what I am looking for in a critique
When you critique me, you should be aware that Lajos Egri's The Art of Dramatic Writing is my bible.
The technique that I am striving to master is the one outlined in that book. It is widely considered definitive, I highly recommend you read it if you haven't. Even if you don't elect to follow its standards, please recognize that I do, and the critiques I value are those that evaluate my progress towards achieving that end.
For those who haven't read it, here's the cliff notes:
1. Premise is the basis of everything. Premise is not a vague sense of "general theme" - it is the one sentence underlying message the whole book is trying to prove. Famous example: Romeo and Juiliet's premise is "True love defies even death." The premise is the roadmap, the direction I'm going. If my goal is to run a race as fast as possible, every step must be taken in the direction of the finish line, no meandering. If every word I say does not serve to prove my premise, I'm saying extraneous shit.
No, I'm not going to tell you my premise. If I wrote the book correctly, the premise should make itself patently obvious. If it doesn't, that's a problem.
2. Character defines plot. All actions must be based in necessity - they must be the ONLY possible thing that character could have done in that situation, given who they are. Never, never make a character do something because you've scheduled it to happen. A coward will not jump in front of a train to rescue a damsel because it is time to be a hero - a real coward will stand there and watch her die. If one wants to write a story about someone being heroic, one better create a hero first. This is especially important to me because a major theme of my book is "what would really happen if fairy tale archetypes - Prince Charming, the Evil Younger Brother, etc - were real people, who had to wake up and keep living out their lives?" If you don't absolutely believe that OF COURSE it had to go down that way because HOW ELSE could it have gone, I've fucked up.
3. Point of attack is knowing when the curtain should rise and when it should fall - not having any extraneous shit. Everyone has at least one climactic moment in their lives, but most of the reality-tv footage of the minutae needs to end up on the cutting room floor to have a concise two hour drama. The story begins right in the imbroglio and all scenes must exist to show the character-driven actions that prove the premise. If I'm not following both rules 1 and 2 for even a moment, it needs to go.
Please also be aware that I often voluntarily use passive voice as defined by this scribophile acadamy article as a stylistic choice. Key summary:
"Active voice is the most common, and results when the subject of a sentence is also the agent. That is, when the subject is the person, place, or thing doing the action. So you might say, for example, "I hit John with a stick." That's in the active voice because you, the subject of the sentence, are also the agent-you are doing the action, hitting John with a stick. (John is the object, and also the patient, being hit.)
Passive voice, on the other hand, results when the object of the sentence is doing the action (or is the agent), and the subject is receiving it (or is the patient). To continue abusing John, we might say "John was hit with a stick." This is passive voice because John, the subject of the sentence, is the one being acted upon.
Passive voice is not:
You also can't just look for any use of the word "was" and assume the sentence is in the passive voice. For example, the sentence "I was cold" is not passive-it's just past tense.
One last thing passive voice emphatically is not?
Bad."
Please use that definition of passive voice when critiquing my usage of it.
Finally, please be aware that I often voluntarily tell instead of showing, as defined by this scribophile academy article. Key summary:
"Remember that the advice Show, Don't Tell is a reduction, and that it probably became so the same way secrets change during a game of Telephone: Show, Don't Tell is a summary.
So what might the original version say? Possibly, something like this:
If the moon's shining is important to create drama and mood at that moment in the story, and it's also important to tell the reader there's broken glass, show both by having the one glint off the other. On the other hand, if you just need to say the moon is shining, then say it and reserve the dramatization for later.
It's clear that "showing" adds texture and drama to writing. Yet showing's embellishments take more words, and this runs aground of another piece of writing advice: Be concise. Don't use three words when one will do.
Writing is most interesting and compelling when the writing itself is varied and creative-short and long sentences, great descriptions and quick quips, vibrating tension and quiet contemplation. It's the last one-quiet contemplation-that adds weight to the value of using telling and showing."
Please consider that I am trying to live up to the standard of healthy variation, NOT show-everything-all-the-time, when critiquing me.
Thank you for taking the time to read this request and to give me your feedback.
