Feedback Example: The Dead Zone
Republished with permission
Hello all! as part of of the Gibberish Writing Competition, I wanted to share the model and format of feedback that the judges used, so that you can see how it was done and also see what the Competition Winner,
, did with the feedback she received. I asked to share this feedback specifically because it seemed illustrative of the type of feedback I provided, and includes plenty of useful information for writers trying to improve their craft. I recommend you read E.B.’s entry for the first challenge here to refresh your memory, and then dive into the feedback.
Giving feedback is hard, and asking for it is even harder. This is a style and format that has worked for the Gibberish Writing Competition two years in a row, now, and it can be used to help with your own editing or when offering constructive criticism to others! Remember: it’s better to offer feedback like this, especially if it is unsolicited, in private. Many people who publish on Substack have an extensive editing process before publishing so may not appreciate a public line-by-line breakdown. Always offer your feedback with charity and good intentions, assuming that the writer has tried their very best.
All that being said, here is the feedback for EB’s story, “The Dead Zone”!
Feedback
Hi E.B., thank you for participating in GWC ’24. It is a privilege to read your submission for the first challenge, and I am looking forward to reading more!
Scoot’s Overall Comments
You promised to take a familiar trope and make it look new, and you sure as heck did that. Even down to the Tiger Shark, instead of the Great White. This was a master-class of tension and intensity. It wasn’t a perfect story—the ending confused me (and possibly ONLY me, but even so), and you included some characters who I felt didn’t add much to the story at all. I think you have the tools to take this story from good to great—you just need to make sure every element within the story is aligned to the “point” OF the story. Nevertheless, this was a THRILL to read.
Sara’s Overall Comments
Overall, this was incredible. Gripping from the get-go. The first-person narration was a great choice. The chase element occurring with a non-rational predator animal added a layer of anxiety I wasn’t expecting. The happy ending left me wildly relieved. (I was expecting Paul to get bitten or die!) My only questions/qualms would be (1) are there any places where you want to distinguish narration from active thought (ie, internal dialogue) and (2) whether some of the physiological language (most glaringly, “my amygdala was screaming at me”) is the most appropriate choice. In other words, would Paul really be thinking about his amygdala in that moment. Maybe so? Not out of the question. I just found myself a bit distracted by it. Otherwise, masterfully done from start to finish.
Categorical Review
Craftsmanship: You had the elements of craftsmanship I was looking for. A beginning, middle, and end. Tension, SO MUCH TENSION, and a satisfying (and safe) release. There are a couple things, I think, that could take this story from good to great. The ending, I note in the Characterization section, was a little confusing. I won’t restate what I said there—essentially, a little more detail would have made it obvious for people like me who might read too much into it. Foreshadowing, like a hint that this story is a retrospective. Perhaps if my initial read was correct that he moved inland and works now with chickens, it would serve as a kind of funny contrast to the story—a chicken hand getting chased by sharks! I think I might be wrong and he still works with sharks—perhaps he got “bit” by the shark bug. I think making this a little more explicit would help the story feel a little more well-rounded. If you include any element, make sure you tease it early, and stealthily, so it feels like payoff and not a digression. For this category I score you 3/5.
Characterization: I always like to begin reviewing this category with an inventory of the characters. We have Paul, the narrator. Dr. Ross. Chelsi, Liz, and Shawntel. And we had the Sharks. There’s not a LOT of characterization in this story, and I see how that’s kind of a narrative necessity. Paul is the one narrating so of all of the characters, we get the most from him. Was there room for you to give us more? Could the other characters have been developed more? The substance of the story was more or less the same—Dr. Ross was necessary, but what did Chelsi, Liz, and Shawntel really do besides witness the story taking place, and provide some flavor to it? At the end of the story, I had one question that I felt, if you answered it at the beginning and the end, might have given us a little more about Paul as well: “Does Paul even like sharks?” if he did like sharks, and then later did not—I think that would be a great proxy for his story arc. Sidebar—I was a little confused by the ending. At first, I thought the joke was that he was working deep inland with chickens, but I’m unsure if Lucy is a shark or a chicken! So, I remain unsure whether the harrowing experience changed Paul’s opinion of sharks. For this category, I score you 3/5.
Setting: This was perhaps the most effective use of setting in this first round of the competition. Calling the story “The Dead zone” (after the setting) lends it both an immediately ominous air and—also, it was scientifically descriptive. It served a purpose—it was the reason the Sharks were around. It served as both friend (safe travel, topic of study) and foe (desperately swimming, currents increasing distance). The setting participated in the story and I love that. For this category, I score you 5/5.
Pacing: The pacing worked. I was holding my breath, I felt like I swam 30+ yards after reading it. You sped us up and slowed us down—you put us on the edge of our seats. It felt, in a relative sense (as a reader) that he spent an awful lot of time NOT swimming while he was in the water—I think you used this time to offer some description, some thoughts, some exposition about the sensations. I was urging him on, and wanted him to keep going. I was genuinely afraid he was in mortal peril and I was afraid to read on. This was excellent and effective pacing. For this category, I score you a 4/5.
Technical Editing: Grammatically, almost no issues. Make sure to use the m dash instead of the n dash or hyphen when separating out clauses. Otherwise, just a couple unclear sentences. For this category, Sara scored you a 5/5.
Je Ne Sais Quoi: This category should be used sparingly, and not having a JNSQ score doesn’t mean anything is wrong with your story. This category is reserved for those stories that took our breath away and made us breathe a sigh of relief by the end, or made us cheer and audibly shout. I think Sara’s description of being “wildly relieved” by the happy ending explains why she found your story worthy of a JNSQ point. Scoot: 0/1 Sara: 1/1
Your Overall Score is 21/27
What do you think? What would YOU have scored EB’s first story? Do you think this style of feedback is helpful? Let me know in the comments! Thank you EB for giving me permission to share this feedback, and congratulations again on your well-earned win!
 | A guest post by
|