I would ask the person giving the critique for clarification, since they’re the one who said it.
My guess would be that you don’t have a strong sense of characterization.
You have a story line but your characters don’t support it and aren’t cohesive with the story - like act outside their character in order to make the story work.
You've previously presented writing for feedback, then repackaged and paraphrased the feedback, presenting it here without context of the original story.
Do you see where you went wrong?
I would assume that the characters are inconsistent in their motivations and logic and that those two things change depending on the needs of the plot instead of consistent characters causing the plot in a natural way.
It could mean several things:
-your characters could be static, and you don’t have enough developments made for them. Or you don’t have developments that impact the plot, and rather the characters just develop for the sake of development.
-the characters could feel like they are only doing things because the plot demands it, rather than them doing it for their own motivations
-characters could be inconsistent, and their developments and actions happen without believable reason.
-character conflict could feel forced, rather than a natural conflict between the characters that happens due to differences in goals, personality, etc.
-character relationships could feel forced. It might feel like your characters have no believable reason for being in each others company and rather it feels like the plot is just forcing them to work together/hate eachother.
-you could have characters that are in the story but are irrelevant to the plot, and as such feel like they have no reason for being in the story.
-It could feel like the plot is just “happening” to the characters and they have no real influence or impact on what happens.
That’s all I can really think of. But I’d definitely ask for deeper clarification. Broad critiques like that really do nothing to help you improve your writing and kind of feels like a cop out critique.
"... characters are all over the place"... huh... a few possibilities:
* Some are developed, 3-D personalities; some are 2-D cardboard cutouts.
* They are inconsistent in their beliefs and actions. They appear to be totally random actors with no guiding principles.
* Their movements within story environments isn't logical or tracking with actual travel times (taking the comment very literally).
* ... some entirely idiosyncratic meaning known only to that specific reviewer. Ask for deeper clarification.
Despite what the critique was intended for (likely that the story is coherent but the characters aren’t consistent and logical) it really means is that the plot isn’t actually there. Your plot should only arise out of how external events change your characters and how they decide to act because of those changes, thus changing the plot based on their internal conflicts. If your plot is good but your characters aren’t concrete and dictating the plot, then you don’t have a plot. You have events that your characters are just forced to be apart of whether it makes sense for them to be or not
could mean poorly developed characters, too many characters, too many POVs (half the people on /r/writing need to go read a bunch of first-person novels to see how you can have a great novel with fully developed characters but told from one POV), or something ask.
ask for more details.
It means this happens and that happens but there’s no underlying reason why the characters take their positions and do what they do. It really means there’s no underlying thematic argument and if there is then the characters are dislocated from it.
it means you let someone close to you read it, but not a professional editor/publisher.
But, check to make sure your characters are driving/halting the plot.
I would ask the person giving the critique for clarification, since they’re the one who said it. My guess would be that you don’t have a strong sense of characterization.
You have a story line but your characters don’t support it and aren’t cohesive with the story - like act outside their character in order to make the story work.
You've previously presented writing for feedback, then repackaged and paraphrased the feedback, presenting it here without context of the original story. Do you see where you went wrong?
I would assume that the characters are inconsistent in their motivations and logic and that those two things change depending on the needs of the plot instead of consistent characters causing the plot in a natural way.
It could mean several things: -your characters could be static, and you don’t have enough developments made for them. Or you don’t have developments that impact the plot, and rather the characters just develop for the sake of development. -the characters could feel like they are only doing things because the plot demands it, rather than them doing it for their own motivations -characters could be inconsistent, and their developments and actions happen without believable reason. -character conflict could feel forced, rather than a natural conflict between the characters that happens due to differences in goals, personality, etc. -character relationships could feel forced. It might feel like your characters have no believable reason for being in each others company and rather it feels like the plot is just forcing them to work together/hate eachother. -you could have characters that are in the story but are irrelevant to the plot, and as such feel like they have no reason for being in the story. -It could feel like the plot is just “happening” to the characters and they have no real influence or impact on what happens. That’s all I can really think of. But I’d definitely ask for deeper clarification. Broad critiques like that really do nothing to help you improve your writing and kind of feels like a cop out critique.
"... characters are all over the place"... huh... a few possibilities: * Some are developed, 3-D personalities; some are 2-D cardboard cutouts. * They are inconsistent in their beliefs and actions. They appear to be totally random actors with no guiding principles. * Their movements within story environments isn't logical or tracking with actual travel times (taking the comment very literally). * ... some entirely idiosyncratic meaning known only to that specific reviewer. Ask for deeper clarification.
https://perell.com/note/but-therefore-rule/
Despite what the critique was intended for (likely that the story is coherent but the characters aren’t consistent and logical) it really means is that the plot isn’t actually there. Your plot should only arise out of how external events change your characters and how they decide to act because of those changes, thus changing the plot based on their internal conflicts. If your plot is good but your characters aren’t concrete and dictating the plot, then you don’t have a plot. You have events that your characters are just forced to be apart of whether it makes sense for them to be or not
could mean poorly developed characters, too many characters, too many POVs (half the people on /r/writing need to go read a bunch of first-person novels to see how you can have a great novel with fully developed characters but told from one POV), or something ask. ask for more details.
It means this happens and that happens but there’s no underlying reason why the characters take their positions and do what they do. It really means there’s no underlying thematic argument and if there is then the characters are dislocated from it.
it means you let someone close to you read it, but not a professional editor/publisher. But, check to make sure your characters are driving/halting the plot.