Excerptination (really, this time)

Given in my previous post, the definition of this made-up word is- "the stress on both the author and the critiquer caused by the limitation of the critiquer's not having readily accessible knowledge of the plot, setting and character development meticulously woven by the author throughout the entire work."

Every person who has been a member of a writing critique group has experienced the type of stress described in this definition.  However, we also know that not every group member receiving a critique who reverts to the excuse that "that's covered elsewhere in the book", has meticulously woven subtle, or overt, development of plot, setting and character throughout the book.  But for those who have, it is frustrating when a group member questions the way a character talks, or says he doesn't understand an event which the author has crafted to happen at exactly that time because he has skillfully prepared the reader to understand and react the way he wants him to.

An editor will tell you that a chapter should stand on its own, so that the agent or publisher will not be left with a feeling of disjointedness.  But a well thought out, developed strategy to set up a scene or character cannot be re-explained in the scene, nor would it be desirable to do so.

So, is the "elsewhere in the book" a lame excuse, or is it a legitimate answer, which holds no hope of satisfying the critiquer?  The answer is both.  Embrace the paradox.  Persevere.   Respect each other.  Move forward.