I was prepared to take very seriously everything that people said to me. After all, they can't be wrong, this is just their opinion. They represent the people who will be reading my work, right? (I read that somewhre, but maybe I misunderstood.)
Anyway, I now have no idea whether my work is any good at all or can ever be improved! I've received contradictory feedback (I liked your dream sequence vs. the dream sequence confused me.) I've receieved feedback that makes me think the critiquer did not read carefully (completely missing a main point or asking me to metion something I did mention.) And for the novel chaptres I've had critiqued I've had impatient critiquers. (Confusion is one thing, but just being upset because I've failed to mention why so and so tried to kill so and so....grrrrr)
Point it, I'd like to start a discussion about how to take feedback. When is it useful? When do you reject it? How do you know if your writing group is just all wrong for you? If anyone else has had other problems or unique problems I've love to hear about it and how you decided to handle it.
Christine
I belong to a writer's group and many people read and critique my work. I have discovered that everyone has a pet peeve, if you will, a certain aspect in writing that they are always on the look out for. This is not a bad thing, as it is good to have them pointed out to you, but you have to temper everything people say. After three people point out that your dream sequence is confusing, then you might want to rewrite it and see if you can make it more clear. People miss things when they read. I know I do, and it doesn't mean that the writer has done a poor job. It means the reader did a poor job. Just let those things go, unless several people make the same comment.
Some things that people say can rub you the wrong way. You have to let those things go and try to look at your work as objectively as possible.
When you critique someones work always try to say positive things...it is nice to know what does work.
Marianne
I don't rely on critiques to tell me whether my writing is "any good at all or can ever be improved." When I submit something for publication a professional publisher will do that for me.
I don't expect praise from my writers group. If I publish something that's praiseworthy my fans will give that to me.
I like to think that harsh critiques could save my life. Without them, I might be tempted to quit my day job.
But you should concentrate on responding to concerns that are either widely shared, or that are addressed with specific tips on how to fix the perceived problem. The first represents a problem that you can't really ignore, even if no one gives you any helpful advice on how to fix it. The second represents a solution you can easily try and see whether you like the result.
Because critiques are dealing only with the stupid little black marks, critiquers have to guess at what the writer is trying to convey and they have to figure out ways that they think might help the writer to change those marks so they will do a better job at conveying the story.
As has already been said, you really only need to listen to two kinds of feedback. First, listen when several (three or more) people have a problem with the same bunch of marks--you don't have to listen to their suggestions on how to change the marks, but you do have to ask yourself why so many people have a problem.
Second, listen to those suggestions that help you convey the story better, that send a thrill through you or open your eyes a little wider--those are the ones that have hit on what you are trying to do with your story.
All other critiques and feedback may or may not be worth listening to, but you should at least try to understand where they are coming from. If something isn't clear to a reader, it's good to know that. If a reader gets a different message from what you intended, it's good to know that, too.
And remember, that yes, a critique is someone's opinion, and that someone could represent a portion of your potential readership, but every opinion is "tainted" (so to speak) with the reader's agenda and personal baggage. Some feedback is really not about your story but about the reader, and you have no control over that.
Also, beware of critiquers who tell you how they would rewrite your story. What they have to say may be just what you need to hear, but it may also be the most confusing stuff you've ever heard. It is your story, and you know it better than anyone else. What they would do with the same ideas is their story.
Just be sure to thank everyone. In fact, "thank you" is all you ever need to say in response to a critique.
When I critique someone's work, I read the work as I received it. I want to get a feel for the piece, before I start looking for errors. It is difficult to do but I try my best, and I leave my pen far away from me. After I've read it, I reread it, several times. This time with pen in hand. I write down where I have questions, when I'm confused, who is the POV character? Things like that. I try to avoid the "I'd write this paragraph like this." I don't think that's what the author is looking for, of course I'd write it different. I don't correct obvious spelling or grammer errors, unless I'm asked to. I will point them out if there are a few, and recommend a good proofreading, especially if there are alot.
If the author has asked specific questions, I will answer them the best that I can. I also remind them that all of my suggestions are just that, suggestions. You may use them or not.
I've received contradictory critiques on my work before. They're suggestions. You may use them or not.
quote:
After all, they can't be wrong, this is just their opinion.
