A Chance for Double Points
Were you fortunate enough to see the Northern Lights dancing across our skies earlier this week? My partner casually mentioned on Monday evening, just before the 10pm news, that there was a red alert to catch them on the west coast, but I was too shattered by that time to move from my cosy spot on the sofa. Anyway, I convinced myself it would be another false alarm, so imagine my dismay at the raft of atmospheric pink and green photographs clogging my social media on Tuesday morning!
Fortunately, that wasn’t the only inspirational event to occupy my diary this week. I was scheduled to blog for Ayr Writers as we critiqued our way through another Feedback session. As I’ve stated before, not only am I in awe of the talent at Ayr Writers, but also the breadth of genres we ply our creative trade in. Flash fiction through to novels and poetry, historical observations through to current lives and future imaginings – the variety ensures everyone gets something out of these Feedback nights, not just those getting their work reviewed.
Carolyn kicked off our evening with an assertive rap of the gavel (yes, she did shock one or two unsuspecting folks in the front row). As Blogger, I reserved the right to just observe, so there were thirteen willing souls ready to provide feedback on the 5 pieces submitted. Don’t be alarmed by the thirteen – writers are protected against the number’s potentially menacing reputation due to its regular use in plotlines! The reviewers were split into 5 pairs / triples, the plan being for each to review 2 of the pieces during the first half of the evening, thus providing each author with double the feedback during the second half.
With the 5 pieces distributed, the room fell silent for a few minutes, then the hum of discussion kicked in. As always, the items submitted for review were anonymous, with no hint of author detail on them. It wasn’t possible to distinguish actual phrases through the hum, but tones indicated all parties were engaged in sharing thoughts on what they had just read. Twenty minutes later, we halted the chat and scribbles to distribute a second piece to each group. Credit must go here to Carolyn for her organisational skills, as no author accidently got their piece for review during either distribution. Again, there was the initial silence followed by quiet but enthusiastic sharing of views, before we stopped for a restorative tea or coffee.
The second half of the evening was spent sharing those views back to the wider group. The five pieces consisted of
- A short story featuring grave robbers in peril in the 19th century.
- A non-fiction piece inspired by the collective nouns for birds, particularly rooks.
- A four-stanza poem in which the writer philosophically compared life with completing a jigsaw puzzle.
- A chapter from a children’s novel (aged 8 – 11) in which a young girl goes on a quest through a fantasy world.
- The opening chapter of a crime mystery novel involving the discovery of a woman’s dead body, again set in the 19th
It’s fair to say from the commentary, we enjoyed reading each other’s work! There was plenty of positive feedback for all pieces. A key theme for the fiction items was their effective use of dialogue, particularly for developing the characters e.g., the banter between the 3 grave robbers, or the distinction between the very proper speech of the protagonist in the children’s novel and that of the titular “Old Grouch” character. For the latter, we spent a little time discussing the merits and pitfalls of using phonetic spellings instead of correct versions in works for children if you’re trying to introduce dialects.
Structure was another area that featured in the feedback. The author of the mystery novel had used a number of short sentences during their first chapter, creating an evocative atmosphere and setting that readers could picture within their own minds. Alliteration played its part in both the poem and the non-fiction article, giving a sensory flow to the pieces. Correct and consistent use of punctuation and tense were also mentioned for a couple of the items – only minor changes were required, but these are definitely elements to be aware of whenever editing / proof-reading our work.
Having each piece reviewed by two groups was an interesting change to our usual Feedback evenings as well. Whilst many comments were similar, there was the occasional difference in opinion. The deliberate delay in characterisation in the short story was considered potentially confusing by the first reviewing party, whilst the second felt the slower introduction had an elegance about it. When reviewing the poem, both parties appreciated the jigsaw analogy for life, with its gradual build and frustration over missing pieces. However, whilst one party enjoyed the expansion of the jigsaw analogy in the third stanza, the second found the links a little over-emphasised. I thought this was a good reminder of the subjective nature of reviews, something to be aware of when submitting pieces for competitions.
We finished the session with some general thoughts about the evening. People were positive about the chance to review two pieces, and had enjoyed the various discussions about use and structure of dialogue. It was suggested that items reviewed during Feedback evenings could be shared in full during our Success nights, if there was sufficient time. A couple of folks also mentioned how previous Feedback sessions had given them the incentive to progress their work towards publication.
Let’s keep everything crossed that we see similar opportunities coming about on the back of this evening as well.
Maggie Morton