In my novel-reading group, the things that A doesn't like in my novel, I'm committed to doing. So I keep doing them. The things that I want her to fix, I don't know how to express what's not pleasing me. I critique B's novel, and then I get the next chapter, and the same problems are in that one. Then C invites me to send her an updated copy after I fix the problems -- bless her for helping -- but I don't want to do what she says.

And I read a short story I'd critiqued earlier, and find that everything that threw me out is still there, unchanged. I'm not the only refusenik.

Do we help each other?

Then, after a year, I reflect on what everyone has said about my chapter 1. Finally I think: OK, you *all* say it has this problem. I'll stop ignoring you and fix it. Much as it pains me!

I have so much to learn, and it's great to have so many brains around to learn from. I have learned most by critiquing, but the two times I have posted my own work have also been extremely helpful. And humbling.

There are things I don't feel like changing, and I think that's ok. After all, it's my story, not theirs. We don't go the store to by our own books - we buy those written by other people. People who write the story a little differently than we each would have. But I still try to learn from what people tell me.

What I think you're getting at, though, is valid. We all have times where we get stubborn. What's funny, though, is something you may not have realized you were saying. (Maybe you did, though.) There's another attitude that we all assume at times. You use 'refusenik' for someone who adamantly holds on to their work without implementing the suggested changes. However, consider the person who made suggestions and then was upset that they weren't obeyed. So whose attitude is worse: Person #1 who decided not to implement the suggestions, or Person #2 who made suggestions and then called Person #1 a name for not taking them?

(I'm playing devil's advocate here, not slapping your wrist for what you said. Refusenik is a great term, and I'm guilty of being one myself!)

Do we help each other? Yes, when we're 'professional' and friendly and supportive. When we communicate.

What baffles me is when someone asks for feedback, then receives it, then emails the critiquers to tell them how useless and irrelevant their feedback was. This is a breakdown in communication. It makes me sure I will most likely never bother to give that person feedback again. This is not the attitude or outcome we want.

Well, first, we are learning what the flaws are. We do that by seeing them. We can't usually see them in our own work until we see them in something we aren't emotionally attached to and something we don't know so well that we don't see the mechanics that go into it.

Once our eyes are better trained to spot these flaws, seeing them in our own work is much much easier.

Every single thing about writing is an opinion. This is an art, not a science. Everything is subjective. Granted: if you want to go wild with punctuation and spelling, things most of us see as right or wrong, you'd better produce one heck of a work of art. But all the rules are flexible and there are always exceptions. No ones opinion is absolute.

As writers, we must sift through all the comments for the ones that will actually help to make the story better. Look for people who are trying to steer you closer to what you hope to achieve. Ultimately only you can produce your stories. But after seeing what doesnt work with eyes that are not clouded by attachment or familiarity, you can produces better stories.

I would have said "what works or doesn't work" but honestly, when it works, it works and we just don't notice.

The goal of writing the first 13 is to write something that people will get to the end of and care about the story more than the mechanics that went into the first 13.

I have not posted anything on fragments, but, as I have read some critiques I have wondered what I would feel about some of the things being said, if they were said about my fiction.

I have sent “technical” papers to peers to edit and critique. It never bothers me when the paper comes back slashed with red lines, sentences have been reworked, words have been changed, and whole paragraphs have been deleted. I actually like those critics the best. Why? – Because I know I am not very good at the technical aspects of writing and so I don’t feel anyway about those sentences and words. I am just interested in having the content of those technical papers be as clear as they can be.

But when it comes to fiction, I think I do have an emotional attachment to my words and my sentences. Maybe I should think of fiction more like a technical piece, I have a story that I want told…and I want to tell it as clearly and as interestingly as I can.

But somehow, with fiction, it seems that there is more to it then that.

As, I think, D_James_Larkin was inferring in response to my “introducing myself” post, writing is an art combining technical skills with the creative.

The creative and the technical, when it comes to writing fiction, are both separate and they are not.

I think seeking critiques from one or two readers is often bad news. Especially in early drafts. Later, as you hone the story, it may be valuable, but early on you want to learn consensus, not spelling and grammatical errors, not comma splice directives nor gerund imperatives. You want to know what the story provokes in the mind of the reader.

I try to keep technical stuff short and sweet and tell people, 'this is a great story because...' or 'this really has problems because...'

