My friend Suzan Robertson is getting into the manuscript critique racket -- but with a difference. Instead of doing line edits and checking your grammar, she's offering feedback on the big picture and constructive advice on how to improve your book. Suzan also provides research and fact-checking expertise, which can be a huge help to busy writers. If you follow the link, you'll find more information.
As some of you know, I used to do manuscript critiques. I'd like to think I was pretty good at it. My approach was similar to Suzan's in that I liked to focus on how to take books to the next level, and that involved a lot more than just checking the grammar. Form and structure have always fascinated me, and I found it was much easier to tweak them in someone else's novel than it was in my own. All good things come to an end, though. When the demands of writing grew too great, I could no longer devote enough time to critiques, so it's nice to be able to recommend someone who's serious about the subject and has a "big picture" focus.
The question is, do you need a critique? When I was doing them, my usual advice was this: you don't need my services unless you plan to do extensive re-writes on your manuscript. I think that's good advice across the board. If you're sitting on a 600-page behemoth and you're basically happy with it, not intended to do much more with it, don't spend good money getting recommendations you have no intention of following. But if you're ready to tackle that behemoth and whittle it down to a drum-tight 300 page masterpiece, then maybe another set of eyes is just what you need. Also, if you already know how to fix your manuscript's problems, you don't need to pay someone to tell you again. The piece you submit for critique should be as good as you can make it, and you should be at a loss for how to improve while at the same time being convinced it needs help. In other words, whether you should pay for a critique depends on how serious you are about revision, and how well you see what needs to be done.
There are some people who advise against paying for a critique, arguing you can get the same thing by joining a local workshop -- for free. I used to think the same thing, because I had the privilege of belonging to an excellent workshop. But most writers aren't in that situation. There are a lot of bad workshops out there, full of people dispensing wrong-headed advice (often on the basis of a superficial skim). If you find someone who can read your work, see what's wrong, and give concrete recommendations for improvement, it's worth the money -- assuming you implement the changes.
If you do decide to get a manuscript critique, from Suzan or anyone else, be sure you have realistic expectations. A critique is not a re-write. No one is going to wave a magic wand over your prose and make it sparkle. Also, don't expect a critique to open any doors in terms of publication. You're not going to hear back from your reader to the effect that, "I loved your book so much I gave it to my editor friend, and she wants to offer you a lot of money for it."
Comments