Anyone else find this, or something else, or have some different but related thoughts on taking critiques?

Heresy

On the other hand, I don't mind at all when a writer emails back to me and says something like, "Does this clarify that passage?" and includes the amended passage.

[This message has been edited by Netstorm2k to remove the phrase:[This message has been edited by Netstorm2k (edited January 10, 2005).]]

I've had some incredibly wonderful and helpful critiques and I've had some critiques where I'm completely dumbfounded by what the critiquer said. HUH??? And I've given critiques in which the writer told me I was, hmm, what was the phrase, 'harming his creative confidence' I believe. Ouch.

Either way, you just don't respond to a critiquer with anything more than a "Thank you!" (Note the inclusion of the ! Doesn't matter if the critique sucks rocks, you still include it.) unless you want to clarify something that was said. I usually don't even do that. I generally have enough critiques that I don't need to nitpick over one thing that one person said. I can generally get the gist of it by comparing and contrasting what the others said.

Also, when someone takes the time to read and comment on one of my stories I'm DARNED (I'd use a stronger word here if we were in cruder company) GRATEFUL! Even IF I don't agree with anything they said--and I find that doesn't often happen. Even the WORST critiques have something worthwhile if you dig deep enough.

Along with the maturity to resist the temptation to respond negatively to a critiquer's comments, I respect the maturity of a writer who, instead, searches and gleans those comments--the good and the bad--for the knowledge he/she needs to improve their writing.

That's what it's all about. No one is here to get off on hurting other people's feelings. OK. Maybe ME! Right, Castaway? Seriously, who in their right mind has the time to do critiques solely for the power trip?

If I say "I don't think the evil robot monkeys are scientifically plausible in your story," I don't want you [the generic you] to write back and tell me all about how no, really, they could happen, and try to convince me that I really shouldn't have been confused and disappointed by that part of your story. I'm offering a reaction - take it for what it's worth, but don't try to talk me out of it by justifying what you wrote.

imo.

I have a sort of protocal for how I like to handle responses to critiques (both ones I give and those I get). There are several points to be discussed.

First, under all rules of communications etiquette, the recipient of any communique has the right to ask for clarification and amplification of any points that seem unclear or confusing to the recipient. Naturally, under the common standard that we usually apply here, the sender has the option of ignoring the request for clarification. Also, a sender has the option of sending a clarification that ignores almost any form of etiquette that could have impaired the clarity of the original message.

Second, the recipient of a critique should take any questions asked by the sender at face value, and may answer them in the manner suggested by the sender. For instance, if a critique specifically suggests that a question should be answered in the text, then the recipient may send an answer that is worked into the text somehow (a quotation of a modified passage is acceptable, in most cases). Likewise, if the sender of a critique specifically asks for a straightforward answer, then don't be cute and work the answer into your next version (the sender probably wanted to know the answer in order to give you better advice about how to tackle that next version).

Third (and this is actually sort of a sub-catagory of the first, but deserves separate treatment), if a critique really hurt the recipient and the recipient has reason to believe (or simply wants to believe) that this was not the intent of the sender, then a request for consolation (no, don't request an apology or send a counterattack) is perfectly acceptable.

Fourth, a heartfelt expression of gratitude is always allowed. Note that this rule does not permit form responses that indicate only that you have received the requested critique. Since it is normal for an e-mail to get through in a timely manner, it is only necessary to note when an expected message has not arrived. Thus, sending a message that merely indicates reciept of the critique without expressing any real gratitude is quite rude. If you have nothng to say, then say nothing.

Anyway, these rules allow for quite a bit. For instance, if I told you that evil robot monkeys were impossible, then you would be allowed to ask me to clarify what particular elements were impossible in an SF story, the idea that they were demonically possessed by the powers of Hell, the idea that they were robotic, the idea that they were monkeys, or some combination of the above (such as the idea that robots/monkeys could be demonically possessed, or that something could be simultaneously a monkey and a robot).

Or if you were writing the story because, in point of fact, evil monkey robots had killed your entire family and writing this story was the only way you could express your grief, then you could ask for consolation.

My current critique group actually gets into discussion post-critique. I love it as long as it stays just the way it is. I have yet to see an argument with any point made. Often, the author wants clarifications and further suggestions. They ask follow-up questions such as "What did you think this story was about?" They point out struggles they continue to have and wonder if anyone has further suggestions for unwravelling plot holes or the like. This form of response, which does go beyond a thank you, has been highly useful for me.

What bugs me is the lack of interaction with the one who wrote it. I guess I actaully wanted to chat about it. If he felt I was offbase about something, I wanted to know.