If I were a diamond miner I'd prefer help in appraising them for potential value and in identifying flaws within the stone rather than someone pointing out all the surface scratchmarks I can buff out later. I don't want to waste my time putting a perfect polish on a lump of coal.

Don't know if I learn much from critiquing other work, other than what a flaw looks like, but do learn a lot by having to put my delights and or concerns into coherent sentences.

If you are having a conversation with someone, you can ask questions and get clarification on a confusing issue. The only feedback an unpublished writer has is from those willing to critique.

It costs nothing to know where the reader gets confused. And I figure there is value in percentages... if only one person in the group comments about a particular passage, I don't have the same reaction as if everyone comments about it.

I have found the crits that explain the person's thinking help me make a judgement call. One of the guys in our group tends to add comments like: "This action/behavior makes me think XXX is going to happen..." This sort of comment is incredibly valuable to me. If he has made a connection I WANTED the reader to make, I am thrilled. If he's going down the wrong path, maybe I need to lay down better breadcrumbs for him to follow.

So what should you change? Now that is up to you, but one trick I use is to compare critiques. If two people have a problem with a particular section, like it or not, something is not clear or needs to be improved/fixed. How you go about it is your choice. You can look at the suggestions and see if they make sense and whether it is something you agree with. Step one is determining that something should be done. From there it becomes easier to make those changes.

How do you deal with those who get upset when you don't do what they say? That one is up to you as well, but I would just let them know that I appreciate their suggestions but I don't have to agree with thier solution.

Writing is first and formost a way of communicating something to someone else. The ability to convey that information to someone else the way you intended it to get across is something we should all strive to do well. If the sentances are vuage, and the story is confusing, then the reader is left confused. The art of writing is using the all of the different skills needed to craft a story. Just having a good idea and being able to put it down doesn't make it great, or even worth someone's time reading it.

Overall, I have learned more from critiquing than any other exercise I have been involved in regarding writing. One thing I try to adhere to, is the rule of three. If Crit(A) says something is wrong with a paragraph, I might pass it by. Even if Crit(B) says pretty much the same thing I might weigh the thoughts heavily and change it if I feel it needs changing. But, if Crits (A,B & C) all say that there is a problem with said paragraph, it definately needs changing. I may not change it the way they think it needs changing, but that is my decision. No matter the outcome, I think the story needs to stay in my preferred voice, not someone elses.

quote:

---

I hate it when someone tries to rewrite the sentance or section of my work for me.

---

It's a standard practice to give a sample sentence when teaching vocabulary, or grammar lessons. Were you offended when you took English classes in high school if your teacher gave you sample sentences? Then why be offended if someone uses the same technique in a crit?

(1) When I put up something for critique, I hope to learn something helpful.

(2) When I critique something, it breaks down into two separate segments: (a) I hope to be able to tell somebody something helpful, and (b) in the process, I hope to learn something I can then apply to my own work.

So if your skills have progressed beyond the critiquer's skills in an area, then you aren't likely to learn anything new from a strictly mechanical point of view. In those cases, ignore those things and focus on their comments on the story itself.

If you have mastered the written language well enough, then most of the comments from a critique will probably be on the story anyway (things like plot, character, POV, and so forth) which I find useful, even if I don't agree.

I can sypathise with the author that gets ten critiques and can't decide what to do because there is so much disagreement within them. In those cases, you probably should stick with your guns and not change anything too much. Remember, when asked to critique a story, most readers are going to think that they are supposed to find something wrong, and have that mindset. It's difficult to get a real reader's point of view from a critique, so don't worry if they find little things wrong, just worry if they liked the story as a whole.

If someone complains about your grammar it means they complained about it. That does not mean that your grammar needs to change.

The same goes for POV or character development or descriptive style or anything else. There is no right way to do anything, but you should always be aware of what you are doing. If someone complains then it might mean they did not find it entertaining, or it might mean you did something without realizing it. Either way, that is useful feedback.

There are acceptable practices to writing, they do change as time goes on, but most publishers would only entertain obsucure writing if it were done so well it was extrodinary. Sadly, those that could pull something like that off are few and far between. I've done some crits on stories that supposedly used intentional rule breaking. I don't think the writer had even the half a clue I had about what the rules are.

So if you wish to have a story accepted by an audience of readers, then yes, it will have to be in a form acceptable to those readers. And most of the time it will require solid pov, and grammar that is not horrid. I will agree that the best stories are the ones where the writing is transparent. If the writing draws my attention to it, over the story it is supposed to portray, then the writing could definitely be better.