Comments on: Just give it to me straight.

Question: Just give it to me straight.

TryTheTilapia — Thu, 12 Jul 2007 07:36:15 -0800

How do you, as a writer, invite and embrace constructive criticism?

Tomorrow a group of seasoned performers will gather in a quiet room around a table groaning under the weight of Pirate's Booty and Poland Spring mineral water and read my play aloud for the first time. I'm very excited but also nervous about this, for obvious reasons. I've finally mustered the courage to stop talking about writing and actually write, but now I'm feeling my confidence wane a bit in the face of actually putting my work out there for constructive criticism. What can I say? I'm the sensitive sort.

So, to my questions. How do I structure the discussion afterward to get the most out of the feedback I'm inviting from this group of trusted individuals? How do I maintain my faith in my work and still allow other's insight to influence it? I suppose I'm girding my loins here because I'm new to all of this, and want to avoid being overly sensitive and quietly defensive in what is a wholly supportive group of great people. Ultimately, I just want to remain open to allowing my work to grow and improve.

Any insight, advice, personal experiences and observations are welcome. I've got 24 hours to grow a thicker skin and the clock is ticking. Thanks to all who respond.

By: shallowcenter

shallowcenter — Thu, 12 Jul 2007 07:52:52 -0800

Great question, TTT. All of us who submit our work to others face that same situation, though your case, in which you're soliciting specific feedback, seems much more ... intimate and personal. I'd look at your question -- these are *trusted* individuals, right? They care about you. Any criticism they give has nothing to do with you as a person. They simply want to help you improve your work. Put yourself in their place -- if any of them asked you for the same thing, you'd want to help, right? Good luck!

By: angry.polymath

angry.polymath — Thu, 12 Jul 2007 07:57:35 -0800

If you think you already have a thick skin, prepare to thicken it by a good inch or so. If you don't think you have one, then buckle up - it's going to be a rough ride.

As writers we are, by our nature, somewhat insecure and very sensitive. Criticism of our work, our "babies", can often be taken as personal assaults on our very being. If you can gird yourself to take the personal sheen off of any criticism and focus only on making the work better, then you're ahead of the game.

What kind of feedback are you specifically seeking? If the critics are all performers, perhaps you can guide them beforehand to focus their feedback only on changes that they feel would make the stage play work better for them, as professional actors; sharper dialogue, tighter scenes, that sort of thing.

As far as practical advice for not getting defensive, I suggest you take notes (more to keep your hands occupied) and try not to respond to every piece of feedback by explaining why you wrote something the way you did. The first pitch meeting I ever had with a producer, I countered everything she said with what I thought was a level-headed explanation of why I did it that way, and she took that as defensiveness. Now I just take all feedback at equal weight, and incorporate only what resonates with me as true and sensible.

In the end, *you* are the writer and *you* can shape the work in any way you choose. Putting yourself "out there" is the hardest part of our craft - more frightening even than the blank page itself. Don't let any critics, exterior or interior, deter you from having faith in your work and your voice.

Good luck!

By: sugarfish

sugarfish — Thu, 12 Jul 2007 07:57:56 -0800

I'm a member of a fantastic critique group and we have a simple process.

First, the writer announces, at the outset, what she is looking for in a critique, and what she has concerns about, e.g., "My target market is young adult fantasy, and I want feedback on pacing, dialogue, and characterization." After she reads, each person in the group takes some time to make some notes, and then there is a discussion. During the discussion, the writer cannot explain anything, which I'm sure sounds weird, but keeps the writer from jumping in and defending her work. Either it's on the page or it isn't. Also, every person who comments takes the time to mention something that she really appreciated in the work, which softens the blow a little.

I know it's terrifying to put your work out like this, but if you trust your critique partners then you can make your work much better. We all get so far into the page that sometimes we can't see the most obvious solutions to our errors, and fresh eyes can help. Also remember that you have no obligation to make a change just because someone else suggested it.

There might be someone in the group who wants only to tear you down. You can ignore that person, too.

You might find, after the critique, that a group discussion isn't the way you like to work. Thats also okay.

Just remember: it's not personal. No, really, it's not. A critique of your work isn't a critique of you.

Good luck, and congratulations on having something ready to be critiqued! Really, if you can get that far, then this should be cake.

By: hermitosis

hermitosis — Thu, 12 Jul 2007 08:02:03 -0800

I've been in this situation, having endured two staged readings of my play, one on an amateur level and the other at a highly professional level.

