Learning From Critiques

Found something fun in the Archives. A one sheet critique of the original Swords of Fire: Book I. The critique was written up by an author, but I forget his name. He didn't sign it. It was part of what I paid for when I attended the School of Christian Writing at Wheaton College in Illinois back in the early 1980s. They brought in about a dozen published authors and a host of agents and editors to provide classes and submission opportunities to aspiring writers. You may not believe it, but I did learn a bit there, and this critique I found tells me I took it to heart. From it, I see why I took the Swords of Fire Saga in a new direction. This critique is the foundation for the reason nineteen books had to go away.

What's cool is that the critique is very short and to the point.

Section 1: Overall, your manuscript

___ is ready for submission to potential publishers

___ can be improved by minor changes noted

_X_ needs revision in aspects noted

Section 2: Specifically, you need to work further on: (I'll only list the items checked)

_X_ Opening

_X_ Focus

_X_ Pace

_X_ Description

_X_ Suspense

_X_ Credibility

_X_ Dialogue

The opening continued to give me trouble for the next fifteen years. I don't recall why he thought the focus and pace were off. I was poor on description, which took away a lot of suspense. Things were happening too quickly without reason. My credibility was off because I hadn't bothered to research certain aspects of medieval society. My dialogue was simple and stilted.

I remember when he went over the story with me he was very nice about it. He was also convinced I had a lot work to do, but he believed I had the talent to do it.

Section 3: You have developed well

Imaginary world, Window, Names

Section 4: You could make the greatest improvement in your writing by

Telling us more, examining why some details are necessary, looking again at dialogue

I know I paid attention, because the book wound up with too much backstory and details, which I've spent months removing. My dialogue is much, much better, too. I think so anyway.

Section 5: Resources and/or examples you might find helpful are

nothing listed.

Thanks a lot for nothing, I guess.

Section 6: In addition to the notes I have made on your manuscript

Khirsha seems like a helpless wimp, Kelso like a reckless opportunist. Is this the best the Endos can produce?

Back then, the family was known as "The Endos". Got rid of that.

Both Khirsha and Kelso changed dramatically. Nobody liked Kelso except me, and it was important Kelso be likeable. Khirsha was too wimpy. What I wound up doing was giving up on Khirsha's wimpiness, replacing it with simply naivte. Instead of an opportunist, Kelso became a planner and helpful advisor to Khirsha. Both Khirsha and Kelso were now confident warriors of superior prowess. From this new foundation of character the Saga would now head in a totally new direction.