Cheers.
The technique that I am striving to master is the one outlined in that book. It is widely considered definitive, I highly recommend you read it if you haven't. Even if you don't elect to follow its standards, please recognize that I do, and the critiques I value are those that evaluate my progress towards achieving that end.
For those who haven't read it, here's the cliff notes:
1. Premise is the basis of everything. Premise is not a vague sense of "general theme" - it is the one sentence underlying message the whole book is trying to prove. Famous example: Romeo and Juiliet's premise is "True love defies even death." The premise is the roadmap, the direction I'm going. If my goal is to run a race as fast as possible, every step must be taken in the direction of the finish line, no meandering. If every word I say does not serve to prove my premise, I'm saying extraneous shit.
No, I'm not going to tell you my premise. If I wrote the book correctly, the premise should make itself patently obvious. If it doesn't, that's a problem.
2. Character defines plot. All actions must be based in necessity - they must be the ONLY possible thing that character could have done in that situation, given who they are. Never, never make a character do something because you've scheduled it to happen. A coward will not jump in front of a train to rescue a damsel because it is time to be a hero - a real coward will stand there and watch her die. If one wants to write a story about someone being heroic, one better create a hero first. This is especially important to me because a major theme of my book is "what would really happen if fairy tale archetypes - Prince Charming, the Evil Younger Brother, etc - were real people, who had to wake up and keep living out their lives?" If you don't absolutely believe that OF COURSE it had to go down that way because HOW ELSE could it have gone, I've fucked up.
3. Point of attack is knowing when the curtain should rise and when it should fall - not having any extraneous shit. Everyone has at least one climactic moment in their lives, but most of the reality-tv footage of the minutae needs to end up on the cutting room floor to have a concise two hour drama. The story begins right in the imbroglio and all scenes must exist to show the character-driven actions that prove the premise. If I'm not following both rules 1 and 2 for even a moment, it needs to go.
Please also be aware that I often voluntarily use passive voice as defined by this scribophile acadamy article as a stylistic choice. Key summary:
"Active voice is the most common, and results when the subject of a sentence is also the agent. That is, when the subject is the person, place, or thing doing the action. So you might say, for example, "I hit John with a stick." That's in the active voice because you, the subject of the sentence, are also the agent-you are doing the action, hitting John with a stick. (John is the object, and also the patient, being hit.)
Passive voice, on the other hand, results when the object of the sentence is doing the action (or is the agent), and the subject is receiving it (or is the patient). To continue abusing John, we might say "John was hit with a stick." This is passive voice because John, the subject of the sentence, is the one being acted upon.
Passive voice is not:
"Telling" instead of "showing."
Writing that makes the reader lose interest.
You also can't just look for any use of the word "was" and assume the sentence is in the passive voice. For example, the sentence "I was cold" is not passive-it's just past tense.
One last thing passive voice emphatically is not?
Bad."
Please use that definition of passive voice when critiquing my usage of it.
Finally, please be aware that I often voluntarily tell instead of showing, as defined by this scribophile academy article. Key summary:
"Remember that the advice Show, Don't Tell is a reduction, and that it probably became so the same way secrets change during a game of Telephone: Show, Don't Tell is a summary.
So what might the original version say? Possibly, something like this:
If the moon's shining is important to create drama and mood at that moment in the story, and it's also important to tell the reader there's broken glass, show both by having the one glint off the other. On the other hand, if you just need to say the moon is shining, then say it and reserve the dramatization for later.
It's clear that "showing" adds texture and drama to writing. Yet showing's embellishments take more words, and this runs aground of another piece of writing advice: Be concise. Don't use three words when one will do.
Writing is most interesting and compelling when the writing itself is varied and creative-short and long sentences, great descriptions and quick quips, vibrating tension and quiet contemplation. It's the last one-quiet contemplation-that adds weight to the value of using telling and showing."
Please consider that I am trying to live up to the standard of healthy variation, NOT show-everything-all-the-time, when critiquing me.
Thank you for taking the time to read this request and to give me your feedback.
Cheers.