First of all, record ALL suggestions, feedback and criticism, so that you don't reflexively shove aside something that at second glance could be very valuable.

Second, don't defend your work. If someone has a criticism or suggestion because of something that YOU think sailed over their head, thank them, and let them see you write it down. If you must say something, instead of offering a rebuttal ask questions to clarify their point. If you absolutely must correct them in some way, limit it to one sentence and be as gracious as you can. Really consider all feedback, secure in the knowledge that you can take it or leave it.

Some of the feedback I got on my play was really stupid, but I did wind up experimenting with a few new scenes because of it and one of them turned out to be really important.

If nobody has any questions, lead with some of your own, especially if there are parts you are troubled by or open to suggestions on. "Did the ending make sense? I tried to incorporate X, Y, and Z elements, did that come across?"

The best way to get people talking, commenting, and asking is to stay relaxed. Take a five minute break after the end of the reading so people can go to the bathroom, chat in the hall, etc, before discussing.

Have fun, and good luck!

By: papercake

papercake — Thu, 12 Jul 2007 08:03:19 -0800

I'd suggest having specific questions for them to answer, and that one of the questions should be "what did you like best about it?"

Also, I was part of a "lab" for many years and one rule we stuck to that I found helped immensely is that the writer should ask questions and then say nothing. No defending your work, "Oh, but what I meant was THIS..." or arguing a point.

This doesn't mean you can't talk at all it just means sit back and take in the answers to your questions, and then ask follow-up questions.

Also, if there's someone you're especially comfortable with, you might ask them to moderate the discussion.

Good luck, and remember that writing is rewriting. Enjoy!

By: Zephyrial

Zephyrial — Thu, 12 Jul 2007 08:04:55 -0800

I'm in a similar boat - I've written (and am working on revising) a one-act play (a musical, actually) that I hope to direct at my college next year. This past May, I held a read-through with a dozen or so of my theatre-minded friends and recieved their feedback.

How do I structure the discussion afterward to get the most out of the feedback I'm inviting from this group of trusted individuals? Here's some things that I did...

- Make sure everyone has a pencil or pen with them during the whole read through, so they can make notes of things they liked or didn't like and can bring them up later in discussion. This way people won't interrupt the readthrough with their comments.

- As they are reading through the play, make sure you are reading along with them, pencil in hand. Take notes. Things will sound much differently (in a good way) aloud, and it will help you get a sense of what works and what might need changing.

- After the readthrough, I opened up the floor and asked people to share their reactions: "What you liked, didn't like, what worked, what didn't work, what was in there that doesn't need to be in there, what wasn't in there that you wish you would've seen" and then I kind of just lead a little discussion on different plot elements, structure, etc for about 45 minutes, all the while still furiously taking notes.

Then there's your other big question: How do I maintain my faith in my work and still allow other's insight to influence it?

I think my biggest piece of advice at this point in the game would be listen to everything they tell you. You can think it's stupid, you can thing they're utterly wrong - it's okay, you're still the one writing the play, and you get to decide what goes in. However, in the setting of a readthrough and discussion, these people are doing you a favor by sharing their reactions with you, and it's important that you hear (and remember AKA write down) what everyone has to say, even if you don't agree.

I know it's hard to avoid feeling somewhat defensive, but in this case, bite your tongue. These are your friends (I assume), and they are not there to criticize you, they are there to offer feedback about your play, because they (like you!) want it to be as good as possible.

After you have recieved and discussed everyone's feedback (keeping meticulous notes all the while, of course!), here is what I did: on my own, I just sat for maybe 10 minutes and wrote down all of my gut reactions to the readthrough and how it went. I wrote down my feelings about the play, how I liked or didn't like the ideas that people shared, etc. I just got the knee-jerk and gut-reactions in writing, and then I put the play away.

This is important. After the readthrough, take a break from the piece and just let your thoughts simmer. Do something else for awhile (personally I travelled and visited family, and didn't come back to the play for a good week or two). You may be tempted to make rash changes immediately after the readthrough - don't. Also, giving yourself a break will let some of the better advice from people sink in.

Then come back to it after your healthy-length break and start deciding what changes you'd like to make (and, assuming your play isn't perfect, there will be some).

I think for me, while it is still very difficult to take other people's advice into consideration, it is helpful to look at the play on it's own, to say "I am an aspiring playwright, and this is something that I want to make me look good. And if so-and-so has pointed out a character that just isn't working, I need to fix it."

