Critiquing in Review

For anyone who missed the last meeting, lost Kay's handout, or is just stopping by our site, I'd like to give a quick overview of editing, at least as it works for the GFWG.

1. Be Honest. If a piece, a passage, or a word works for you, say so. If it doesn't say that, too. Platitudes may be nice, but they make for poor prose.
2. Be Specific. State why it works or doesn't work. This is powerful is better than This is nice, but is worse than This is powerful because we sense the main character's angst.
3. Be Helpful. It's okay to mark up a work extensively, but don't destroy it. Try to give the writer suggestions or direction.
4. Be Accepting. Don't convince the writer to write the story you would have written. Work within their framework regarding plot, character, genre, etc.

Specific things to look for when critiquing:

1. Beginning, middle, and end. Difficult with a novel submitted in segments, but do what you can to look for a story arc, and remember that even scenes and chapters need some sense of completion and fullness.
2. Authentic Language. Not just for the author's voice, but for characters and the piece as a whole. Is it in keeping with the genre and tone? Hard-boiled detective novels aren't literary in tone. Jane Austen didn't write like Mickey Spillane!
3. Tension/Conflict. Is it present? Is it tense enough? Is it resolved too quickly?
4. Anything unnatural? Is there anything out of place? Does anything jump out at you? Is there anything that pulls you out of the story?
5. Flow. Does it flow properly? Are the words jaunty or uneven? Not just author's voice, but word choice, sentence structure, segues, etc.
6. Details. Is it too detailed? Are you getting bogged down in minutiae? Is it not detailed enough? Are you wondering how we got to point C without points A & B? Don't be afraid to let the reader fill in details, but give him something with which to work!

In Group

1. Focus on the big picture. No need need to mention grammar, misspellings and the like. Mark them on the paper but focus on more pressing matters at the meeting.
2. Discuss the work. Don't digress into guesswork, author motivation, what might have been meant, and philosophical implications. Focus on the project at hand. Some broad topics might be open to discussion, with expressions like existensial, gloomy, pervasive and the like OK, but stay on topic. No guessing, especially with the work (and the author) in front of us!

Well, so much for brief, but I hope this covers everything (and maybe a bit more) from Kay's sheet. Thanks for your input everyone!