Revision Exercise

Now, this is just a test run but post up your thoughts about the idea. I propose that folks post the introduction of their stories, maxing out at say 200 words if they want an in-depth edit.

As noted in Scribbles Newsflash, it's simply too much work to edit everyone's stories to any large degree. In our critiques we can point out general impressions, maybe an error or two, but even that is quite a considerable amount of work.

My general impression is that the opening is one of the most difficult parts of writing a story. They incorporate some of our strongest writing talents, and of course, our weakest. I believe by really going over them and pointing them out specifically, we all become better writers and better revisers.


This is how it works.

Posting Intros:

• Do not go over the 200 max. A few words are fine, but lets keep the length reasonable.

• Expect your intro to be ripped apart. This is not a place to defend or argue how or why you wrote something. If your not comfortable with every word being scrutinized, don't post.

• If you want a specific area addressed, feel free to point that out as well to help give people revising a goal.

Revising Intros:

• Be polite but be honest.

• There are different styles of revision. You can look at grammar, sentence structure, consistency, or flow but you're not limited to these editor-like categories. If there are other elements that are distracting, state them and why.

• Feel free to state opinions. No one is perfect at grammar but if a sentence looks wrong, and you don't know why, point it out. Maybe someone else will be able to figure it out. The goal here isn't to build any egos, nor is it to tear them down. The goal is simply to make that intro clear and easy to read.

As the moderator of this forum, let me add my statements. Note that while I use 'I', the statements surely apply to others.

1) I am not going to count words. I will look at a submission and say, "Okay, let me do this," or "This guy is going to have to wait until I have time." If you want a reasonably fast reply, keep it short.

2) YES, you may retort. This should be a dialogue, and I expect a writer to care for his work. However, keep it polite and REASONED. Just saying, "You are wrong," does not help me reply better to others. Tell me why I am wrong.

3) Don't post whimsy. If you don't care about what you posted, then you don't care about editing it. To post here you should be truly working to get a manuscript into shape.

4) Say WHY the section troubles you. If you don't have any idea about why the section has problems, I will assume that you have put NO effort into fixing it. If you are not going to put any effort into fixing your manuscript, why should I bother (if you are not going to read your story, why should I)?

5) Don't post openings. Okay, you can. Still, the opening pages of any manuscript are rough, but a solvable problem. You must get the story going, so ignore whatever you did to get it going. Once the story has a solid presence, then you can normally go back and fix the opening on your own. Post the sections of your manuscript that truly trouble you.

6) Word processor reports are EXCELLENT submissions. You have to work with your word processor in creating your manuscript, so learn how it works. You need to know what sections are important to correct, and which ones can be ignored. I learned a lot by taking those sentences that my word processor flagged to people that were Literature/Grammar people (I am Math/Science). I learned about sentence structure and advanced grammar in that fashion.

Okay, such are my remarks.

TerishD wrote:

2) YES, you may retort.

Before you consider putting out a retort to a critique, allow me to put this forth:

We are not your editors, publishers, or teachers, as such there is no requirement for you to follow or adhere to our advice. What we are, are potential readers of your work and fellow authors/writers. We are also not being paid for this, which means we are not gaining anything for doing this for you either, it is done out of kindness.

Now you might feel inspired to think that retorting or defending your work is the best way to do things on a form when asking for a critique.

I have learned however that nothing, and I mean nothing, will eliminate your future chances for anyone to put forth an ounce of effort or their time to you, then to have you throw it back in their face, no matter how polite you think you are doing it.

I agree with what deathbypen said about this.

But I guess you have to use your best judgment on that.

Urs wrote:

I have learned however that nothing, and I mean nothing, will eliminate your future chances for anyone to put forth an ounce of effort or their time to you, then to have you throw it back in their face, no matter how polite you think you are doing it.

I agree with what deathbypen said about this.

I second.

There are already people on this board who's work I don't even bother with giving a serious critique or commenting on because they just throw it back in your face. It's the nature of things and it's going to happen here with this I'm sure, but it's very off putting and makes the reviewer/editor feel like they have wasted their time on you.

I do however like the idea of it not having to be the opening, though I don't personally know how much useful advice I'd be able to give on a section from the middle or end of a larger piece I know nothing about the flow, pace, or storyline of.

Well, let me say that I would appreciate people that cared enough for writing and their manuscripts to sensibly retort. Let me also say that those that enter THIS sub-forum had better care about writing and editing. We (I hope to be speaking for all) are going to be open and honest, so the poster had better have some desire to get something other than a pat on the back. I agree that rude replies can turn people off, but that is true for ANY social situation. I however consider a good rational debate to be fun.

As for not knowing characters/situations in the middle of a story, that is seldom a problem unless the trouble is a plot problem. If it is just a descriptive, grammar, or style problem, then we can focus on what is given. Let me say that in my many years of reading internet stuff, I have seen a LOT of opening pieces with never a next chapter (and I know only a few that have finished what they have started). I don't want to do opening chapters for stories that are going nowhere.

I guess it might help to explain my reasoning for the rules that I fashioned for this exercise.

To begin, I think starting with an introduction is simply a matter of convenience. I'm not opposed to individuals posting up a problem section that they want to be specifically addressed, but for the sake of simplicity and getting this exercise moving, that is what I thought would appeal not only to the folks posting, but the ones revising as well.

The reason behind the no defending and arguing rule is that in the "real world" you can't explain why you wrote something to your readers, or argue about what something really means. Whether we like it or not, what we write is not always how something is read. I want the people critiquing to be completely honest about their impressions and have the elbow room to express just that.

Now, I'm not banning any discussion, but it should have the direct purpose of moving the writing process foward. If a writer is explaining why something is the way it is, they aren't thinking of how it's being interpreted by the reader, or how it can be improved.

These are simple guidelines, but to be honest, they really can't be enforced. People are naturally going to follow the ones they like and break the ones they don't. When that occurs, the rules of this exercise will be revised.

Until that point though, I think we should see where this goes.

deathbypen wrote:

The reason behind the no defending and arguing rule is that in the "real world" you can't explain why you wrote something to your readers,

Point well made.

Urs wrote:

deathbypen wrote:

The reason behind the no defending and arguing rule is that in the "real world" you can't explain why you wrote something to your readers,

Point well made.

Yep, it's always funny to me when I give a critique to something and the writer replies back to say I just don't understand what they are trying to say or this is what they REALLY meant to convey.

If your message isn't conveyed to your reader that's usually your shortcoming and not theirs.

Let me say as a teacher and as a parent, the reason you have others explain themselves is so they learn how to explain themselves. What you do is not magic. There is a process you followed. You should work to recognize what inpulses controlled you, and attempt some mastery over the base natures to improve yourself. Just 'going with the flow' can result in some good stuff, but you cannot make a consistent living relying on luck.

As odd as my stories are, I try to craft them to follow a set plot, obey grammar rules, and present the proper degree of emotion and clarity. There is a reason that I allowed a passive tense sentence. Saying, "That is nice, but change it," (and I have had editors say such) does not speak to my reasons. There is a reason that certain people speak a certain way (and it got me slightly mad when the same person that said that all my people sounded alike fussed at me for having people with odd speech patterns). I am thus someone that retorts to people, although I am speaking to let you know WHY I did what I did so you can tell me HOW to improve.

If there is no foundation, then nothing can be built. I would like to get writers that have some security in their methods. People that simply accept the voice of authority normally do not have the strength to finish a manuscript. In my experience those that have some conviction to support their effort are those that post that next chapter. I thus see those that retort as being worth my effort to help.

Such is my opinion.

Is anybody actually going to post an intro to their story or we going to argue about the rules instead? LOL