Also, there is a "rule" of writing that I have read in several playwrighting books called "kill your darlings". Basically it means: you may have to kill off a character, or cut a scene or a particularly lovely bit of dialogue that you love, because it doesn't serve the larger purpose of the play. This sucks, but it is life. And if you want to be a writer, this is going to happen.

Good luck! I'm sorry this comment is so long, but since we're in such remarkably similar situations (play vs musical) I figured I had to say something. If you want to chat at all post-readthrough, my email is in my profile.

By: croutonsupafreak

croutonsupafreak — Thu, 12 Jul 2007 08:15:41 -0800

Practice, practice, practice. Criticism is hard at first, but good criticism becomes addictive once you realize how much better your work can become once you receive it. You need to abandon your ego. It's best when coming from someone whose views about work you can view objectively (not your own) align with your own.

I'd been writing for newspapers for five years before I found an editor who regularly gave in-depth constructive criticism, and it completely freaked me out at first. I'd always been complemented for my writing, and now someone was telling me that I needed more muscular verbs and stuff, and I felt like a total failure. Over the course of several weeks and months, I came to realize that he was right most of the time. As I grew to understand the role of criticism, I became better at assessing good and off-the-mark critiques, and at sticking to my guns when it really mattered. Now that I don't work there any more, I really miss that guy. I'm grateful to him for the help he gave me as a writer.

By: theantikitty

theantikitty — Thu, 12 Jul 2007 08:18:39 -0800

I think the above advice is sound. Hear these people out, especially if you trust them. However, I just want to strenghten the idea hinted at above: sometimes you know what is best for your own work. Criticism can be very valuable. It has been so to me in the past. But sometimes it's just flat out wrong. This sounds corny, but in many respects, it's your vision of this work that makes it valuable at all. I think, primarily, that is what art is:vision. I've seen too many good writers in a flurry (or worse, some kind of personal hell) over someone else's thoughts. Have a great workshop, but keep that in the back of your mind.

By: dagnyscott

dagnyscott — Thu, 12 Jul 2007 08:53:08 -0800

Take note of all their advice; thank them. Then when it comes time to rewriting, make it a creative process ("how could I make that suggestion work in this context?") rather than a destructive ("oh my God I worked so hard on that what am I doing?") process. Give it some time. If you can't think of any way to make the suggestion work, ignore it, unless you think it brought up a problem that really needs to be solved, in which case you go back to your proofreaders and say "What should I do about this?"

By: jdroth

jdroth — Thu, 12 Jul 2007 09:06:46 -0800

Croutonsupafreak is right on: good criticism is addictive. Sure it's nice when people praise your work, but praise does not help you improve. One technique that works for me is to completely remove myself from the work during the process of critique. I become one of the people who is criticizing it. I try to look at it for flaws and strengths, attempting to discover how it might be improved. If I can make myself an (almost-)objective third-party, I can be more even-keeled about the responses I receive.

It's important to realize that you will never improve if you don't learn to hear the criticism and incorporate it into your work.

As writers we are, by our nature, somewhat insecure and very sensitive. Criticism of our work, our "babies", can often be taken as personal assaults on our very being.

I don't think this is true. Some writers are like this, but I think they're mostly "wannabe" writers or writers who haven't had much experience yet. I think real writers have thick skins. They understand that criticsm is of the work itself, and not of author. They understand that criticism is a tool for improving the craft. Writers who have been at it a while have heard a great deal of criticism, and they're able to discern the personal opinion from the actual stuff that can help them improve.

In short: don't be afraid. Since this is a new experience for you, it may be painful, but it's a necessary step. Future critique sessions will be less painful. Before long, they won't be painful at all, but welcome!

By: misha

misha — Thu, 12 Jul 2007 09:30:41 -0800

Fantastic advice up above. (Oh, and by the way, congratulations!)

I would definitely record the session. I can't stress enough how much that suggestion appealed to me, because of course you will be excited and nervous and maybe even defensive at the moment of the review, and recording the session will allow you to re-visit the specific critiques that will allow you to improve on your work.

Also, an introductory statement about what you want from the critique and your target audience, etc. is an excellent idea.

By: thehmsbeagle

thehmsbeagle — Thu, 12 Jul 2007 09:31:45 -0800

Weeeeellll.... as a "real" writer, no, I don't think that we have thick skins. Real writers may be good at faking it, but they still go home and angst sometimes. That's just how it is. If they weren't weird and sensitive, they wouldn't be writers to begin with.