That sounds familiar.
quote:
I quickly learned, however, that she can't possibly be wrong - the Wise Reader never is. Why? Because the Wise Reader is reporting on his or her own experience of reading.
[This message has been edited by teddyrux (edited June 02, 2003).]
On the purely subjective feedback, I consider it and weigh it against my own perception. I write for me because I was compelled to write a particular story; if I feel that my perception is absolutely the way I want to go, that's the way I go... even if that means that my story probably won't be published.
If just one person points out a flaw (that I disagree with) I may not consider it very seriously or change it. BUT if everyone or the majority see something one way, then chances are they've got a clearer vision of it than me. Afterall, as the author, I know everything about my story... if I fail to convey it effectively, that's my problem to fix and not the reader's problem to sort out.
So for me the bottom line is:
1) Is it a grammatical issue? If yes, I make the change.
2) Do I agree with the single person's assessment? Ultimately, it's my voice and my vision-- I may go it my way.
3) Do I agree with a group of people who say one thing? I'll probably go with the group perception.
I think part of my problem with my writer's group is that it's too small. Including me, there are exactly 3 people in it. I figure that means I'm only getting two opinions on whatever I submitted for critiquing. The other problem is while I'm focusing mainly on short stories right now, one of them has never even tried to write a short story (and has no intention of trying either) and the other seems to feel that because she has a degree in creative writing, she's always right. I find that their critiques often involve adding so much information to the story that it would become at least a novella, if not a novel. Don't get me wrong, I'm not expecting them to just tell me it's great and that's it. I just keep ending up feeling that their critiques aren't that helpful. I asked for and got some readers for a story here, in the fragments and feedback section, and found that even just one of their critiques, let alone all of them, were more helpful than anything I've ever gotten from my writer's group.
So I'm wondering, am I crazy for feeling that this writer's group just might not be right for me or am I just expecting too much from it? Are writer's groups like doctors, and you just keep trying until you find one that meshes well with you or not? I'd appreciate any help, cause the one good thing I'm finding with being part of such a group is that it keeps me writing, even when I get frustrated, and I don't want to give that up. I'm just wondering if it's time to try to find another writer's group.
Heresy
[This message has been edited by Heresy (edited June 02, 2003).]
quote:
beware of critiquers who tell you how they would rewrite your story....What they would do with the same ideas is their story.
)You could even take the optimist's approach and realize that a writers group full of Heresy clones would be worthless to you. You could learn a lot if you embrace the diversity of styles and backgrounds in the group, but then you must find strength in yourself. You must be strong enough that the diversity does not overwhelm you.
Yet, IMO, we need to know enough about ourselves (abilities, weaknesses, el al.) to get the most from the activity of the critique--to sift through the dross on top and find the comments that actually help refine our work. I guess in a perfect world, we are all there. But in reality, unless we have written for a while, and have developed this maturity, we will struggle in the process of refinement.
Isn't this the same in any endeavor? Music, baseball, quilting, school? We are the least effective at progress in the beginning stages, when it seems we need the most ability to improve. Maybe it is an eternal law that life is just this way.
Now, having said this (and I hope you don't think I'm off on a tangent), I don't feel we are best served by just any writing group. Some in the group will lack the ability to give meaningful help. Some, as stated, may feel above the other members because of 'education' or 'talent'. It will probably take some trial and error to find where we fit. I see an effective writing group as modeled on a functional family, where we encourage and help each other grow, without personal agendas. In such a family, members are at different levels, but no one really cares because they work toward a common goal. Until then, perhaps we can muster all the writing maturity we have, and bloom where we are planted. Or, we could make our own group.
That said, there are some I totally disregard. If someone says Who is this person? And I just mentioned them in the previous paragraph and in the last four chapters they were mentioned—a lot. Then I know it is reader error. If I use a word, one I know the meaning of without going to the dictionary—and someone says, I don’t know what this means---I ignore it. And so on.
The others I ignore are the ones that get a on a personal high horse. They pick something in your story that bugs them and they preach to you about modern views, political correctness, and attribute your character’s views to you and let you know about it.
I have to say that’s when I know a group isn’t for me. And the sad thing is that many times all the other members will jump on the band wagon and attack you as well. No, as soon as I see that coming I run.
Crit my story—not me.
