Most consider Michael Jordan to be the best basketball player of all time. His Airness, however, has proven to be less than competent as a general manager (see Kwame Brown). Similarly, Magic Johnson, another fantastic player, made a horrendous coach (and a worse talk-show host).
Historically, the best coaches/judges of talent/etc. tend to be either middling players (e.g., Phil Jackson) or people who never had a professional career. Analysts suppose this has to do with the fact that the top-tier players don't understand the limitations of their inferiors and, consequently, can't figure out how to squeeze the juice from the lemons.
And I wonder if this applies to writers. I wonder if it applies more so, because we're not just lemons, we're an entire fruit basket. If so, does that mean I should hope I suck as a critter? (and, if I do, I apologize to those I've critiqued :)
How do you know a good critiquer?
Perhaps we should hand out championship rings to more easily identify.
Writing is more subjective than sports. Critiquing one person is different than coaching a team. When I reach out for critters, I go for a diverse crowd so I get a mix of tastes to influence the opinions, and get a wider scope of feedback in general. It's kind of like reverse coaching...one writer and a team of critters.
ReplyDeleteI'm quite appreciative of your critique efforts. Hope that still stands as a compliment ;-)
Rick, definitely :)... Yeah, writing's crazy more subjective, and in some ways, this makes me wonder even more. What if you get someone whose style's way off yours? Will they be useful? I just don't know.
ReplyDeleteNot comparing apples to apples, I guess, but kind of plums to pluots for me.
I have not jumped into the critique phase myself, but I know I want people who approach the task with the goal of making it better. If you want to shred my manuscript, I need to understand why it is you are shredding it. If you love it, I need to know what would make you love it more. If the critic can't fully explain his or her opinion and offer feedback to help you move forward, they are no help.
ReplyDeleteI have to wonder if the reason they did so poorly as a teacher is because they didn't have to struggle to learn from the ground up. I'm not saying they didn't work, but it all came so naturally they didn't have to think about how or why they did it.
ReplyDeleteWith writing I think the best critters are the ones who have studied and grown the most, regardless of their talent levels.
I love Rick's comment. I only have one CP, but she's a wonderful help. Recently, I paid for a critique from a professional editor at a publishing house--wow! The feedback was amazing.
ReplyDeletePaul, I concur -- feedback without precise/adequate explanation is near useless.
ReplyDeleteS.P. so true... a certain level of empathy is required, and is more readily attained if you've walked those hard miles. Though, in fairness, MJ worked pretty damn hard early on (and later on, of course), but I think there was also a certain disconnect because of it (and a bitterness, too).
Shannon, I recently read Cheryl Klein's SECOND SIGHT and she included some of her feedback edit pages as examples... wow, amazing to see how those pro editors work and communicate.
My experience has been the best critiquers are also writers (vs. agents/editors). I recently had a conversation about this very thing with some very experienced writers and they had a similar feeling about it. But I do think giving good feedback and being able to produce the work in the first place are two very distinct skill sets, and so I can see a non-writer being a kickin' editor.
ReplyDeleteI must be totally out of the loop Bane! You have an agent now!!!! Woot! Woot! That's awesome! I've been so busy I haven't been by! Congats my friend that's amazing!
ReplyDelete