I am careful about who I ask to read something. Not everyone is going to be helpful. Some people (sorry) are downright dim about stuff. Also: don't ask anyone for a read if you think they might feel competitive, because their notes won't actually be about the work. Also: some peoples' criticism will essentially boil down to "I think you should write this other story!" - ignore that.

You KNOW when criticism is spot on. Because you already know, on some level, when something isn't working right (it's easier to know this when you don't leap directly from writing to asking for critique, but instead let it sit in a drawer for at least a few days), so accurate criticism may be mildly ouchy, but will also be helpful.

If criticism isn't helpful, maybe mull it over a tiny bit to see if there's something there, but then ditch it. Do not get hung up on someone's unhelpful criticism. Pout about it overnight if you must, and then ignore. Don't let it cripple you.

If several people give you the same note, they're probably at least a little right.

Almost everyone is good at saying "Liked it!" or "Didn't like it!", but very few people are good at clearly analyzing why they did or didn't like something (obviously, cultivate any of these people you come across. Give them fruit baskets.) Everyone else can still be helpful, but you'll have to do some digging. Often people will just not like something, but not really know why they don't like it, and then give you some strange suggestion that isn't really what they mean. Be aware of this going in. The "Didn't like it" is still useful, but you'll probably have to chase down the specifics.

Ask questions. I ask specific things like "What one thing would you change in that scene?" or "Did you find this character likable?" If you write funny things, asking people to mark when they laughed can be helpful. I think the above advice not to defend is very good, but I often, after someone has said "I didn't get this part", will ask (but not defensively. No one likes a defensive writer.) something like "Can I tell you what I was trying to get across?" because then the readers are often really good at coming with suggestions for clarifying your point.

Good luck!

By: The Straightener

The Straightener — Thu, 12 Jul 2007 09:44:27 -0800

I've never seen anything I've written as a perfect little diamond that should remain untouched and I also know that editors cringe at the thought of writers who do. I need help and guidance when I write a piece, especially something substantial in length, and I'm not afraid to admit that. I know the editors I've worked with have really appreciated my flexibility.

My object is to get things I write into print, while maintaining the integrity of what I've written. Integrity and exactitute are two different things; sometimes word limits or other editorial constraints demand the axe and that can be a painful procedure, almost like enduring surgery. But as long as the editor I'm working with understands the voice I'm writing in and strives to maintain its integrity, as well, things will go fine. Sometimes it pays to defer to experience; a lot of times editors have made recommendations to me that didn't sit well at first but after some reflection did.

If you think that the integrity of your piece has been comprimised in the editorial process or that that acting on the constructive criticism you received will destroy your work than you should speak up about that, but I would do so only after a period of reflection where I could gather my thoughts and reapproach the situation. Going on the attack after getting feedback is not constructive and might prevent you from working with those in question on future projects. So whatever you do, don't lash out. Hold your tongue if you don't like what you hear. If you want to write professionally you need to act like a professional.

By: mealy-mouthed

mealy-mouthed — Thu, 12 Jul 2007 09:59:44 -0800

I agree not defending your work as they criticize is important. Nevertheless, it can be fruitful to let them know your intent. Sometimes it is the dullness of the audience, other times it is the dullness of the writer.

"I meant to communicate this. Is there a way I can better communicate that?"

By: TryTheTilapia

TryTheTilapia — Thu, 12 Jul 2007 10:00:38 -0800

Popping in to express my gratitude for every comment so far. I'm preparing for this adventure practically and emotionally in a whole new way. Thanks all; no such thing as a "best" answer here because every single poster has been a huge help.

By: minervous

minervous — Thu, 12 Jul 2007 10:28:07 -0800

I'm an actor and I've participated in a whole lot of table readings and developmental processes. From my side of the table, the first reading of a play for the playwright's benefit is a really cool opportunity, and I'm always flattered.

That said, I do notice that a lot of comes out of actors' mouths in these sorts of situations is ... narrow. Meaning, we tend to focus on our character, and our character's jouney. (After all, it's often all we can do even in a full production; the big picture is what directors are for, thank goodness.)

I'm not saying that can't be useful to you, but it's something to keep in mind if one of your actors begins to tell you that the entire play isn't served well by his or her character's death in the second act, you know?

