Reviewing Another Author’s Work

I am delighted to once again present a guest post by Jags Arthurson!

Jags Arthurson is the pen name of a Brighton, UK writer. Jags has been a research chemist and company director.  He has lived and worked in over 40 countries. His novel, the crime thriller Pagan Justice, is available on Amazon with all proceeds going to charity.

*************************************************************************************************

From time to time, especially if you are in a writers’ group, you may be asked to review another’s work in progress.  There are three main reasons to do this.

1. To help improve their work
2. To help you improve your own work
3. Solidarity with fellow writers

You may be tempted to refuse because, for instance, “This is not my genre.  I write gung-ho action adventures and she writes silly chick lit.”  Or “I’m just a newbie writer.  I’m not qualified to comment on anybody else’s work.”

I would urge you to reconsider.  You never know what you might learn.  You might pick up tips on how to give your own action hero more emotional depth or improve a sex scene.  The chick lit author, repulsed by the violence in the thriller, may still learn how better to describe physical interactions or add some realism to the heroine’s near-death car crash.

Another reason for refusing may be time pressure.  “I am too busy with my own writing.”  True.  We all are.  But it is nice to get useful feedback on our work.  Isn’t it only fair to reciprocate?  And a well-structured review can save you hours of rewriting time … more than returning your own time investment.

So what does a good review look like?

A Good Review Should:

1. Encourage progress. Writing can be a lonely job, and a writer rarely knows if their work is any good.  It is easy, especially for a new writer, to become discouraged and give up.  The reviewer’s comments should always bear this in mind and should be made as positive as possible.  The review should not be just about finding faults, but good work should be praised.  All reviews MUST be constructive (see below).
2. Spot Typos, etc. but … Typos are the “low hanging fruit” for any reviewer, but remember that this may be an early draft.  There is little point in identifying all the spelling and punctuation errors if the whole work is going to be rewritten anyway.  It can be useful if you notice a writer repeats a mistake over and over (there instead of their) as that is something unlikely to be corrected in a rewrite.  Anyway, a half decent editor will pick up the typos in a final draft.
3. Concentrate on the “basics.” There are a number of key elements to good writing (see below) without which it doesn’t matter how good the English or how great the spelling or sentence structure; if these are not right, the story will not be read.
4. Be a learning process. Sometimes when we review our own work, something may just feel wrong with it, but it is easy to ignore it on the grounds that “I’m just being fussy.”  However, as a reviewer, you are morally bound to dig deeper and, once the fault is identified, you may even recognise the same failing in your own work and thus improve it in the future.

Rules of Constructive Reviews

Faults.  It is fine to find (genuine) fault in another’s writer’s work, but what is NOT all right is to stop there.  There are more steps to complete:

1. State the fault.
2. Say why it is a fault.
3. Possibly suggest or give examples of how the fault may be rectified.

Example: The author wrote

Mike was angry at Mary.

1. Fault: This is telling (show, don’t tell).
2. Why: Telling does not engage the reader, whereas showing (emotion) does.
3. Suggestion: What does Mike feel/do? Mike leapt to his feet and thrust a finger at her …

Obviously, an experienced writer will be familiar with much of this so, for instance, a simple “sdt” (show don’t tell) will often be sufficient in many places.

Destructive Criticism.  It is NEVER acceptable to make comments such as, “This is rubbish,” even if you then explain why.  You can say something like “I, personally, hated this character,” because if you do it’s a reasonable assumption you will not be alone.  You must then say why you hated them … with helpful suggestions that may attract a few more readers to the final version.

What to Review

If somebody gives you, say, a 160,000-word novel to review, you are entitled to refuse if it is too much for you to handle.  But remember, in the near future, you may want them to review your 190,000-word novel!

You must decide with the writer how much you are prepared to do.  Five thousand words is a reasonable minimum to give a good feel of the work, allowing you to understand story and character arcs.

If the 5,000 words are not from the beginning (and you are not familiar with what went before), the author should also provide a “context synopsis,” describing the characters, the environment (era, location, etc.), and the story so far.

The author may ask specific questions about some aspect of the work. (Does it work?  Is it credible?  How could I …?)  This does not restrict you to just those topics, but you should at least cover them.

The Basics

Good writing follows a number of guidelines (not rules).

1. Story Arc. Does the story move along realistically?  Does it have a “proper” structure?
   1. Hook.
   2. First 5%. Introduce characters, motives, needs, wants.
   3. 5-25%. Set up the “adventure.”
   4. 25%. 1^st major turning point: “Accepts the challenge.”
   5. 50%. 2^nd major turning point: “Starts the fight back.”
   6. 75%. 3^rd major turning point: “Beginning of the end.”
   7. 75-95%. Finale.
   8. Last 5%. Denouement: Continuing life of main characters.
2. Place and time. Is this clear?  Even if it’s not relevant, readers like to know.
3. Personal descriptions. Relevant details must be revealed as early as possible.  Readers become upset if the six-foot, blue-eyed blond character they imagined in chapter one turns out to be five feet tall and bald in chapter seven (unless there is a good plot reason for the deception).
4. Point of View. Very important.  The narrator must be consistent.  Any head-hopping, etc?  Ensure, for example, that the narrator is not revealing things they can’t know, etc.
5. Character arc. Do the characters evolve and learn?  Are they obviously better (or worse) at the end of the tale?  Do they always act within character?
6. Are they interesting?  (Grit, Wit, and “It”)  If not, what are they lacking?
7. Check for silly mistakes. (Character killed in chapter 3 appears in chapter 9.  Inconsistency of names, places, descriptions, spellings, etc.) Common mistakes include, for instance, smoking three cigarettes during a conversation that lasts a page.
8. Personal expertise. If, for instance, you have technical knowledge applicable to the story, correct inaccuracies (calling New York’s airport JFK in a novel set in 1960).
9. Writing Style. Watch out for the old traps: telling instead of showing, hanging modifiers, unclear descriptions, jargon unlikely to be familiar to readers, etc.
10. Dialogue. Is it realistic?  Is it always clear who is speaking?  Correct use of speech tags and avoidance of editorialising speech tags (“He exclaimed emotionally.”)
11. Timing and sequence. Are sequences correct?  Unless there is a reason, e.g., flashbacks, etc., everything should happen in order, even down to micro-details: He read the document that he had previously taken from the desk should be He picked up the document and read it.
12. Lack of conflict makes a boring story.  Every chapter, paragraph — almost every line —  should have conflict.
    1. Internal
    2. Person versus person
    3. Person versus environment (weather, animal, society, etc.)

Any author will tell you how lonely the job can be, and just the fact that a fellow writer has picked up and put some effort into our “baby” can be a tremendous psychological boost.  Try it.  You never know; you might like it.