Your writing critiqued

Author and lecturer James McCreet applies his forensic criticism to a reader’s first 300 words

Belle, a young and vulnerable woman1 gave her heart to so many people. She sadly, never got any love in return.2 This was never a surprise to her as she had become used to it,3 not that it hurt any less, but it became second nature to her. Most people would say that she was a cynic in love, but she was never cynical.5 It was more that she knew exactly what was bound to happen and therefore braced herself for the ensuing heartbreak.6

She had many fond and comforting memories of her childhood.7 Obsession has always been in her nature, even during childhood8 but it never seemed to affect her like it does now.9 When the heartbreak ensues, the whole world stops and tomorrow becomes unreachable.10 Her tears could flood a town and her fury could burn the world to ashes.11

She is all the elements of the world.12 She

There should a comma after ‘woman’ because it’s a descriptive clause. Also, there’s a warning sign in the adjective ‘vulnerable.’ It’s useful to know she’s young so we can start to picture her, but her vulnerability is an example of authorial telling. If we’re told about her vulnerability, Belle doesn’t have to demonstrate it to us.

There should be a comma before ‘sadly’ because it’s an authorial interjection or aside, but even then the word order is awkward. It’d be better to start the sentence with ‘Sadly’ (followed by a comma). However, the word is another example of telling.

The author is telling us it’s sad without allowing us the time or context to infer that sadness from the text. The reader thus becomes passive. is Earth, Wind, Water and Fire.13 She can be as sweet as sugar and as cold as ice.14 An allaround good person but a monstrous temper and with a broken heart,15 her eyes stab like daggers and her hands shoot flames.16

She took a trip to the city one day.17

She went looking for some peace from her racing mind.18 She could never get away from it.19 She got herself a coffee and she went to sit on the benches outside.20 Belle was a keen people watcher.21 She loved to watch people pass by and wonder about the houses they lived in and the jobs they had.22 She wanted to know everything about everyone.23 She had made it her mission to become omniscient.24

Out the corner of her eye, she saw an intriguing looking man.25 He looked intriguing enough for her to want to know his whole life story.26

This minimises or even contradicts what we’ve already been told. Her vulnerability and the sadness of her condition seem less important now we know she’s accustomed to it. If she doesn’t mind, should the reader?

There should be a full stop or a dash before ‘not.’ Again, there’s a sense of contradiction. She’s hurt but it’s second nature to her. What is the reader supposed to think? The tenses wobble a bit here. Shouldn’t it be ‘had become second nature?’

What’s happening with the tenses? The story was previously narrated in past tense, but now we have ‘Most people would say.’ Has the author stepped out of the narrative frame to speak directly to the reader? Also, who should we believe: most people or Belle? Where is the narrative focus?

If Belle has this foreknowledge, why does she keep repeating the behaviour? Of course, people behave like this in real life, but here it looks like contradiction.

Now we veer off from the question of Belle’s heart to her childhood. It’s an odd change of direction. We’re approaching Belle’s character in very generalised terms.

So she has fond and comforting memories of her obsessive nature as a child? Or is Belle thinking of something different to what the author is telling us? The tense has now

changed to present. Why?

What does this mean exactly? She’s always been obsessive but it only affects her now? In what sense was she obsessive before that it didn’t affect her?

Wait. We were talking about obsession and now we’re talking about heartbreak. A few lines ago we read that she’s accustomed to this pattern of behaviour, but now the ‘world stops.’ What should we understand by this?

I’m a fan of gross exaggeration, but only when it works with the context. We’ve heard that heartbreak is no surprise to Belle and that she’s used to it, but she’s flooding towns with her tears? Also, nothing so far has been said about her violent fury.

We’re veering into the abstract. Until now, Belle’s character has been confusing or contradictory. Now it seems to be nonsense. What does it mean to the reader that she’s ‘all the elements of the world?’ It sounds poetic and mysterious, but it can also sound overwrought and overwritten if it lacks sense.

