The Trouble with Farro

So last night I got a very thorough, negative criticism of Farro. I will not divulge the source of this criticism, but, as my first very detailed negative review, I wanted to give it the time I feel it deserves. There are points that I disagree with the reader, that I feel our personal tastes divided our opinions. Other points are shortcomings I feel Farro honestly needs to have acknowledged. What follows is a bulleted list of the issues the critic took with Farro.

• Khensa and Bomani were unlikeable, uncommunicative, and unrelateable
• The narration was unvaried and didn't express Khensa's feelings and emotions
• Descriptions in all scenes is lacking. Not enough of Khensa's senses were provoked/described in said scenes, making it hard for the reader to throw themselves into the story.
• Khensa never describes people by their physical characteristics, but always by their emotional expressions
• The dialogue, like Khensa, was under-developed and irrelevant, it frequently related information of import
• The plot had too many points and felt like a never-ending story

Lots to think about, don't you think? Like I've said, there are a few points were I politely disagree with my reader. To me, and some readers out there, I know Khensa and Bomani to be exceedingly likable. I also feel that Khensa is frequently expressing her pain and trauma through the narration. Other points were stylistic choices, Khensa's language for instance, is restricted in a way Lateef's (should he have been the main character) would not have been. I find myself "dumbing down" the language more often than I find myself intellectualizing it. Second, the dialogue is as realistic as I possess the ability to make it, this is the way I like dialogue. I don't like monologues, I don't like it when characters reveal big chunks of the plot in large speeches, or repeat themselves again and again as if preaching to a classroom of toddlers. These were stylistic choices that obviously put me at odds with the reader.

But does that mean I disregard the whole of the criticism? Hell no!

I feel, like the reader, that Farro suffers from a lack of description. While I'll probably never flat out describe my characters (I come from a lonely school that believes eyes shouldn't be "chocolate" and eyelashes, "smoky"), I feel deep down that I can do a better job describing my scenes. It's always been something of my weak point in Farro. I was always so eager to get to the story, the plot, the characters, that the setting - while fully formed - often took a back seat.

So this is what I'm going to do: this week I'm designating a day called "Description Day". This will pretty much be exactly what it sounds like. I'm going to go through each of my scenes/settings and I'm going to highlight their descriptions. I'm going to expand it, and look again at how Khensa reacts to them. I'll add a sentence and/or a reaction to improve the scene without falling into the "purple prose" trap. There's nothing I hate quite like "purple prose". Oh wait, monologuing, I hate that too.

I invite all the writers out there to do the same. Maybe dialogue is your story's shortcoming, maybe characterization, maybe style, but set a day aside and address it. Don't leave it simmering on the back burner until it's burnt and inedible, fix it now while you can.

Approach each criticism with graciousness. Know that the reader took the time to tell you what they thought, and maybe they even gave you suggestions for how your story can be improved. Don't give in to that knee-jerk reaction of scoffing at the review and disregarding it. Remember what is likely the case: the reader is right, the writer is wrong.

(Farro is on schedule for a early- to mid-May release)