Critique night at my local RWA chapter

has become an annual tradition.  We call it Chocolate Critiques, but the refreshments are optional.  Most of our members have regular critique partners or groups, but this event serves a particular purpose, the evaluation of the first two pages of a manuscript, the all-important hook.

In order to finish at a reasonable hour, we limit entries to the first eight or nine received.  Members email their pages to the coordinator, who removes the author’s name and emails the files to someone with access to a copy machine.  Along with the two-page manuscripts, we print evaluation forms with 1 to 10 rating scales for several points:  Opening Hook (does it grab your attention?), Characterization (do you know this character?), Setting (do you feel a sense of place?), Tone (is this romance? mystery? young adult? or whatever is appropriate for your group). and Do you Want to Read More?  No strict rules, though: we write on the manuscripts, circle numbers on the scales, make notes on the evaluation sheet, whatever seems best.

Last night we had three readers, published members of the chapter who took turns reading the openings aloud.  Then we took a few minutes to go over the pages, mark them up, fill out the evaluation sheets, etc.  No discussion, and signing is optional.

This is a different approach than most writers use in their regular critique arrangements, and it can be quite useful.  This time around we did nine openings.  I didn’t have a horse in the race last night (not that we include any element of competition), but last year I picked up some good suggestions for fine-tuning my opening paragraphs.

This year’s batch varied in content and quality, as you might expect, but all were serious efforts.  I thought one or two started about a page too early, and one did not seem to be in any particular point of view (but it wasn’t quite omniscient either).  We didn’t have much trouble figuring out that the story about the professional basketball player came from our only male participant.  Young adult and/or paranormal stories were popular this year.

In a relatively small group like ours, we find ourselves guessing at the identities of the writers, not always successfully.  The process can remain as anonymous as the group, and the authors, prefer, and it’s a particularly good way to try out something very different from your usual style or genre.

Adapt the Chocolate Critique method to your own writing group, small or large, any or all genres.  You may find help with your own manuscript, and who knows what you’ll learn from someone else’s.

5 Comments (+add yours?)

  1. Vicky Dreiling
    Jul 21, 2011 @ 07:58:28

    That’s a unique approach to critiques and sounds useful for its purpose. Thanks for sharing.

    Like

    Reply

    • Kay Hudson
      Jul 21, 2011 @ 10:14:41

      Hi, Vicky! Critiques like these certainly demonstrate why so many agents and editors say it only takes them a couple of pages (or even a couple of paragraphs) to know if they want to read the rest of a submission.

      Like

      Reply

  2. Cheryl Bolen
    Jul 21, 2011 @ 10:56:39

    You did a great job explaining this, Kay.

    Like

    Reply

  3. Jessica Trapp
    Jul 22, 2011 @ 14:07:16

    It was a great night! Sorry I had to leave at 9. I’d love to do something like this at my house (and start earlier.)

    Like

    Reply

  4. Trackback: No One Threw Vegetables « Kay Hudson

Talk to me!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: