Critique services worth it?

There may be other people with MFAs. I don't think there any I would consider Masters, according to the general meaning of the word. The word in an academic context, of course, is also the middle ground - it's above a bachelor, but below a doctorate. Not a Master in the apprentice-journeyman-master sense.

And the more I think about it, the more I think it's nonsense for you to claim you can detect someone's writing expertise in a paragraph or two. You can see if they're good at stringing sentences together, sure, but you can't tell much about characterization, plot, pacing, mood, or much else. There's a hell of a lot more to writing, in my mind, than being able to make a nice sentence.

I'm not trying to denigrate your degree. I think it's great that you did it and great that you think it was useful for you. And this is all getting much more personal than I intended... when I started this I was talking about everyone on the board, including myself. It wasn't meant to target you in any way.

I clearly have different standards of what makes an "expert" than you do. We can just leave it at that, if you like.

 

I found my critique group on a website called Meetup.com and I really love them a lot. Been with them for five years. You might also find some local critique groups at your local library or online critiquers on forums like this one, but I wouldn't spend any money on it. No.

 

I've always maintained that good research doesn't limit what you write; it expands what you write. Stuff that never occurred to you, like your discovery of the Romans and Lake Victoria, can enrich your story. Unless your story is based on nonsense or a Disney-esque view of history, you can usually figure your way around an anomaly—without the sloppy 'ach, they'll never notice' reaction. Delighted that worked out for you. I know the feeling of leaping out of the chair when something like that discovery turns up.

And you're right. I would care too. My own mantra for my historical novel is "I never KNOWINGLY make a mistake." If I make a mistake, and somebody points it out to me, or I discover it, I WILL change the story accordingly. I would not enjoy writing historical novels, if that wasn't the case. I've had to tweak quite a bit, but so far nothing that actually derails the train. The literal train, even. My story is set in 1886, and even the design of passenger train cars was different that year than it was a year later. Little things like vestibules between cars wasn't in use on trains till 1887, so I had to ensure that I didn't have my passengers walking through a vestibuled train. However, it's also a period of history I knew quite well before I started. It must be scary to write a book set in a period you initially know nothing about, and have to start the research from scratch.

BTW, your Reedsy people sound like they know their stuff. If I were in the market for a paid editor, I would definitely check them out. That's exactly the kind of quality reference I was fishing for, here on this thread. Maybe the mods would let you put Reedsy into the Resources section?

 

Yeah, it's researching the hell out of your time period that allows for those neat little details that usually seem unimportant by themselves, but together they create the illusion of time and place. They also send you in directions you'd never otherwise take.

Of course you must know that dialogue is a tricky business in Historical Fiction. You don't want your characters sounding stiff and conversing Masterpiece Theatre style. Nor can you use modern cliches... it turns out though, that many of our modern cliches have roots going way back. Researching the etymology of words and phrases can turn up great ideas for dialogue! Another thing an editor can do for you, is make sure you appreciate the audience you're writing for. We were told that girls and young women favor intriguing dialogue and deeper relationships between characters. So less expository text and more storytelling via conversation. However it's not all pleasantness, sometimes it hurts to get certain criticisms. I do love my similes, and have a bad habit of slipping into a soliloquy when one was not intended.

What sold me on our editor was a bit of advice she had given me to punch up the first paragraph of the story. She said to try adding something completely random, and then force myself to carry over that random item into the next chapter. As it happened, I had a half-eaten chocolate chip cookie by my keyboard. I inserted it into the story... 'Hidden amongst charcoal pencils and greasy pastels and a half-eaten macaroon was a tiny enameled brooch depicting a honeybee. She rescued it from the jumble and pinned it to the bosom pocket of her dress, then snatched up the remains of the macaroon and dropped it into her pocket'. In the following chapter she gives the half-eaten macaroon to a magpie. It seems simple enough now, but it allows you to move characters about naturally and eliminate some dialogue tags.

If you take the plunge and go with Reedsy, I think you'll enjoy the experience.

 

I was raised in the bluest of blue-collar neighborhoods by staunchly blue-collar parents. My mother turned 84 in August and she's still working full time. In my family we don't retire. We work until we die. There is nothing privileged in that, nor am I entitled to anything I haven't earned. So you can recoil all you want.

 

Your upbringing doesn't excuse your current worldview, which I personally find repugnant. But I'm not going to derail this thread to debate with someone who's obviously miles away from where I am on the subject. You can consider the conversation closed from my end.

 

"What's money, anyway? You can't take it with you."

It took me a while to figure out what the supposed big offense was here. I guess it's that money shouldn't be spoken of lightly because some people don't have enough of it.

But I think he was simply saying that one should spend their own money on what makes them the happiest as opposed to allowing other people to judge their choice's worthiness or lack thereof for them. Which makes sense because what any of us would rather have for the same amount of money varies so much.

(I took it as a given that we'd be talking about disposable income after ones necessities are covered and also a given that people have vastly differing amounts of disposable income).

In other words, I think he was saying that if I have a dollar left for extras after taking care of my business, it's for me and no one else to say if I should spend it on a soda or a bottle of nail polish. And if I have a thousand dollars left for extras after taking care of my business, it's also for me and no one else to say if I should spend it on professional editing or fill-in-the-blank other purchase. To me, that's a good point, not offensive. ?

 

Of course it's up to you how you spend your money. As the saying goes; "It's your money, you do what you like mate."

But...

It's the conjunction of two points that made people's monocles pop out. It's the combination of "If you want to be a professional writer you have to hire a professional..." combined with "...And anyway it's only money!". It's hard not to read that as someone saying "What's the big deal spending two grand on editing?" as if it scarcely matters if that money is on something useful, or if it helps you get published or not. If you can spend that money and not miss it, well, you do what you like mate. But advising others to spend money like that? People who probably don't have that money to spend and are desperately hoping to become professional writers?