Again, I like grand gestures and big metaphors, but only if they achieve some effect. I have no idea what it means that Belle is the Earth.

Both of these are clichés and the problem with clichés is that they tend to say very little. It’s like we’re now just listing character traits for Belle.

She’s an ‘all-round good person’ who’s ‘as cold as ice’ with a ‘monstrous temper’ and a fury that can burn the whole world? As for the broken heart, we’ve been told she’s used to that.

Unless she’s literally shooting flames from her hands, what is this description supposed to convey? It sounds wonderful but what does it mean?

Now we have something to focus on. Until now, we’ve been reading a list of attributes with no focus. Does it matter which city she’s going to?

There’s not been any previous mention of a racing mind. Fury, yes. Temper, yes. Obsession, yes. Why is her mind racing and with what? It’s not clear.

Again, there’s no prior context for this. It’s another thing added to the list. And if she knows she can never get away from it, why try?

Outside what? The city?

We switch focus again (midparagraph). After some considerable description of her apparently unstable character, it seems she likes to do what many other people like to do.

This is largely redundant. It’s what ‘people watching’ implies.

As is this, though it does appear to show her obsessive mind at work.

What? Is this a sign of Belle’s actual insanity, of which there’s not been much suggestion so far? Should we take this literally?

It’s difficult to see anything clearly out of the corner of one’s eye.

The phrase implies a fleeting or imperfect impression. What makes him intriguing?

Again, if he’s so intriguing, why? There’s no detail at all.

Idraft of my novel. It have recently completed a first peer critique site has been critiqued on a well-known on the whole, received by other budding writers and, I need a professional favourably. However, I really feel I have written is opinion or how do I know if what a publisher’s point of view? of a good enough standard from early on during Covid, I do not Having been made redundant readings by a literary agency. I have the funds to pay for any

of time on my draft but have invested an enormous amount

sending to a literary agent, feel it could be improved before

in the industry. What would with feedback from somebody you suggest is the way forward?

CAROLINE OSGERBY

Hemel Hempstead

£20 at the time of writing, and a discount for joining for the whole year) and Fiona describes them as ‘a sweary bunch of fabulous writers’, saying ‘their forums have loads of help and feedback on your writing’.

Fiona also made me smile by telling me that she did once ask her stepfather, who was a film editor and director, to read her work and he fell asleep on her manuscript – twice. ‘I like to think I’ve improved a lot since then,’ she says wryly.

Incidentally, you should never pay to have your work read by a literary agency. Proper ones, worth their salt, do not charge for this, but read submissions with a view to taking on clients. They will make their money when and if they do, and that client gets a publishing deal.

So, when you have perfected your manuscript as far as you can, you could send out to two or three literary agents – carefully chosen to be ones interested in your genre – and test the water without it costing you any more than your time. Most submissions are received online these days so there won’t even be postage. Look at their websites first and make sure you follow the submission guidelines to the letter, and be prepared to wait. Most good agents are inundated.

In the meantime, you could search out some novel-writing competitions where a critique is included in the entry fee

– for another way of gaining feedback without breaking the bank. You will find many competitions listed online. A prestigious one is the novel category of the Bridport Prize, which offers mentoring with an agent, and manuscript assessment among its cash prizes.

Some publishers run competitions too, and will take on the winning manuscript. Others have initiatives by which they will look at unsolicited manuscripts but please do not get taken in by any that are basically vanity outfits. You should never pay a publisher either – however they wrap it up as a ‘contribution’ or however many promises they make about ‘marketing’. Your instinct to try to get a literary agent is right and that should be your first line of action.

But do polish and hone and polish again first. And remember there’s a lot of free advice out there on line, and indeed in this fine magazine. Find another couple of readers you trust and while you await their verdict, spend some time reading up on preparing a manuscript for submission. Do as much as you can, to the best of your ability, and then I would take the plunge, send your creation out there and see what happens. I wish you luck.

jane@ janewenham-jones.

com