A question I've seen elicit useful feedback from actors after a reading is "did you feel like a whole person, with a history before the play began?" YMMV.

Best of luck, and congrats!

By: shakespeherian

shakespeherian — Thu, 12 Jul 2007 11:36:56 -0800

In the best workshops I've been to, the writer is not allowed to speak during the first round of response-- she may only listen and take notes. She then has the opportunity to reply, but only for a small amount of time-- not enough to take every comment head-on, but enough to address large issues that were brought up by multiple people. You aren't going to be in a classroom setting, but you can still apply the same attitude.

By: twistofrhyme

twistofrhyme — Thu, 12 Jul 2007 12:35:15 -0800

i've been involved with lots of readings, as an actor, director, dramaturge, and writer, and in amateur, semi-pro, and official/professional contexts. here are some of the things i've seen that worked well:

BEFORE THE READ:

ACTORS
give all actors very clear character breakdowns before the read, and the script itself if possible. it's ok to ask actors to read cold, but if you do, you'll help yourself if you clearly tell them the age, type, and vocal energy of the character, giving reference characters if possible. it's way easier to read a part that you know is "john cusack with a hint of jon lovitz" than "male, 35".

MODERATOR
having a moderator can be awesome, or horrible. if you use one, choose carefully, and pick someone who won't steamroll the discussion with her own ideas.

STAGE DIRECTIONS
get someone to read stage directions. not the ones intended for the actor (ie, have them ignore directions that just indicate tone, like "angrily")-- but the ones that give the audience a sense of place or time or scene change.
DO NOT read these yourself. this is the #1 thing that will help you really listen to the play, not scan ahead for your next line.

PHYSICAL LOGISTICS
comfortable, seats, upright is better than loungey
clearly printed scripts, highlighted if possible
highlight the stage direction person's lines too, if you think it may otherwise casuse weird pauses as she scans ahead
good light
a cool room is better than a hot room
only provide scripts to the actors- let the listeners listen
pencil and paper and writing surface for everyone, including actors

you should tell the actors where to sit. when possible, seat the actors so that characters who interact a lot are across from each other, not beside each other. it's easier for the actor to connect to someone they're facing.

you should sit so you can clearly see all the actors. maybe at the head of the table?

DURING THE READ:

YOU
your job tonight is to WATCH and LISTEN.

do not, under any circumstances, play one of the characters or read stage directions. even if you plan to play that character later, don't play her tonight. if you do this, you'll be reading, not listening.
also, i suggest that you not hold a script. if you do, you'll read along, and again, this will interfere with listening. remember that you can read your play any time, by yourself. tonight, you've enlisted actors, with voices and faces and space between them. this is the most useful element to study. your job is to watch and listen.

BEFORE YOU START THE READ
tell everyone what type of feedback you want. for me, it might be something like,
"i want this play to accurately capture the speech patterns of the characters, and to be funny and warm without being sappy. i wonder if i've accomplished this, particularly in the midsection. i also feel like the ending is missing something, and maybe it drags a little in the middle? those are mostly the things i'm concerned about, so i'm open to anything, and i'd especially love to hear your feedback particularly on those things."

DURING THE READ:
pay attention. take spare notes. notice when jokes fall flat and when things feel draggy, and notice when jokes are funnier than you expected or when a section is working well, too.

RIGHT AFTER THE READ:
this is a great time for to ask each person to volunteer a short preliminary comment. "maybe you could each mention one thing you question about the play, and then one thing you think is strong?"

try to let everyone offer something individual before you get bogged down in specifics- the taking turns around the circle thing is a good way to do this, as it encourages people to say something different than has been said before because they will want to seem insightful & independent. hence, pay VERY close attention to questions that are raised more than once when you go around the circle-- if people repeat the same criticism in this format, it probably means they're on to something that your eventual audience will pick up on too.

ask the actors for their feedback on the character they played, as they now have huge insight that will astound and delight you. when i read a new play, i like to be asked Qs like,
did your character make sense to you?
did anything stand out as unmotivated or not credible?
were there any stretches in the play where your character seemed to disappear off the map?
did you feel like your character was useful whenever they were present?
did you miss them in any scenes?

