One thing I've noticed when I post a chapter or two for critique (not just here, but everywhere I post) people say things like "Why is [...] like that? You need to explain!" Thing is, I do explain it, just not in the piece I've shared with them. I don't want to bog down the story with too much exposition, you know? But since it comes up so much, I have to wonder if I'm thinking about it the wrong way. So, if I introduce a concept into a story, is it best to explain it right away, or should I space those out to keep the pace of the story from slowing down?
I think it depends on what you are doing/trying to say. For instance if it is part of the plot, and has been foreshadowed then it can make the plot more believable and/or relatable. IMO when you are after critique, take some of it as a pinch of salt. You can't paste reams of your novel on here so, I think it is perfectly acceptable to put excerpts on here that haven't had there full explanation, just sieve through the critique you want and feel you need to make your story how you want it to be. It is after all, your story!
The main reason people are asking for more information /explanation is that they can ask the author (you are accessible to them). If they were just reading a book or an article then they would not be able to ask the author and guess what? They figure it out for themselves. It might be possible that what you have written is just plain confusing so between you and the person critiquing, try and figure if this is the problem. Confusion can occur when we try to add intrigue as they are closely related.
If what you've posted is the first time a concept has been introduced, then the question is should not be"why is xxx like this", but "do I want to read on and find out?".
That's why I would rather have a dialogue with writers then just me saying, "Oh, I like this, and I hate that." It's more productive when I can get your vision. I feel that I can be more honest. I can say things like, "Well, honestly I think this part is a bit boring. Could you tell me what you were going for with this scene?" or "This character is coming off as snobbish. Was that what you were intending?" And sometimes the author will say, "Great I really did want that character to come off as snobbish!" It's really the follow up that I give my "true" critique, because that's when I know what the author is going for and can actually make real suggestions. I've only had one author get upset with that way of critiquing, and that's because she didn't understand that a critique board wasn't Watpad where people pat you on the back just because you wrote this thing and exists and now you deserve all the praise. I ask questions because I want to get a sense of your vision and whether or not this is something that you plan on addressing later or it's something you sincerely missed
I love that in an editor. It's why I like the one I'm working with now. If I've not gotten my point across, then she spots it for me, and I ask her to keep doing it. Because If she spots one moment where I HAVEN't explained it somewhere else, then I realize I need to do something about it. Same with characterization, too. She thought the first character she met was the protagonist and wondered why he came off like an asshole. I smiled. He was the antagonist. It is -always- better to be safe than sorry, and that type of critiquing I find works wonders. So good on you, @Kallisto
If it isn't too complicated, then maybe 1-3 sentences, but if it is complex, then spread it around a bit. There is no need to give it all away in the first few pages, unless you're Norman Boutin, then you explain everything at extreme length. Exposition should feel natural, and not stop the story to explain things. And where you can show how it unfolds without explaining it directly. It isn't always easy to convey the important information in an indirect fashion, but it is doable if you can find a way, or with some help if you need it.
It's a common hazard of critique. Drives me crazy in my critique group. The bottom line is, it comes down to your own experience assessing good critique from bad. It's especially hard when your story is complex because unless you read it from the beginning, there will of course be all sorts of things that aren't clear to the reader in single excerpts. No offense to people who do it when giving critique but it can reflect on less experienced critiquers. I just say it's covered elsewhere and thank them. Always say thank you even if it wasn't helpful. An example of a good critique is one where a person notes you aren't describing the immediate scene fully, or you aren't giving enough information about a character's feelings or reactions. If someone says, I don't understand the relationship between Mary and John and said relationship developed over multiple chapters, then maybe they need more experience critiquing. There's no way a critique reader should expect the full story and character development in every excerpt. On the other hand, you learn how to give feedback from giving it. The same way you learn how to write by writing. So consider people giving critique to have different levels of insight into your story. And, we've probably all been there. Don't forget that sometimes the critique is right. Always consider that when you find yourself being defensive about feedback. One thing I did start doing was at the beginning of my piece, I list a few words I'm using that I made up and include their definitions. That saved a bunch of questions about what a word referred to. And you might want to give people a short synopsis of where the section is in the story.
I think it's important, when you put a piece up for critique, that you do two things: 1) let the membership know if this is the start of your story 2) if it's not the start, include a note that brings the membership up to speed. At least give them the prior knowledge they need to understand the scene. Most people will automatically start a critique as if it's the start of the story—because, for them, it is! It's quite frustrating for the writer to have a load of critiques come rolling in, demanding to know why why why—when all these issues have been made clear in preceding scenes and chapters. A brief synopsis on the buildup to this scene, can work wonders, as @GingerCoffee has suggested. I am also a big fan of what @Kallisto said. As a critique giver, try to find out (from the writer) what the purpose of this scene is. What are you trying to do here? What do you want your readers to take away from this scene? The writers might not tell you much in their introductory notes. They might be trying to find out if their intended purpose is already clear—which is fair enough. But in order to be really helpful with critique, it's a good idea to find out what they're trying to accomplish WITH THIS SCENE. The writers need to figure out what they are trying to accomplish with this scene as well, so it's good to bring that element of the writing into focus in a critique. Not so much, is this enjoyable? would you keep reading? (commonly asked questions) but where is this headed?
the other thing, especially with things that are the start of the story is that there's a difference between intriguing the reader and confusing them... an intrigued reader will want to read on to find out more, a confused reader will conclude that book is no good and read something else so although you don't have to (and shouldn't) give the reader all the info up front, you do have to give them enough info for them to understand what is going on. taking clown hunter as an example - we don't need to know up front why henry hunts clowns or indeed why she materialises from place to place - we trust that will be explained in time... however when you introduce the word 'Maiam' with no explanation of what it is, it pulls the reader out of the story wondering what the hell a Maiam is when that's at home
