Great Critique and Editing Example from A Writer's Group

As I've stated in my earlier posts, I am a big believer in rewrites, but also think that is greatly aided by participating in a writers group. As of now, I'm actually involved in two groups because I felt I needed a different perspective on my current novel, Sojourners. It is from this second group that I got the following feedback.

Sojourners is an SF novel taking place in the future on an alien world full of abandoned alien technology, but now inhabited by humans who were forced to crash land on it and have since been stranded. The humans have several competing governments, but are also fighting against an enemy that is attacking in force when this novel takes place.

This is an edit on my 3rd draft. I'm not going to go through the entire draft, but let me start off with a critique of the first paragraph:

Michael looked up through the clear skylight at the daytime Milky Way from beneath Beta’s six massive metallic legs as Vivaldi’s “Spring” played over the speakers. The brilliant yellow sparks from nearby fabricating stations jumped joyfully with the music and played with the Milky Way nimbus covering half of the sky visible from the window, bringing light to the dim factory floor. The sparks also added a metallic tang to the air that, like the music, most of the workers had long since learned to ignore. He wondered if the pattern of the dancing sparks were his own imagination or the result of the worker’s subliminal associations with Vivaldi. Either way, how could the workers not appreciate the beauty they helped create? Michael suspected he was the only person who even noticed “The Four Seasons” in the background as he lay under the right forefoot of his MW-501 “Beta,” planting diagnostic sensors between each of the six flexible yolk yellow foot pads. (Maybe too many words, for example, three ‘separate feeling’ references to Vivaldi in one paragraph, or ‘flexibe yolk yellow foot pads’ You might use ‘landing jacks’ or ‘legs’ and then further describe them when – and if – it really becomes relevant to the story.)

Notice the portion in red shows where my wordiness is an issue and have to limit my choices.

After that were catches to missing words and misspellings, which are always good.

Now comes a big note:

...

“My engineers here at the head office just reviewed yesterday’s test results. They tell me it’s bad fiction,” Emilio growled.

(Suggestion, this is just a thought, but you might cut all the above, start the story here, and backfill all the relevant data as they speak.  Less is always more in writing.)

“It’s nice to hear your vote of confidence, Mr. Escalante,” Michael said with a wry smile.

He knew it was the worst thing he could’ve done; but it was their history. Ted, of course, continued to stand nearby, arms folded, watching the show.

There were several other notes about my wordiness and then here is the critique:

Critique.

Characters are good, believable.  There were some moments when I feared he was going to become ‘cartoonish’ (when be threw the phone) but after that outburst you seemed to dial it back.  Over all I have no suggestions on how to improve characterization.

I’m not sure you’ve used made a convincing timeline.  The tech seems to be from a few years in the future, but if they are still using big, clumsy robots like this, it’s it believable that they could have the interstellar travel chops to get wherever they are?  Those were just my thoughts – how did they get where they are and still have such primitive tech?

You use too many descriptors in your language.  I’ve marked a few, but there were others where I thought a better word choice would have helped.  When you have a image in your mind (Like a green tuber with white veins) that’s a lot of words to describe very little.  “The plant looked like a squash covered in white viens” is better, but still not great.  This is one of those situations where I would ask myself, does the reader really care enough about this plant to have the writing slowed down enough to read it.  If the answer is no (and I think in this case it would be) then even though I have a clear image I might not bother to describe it, at least at this point.  “The plant is squash-like”  No mention of the veins, but no denying they exist, so that later, if there is a more appropriate time to describe them, you can.

When writing, one thing to keep in mind is flow.  How smoothly the prose carries the reader from idea to idea.  A perfect book is like a smooth slide from beginning to end.  Things that are “bumps” on that slide are too many words that say too little (this is why too many descriptors are bad.  If you are trucking along reading and getting a new concept every sentence or so, and each sentence is 8 words long average, and suddenly you run into a noun with three descriptors, that’s 4 words.  You now have to express the rest of that sentences thought in 4 words or less or the reader will notice the ‘bump.’  It’s hard to explain, but read out loud and you will see what I mean.  Generally if there is one word that will describe something, you want to use it.  Too many modifiers is generally an indication you are using the wrong noun to begin with.

            You seem to have a good sense of mixing motion to describe a feeling with dialoge.  “He wiped his sleeve across his head” comes to mind. 

Now I could tell you why the tech period is what it is, but I won't be defensive. I think this is actually a great critique and it guided my edit of this first chapter.

So I hope this example shows the value of being a part of a writing group and letting it help you improve your writing in the next edit / rewrite.