TAKING THE NOTES:
if you have a mini tape recorder, you can use it during the notes session like a talking conch. knowing that their words are being recorded often makes people phrase them more clearly. plus then you can listen back later, because that night will probably be a blur. also, if you're worried you might be hurt by some notes, maybe a tape recorder is the way to go-- people will be more tactful, and you can listen back later to gain a clearer perspective on what they actually said, rather than what you thought they may have meant. i've done this a few times and it works really well.

if you're gonna make your notes on paper, consider recording the initials of the person who gave the notes, so if something's unclear later, you can email or call them.

if you like a note, say so, and feel free to ask them to elaborate.
if you don't like a note, write it down anyway to consider later and thank them. feel free to ask them to elaborate. but the less you talk at that point, the better. it's hard (god it can be hard), but try to just listen, not explain.

if you don't like a note but 3 or more people agree, they are probably on to something, so reconsider. you may have a genius idea that you're executing a little sloppily, so rather than feel like you need to scrap the idea, consider how to re-work it to address that commonly stated note. you don't have to change anything unless you decide to, so you have nothing to lose by really thinking about it.

THE NEXT DAY:
always send individual thank you emails if you can spare the time, and if applicable, mention aspects of that person's feedback you really liked or plan to incorporate. this will make that friend feel invested in the work and they will probably email you back even more specifics or be on board to help later. i LOVE giving feedback, and will happily re-read drafts of a friend's work if i feel she values my notes.

having readings is addictive, and it's flattering and fun for the actors and the listeners. it's a great way to work- kudos for caring what people think- and i hope you have an awesome, rewarding session tomorrow night!
enjoy it!

By: grumblebee

grumblebee — Thu, 12 Jul 2007 14:35:00 -0800

Ignore ALL comments that aren't very specifically about something tangible in your writing. If people have something useful to say, it will be about your word choices, grammar, plotting, characterizations, etc.

I say this, because (often without meaning to) people tend to use critique sessions to unload personal baggage. Be particularly wary of people who try to psychoanalyze you. They may have something very useful to say about your WORK, but they can't possibly be experts on what's going on inside your head.

It's one thing to say that "if you'd made Mary yell at Sam, I would have liked her more." It's another to say, "I can tell you're scared to have character confront each other, but you need to get over that and..." Maybe you have a really good friend who knows you well enough to say stuff like that, but most people will willy-nilly make such comments without having a clue as to what they're talking about. And if they say it with enough force, such a comment can seem true, like a horoscope. And it can needlessly hurt without helping you with your writing.

If you must listen to that stuff, see if you can translate it into a comment about your work, "Okay, something seemed a bit timid to that critiquer."

I agree that it's not your place to defend your work, but it is your place to ask for specifics. If someone says, "I sort of felt like the hero was a bit hard to understand at times," that's not helpful unless you can get him to clarify. Ask. "Like when?"

If critiques are hurtful AND specific, try to get over the hurt by remembering it's not as bad as it seems. Most problems can be fixed really simply, even if they seem huge.

For instance, if someone says, "I'm sorry, but I really found your hero to be unsympathetic," that may sound like a disaster. But -- if you care to make him more sympathetic -- there are probably two or three simple things you can do. Maybe there are a couple of times he's too harsh, and you can soften them. Or maybe he needs to do one good deed or reveal one weakness.

Or if someone says your favorite scene is boring and should be cut, maybe it would be less boring if it was just shortened. Or maybe the items in the scene can be broken up and put in other scenes.

I think critiques can be really helpful -- if you let them -- in terms of tightening up your story. If you can take over a bit, ask each person to tell you, in as few words as possible, what the story was about. Explain that you mean this on a simple plot level, not thematically. (Theme is important, but in for what I'm talking about.)

If pretty much everybody agrees that "It's a story of a young woman moving to a new town and falling in love," then ask them if there was anything in the story that side-tracked them from this, anything gratuitous. That's the "kill all your darlings" part, and it's hard to see your own darlings, because they are your darlings. Killing those parts you love -- but which really don't serve your story -- IS painful. But it's basic to good writing. You have to get over it. In fact, you can learn to love it. One more darling killed. YES! Five points and a tighter story!

(Remember, you can save the darling for another story!)

If each person describes the story differently -- "I don't think it's about a young woman. I think it's about a sea captain!" -- then listen to all these descriptions and use them to help you decide which direction you'd like your story to go.

If you have time, you can do the same thing on a character level. Ask everyone to describe Margaret. "She's brave." Okay, was there anything that seemed at odds to this? (Not that you always have to kill off contradictions -- people are complex -- but it's worth listening to and thinking about.)