Manuscript Feedback That’s Gracious yet Demanding

In an issue of The Writer’s Chronicle from a few years ago, teacher Catherine Wallace wrote an interesting article on how to solicit manuscript feedback from editors, teachers, classmates, friends, family, whomever. She discussed the dangers of fault-finding criticism while outlining what kind of feedback she believes is most helpful. She argues that caring for a manuscript is not unlike raising children: you must praise them for behaving. Otherwise, fault-finding reverses creative momentum. It drives the writer back to what’s already written instead of onward toward the development of the essential vision and into more useful imaginative energy.

Be Clear About Your Request

She urges the writer to be “clear and explicit with your readers about what you want from them.” Ask them to underline words, phrases, and passages that strike them as “memorable, evocative, effective or just plain fun.” Invite them to explain in the margin what they liked.

She also says ask readers to insert question marks at “any place where they get lost, or bored, or confused.” Plus, a brief explanation on why. There’s a fine line here between traditional fault-finding and her new approach. The new approach includes interviewing the writer about the “blurry” areas. If a writer can speak to what they’re aiming for in a passage or paragraph, she says, the writer can get to an “a-ha” moment that will clarify what they need to do. In long-distance editing this isn’t always realistic. Without a trained professional, it’s sometimes impossible. But her vision on “muddled passages” being akin to “growing edges,” where a reader’s need to “fix” them, will ultimately stymie the “new growth that might have happened” is interesting. It’s a gentle, nurturing approach to strengthening weak areas. She sees troubles not as problems but as a doorway.

Why It Works

It’s a compassionate outlook on creating art that one might argue will sidestep the hard work of making a piece great rather than just adequate. But Wallace insists that these succinct requests work because they will glean specific feedback instead of generalizations. She also says it works because when readers point to the passages or words that “shimmer” on the page, they feel an energy connection. That connection is a small success that the writer can use as a model to recreate elsewhere in the manuscript.

A Feedback Template

I liked Wallace’s approach because it gave me a template to use when I share my work with others. It’s more than just “tell me what you think.” It also offers more of a compassionate plan toward myself. Getting manuscript feedback is a fragile business. You might be asking for a whole lot of hurt — a lot of which you might not even agree with. And the one thing I’ve learned from working as an editor is that a good editor will help an author shape the story she’s trying to get at rather than rewrite the story the editor would have written. Wallace helps a writer get that kind of feedback. She says, “I offer you another set (of tools)…. They are both demanding and gracious, which is to say they will help you grow both as a reader and as a writer. And maybe as a person too.”

She’s probably right.

If you want to learn more about editorial feedback check out my post “Why I Welcome Feedback From Agents.” If you like what you read overall, please subscribe to my newsletter. Thanks!