What makes nonfiction manuscript critiques painful?
The 5 most common pitfalls and how a good editor can fix them.
The discomfort associated with getting feedback on your full manuscript isn’t to the level of the showing-up-at-school-naked dream, but it is up there. Anyone who has invested the blood, sweat, and tears of writing a full manuscript believes in the work they’re doing, which makes putting it out there feel perilous.
What’s more is that there are so many potential pitfalls in the critique process, which I’ve uncovered in my own work with writers over the years. That’s why I’m dedicating this note to overcoming them. But first, let’s pin down what this work does and doesn’t entail.
What exactly is manuscript critique?
A critique typically happens when you’ve taken the manuscript as far as you’ve can.
While deep down you may wish an editor will say every word is perfect, realistically you know that you need a deep, honest read.
And while the impatient part of you wishes you could just move into copyediting and publishing (preferably by your upcoming birthday), you know you need to stress-test the structure, concept, and impact. And you’re feeling ready to use that feedback to revise and strengthen your future book.
And with this openness, you’re in a great position for a critique to really shape your work for the better.
You’ll often hear a critique called an “manuscript evaluation,” but I prefer the former because it connotes an incisiveness I like to bring to the work. A critique has a $.015-.026 per word median rate, per the Editors Freelancers Association and is a high-level read that examines questions such as (I’m focusing on nonfiction here):
Structure: Does the organization address the ideal reader and the central theme/ argument? Is the right amount of information given? What is the throughline and does it carry through each chapter?
Pacing: Is your cadence appropriate? Is it consistent throughout?
Tone and style: Does your tone fit your ideal reader and your central theme/ argument? Are your stylistic choices employed to achieve that tone?
Clarity of central theme/argument: When does the central theme/argument first appear and is it developed enough throughout the manuscript? Does anything need to be added or taken out to emphasize it further?
Marketability/audience concerns: What is the intended audience and is the text meeting their expectations? Is there anything within the market landscape that can inform revisions?
After the editor does a full read-through with these questions in mind, you can expect to receive an in-depth memo that maps out their impressions and next steps.
In my memo, I include a project overview and scope, a structural and developmental analysis of strengths, problems, and inconsistencies, opportunities for enhancement, and a prioritized action plan for revision. I also include a Zoom call to answer questions and chat after the writer has had time to look over my memo.
What isn’t a manuscript critique?
Simply put, a critique provides you with a springboard into your own independent revisions. Think only a memo—no in-text comments that pinpoint problematic areas and detail solutions. The critique’s minimalist approach works well for experienced writers who know how to tackle revisions.
For those who need more scaffolding on how, when, and where to make revisions, developmental editing is a better approach, because it involves many in-text comments as well as multiple guided drafts to implement revisions.
From the budget-conscious writer’s point of view, the critique can be a great option, since it is a less expensive way to get valuable feedback, as fiction editor Sophie Playle explains.
From the editor’s point of view, a critique is the essential entry-point to editorial work, since it offers a bird’s-eye view so the editor can diagnose what the manuscript needs. Not every manuscript needs developmental editing and/or line editing, and a full critique is the only way to really find out.
Now how to make the critique a pleasurable collaborative dance rather than a funeral march? After providing critiques for many years, I’ve identified potential pitfalls writers face and how they can be avoided.
What makes critiques painful to writers?
The critique isn’t telling me what’s working.
It’s just human nature: we need to hear the positive, especially when we’ve completed a long project and we’re feeling vulnerable. This is why I provide the writer with a questionnaire before starting the critique; I want to know more about how they see their work. I ask the following:
What do you want your manuscript to achieve? What do you want to leave the reader thinking/feeling?
What are you most proud of in your manuscript?
What tone are you hoping will come across in your work?
What do you feel is the weakest area/aspect?
What questions do you have for me as I read? Is there anything you would like me to focus on?
Getting answers to these questions offers me so many opportunities to boost up the writer in my memo.
The level of feedback is overwhelming.
As a reader/editor, it’s also human nature to list everything you notice. But the reality stands that the human brain can only handle so much, and from my experience it’s three suggestions, max. This could include how to turn around a problematic section, develop a thread, or minimize a tonal issue that might be a turn-off to the audience. Whatever it is, the editor needs decide what is of highest priority at this juncture and focus only on what the writer will be able to absorb.
The critique misunderstands the thrust and intent of my project.
Writing projects come in all shapes and sizes: some writers want to write a memoir for their grandchildren, others aim to be viral thought leaders. It is essential for the editor to honor the essence of each project, no matter what bias they bring to the table. My questionnaire allows me to center the writer’s vision throughout my read, and to help them achieve it, if possible.
The points raised during the critique don’t give me actual solutions.
This issue is partially tied to the fact that a critique doesn’t go into the depth that a developmental edit does, but as my experience above shows, if the editor narrows to maybe three areas of revision, they will have the space and time to provide solutions. The author questionnaire also helps orient the editor to the writer’s questions so they can provide concrete steps around what most matters to the writer.
After investing money into the critique, I now realize I need to spend more on developmental editing.
If you decide to move forward with more editing, the good news is many editors provide discounts after you’ve already done the critique. I offer a $400-900 credit, depending on the length of the manuscript.
image credit: Maruru (Thank You) 1894, printed 1941 Paul Gauguin
