It's probably happened to all of us. You get up the nerves to send something to a few fellow writers to have a look and it comes back with nasty red marks all over it. (In many cases, figuratively speaking.) Some of them are minor things, a missed comma, verb confusion, a point of clarification that can be fixed with a sentence. Other times the brutal truth is that the reader did not fall remotely in love with our stories. The intro failed to hook, the characters failed to engender sympathy, or our writing style failed to mesh with them.

I've seen a lot of discouragement lately. Personal, yes, I've been a little discouraged on one project recently, but I'm not actually speaking of my personal experience at this point. I've been giving out lots of feedback lately, and I've seen a lot of cases in which the writers take it badly. It does not matter if I praise them for their magical three good things (always try to find 3 good things, or so I've been told), they see a major flaw in their writing and shut down.

QUIT IT! Every comment that I or any other critiquer gives you is our own personal opinion. You are not in any way obligated to make changes to your document. It is yours, after all, which is the beauty of writing. No one can forcibly take your words and change them.

And another thing. Do not defend your work. Response to a critique that you copmletely disagree with should be "thank you". Do not tell me why I'm wrong. I never told you I was right, I told you I had an OPINION about how to improve your work. Perhaps if you would like to reflect that "I agreed with you about thus and such," that would be ok. Or if you did not understand part of a critique and needed clarification, that would be ok too, but NEVER tell me I'm wrong and your right. What did you send the silly thing out for? Praise?

Oh, how silly of me, I think you did. I am getting the distinct impression, in fact, that a great many people are only looking for praise when they ask for feedback.

Of course I, too, have been guilty of despairing of critique. But the worst I do is to set something aside for a while to gain a fresh perspective. That is fine, but don't give it up. Take comments in the spirit in which they were given, learn what you can from them, and become the best writer you can be.

Simultaneously believe that you are the worst writer in the world and the best writer in the world. And when receiving feedback in particular, be sure to have both active at the same time.

quote:

---

Of course I, too, have been guilty of despairing of critique. But the worst I do is to set something aside for a while to gain a fresh perspective. That is fine, but don't give it up. Take comments in the spirit in which they were given, learn what you can from them, and become the best writer you can be.

---

Can we rant privately for a while first? I find sometimes that yelling at the ceiling moment very clarifying. Gets the frustration off the chest, so to speak, so that you can actually hear the value of the critism offers when you calm down a little later.

But all kidding (well, that's not really kidding, I have ranted at the ceiling after some crits, then later when I thought about it, found the way to work on the problems within the comments offered) aside, I have to agree with you, Christine. Why argue back? You can't argue back to editors, so why get into the habit now, and just annoy the people doing you the reading favor?

Actually, many times a writer could receive two conflicting suggestions from a critique. One person told me I had wonderful detail, but maybe add some. Another said it was too thick and that I needed to cut some.

Many times things said are reader error--it happens, but you move on. If you take crits as a personal attack what will you do with a pile of rejection letters?

No matter how much he wants to take criticisms and apply them, he will always defend his work in his own heart. Because what we write is US. It is our identity.

Sometimes it is as if someone was attacking our core beliefs without giving us a chance to defend them. It shouldn't be that personal, but it inevitably is.

I think the thing to remember is that a forum such as this can only do so much for us. We should not expect it to turn us all into natural born writers, or expect it to always positively refine our work.

The words on the paper (or screen) are not the beautiful story that is in the writer's head. They are a sad and poor expression of that story in an attempt by the writer to convey the beauty of the story to a reader. Even for absolutely wonderful writers, they are sad and poor expressions of the beauty of the story in the writer's head. Words on a screen or piece of paper just can't do it as well as the story deserves.

Once you look at the words that way, then you can see that all a critiquer can really do is offer ways to make those words do a better job of conveying the story to the reader.

Any critique that helps the writer with those words is a helpful critique. Any critique that doesn't help the writer with those words in not a helpful critique.

No need to take critiques personally. They are supposed to help the writer with a sad and poor expression of something beautiful. They are not commentary on the beauty of the actual story. Only the writer can see that because no one else can get into the writer's head. (If we could do that, there's be no need of those words on the paper or screen.)

quote:

---

It's probably happened to all of us. You get up the nerves to send something to a few fellow writers to have a look and it comes back with nasty red marks all over it. (In many cases, figuratively speaking.)

---

I'm just kidding. :}

Thank you so much for posting this. I'm feeling the stinging effects of a critique I received today. I'm so new at this, I guess I just need to get thicker skin...

Anyway, I think I'll cut and paste your "lecture" ( ) for future use.

One question: how do you know when the criticism is sincere and when it might be effected by an honest reaction I made to that person's work a few weeks previous?

I know, I should just "buck up," and shake it off, but as a beginning writer, I'm feeling discouraged enough to quit at this point...

Okay, tonight I'm going to bury my face in some Hagen Daas, and re-read the critique tomorrow, and try to look at it from a less personal point of view.

