Critiques: the Crap Sandwich

I've recently signed a couple of new authors, and am in the process of giving manuscript feedback. When I started agenting several years ago, I did a lot more of the heavy revisions than I do now, frequently telling authors to revise and resubmit, or even signing people with great manuscripts that needed a little work.

The results were almost always disappointing. Heavy revisions sometimes led to half-hearted fixes of troublesome spots, while buffing down the parts that previously stood out in a good way, as well. Now, I'm more likely to say go ahead and try me with your next project instead.

Having said that, a manuscript always needs a little work, no matter how good. There's a part that confuses, a draft artifact that the author missed, clunky dialogue, and lots of typos (or, as semi-literate Amazon reviews frequently complain, "typo's").

I read manuscripts on the Kindle, draw up notes, and send them in to my writers. Not my favorite part of the process, and certainly not the author's. A good critique partner is skilled at giving a crap sandwich, e.g.:

You have lovely prose here, and these characters are alive and vibrant. Your dialogue is stilted, unfortunately, and I got bored with all of the scenes in coffee shops. When you stop long enough to paint us a picture, it feels lively and interesting, but most of the time I feel like I'm listening to talking heads.

The climax for me is clearly the highlight of the story, and I had a hard time putting the book down during the last forty pages.

In other words, good stuff, bad stuff, good stuff. It gives the reader some encouragement to start, slaps down the ego a little by presenting the issues to address, and then builds the author up again.

Remember, whether you're giving professional feedback or performing the role of beta reader, a good critique is neither for ego stroking, nor to tear down the writer. Be helpful, but be kind at the same time.