Do you, as the reader/critiquer, change your emphasis depending on the stage of developement a piece is in (raw/first draft, in the midst of deep revision, just about ready to sub) if the author is explicit about it? Do you, as an author, change your interpretations of, or filter differently, the crits you receive based on the stage you're in?
Personally, whether I'm reading or writing, I always assume that everything is up for grabs if I know a piece is a raw draft. Literally everything. I brainstorm, I change POV's, I explore alternatives, not to mention all the basic technical issues. In the middle of major revision, I generally find, in both myself and others, that there are very specific questions the author has: Does this event/action make sense? Does this [insert whatever here] work? And I try to ask those questions, and concentrate my critique on answering those things. But if I know an author is in the final, "almost ready to sub," stage of a piece, I find myself changing emphasis. The only negative comments I give are usually phraseable (if not necessarily phrased): "You can't possibly sub this with [insert issue here] hanging out there. Otherwise, I try to help the author feel good about putting a stamp on it.
I mean, at some point, you have to figure that an author has considered alternate endings and POV characters, so emphasizing those things would seem counter-productive, for everyone. Also, there are certain issues you can see with a writer's "game," that are just that author's weakness. At some point, you just have figure the really general "broad-issue" things (your dialogue is wooden...your plots are predictable) aren't going to be handled by this one crit. You know what I mean? If we all waited until we were literary geniuses to sub something out, there'd be no such thing as a slush pile.
Should there be this kind of segregation in crit levels? Or is it just up to the author to decide when an issue someone has brought up is something they can't really address in this one piece (that is, a deeper issue)?
I obviously don't want to suggest anything that would short-circuit those "Wise Reader" impressions, but I for one can find reasons not to submit a piece like a champ! Sometimes, I just feel like crits can become counter-productive. Is that the point I should be putting the stamp on it?
Just thought this might make for good conversation.
With final drafts I am aware that they have probably done revisions and feel they are almost ready to submit something, but that does NOT mean I baby them. If I don't think a piece is ready to be submitted, even if they do, I tell them so. I still use the wise reader critique...am I bored, confused, or credulous? Did the ending fall flat or the beginning fail to hook?
Now, I am unlikely to suggest an entirely different direction in final draft unless there is a very good reason. I do not assume that they have thought about everying already, especially since I've seen the crits some people give even on raw drafts -- nothing more than coddling. I've found that often people think they're ready to submit something before they've really thought everything through and I know I have submitted stuff before truly understanding a story's weaknesses.
As a writer, I don't bother reading in-line comments that amount to, "I'd prefer it worded this way." and in fact, I tend to ignore those in final draffts too. They actually drive me up the wall. I only want to see wording changes for grammar errors, typos, or truly awkward sentences -- and then I just want you to tell me they're awkward and let me reword it my way.
That was a bit of an aside...anyway, but I don't eevn look at things like spelling corrections if I specified that it was a rwa draft. I look at general comments, wise reader obesrvations, and I look at the beginning or end of the word document for those overall gut reactions that might tell me what would be a good new direction to take.
You seem to be saying that if the author thinks the story is nearly ready, then we shouldn't say that the plot has significant problems, and that just doesn't make sense to me.
Sometimes, though, the writer's idea of rough draft is not the same as mine. I've had people send me stuff that they were 'polishing' up for submission that I read as pretty rough, others that the writers sends out as rough draft that really needs simple polishing.
Essentially, when a draft is a rough one, it's absolutely pointless to hit anything but the high spots. It's like making a table leg. You start with a great big rough chunk of wood that you stick on the lathe, and at the beginning all you're trying to do is make it something resembling a column. You're not trying to make it smooth, just workable. You're not even really thinking about the pattern yet, let alone the fine grit final sanding or the staining or lacquering.
In such cases, I do an easy crit. In this kind of crit I almost NEVER inline. I usually just send a general outline of the problems I see, usually with examples from the text cut and pasted into them. And only the general stuff--characterization, plot problems. I skip right over spelling and grammar, even dialogue. Those are things that are done more in polishing.
Here's an example of one I did a couple months ago:
quote:
I'm lost. It took me a page and a half to have ANY understanding of where we were or what was happening. And the ending totally left me scratching my head. Huh?
I did like the bit about the coffee and the prank, but Sarah's writing lacks clarity. It's like the narrator or the characters are insiders and the reader is looking in on something that he doesn't understand. She needs to help her reader understand this world--especially because it is filled with oddities, things with which the reader is entirely unfamiliar. She probably sees these things clearly in her own mind, but she doesn't adequately convey them to her reader.
Sarah also needs a lesson on standard submission format:
Double spaced, indented first lines of each paragraph, no extra spaces between paragraphs
If your stuff has serious punctuation or grammar problems, I won't go through rigorously, but I'll just warn you what I think.
I do want people to tell me if they have a problem with my plot. I wouldn't want them to tell me, wouldn't you rather write about this other thing instead?
quote:
I also always send for critiquing things that are as close to the finished product as I can make it. Why waste your time with something I know how to handle already?
This is strange to me. Just because a story is rough, why would I know how to handle necessary changes? It's amazing what critiquers can spot in the roughest work that helps it be the best finished story it can be. In fact, the rough draft stage is when I almost always want thoughts, before I waste hours upon hours doing endless polishing on an idea that has such fundamental flaws that I have to go back and rewrite the whole thing anyway.
If someone says they want one more pass before sending it, I try to ignore my reactions about whether or not I actually like the story, and focus on the real nitty-gritty. I may not be the intended or prospective audience, so whether I like what is happening or not, doesn't matter. What matters are the little things (spelling and grammar errors, duplicate words, etc.) that an author might gloss over because they are too familliar or close to the story.
When asking for crits, I try to tell people what level I'm looking for. If it's the first time out of the gate for a story, I'm usually looking for something pretty in depth -- no holds barred, give me your best (or worst 
). If I'm on the second or third pass, I looking more for the nit-picks. I want to know the things you have to dig for -- use a fine-toothed comb and tell me I mispelled something or used the wrong tense or forgot to capitalize or used the wrong punctuation.
If I've gotten to a point where I'm not interested in changing whole sections of text, I will ignore critiques telling me to do so.
At the final draft stage, I'll focus more on polishing and formatting issues, although if there's a major structural issue I'll still point it out.
However, in the crits I've done, I've tried to be as thorough as possible... catching grammar and punctuation as I can, and detailing where they lose me, where I cease believing, where the infodumps leave me muddled and confused. I've had one writer tell me it's "too much" information. I've had others thank me for being thorough.
I don't worry too much about the stage the writing is in. My only goal is to reflect for them what I would have thought as a first-time reader... if that is useful for the writer, then I've done my job.
If they ask for a crit I don't bother with spelling or grammar except where it borders on style. On the other hand, I pay very close attention to my feelings as I am reading the piece.
If they ask for a proofreading I go through and deep-clean their prose for every single questionable spelling or grammar usage. However, I try to ignore style and I turn my wise-reader off. It's all about spelling and grammar here.
Basically, I assume that a writer is trying to have clean prose and a coherent story by the time they send for a critique. If simply putting out clean prose is a lot of work for you, then do the work. It's the only way to get better at it. The same thing applies to putting together a coherent story.
I don't expect a story to be highly polished, nor do I offer advice on how to polish. The most I'll say is "time to polish" and give an example or two of things that need polishing. Polishing is the author's job, not mine. Partly because that's where the writer puts a unique "signature" on every line of a story. Partly because I'm just too lazy to polish someone else's work.