That was kinda my point a few pages back. I hope that no-one in here would seriously advise people to spend their rent on an editor. But there's been things that are very close to that being said, in the context of "you need to spend this money if you want to be taken seriously". And that's... That's not cool.

 

Sorry Lost, I wouldn't have deleted my post if I'd seen that someone had responded to part of it. (I decided it looks too likely headed into another argument and I'm having an extra happy day here, so...)

 

Then by all means enjoy your day

 

You don't know my worldview anymore than I know yours.

 

Oh no, make no mistake, I am indeed telling people to spend their rent money on an editor.

Far more important than an editor, is having a great story to tell. A talented editor helps ensure that the story is told well. Perhaps some of you don't actually love the story you're working on, or you've never before committed body and soul to something. The story should consume you, and thus... you will do just about anything for it.

This really can't be such a difficult concept to grasp, is it? In what artistic discipline does an amateur not rely on professional mentoring? You can't get better mentoring than with an editor who really knows her stuff.

 

There's nothing wrong with finding a mentor, and nothing wrong with paying for it, if you can't get it for free. But there are far too many successful writers who didn't pay for professional editing for anyone to be able to make a convincing argument that paying for professional editing is necessary.

Until very recently, it was considered the mark of an absolute amateur to get work edited prior to submitting it to an agent/publisher. The editing was expected to come after acceptance, at someone else's expense, and writers were expected to be able to get their work to near-publishable quality all on their own.

Most agents I've heard from still advise against having work professionally edited prior to submitting it, for the reasons outlined in many posts in this thread. And obviously people shouldn't spend money they can't afford to lose--the romantic notion of the starving artist is fun for adolescents, but adults have responsibilities to themselves as well as others, and throwing money away on a longshot is not a sign of maturity. It's pretty hard to send submissions via e-mail when you're living on the streets and can't afford to buy a laptop to replace the one that got smashed when you were evicted for not paying rent.

And now, for my own satisfaction: Perhaps some of you don't have faith in your own abilities and want someone else to "fix" your writing instead of figuring it out yourselves.

Writing is best understood by reference to writing, not to other artistic disciplines. This can't be such a difficult concept to grasp, can it?

(PS - I don't really think writers who decide to pay to have their work professionally edited lack faith or understanding. Just playing with the overblown rhetoric.)

 

*spit takes*

Why can't I ensure my story is told well?

Committing body and soul is just a nicer way of saying rolling the dice and hoping for sixes. You are describing the gambler's fallacy; the idea that you can beat the odds because you believe in your bets. But you can't beat the odds. And submitting writing is a massive long shot.

How much would you bet on a horse that was at 1000 to 1? Would you bet your rent on that? You might put a dollar on it, because why not take the chance, but no matter how much you believe, no matter how much this bet consumes you, you can't beat the odds. And to throw money at it saying that you can succeed where thousands of others fail is just foolhardy.

How many musicians can you name who were self taught? How many painters can you name who didn't go to art school? How many writers can you name who worked by themselves until they wrote something that was accepted? Lots. Lots and lots. In fact many of the best writers, musicians and painters had no mentoring.

I've said it before; I'll say it again:

They can't all be winners.

No matter how much you commit or how much it consumes you not every book can be a winner. No matter how much you invest into it, it may just not matter. And when that happens; all you can do is make sure you haven't invested more than you can afford to lose.

It sucks to give up on a book that you've spent months living and breathing. But that's what happens. They can't all be winners. It's notoriously hard to sell your first book, it'll take you a lot of tries to get out there. You will have to give up on a book, you will have to just sit on it and hope you can publish it later.

The only sensible approach is to hope for the best and plan for the worst. It's to throw yourself into your project and make it the best you can, but still pay your rent just in case you don't make it, just in case you need to write another book before you make it.

 

So you seriously think that people are more likely to achieve their artistic goals if they're doing so from a homeless shelter?

(Really, a homeless shelter is more luxury than is likely to happen. Let's say, from a doorway.)

 

Tell you what... you give me your rent money and I'll spend that on an editor. My kids would like to eat and continue to have a roof over their heads.

Not quite. It sounds nice in theory, but most people have families, jobs, and responsibilities, and they'll give it everything they can, but spending everything they have (time and rent money included) is neither an option nor healthy.

 

Can I assume that you are homeless? Because it's always possible to spend the rent/mortgage money on something to help with writing. If you have a home, and if you've eaten today, that presumably means that you're not serious about your work.

 

So I'm not saying this with the desire to start a debate, and I will handcuff myself if I try to debate: You know that the way that you're using "indie" is far from standard, right? You're using "indie" to mean self published. Most people who are not actively promoting self publishing use "indie" to refer to small traditional publishers.

Gonna say that, gonna move on.

 

Right, exactly. Even if you do have $3000 in your rainy day fund (something that is definitely something of a luxury) then that's still not money you can just throw away. That's for when your kids have a growth spurt and need new clothes or when the refrigerator breaks down. Even if that's a holiday fund, well, that's for a holiday. That's for you family, not for you to spend on your passion project.

You absolutely should give your writing everything that you can. Can being the operative word. You should make it as good as humanly possible, you should definitely get other people to read it and you should polish it to the point that it's as perfect as you can make it. And sure, if you have money to throw around and not even miss then why not spend that on your writing. But you can't spend money that is for your children's shoes. You can't spend your gas money on you writing because you have to go to work.

You should do everything you can, but you can't do what you can't. And for most people "letting my children starve" is a definite can't.

 

I agree that if you're going trad it doesn't make sense, in my opinion.

 

Disagree. Moving on.