Not really relevant, I know, but still. Weird.

On the topic, though, I find that sometimes, I feel like the critiquer had no idea what he's talking about. I often feel like they're just attacking me to be mean, and they hardly glanced at the story.

Then I hit myself on the head (sometimes with a hard object, if one is handy) and tell myself I'm being a baby. When someone critiques my work, they're spending their time trying to help me out. They're taking time out of their lives to help me make my story better, and I can't say anything negative about that. So I try to take their advice to heart and change my story just a little bit, if it needs to be. Maybe they didn't see the perfect picture I have in my head, but that's my fault (usually *shrug*) and they're trying to help make it more perfect.

So I, for one, would like to raise my glass (though I'm not old enough to drink ) and toast the bold men and women who dare to critique.

CVG

PS--What? Snoopy got published? When did this happen?

quote:

---

One question: how do you know when the criticism is sincere and when it might be effected by an honest reaction I made to that person's work a few weeks previous?

---

Good question...although if you've got people who are exacting vengeance in your group you need a new group. I'll tell you what I think about receiving feedback. First of all, some of it will not ring true with what you are trying to do. This is either because they have not read enough to understand yet (as in a novel), they did not read carefully enough, or for one of a plethera of reasons they just got some weird idea in their head about your story. I've had critiques not ring true for all of these reasons. (sometimes it's obvious which it is, sometimes not, so perhaps I should say I'm pretty sure...) If it just doesn't ring true ignore it. Plain and simple. It's your piece, they offered a suggestion, you are under no obligations to take it.

The second type of feedback you may receive is something that, whether it rings true or not, is offered by multiple people. You should think about these. You still don't have to change anything, but you should think about it nonetheless. Here's something ironic. I had four people tell me once that a scene in one of my pieces should just be cut, it did not advance the plot. Four people, so I thought about it. I needed to do SOMETHING if four peple all agreed, but what I ended up doing was not cut the scene, but expand it! I made it two pages longer and added etail that made it more important and relevant. So in other words, if many people say the same thing you may just take their advice verbaitm, but in any case you might what to think about why they gave you that advice and if there are any ways that ring true that might address the issues.

Then there are things one person suggests alone that you go, yeah, I agree. So do that.

Then you've got people who seem to be reading your story to find problems with it. I have felt, from time to time, that feedback is reactionary rather than having anything to do with my story. But you know what? I still treat it in the same manner as I mentioned above. Does it ring true? If not, did a lot of people mention it? If so, is there some way to address the issue that does ring true?

Do not think of it as vengence, ever. You may be right, but you are more likely to be wrong, IMO. If the advice fails to require any change based on the steps listed above, then just ignore it and let the issue slide away. If you find that you are not receiving any good feedback in a group, leave it. If you find yourself leaving too many groups, you might wh at to consider if you are truly being honset with yourself.

On edit: Um, I mean deal with the problem, not deal with the pain of critique, although I guess that's another outlook. Hmm.

Snoopy's third book, Snoopy's Guide to the Writing Life, merely carries the editing byline (?) of Barnaby Conrad and Monte Schultz, and includes commentary from a bevy of well-known authors as well as the history of Snoopy's path to publication.

Very inspirational.

I quit posting in fragments and feedback after I got a crit on a short story (after warning readers it was dark, very dark--) that basically said I was sick for writing such a thing and anyone who liked such a story was also sick.

That's doo doo in a big way. If you keep away from any personal opinion and just make it about the story--then the person who receives the crit can use the advice.

Now if I say OK, this icked me out big time. OK, maybe that was the writer's goal--but to revert to name calling etc--stay away from there.

Saying that a story is sick, and even saying that pretty much anyone that reads that story is going to think the writer is sick, these sorts of things can be valid criticism. Saying that the writer is sick is just silly...it is still a useful criticism (because it is basically a naive way of saying the other two things), but it betrays a serious lack of literacy on the part of the critic. Of course, it may well be true, one wonders if anyone can write without being at least a little bit away from the path of perfect mental health, but anyone that has seriously written for any length of time knows to say "this makes the narrator seem like a sicko" rather than "you are a sicko!"

Still, it isn't "doo doo" as criticism. It is quite useful information, particularly if you know something about that reader's regular fare...so you can get a rough comparison. If somebody likes Stephen King and Octavia Butler but thinks you're a sicko...well, some people are quite likely to think your writing sicker than Pet Semitary and Blood Child.

My biggest problem is when my reviewers say stuff that just doesn't make any sense (like saying "show don't tell" ).

Okay, seriously, when I get critiques that don't make any sense, that drives me bonkers. The only thing that drives me more bonkers is when the critic apparently didn't even read the line right before or after the line being critiqued...you know:

quote:

---

text:
Fred opened the door to the basement stairs. A low moan came up the rickety wooden flight. Fred swore and started making his way down the creaking steps.

critique:
What the heck is a "rickety wooden flight" supposed to be?

---