Category Archives: how to take a critique

How a No-Good Normal Person Became a Writer

by
Sandy Tritt

I thought I was a good writer. All through school and college, I got A’s in English and Creative Writing and the dozens of literature classes that filled my schedule. My friends all said I was a good writer. People I didn’t know made positive comments about my stories, and I even got a few of them published in local and state journals. 

And then, in the early nineties, I entered the West Virginia Writers Annual Competition for Novels. I won second place, which came with a nice certificate and a check for $150. And it came with a bonus—Mr. D, the judge of the event that year, critiqued the winning entries. Excited, I jumped to the back page to see his overview comments. He said, “You write well—for a normal person. The problem is, you don’t want to be a normal person. You want to be a writer. And you have a lot to learn before you can be a writer.” 

Say what? Even though tears had already started stinging my eyes, I had to re-read his comment to make sure I hadn’t misread. And that was exactly what he’d said. Your writing sucks.

It was late—probably eleven p.m.—the awards program had followed a too-long banquet with a mouthy keynote speaker—and I had to drive home, about fifty minutes away. “You have a lot to learn before you can be a writer” hit me at every milepost, at every traffic light, at every pothole. The words burned not only my eyes, but my heart. I would never write again. Never. I was an imposter, a no-good normal person who could never cross the realm to live in the world of real writers. 

The girls were already in bed when I got home, but my husband was waiting up. He met me with, “What’s wrong?” I tearfully showed him the indictment. You have a lot to learn before you can be a writer. 

Butch just shrugged. “What don’t you write him and ask him what he means by that?” He kissed me and went to bed. 

Do what? There was no question what he meant. You are not a writer

By Monday, I had gone through my manuscript. There were many places where he’d made comments such as, “Stop right here. Go get a dictionary and look up the word ‘melodrama.’ That’s what this is. Melodrama. And it doesn’t make the reader feel anything—except the need to vomit” or “What makes you think putting an exclamation mark here makes your story more exciting? If your reader can’t feel the urgency by the words you’ve written, you’re not going to make them feel it by using a whole row of exclamation marks.” But there were other places where he wrote things like, “Now this is fine writing.” Or “This is the way to write it! Good job!”

On Tuesday, I typed a letter out to Mr. D. I thanked him for the critique of my manuscript, and I asked him if he’d be willing to look at a rewrite of the scene he’d chastised as being a melodramatic mess. Surprisingly, a week or so later, I received a letter back (no email back then). He graciously invited me to send him the scene. And a mentorship was born.

For the next two years, I sent scene after scene to Mr. D, and he returned them promptly with comments and encouragements. He gave me reading assignments. He suggested craft books. I coveted every word he said, and I worked hard to understand concepts I’d never given a lot of thought to before. Narrative Voice. Point of View. Denouement. But, more than anything, I learned how to control character emotion. I learned how to make the reader supply the emotion instead of exhausting it all with melodrama. I learned how to write. 

I left the sphere of normal people (which, to be truthful, I never quite fit in anyway) and entered the world of writers. For, you see, you’re not born with the title writer. It isn’t like eye color or skin tone or ancestry. It isn’t a gift. It’s something you learn, something you earn.

Do you want to be a writer? We’d love to be your bridge between the world of normal people and the world of writers. All you have to do is shoot us an email at IFWeditors@gmail.com. Chat soon!

How to Take a Critique

by Sherry Wilson
Taking a critique can sometimes be difficult for those of us who toil in private for a long time, churning out work and not really knowing how it will be valued by others. Giving up your work for critique is difficult, and receiving a critique with dignity can be challenging.


If your story is the subject of a live critique, you have a great advantage. You’re going to receive immediate, honest feedback on your story. That is a privilege. It can also be hard to take. Most of us would like to bury our heads in the sand at this prospect.

I remember my first live critique. It was at a writer’s conference, and I was so nervous I’m surprised I didn’t pass out in the chair. Time was short so she concentrated on what would make the story better and she didn’t pull any punches. I felt like I’d been a few rounds in the ring by the time it was finished. It was probably the longest three minutes of my life.

It is difficult to take at first, but you do develop a thicker skin rather quickly. The most important rule to follow when receiving a critique of any kind, but especially with a live critique—do not argue.

As soon as the writer starts arguing with the person giving the feedback, all feedback stops.People will give you their opinion until you argue about it. Then they won’t bother anymore. As hard as it may be to take, you have to realize that what they are doing is a true gift. You cannot argue with readers once you have sold your work. They will interpret your story in their own way. You can’t control that. So you shouldn’t try to control the feedback from your audience either.

If the feedback is given in an on-line group, it is inevitable that you will receive an upsetting critique at some time or other.The distance of on-line relationships and the mood fluctuations of people will no doubt cause some to send off a hasty critique.

When this happens, do not write a note back arguing with the critique.

Really, don’t do it.

Let it sit for a day or two to gain a bit of distance and then re-read it.

Yes—re-read it.

You don’t have to agree with it. This is one person’s opinion, and that is all it is. But you might as well get something out of it.

So re-read the critique with an eye for what problems the person saw in the manuscript. You may not agree that these are problems, but you will see that there is a reason the person stopped there and made a comment. Perhaps they misinterpreted what you were trying to do. You may decide not do as they suggest, but you can see that you need to make your intentions clearer in that section.

Often, just the distance of a day will let you see that, while the critique might be a bit rude or brusque, there is something to be gleaned from it.

If you are paying a professional for a critique or an edit, you should find that the communication is professional and framed in a positive light. The editor should tell you what you’ve done right as well as point out any problems and give you suggestions on how to improve the story. But there is the occasional editor who will be more negative with his critique. If this happens, again, don’t argue.

If you don’t understand something, it’s perfectly fine to ask for further explanation.

If you can’t figure out why he made a certain comment, ask for clarification.

But don’t argue with him about it. You paid for the editor’s help and you want his opinion. You don’t have to agree with it.

In fact, receiving another critique from someone else can be a great help to you. It will show you which points really need to be changed and which are more a matter of personal taste.

If two individuals make the same point, you should look closer at their suggestions.

You need to develop a thick skin. That only comes from being subjected to critique repeatedly. Being able to use the critique to improve the work is the most important thing in making it. That is how you get better. The writer who gets published is the writer who perseveres.