What does it mean to critique a story?

I entered a competition. I wasn't overly pleased with the story I submitted. Neither were the judges.

Actually, that's not fair. One was enthusiastic. The other two sort of liked it, I think? All three had comments to make about it. I was happy to receive their feedback.

It doesn't matter what competition it was and I can't release the story yet until the winners are announced. I will not be one of them though and I am okay with that. I've just written a microfiction a day for 366 days after all. I'm still resting on those laurels and will do for a little while yet, thank you.

It was a hard write. First competition outside of challenges on Vocal. Three parts to the prompt that I had to follow. I didn't like the genre. Not my forte. It was the one that I was hoping I would not be given. I rushed it. I just wanted it done. I can write microfiction, I thought and reeled something off. It was okay. I felt pressure to get it completed in the time window. I did feel the pressure of having something riding on it. We all want our work to be well received, don't we? I have been luckier than most in this regard.

So, you can sense a whinge coming on?

You'd be right.

I'm quite happy to have my writing scrutinised. I can honestly say that it was one of the worst microfictions I've written but it wasn't bad bad. It was just ordinary. It had all the components of a tale with a cliffhanger ending but it wasn't my best.

I was interested to see how the judges critiqued it. There was some constructive comment from Judge One which I will definitely take on board about linking my ideas and varying how I do this. Yep. I see that.

Judge Two's suggestions were a little stranger. My story was meant to be insular and atmospheric inside and they thought that I should have said more about what was outside. Mmm. They also said that I should have revealed more about the characters but if I had done this, I would have given away too much. Different story altogether.

Judge Three had loads of comments about reordering my sentences and switching things around, making things stronger. Frankly, and this is not schadenfreude nor its sidekick Sour Grapes, I didn't agree. I felt like they wanted me to write the story as they thought it should be written. I felt like they were applying their writing style to my story.

You can offer feedback to the judges so I did. I took their comments and my story and had them side by side, looking at what they pulled out of it and addressed it point by point.

I haven't taken any of it personally. I read it, analysed it and replied to it. My thinking was If they can give me honest feedback, then I should also be able to give them feedback which is honest and reflects my view.

So I did.

It's now the next day and I'm wondering if I was a little defensive. I can't look at the comments now so I'll have to stand by them, but having slept, I think that my responses may seem like I was a little irked. Which I probably was.

Anyway.

Giving a critique. What is it?

I've given this a lot of thought. I'm not sure that I can answer it definitively. The dictionary definition is:

critique - evaluate (a theory or practice) in a detailed and analytical way

Going back to my competition entry story, the judges did provide detail and they did analyse. Judge One offered advice which I absorbed. The critique of Judge Two though did jar me a little. I did feel like the comments were suggesting that I should have altered my story. In my comments back, I said that what they thought I should have included from their perspective would have made it a different story because it would have. In the cool light of day, I stand by that.

So, is it a critique to tell people what you think they should have included to make it a better read for you? I can't decide. It seems to me like there's a line that needs to be tread here between critiquing what is on the page and projecting what you think the story should be but it's narrow and shifts in a jerking and unsafe fashion if any pressure is put on it, like a rickety old rope bridge.

And then Judge Three. They took my story, sliced it up into pieces with their mind like an analytical jigsaw: they deconstructed it. Then, they attempted to advise on how it should have been put together in the first place which would have meant that it would no longer have been written with my writing style. Instead, it would have been how they would have written the story if it had been their idea. Perhaps it was not quite as ruthless as this sounded but there was a lot of "This should be put here" and "end this sentence here" and "reword it like this".

Sigh.

I think my debate lies with this statement and resulting query:

It's critical but is it a critique?

I'm glad I replied and I will be more conscious in the future of my writing for competitions. I admit that I was a little stressed and maybe a little glib in my getting this entry done. I reeled something off that I was reasonably pleased with. I probably viewed this competition as something to get completed rather than giving it the attention it duly needed in order to be considered.

I can live with that.

This still brings me back to my reason for writing this: I am still unsure of what a critique should be. I'm glad of the detailed feedback (and probably should have told them that) but I'm not sure that I can adapt wholly to their suggestions as I feel like they are stylistic issues: they are part of my writing style. In that case, if I alter to suit what my reader is expecting, then I'm not writing truly, am I?

Where does the line get drawn?

I'd love to know what you think about this. I will publish the story when I am able and I am going to offer it up to be critiqued. I value the opinion of writers on here and I would love to know your thoughts. Stay posted.