Instead of seeking feedback on a finished manuscript, authors can use a "writer's room" mid-process. Assembling a group to brainstorm and challenge plot points leads to a better final product because the author is less attached to the material and more open to fundamental changes.
Related Insights
Seeking feedback too early dilutes an original idea with generic opinions. Protect your unique vision until it's crystallized and can stand on its own. Only then should you invite taste testers (your target audience) to provide input and filter it through your vision.
In writing 'The 99% Invisible City,' one author focused on including the best possible individual stories, while the co-author prioritized ensuring they fit into a cohesive book structure. This creative tension forced them to justify each inclusion and resulted in a stronger, more balanced final product.
Early-stage ideas are easily killed by practical objections. To prevent this, implement a rule where feedback must begin with "Yes, and...". This forces critics to be additive and constructive, building upon the initial concept rather than immediately shutting it down. It creates space for a bold idea to develop before facing harsh reality checks.
Author Steven Pressfield advises against writers' groups for feedback. You risk getting input from peers who lack expertise and may be motivated by jealousy. This can be more destructive than helpful. Instead, find a single, trusted mentor who truly understands your vision.
To prevent creative stagnation, ClickUp's content team regularly brings external talent—like comedians or creators—into their ideation sessions. This "writer's room" approach injects fresh perspectives and helps "punch up" existing ideas, preventing the team from getting stuck in a creative rut.
To ensure rigorous vetting of ideas, create an environment of friendly competition between teams. This structure naturally motivates each group to find flaws in the other's thinking, a process that might be socially awkward in a purely collaborative setting. The result is a more robust, error-checked outcome.
Teams can cultivate a shared sense of taste by encouraging constant and rigorous critique of both internal and external work. This process allows the team to self-regulate, learn from each other, and elevate their collective craft without top-down mandates.
The "99% Invisible" podcast subjects every script to a live table read where the entire staff provides hundreds of written comments in a shared document. This process is intensely rigorous but culturally gentle, focusing on elevating the story without personal criticism.
The "99% Invisible" team uses shorthand phrases like "CWGHF" (Can We Get Here Faster?). This coded language transforms potentially harsh criticism into a shared, objective problem to solve, depersonalizing feedback and protecting creative morale during intense group edits.
When writing his book, Steve Garrity hired a developmental editor who did more than proofread. The editor cut 40% of the text and restructured the entire story to begin at the emotional low point, rather than chronologically. This highlights that an editor's greatest value can be in re-architecting the narrative for maximum impact.
