: Is it more advantageous to have an excerpt or a plot summary critiqued? I'm considering opening up my current work in progress to critique. In the past I haven't had very much luck with the

Vote Up Vote Down

It's two sides of the same coin; it's two different kinds of reviews. A plot with too many holes and weak points will make a crummy book, but shoddy writing will spoil even the keenest of plots.

Which is "more important" to review? That would depend on the author. Proficient writers may need help with plot; strong storytellers might need help with writing. Odds are, however, that most writers would derive benefits from both kinds of review, particularly if the reviewers are skilled and constructive.

Trying to decide which is "more important" makes for an interesting academic exercise, but, ideally, both plot and writing would be thoroughly examined over the course of time. It depends on where you are in the writing, and what needs to be reviewed at that stage. The review process is very different for each.

(0)

Vote Up Vote Down

I am not a great fan of Writer Groups. I don't think a story should be submitted for critique until it is completed. Otherwise just a single critism will cause the writer to lose heart to a degree. Of all the successful published writers I don't know any who show their developing works for critique.

If you have identified a problem and want a solution then that is a different matter. State the problem, and seek the solutions.

(0)

Vote Up Vote Down

It is very much about where you think you can gain most from. You may have a brilliant plot, but find that you write it with the fluency of a plank of wood, or you may have the writing style of Iain Banks*, but such a loose and implausible plot that it makes no difference**.

From what you have said, a critique of the plot might, at this point, be more productive for you, and if you can include some more finished written work, to give an idea of how it might look, they can be done together. But get the plot sorted first, write some of the story on a good quality plot, and then see whether you need the same sort of critique of that, or whether something different would work for you.

*Well, I like his style, at least.

** OK, he gets away without a plot sometimes. But then, he is pretty unique.

(0)

Vote Up Vote Down

I agree with Neil. It doesn't matter how pretty it sounds if the plot is weak. Present your plot first, in outline, bullets, summary, however it makes sense, and have them beat the crap out of that first. Once you have a solid plot, then you can worry about getting down on paper.

(0)

Vote Up Vote Down

Critiquing specific text is important, but you can always improve the writing. If the book has structural problems, weak characters, or sections that don't mesh with each other, then these larger issues need to be addressed before you worry about the language.

It sounds like you don't have a clear idea where (or if) your manuscript is weak. That being the case, can you specifically ask your group to critique the structure only? Rightly or not, writers' groups have a rep for being overconcerned with language. However, groups that concern themselves with plot and structure do exist. I suggest you make certain the structure is sound either through such a group, or have a beta reader you trust (and who will be brutal) evaluate the manuscript/outline.

If you're really stuck, you can always hire an editor to go through the manuscript/outline and give you feedback. Look for someone who specializes in developmental editing.

(0)