…we try to help the AUTHOR understand how his or her writing style may reduce reader engagement.

Grr!

The issue of author style is complex. One of the most difficult tasks we face when assisting authors is maintaining their voice while revising. This is true for both fiction and nonfiction.

In a case where we take exception to the author’s style (maybe it is verbose or pedantic, maybe it is padded and flowery), we try to help the reader understand how his or her writing style may reduce reader engagement. However, as you point out, the writer’s style is…the writer’s, not ours.

If an author were to ask me which is more important, critiquing or revision, I would be hard pressed to answer. Perhaps the answer is determined by the author’s writing ability. Experienced, successfull authors probably need critiquing (development editing) more than revision, because they make the necessary revisions. Novice authors probably need one as much as the other. So, while they are different, they are both valuable.

Something that I learned when I crit others’ work is to keep in mind what you said: Don’t try to rewrite the story in your own voice. Sure, you can give out examples, but you have to make sure the person being critted understands that it’s what *you* would do, if you were writing the story. It would be so easy (and I have no doubt I was guilty of this early on) to just say, “I did it this way, and so should you.” That’s why I sometimes also include something along the lines of, ” I don’t want to rewrite what you’ve written because I enjoy your voice…” This lets the crittee (is that a word? lol) understand where you’re coming from, and that destroying the crittee’s voice is not your intention.

Of course, if the critiquer is nasty or insists that everything has to be done his/her way, then it’s definitely time to find someone else to look at your stuff. Life is too short to deal with that kind of crap.