Take the Goldilocks Approach to Effectively Parse and Use Feedback

At some point in our writing life, we’ll likely seek out other writers and organizations for support, networking, learning, resources and perspectives on our work. Many entities combine some or all of these elements. As to feedback, one of the nattiest aspects of critique when we’re asked to provide criticism is striking a balance between encouragement and analysis. When we’re receiving comments, the challenge is parsing and implementing what we hear or read in response to our work.

You may remember the children’s fable The Story of Goldilocks and the Three Bears, a tale with several iterations and outcomes. Here, we’ll consider the version where young Goldilocks enters the home of three bears and starts sampling what she finds. A fine example of the literary rule of three, the story shows Goldilocks learning that much of what she tries is either one extreme or the other and that only one element in each category is just right. Effectively parsing and using feedback is like that.

If you’re fortunate enough to have a group or workshop where your writing is supported and so are you, you’re off to a great start. Even then, many observations may be overly solicitous on the one hand or too severe on the other. Comparatively little is “just right”.

In reality, even scathing criticism can include a usable point. After that sort of critique, warm and fuzzy feedback feels like balm, making us reluctant to examine it lest it evaporate. Yet, the usable content of a harsher response can have as much merit, or more, than what we derive from a warmer reaction. Either way, it’s wise to note what we hear or read in response to our work and save the comments for future consideration. Time not only heals most wounds, it provides prospective.

Then there’s the critique that’s just right. How do we know when we hear it? What do we do with it afterward? And what do we do with those other notes?

Usually, the critique that’s just right expresses what’s working in a piece and why. It’s the “why” part that differentiates a valid viewpoint, and the maturity of the writer offering it, from other perspectives. The just right critique also points out aspects of a piece raise questions or confusion and why. Again, the why is critical.

The other element of just right feedback is that it fits your vision for your work. In this case, an insight’s validity isn’t determined by the writer so much as by the work. So ask yourself these questions as you sort through what you hear, whether scathing, sentimental or sensible:

• Is there any part of this feedback I can use now or later?
• When in doubt, create a list to revisit later. Is the warmer feedback overcompensating for a real problem? If so, add the underlying point to the list.
• Did I not figure this insight into my work because it occurred to me but I didn’t think it would fit my vision?
• Did I not figure this idea into my project because I wasn’t sure it was valid or how to implement it?
• Did I not figure this insight into my work because it didn’t come to mind?

Once you’ve answered the questions answer this: What is true now?

The questions are valid for any project at any stage of a writer’s life. But they’re especially important for large-scale work and/or work the writer started a while ago. Larger projects require a meticulous approach to drafting and revision because of their many elements. Works that began a while ago change over time, as do writers and writing styles, so it’s important to be realistic about where things stand today.

When parsing critique, keep this in mind—CReDIt: Consider the whole, retain what works, discard what doesn’t, implement according to your parameters and unique style.

When in doubt, remember, you’re the writer and the decision maker. Don’t decide for or against an idea based on anything other than the best interests of your work and you, the writer.