For the latter two parts of my Crit Theory series (see one, Maybe Don’t Start Early, and two, the Positive Sandwich), I thought I’d look at the other side: what I learned about writing through critiquing. I am firmly of the belief that the second best way to learn how to write well is to critique. Discovering and articulating what isn’t (or is!) working for you in someone else’s work can help you diagnose similar problems in your work.
This sexy beast knew all about action-reaction. (Yes, that's Newton. What?)
I’ve done a lot of critiquing over the last year. Fingers crossed I have the same problem this year. (Yes, I am doing Kat-Crits again, though please check the about page for how it works.) And for my more nit-picky comments when doing line-edits, a common note is this:
Switch these two clauses? I think it’s better to start with the action.
Action-Reaction.
Here, have a paragraph:
“Open up,” said his captor.
The man yanked off Glen’s blindfold. Golden hills rolled all the way to the horizon, taller than houses, sand glittering against the sky with each light breeze from the west. He’d never be able to cross that, not by himself. Glen swallowed, his throat already dry.
There are some good things going on here! (I hope.) Active, interesting verbs (yank, roll, glitter). A goal (crossing the desert). Conflict (he’s been captured!, thirst!). But the passage still feels a little off. Let’s look at it sentence by sentence, eh?
(1) “Open up,” said his captor. Blunt statement gives us an idea of the power structure, and the label captor gives us instant context.
(2) The man yanked off Glen’s blindfold. Sort sentence to emphasize the action, and it adds more tension to the captor-victim situation. He was blindfolded! Why? And why release him now?
(3) Golden hills rolled all the way to the horizon, taller than houses, sand glittering against the sky with each light breeze from the west. And here’s where we lose it. Sure, the sentence is atmospheric and interesting by itself, but it doesn’t match the tension created from the previous two sentences–at least not yet. We’ve got two good non-protag actions built in the first sentences. So rather than shifting right into describing the area (reaction), have Glen give us an action.
(4) He’d never be able to cross that, not by himself. This is nice for stakes, but it has the same problem as the above sentence–it’s thought without any context that keeps the reader invested in the scene, in the present. However, it is a good reaction to the scene established in (3). This sentence can stay here.
(5) Glen swallowed, his throat already dry. Here we go! Shock, fear, and foreboding for what might come next. I think this sentence would fit best nestled inside of (3). Not only will that break up the length of (3), keeping up pacing, but it creates good action-reaction flow.
So let’s see what happens when we shift that single sentence:
“Open up,” said his captor.
The man yanked off Glen’s blindfold. Golden hills rolled all the way to the horizon. Glen swallowed, his throat already dry. [The dunes] towered taller than houses, sand glittering against the sky with each light breeze from the west. He’d never be able to cross that, not by himself.
Suddenly the tension is better! The passage flows a little more smoothly. And we remain grounded in the present.
Of course, there are still some problems with the passage. But just a simple shifting of sentences can make a big difference.
So remember as you edit guys–most of the time go for action first, then reaction. Have your character do something that interacts with the setting, and then use that opportunity to describe the setting…rather than the other way around.
Extra points! I challenge you to play around more with the passage. What would you add? Take away? Good luck!
