside Help Can Give You A New Perspective On Your
Writing
Maybe you are a new writer receiving one rejection after another, or an
experienced writer hitting a block. In either case, you need some feedback on
your work, and if you are not one of the lucky few with a mentor to turn to,
then you might be considering those ads in the writing magazines for
editing/critiquing services. But how do you know which service is right for you?
How much should you pay? And what can you expect to gain in the end?
David Ebenbach is an award-winning writer and writing instructor who also has
his own critiquing service. He recently answered some questions about the
services he provides and editing/critiquing services in general.
In this first part of a two-part series, we discuss the value of having your
work critiqued, the different services available, and how you can choose a
service that is right for you.
T-Zero: Many famous writers had a trusted person who reviewed their work and
made comments. What are the benefits of having your work reviewed by another
person before submitting for publication? Do you think all writers need to do
this?
Ebenbach: I believe all writers, no matter
how famous or brilliant, need, at
some point, to turn their work over to people they trust, to get some critical
feedback. It’s not a matter of being a beginner or an expert—all writers
eventually look so long at their own words that they can no longer see them
objectively. It’s as simple as that—you become so intimate with the writing
that other people are in a better position than you to say what’s successful—and what isn’t successful—in the piece.
T-Zero: Who are your clients—mostly new writers, a mix of new and experienced?
Ebenbach: I’m amazed at the diversity of people who send me their writing. I
have had clients who were putting words to the page for nearly the first time,
or taking themselves seriously as writers for the first time. And I have had
clients come to me with full-blown, highly accomplished novels, just needing one
more pair of eyes before declaring a final draft. Each person comes with
different experiences, different questions, and different needs. Of course,
that’s what makes it interesting.
T-Zero: If I were a prospective client, what would you tell me about the
services you offer?
Ebenbach: What I offer is a careful, close reading of a person’s writing—usually this involves several readings, actually—and my analysis of what’s
working in the piece, and why, and what isn’t, yet, and why. I look at the grand
scale of, for example, plot, character development, voice, and tone, throughout
the piece, and the smaller scale of the paragraph and sentence, including
grammar and word choice, and everything in between.
Sending your fiction to an editor/critiquer/professional book doctor is a very
different experience than the experience of sending your fiction to a literary
magazine, where the vast majority of the time they’ll just say yes or no,
without any explanation. Most of the time that my writing has been accepted for
publication, I haven’t been told why—and that goes 1000 times for rejections.
The publishing world is not there to teach you. Critiquing, on the other hand,
is about making the particular piece work, and about learning more generally
what makes fiction work. The person who critiques your writing is there to
teach.
T-Zero: Are there people who offer other types of editing/critiquing than you
offer, or a different approach? If and when might a different approach be more
beneficial to a writer?
Ebenbach: To some extent, all professional critiquers have the same goal—making the writer’s work “better,” on every level—but “better” is an
incredibly subjective word. Each person has a different idea of what that means,
and a different path to get there. Some will ask lots of questions of the
author, to try to spark revelations on the author’s part as to how the piece
ought to be rewritten; others will be quite directive about what they believe
ought to be done, and how. People will vary in the particular techniques they’ll
describe. Some will even be generally biased in favor of or against certain
kinds of writing, like mysteries or historical novels or novels with birds in
them.
Each person inevitably brings his or her individual personality to bear on the
task of offering critical feedback. That’s why it’s often a good—if not always
economical—idea for a writer to get a second opinion on work, especially when
an editor’s advice feels wrong. Most likely, going to two editors will leave the
writer with two sets of feedback that in some ways agree and in other ways
disagree—and that points to the inescapable truth that, in the end, the writer
is the one who must be the final judge. Both things are crucial: turning to
others for objective advice, and making the final decisions yourself.
T-Zero: Is it possible to have a bad “fit” with someone who is critiquing your
work? If so, how can a writer evaluate whether the person they are dealing with
is the right “fit”? Alternately, what might be some signs that the writer is not
getting her money’s worth?
Ebenbach: Absolutely. A writer may find a
particular critiquer too blunt, too
directive, not directive enough, difficult to understand, or any number of
problematic things. In these cases, it might help to tell the person that you’d
like a different style of feedback, and see if that changes the situation. If
not, it might be time to switch to someone else; it’s hard to have a successful
relationship around one’s writing when there’s a serious personality conflict.
Writers also sometimes bristle when they are told that their work needs a lot of
changes. On the one hand, it’s possible that the editor has different goals for
your writing than you do—wants your novel about inner torment to have a car
chase scene, for example, just because she likes car chase scenes—and that’s a
problem. The editor should adopt your goals for the work, whatever they are. On
the other hand, the editor might be uncovering real problems, and, as hard as it
is, the writer has to be willing to hear and accept painful truths about the
writing, if the writing is to improve.
As to the money, this is a largely unstandardized business; critiquers generally
try to charge some approximate average of (a) what they believe people can
afford, (b) what they believe they can get for their services, and (c) what will
make it worth it to put in the time required to give a good critique. Clients
will usually agree to pay if they can afford it and if it feels like they’re
getting what they want out of the situation. Either one is free at any time to
end the relationship, and, of course, a client might want to shop around for a
sense of prices before getting started with anyone.
Next month we'll discuss what a writer can and can’t expect to get from a
critique and how to use the feedback you receive.
About The Author
Nannette Croce is an Assistant Editor at T-zero, and writes both short stories
and articles from her home in Chester Springs, Pennsylvania. Visit her Web site
at homepage.mac.com/nannettecroce.
About the Interviewee
David Ebenbach has an MFA in writing from Vermont College, and is currently
teaching at Gotham Writers Workshops. His work has appeared in numerous
publications including The Denver Quarterly and Crazyhorse. His novel,
My Brother, the Prophet was a finalist in the Mid-List First Series Awards. He also
recently contributed a chapter for the Gotham Writers Workshops’ Books, Writing
Fiction. Contact him at ebenbach@world.oberlin.edu
or visit his Web site at www.davidebenbach.com.
|