Shawn
I agree that one should read through a story completely before picking up a pen and red lining. This is usually obvious when one starts to comment about not getting something, when a page or so later, the explination is in nice shiny black letters. - And yes, I have had people complain about things that if they had read further they would have gotten.
I try to point out grammatical errors in general terms, with a few examples. There is nothing more (well, few things) that I hate more than a comment like "if you just read it, you will see all the problems" because often I honestly don't. The problem as I see it, is that I'm too close to the story, and know what should be, as opposed to what is. And as far as hard to read... well, lets face it there are some very well known authors who it usually takes at least a few pages of reading before getting into their language, and then it flows easily to read. However, taking that into consideration could help later in the story.
Yes, I have had people tell me something like "you didn't foreshadow enough" in one story, then the next is "you foreshadowed too much", yet the amount to me didn't change - at least not much.
If you have a group of 10 people critiquing, and more than 3 bring up the same point, then definately jot that down for a rewrite. I would say that the other items should be made note of, so that when you are doing a rewrite that you have can look at that part and see if you feel it would still work if changed.
Another thing that I have noticed, is that with that even "mature writers" who know what their weaknesses are should be told when that weakness shows up. Personally, I tend to write in passive tense an amazing amount, sometimes this works in the story, and other times it doesn't. However, I also know that trying to write in a way that takes out all passive voice is a. amazingly hard for me, because I am bound to miss some and b. something that I really shouldn't do, because then my writing comes off sounding wrong and totally forced. - so in that case, it is nice to know what parts really need to be changed, as opposed to just a comment like "you're story is in passive voice, and you really need to fix it." Expecially when the entire story isn't.. but oh well. ^_^
quote:
I agree that one should read through a story completely before picking up a pen and red lining. This is usually obvious when one starts to comment about not getting something, when a page or so later, the explination is in nice shiny black letters. - And yes, I have had people complain about things that if they had read further they would have gotten.
I submit that it may be helpful for a critiquer to use red ink while reading the story for the first time, if the red is used to tell the writer where the reader/critiquer wondered about something or was confused about something or bored by something. (Even if things are explained later.) Those "wise reader" kinds of comments are very useful to the writer, and they aren't as likely to come to mind when the critiquer reads the story through later.
When I review, I try to make suggestions, and sometimes these do include rewrites of sentences or phrases that I thought were awkward. I try to always make it clear that it is just a suggestion, though...it is definitely up to the writer how to rephrase, IMO...I just think it makes the critique clearer when you provide examples, rather than just saying, "This is awkward."
I also only do line by line edits when asked, unless there is something truly glaring. Otherwise, I just give my opinion of how well the story worked and why/why not those elements worked for me.
I'll admit, I've critiqued some work (not from anyone on this board!) that is so poor that it was very hard to find something positive to say, but I do try to be encouraging.
I think personal attacks against the writer (like Shawn mentioned) are totally out-of-bounds, and I'm happy to say I've never been the victim of such a critique. However, I have experienced the sort where it is clear the reader marked things up either before reading the next paragraph where I explain something, or didn't read carefully enough to "get it." Those are particularly frustrating, and I confess I've rebutted one or two, although I know that flies in the face of reader/writer convention.
I also try not to criticize for the sake of critizing. In other words, I don't seek out every nit and pick just to strike a balance of negative and positive feedback. If the story works, it works!
I just finished Michael Chriton's Airframe. It's not the greatest book I've ever read, but I really admire the way he minimizes confusion. The book has a lot of technical terminology and reasoning, and Chriton never lets me go more than a few words before he anticipates and destroys the confusion. If you want to see a great example of handling very clear exposition, I suggest you read or skim Airframe.
The magic system of equations I got from reading Chriton:
suspense = good
confusion = bad
All in all, a good book without any of the fuzzy science hand waving that he has resorted to on other books.
Dave
What I didn't anticipate was Bob Richman's role. Casey distrusted him, but readers knew he was a true villain because of those scenes from Marder's POV. In the test scene I believed what Casey believed: that Richman was trying to kill her. In hindsight, I see that Richman snuck into the test to protect Casey from angry factory workers. Marder's scheme needed Casey alive. My hat's off to Chrichton for a clever scene.
BTW it looks like Disney has the movie rights to Airframe, and Demi Moore has been considered to play Casey.
