Getting the Most from a Critique

by

Donna B. Comeaux

June 24, 2026

One of the most important reasons authors seek a critique is to avoid embarrassment.

It’s nothing like scouring through virtual retail stores, reading the sample chapter, and finding errors. It makes me cringe to read repetitive words; wince in confusion when I have no idea where the character is located; scratch my scalp while questioning what the environment might smell and look like; grind my teeth as I try to decipher who’s talking; and tempted to throw the book across the room when I have no clear understanding of what has the character so riled up.

So, if critics are to help save us embarrassment, why do authors have a love-hate relationship with them?

First, critics use too much liberty to rewrite an author’s story. Authors want to give critics the benefit of the doubt, but by the time an author reaches chapter two of their red-ink-infested novel, they’ve had enough of those rewrites.

Second, critics don’t take the time to fully engage in the author’s story. An author can quickly sense a critic’s disengagement by their repetitive questions to obvious answers provided in previous chapters or paragraphs.

These two scenarios discourage authors, and they soon lose trust in their critics. This distrust breeds a love-hate relationship that’s not easily repaired.

Bottom line, critics use too much liberty by overstepping their boundaries. When this happens, critics take the reins of authorship. And when critics ask repetitive questions, authors suspect there’s a lack of interest, whether it’s justified or not.

If you want to get more out of a critique and curtail these painful side effects, authors must set boundaries and provide critics with more information about their story.

Here are a few rules to go by:

Rule 1 — Provide a synopsis of your manuscript (or chapter).

Including a short book description of your story informs critique partners of where your story is headed. It also helps the author and critic to be in sync at the very beginning of the story.

Most importantly, a synopsis can potentially weed out unwanted and uninterested critics. Sometimes our incentive to critique has nothing to do with our attraction to the story. As you well know, if you’re not fully vested in a story, you will soon set it aside. This lackluster interest has the potential to urge many critics to offer an opinionated narrative that doesn’t quite fit your story.

Do yourself a favor and give a vivid depiction of your story so you can attract the best critics for your manuscript. If a critic gets a clear explanation of the storyline and of your objectives, the critic can better determine if they have something to offer.

Rule 2 — State your objective.

Your objective should be clear. Before requesting a critique, ask yourself: What do I want readers to focus on as they read my story? Are there plot holes? Do I need suggestions for those plot holes? Am I lacking scenery and a sense of place? Is there enough characterization? Should I tighten my dialogue? Is more dialogue needed?

Too often we forget not all authors make good critics. And not all critics make good writers.

Critics need enough guidance to be of help to you. And only you can determine how much guidance to give them.

If your critiques are not fulfilling your needs, you probably haven’ta found the right critique team and/or your objectives aren’t coming across well.

Rule 3 — Set boundaries.

Request your critics not rewrite sentences. The main problem with rewriting an author’s sentence is you run the risk of changing the author’s voice to suit that of the critic. This is just flat out wrong and disrespectful. This infraction occurs time and time again by the most well-meaning individuals. Consider the time it takes to sit and restructure a sentence, not to mention a critic’s failure to capture the author’s original intent.

The solution to this problem is simple. Provide the author with an explanation of why the sentence seems off. Explain what the sentences actually say vs. what you think the author meant to say. Share how it made you feel. Share your doubts. But whatever you do, don’t rewrite the sentence for them. Let the author take charge of the rewrites.

Rule 4 — Inform your critic how to edit your manuscript.

Critics can use several methods to edit/critique your manuscript. I like to have my manuscript line-edited at the very spot where my infractions occurred. If an explanation is needed, add it in that same spot. I don’t like end-of-chapter summaries. And I hate receiving an editor’s report and won’t use editors who insist on providing one.

It’s like asking me to read an editor’s eighteen-page report, then search through my document for the problem.

To this, I say, “No thank you!”

Perhaps you like a red-line or a chapter summary. That’s allowed. Choose whatever works best for you.

But if you prefer a red-line, be fully prepared to receive your manuscript filled with red ink. This comes as a shocker to some and can take an emotional toll on your psyche, leaving you to doubt your ability to write.

If you fit into this category, ask your critics to please give you a paragraph or chapter summary. I promise, your heart and blood pressure will thank me later.

If you don’t want critics to give any attention to grammar, formatting, or misspellings, tell them. However, formatting can be a game-changer. Bad formatting can turn critics off and you may never hear from them again.

Rule 5 — How not to engage with your critic.

One of the worse things you can do is engage in a debate with your critic. You will not only create hard feelings, but you may lose them and gain a reputation for being too argumentative.

This is the way I see it: a rough-around-the-edges critic is someone I need. They don’t pull any punches. One thing that resonates from them is their honesty. Some don’t have good bedside manners, but if you can get over that and look at what you’re really trying to accomplish, you come to realize this harsh critic is one of few who is paying closer attention to your story. Of course, there are exceptions to this rule, but for the most part, these critics are crucial-thinking, nitpicky people who can spot a plot hole in a milli-second. They can tell you if your dialogue fits the era or if it sounds lame and childish. They don’t mince words when directing you to make chapter four, chapter one. And they’re quick to mention when a string of events are not in sequential order.

It’s okay to disagree with your critics. It’s your story, after all. Only you know how it ends. But before you dig in and voice your argument, step away from the criticism for a few days to give yourself time to mull over what they’ve said. They might be right in their assessment of your manuscript.

IN CONCLUSION, critiques are stressful. If someone says they aren’t, check their pulse. Seriously.

Authors pour their hearts and souls into their writing and are a bit touchy when dealing with negativity. No matter how open-minded you are, we all take offense to criticism of our work.

BE AWARE! Not all criticism is appropriate for your book. Why? Because your critic is usually looking at a snapshot of your work and they have no idea some of the questions initially raised are answered later in the story. No one knows your book like you do. You get to decide if a particular criticism will make your book better or not.

Remember, the main purpose of a critique is to save you public embarrassment. Carefully weigh the criticism you receive. It could make a huge difference in your success as a writer.

Donna B. Comeaux