A Catch-and-Release Critique

In this self critique I’ve decided to take a recent short story that was entered in a writing competition and reflect on my revisions to the piece. This story is one that didn’t exactly do so well. In fact it was the worst I’d ever done in this particular writing competition. So I "caught it up", made some necessary revisions, and released it back into the wild (published it on Vocal).

If you want to check out the revised version, it's the story I published before this one entitled "Catch of the Day".

This piece's poor performance was understandable because writing my entry ended up being a very rushed endeavor. So when I received some pretty critical feedback I tried to be as receptive to the comments which is never easy, even when you know a piece is really far from hitting the mark.

As with most of the feedback I’ve received from peers or professionals in these types of competitions it was a bit of a mixed bag. There were some very good points and pieces of advice that were helpful guides for fixing the issues with the story. But there were also some remarks that I decided not to take into account.

I think as writers we always have to use some discernment in making changes to our work based on the critiques of others. Sometimes a critique is going to address an objectively flawed part of the story, but other times it might be more of a stylistic or personal preference. Those opinions can still be valuable to consider, but they might just not be right for your type of writing or the story you want to tell.

So before I highlight some specific changes to a particular excerpt from the story I want to share a brief overview of the feedback I decided to incorporate into my piece and the feedback I decided not to use.

Feedback I Used to Make Revisions

• Clarity about why the stranger’s clothes are so wet compared to the other men
• More scene involving the hitchhiker before having him kill Jeffrey and Melvin to build the suspense
• Dialogue where the hitchhiker reveals his motivation is text-exposition, add more of Melvin and Jeffrey remembering the case
• Clarity in movement of the vehicle
• Setting is too cramped into a tight space making it impossible for some of the things to happen.
• Unrealistic use and placement of a regular fishing rod
• Unlikely act of offering a beer in vehicle

Feedback I Decided Not to Use

• Clarity on if the hitchhiker buckled his seat-belt
• Cutting down the beginning
• Having the hitchhiker show up earlier before they leave the lake
• Change use of “sir” when Jeffrey first talks to the hitchhiker to “son” to keep it consistent
• Delve into whether or not Jeffrey and Melvin feel guilty
• Explain if Randy Miller and/or Marisol Evans were drunk drivers
• Explain if all the passengers died or if some lived

As I mentioned I’m not going to delve into all the changes but I’ll describe several that were made and the purpose behind them. I’ve inserted the original version of a section of the story I’m going to focus on below.

Original:

“Well hop on in,” Jeffrey instructed as he flung the door open and slid over to the center seat. The dripping wet stranger clambered in beside him, jamming his backpack to the floor in front of his feet.

Jeffrey reached into his cooler and pulled out a beer. “Want a drink, son?”

“No thank you. My old man drank himself to death when I was a kid, so I don’t touch the stuff.”

“Sorry to hear that,” Jeffrey said awkwardly as he shared a side glance with Melvin.

“Yeah, I blamed him for how miserable things were growing up, but as I’ve gotten older I’ve realized there were factors I just didn’t understand.”

“Usually are,” Melvin said. “I’ve had clients injured by alcoholics behind the wheel who had some pretty tragic lives.”

“I know,” the hitchhiker said.

Melvin and Jeffrey eyed each other again.

“What do you mean, son?”

“I know the kinds of clients you have. One of them was Marisol Evans.”

A memory of a middle-aged brunette woman wearing bright red lipstick flashed in Jeffrey’s mind.

“You know Marisol Evans?” Jeffrey asked.

“No, I never knew her. But I knew her name and I know yours. They’re the ones my dad would curse in his stupor every night: Marisol Evans, Jeffrey Keene, and Melvin O’Daniel. My dad’s name was Randy Miller. Remember him? You should. You’re the ones that got him convicted for an accident that wasn’t his fault. You took away all his money and his livelihood to win a case for a woman who crashed again two years later, killing herself and the other driver. A teenager who had just gotten accepted to Yale. You ruin lives just to make your money so you can go on fishing trips and buy yourselves nice trucks.”

First off some of the details were changed to have the scene take place in a more realistic way. The pickup truck was replaced by a roomier SUV and the hitchhiker gets into the backseat as opposed to cramming in a truck cab. Then the fishing pole was altered to be a telescopic rod that would be more compact.

Another logistic item that needed tidying was the offering of a beer in the truck. This was revised to Melvin inviting the hitchhiker to join them at a bar in town. It was an easy fix that didn’t disrupt the overall flow of the conversation toward why the hitchhiker doesn’t drink alcohol.

A lot of the feedback I received mentioned that the story felt unbalanced, that the beginning was too lengthy and that the building of tension with the hitchhiker character was too short. Therefore I faced the decision of cutting down the earlier scene at the lake or expanding the scene in the vehicle before the crash. I chose to no longer abide by the word count constraint and extend the piece further. I didn’t do a great job of keeping the word count in mind when writing the piece so I definitely lingered a bit before rushing through the meat of the piece. But upon reflection I did decide the opening scene contained material I wanted to keep and that I preferred to work on improving the rest of the story to bring it up to snuff.

I decided to break up the hitchhiker's rant and weave in some memories from Jeffrey’s perspective of the hitchhiker’s father and Marisol Evans. These weren’t lengthy additions, but I felt they helped better develop the backstory that led to this confrontation. They also added validation to the hitchhiker’s accusation without drawing out the dialogue too much.

There were however some additions made to the dialogue and Jeffrey’s observations once the hitchhiker enters the vehicle. These were integrated with the intent of allowing more space for the tension to build a little more organically.

In regards to some of the suggestions I did not use, several felt like personal preferences that just didn’t align with mine or would have changed the story in a way I didn’t want. For example, I wanted a stereotypical hitchhiker encounter of him being on the side of the road with his thumb extended, so having him show up before they left the lake just didn’t fit with my vision for the piece.

I also chose to leave the fate of the passengers ambiguous. It’s supposed to be a tale of revenge and I felt it was okay to have a lack of total satisfaction since that tends to be the nature of vengeance seeking.

Although it’s still definitely a flawed piece, I’m pleased with this revised version of the story. I think it more fully embodies the tale I intended to craft in response to the prompts I was dealt. It was helpful to have the feedback to do a bit of a sorting process to decide which suggestions I thought would improve the piece and others that I felt were unnecessary.

If your interest wasn't piqued earlier but is now, you can check out the revised version of the story linked below:

And if you have additional feedback to provide on the story I’d love to hear it!