In the first writing group, I told everyone, 'feel free to critique my critique'. Alas, it disolved before anyone had time to do that.

And it could be that the critiques are at times not expansive enough to be clear. Something like, 'this concept is feeble' isn't enough. How? Why? Explain. Discuss.

Promoting an atmosphere of 'don't question the feedback', might stifle some from even asking for clarification (particularly if the feedback is cryptic).

At times, even if the writer seems to object to the feedback, it doens't necessarily mean they're not learning anything, or taking it to heart.

But I think that you are conflating the concepts of "asking the critiquer for clarification" and "arguing with the critiquer."

I agree with you that writers should feel free to ask their critiquers for clarification or elaboration of the critiques. A critique isn't much use if it doesn't make sense to the one for whom it was given.

On the other hand, arguing with the critiquer should be discouraged, for reasons already well-stated by others in this thread, but which out of an inordinate love for my own typing I will restate:

1) Critiquing has to be an objective enterprise in order to be effective. Arguing with a critquer demonstrates a lack of an objective mindset on the part of the author.

2)Authors have no opportunity to follow-up, to explain, to clarify what they write to the reader. All the reader gets is what is in the book. Unless an author plans on scheduling an appointment with each individual reader to explain to them why the ninja-robots were scientifically feasible and why all the description in the third paragraph was just unavoidably neccesary, then that author is wasting several people's time by practicing those arguments with a critiquer.

Yep, when it ends up on the slush pile, we won't be able to be by the editor's side to defend it.

And a few times, I've read the same piece, before and after. The writer (much worse than I, in another group, truthfully nobody here) did not implement anything I suggested. It had the same problems. And I did have the attitude of 'why didn't they listen? why did I go through the effort?'

Who of us is honestly objective though, when it comes to our own writing? And that's why we need people to read it.

As for me, when I read something I did a year ago, I cringe. A year ago, I may not have understood what the person was saying. But the fact I cringed, must mean I've learned what they were saying or am now objective about the piece.

Our writing is not unassailable, and neither are our critiques.

On the other hand, proffessional critics do come of as brash and arrogant.

The problem with George Lucus is that he argued with his fanbase.

I am delighted to clarify anything in a critique that the writer didn't understand. If they don't get it, then it's not helpful and I'm writing a critique to try to be helpful. Mine tend to be fairly long-winded because of that. The dialogue with the writer can be quite fun and it often clarifies problems in my own work. There's nothing quite like spotting a problem in someone else's writing and turning back to my own to see the same flaw glaring out at me. rickfisher once pointed out that I overused the word "that". I had a grumble, grumble moment and then did a find/replace to see how many I could delete. I shortened my novel by ten pages.

Now to clarify, though, are these robots that look like monkeys or are they actually cyborgs?

As for responding to critiques...

If I don't understand why a particular comment was made, or can't figure out how to "fix" it based on the feedback I received, I will e-mail back and try to get clarification. Sometimes I'll explain what I was going for and ask for ideas on how to show it better in the text.

And I agree, asking for clarification is a great thing, if you don't understand what they said or where they think they're getting this impression from. Further information (which could be called further critiquing) is a good thing and asking for it is very different from arguing with the critiquer.

And djkdakota, thank you so much for the compliment. I'm not sure I've ever been called wise before. I like to think I'm wise enough to acknowledge what I don't know, and be open to learning more about those things.

This reminds me of a saying I've heard many times, and just now looked up on the web.

One website calls it

A Persian Proverb

He who knows not,
And knows not that he knows not,
Is a fool - shun him.

He who knows not,
And knows that he knows not,
Is a child - teach him.

He who knows,
And knows not that he knows,
Is asleep - wake him.

He who knows,
And knows that he knows,
Is wise - follow him.

Another website credits

Author: (Ibn ) Gabirol

There are four types of men in this world:
The man who knows, and knows that he
knows; he is wise, so consult him.

The man who knows, but doesn't know that
he knows; help him not forget what he knows.

The man who knows not, and knows that he
knows not; teach him.

Finally, there is the man who knows not
but pretends that he knows; he is a fool,
so avoid him.

And I quit my search there.

All four kinds of people critique, and all four kinds of people ask for feedback (not necessarily critiques, mind you--I submit that the fool expects only praise and argues when he doesn't receive it) on their work.

Meltdown! Meltdown!

I think that the story we want to write is inside us. The critiques help us clarify our own thoughts and ideas as well as know whether we have achieved our aim: to tell the story.

Because a critique is that reader's opinion, and nothing more. You are free to disregard it, but the second you start to argue over it you are putting yourself in the logically untenable position of claiming that the sender of the critique did not really hold the opinions expressed in the critique.

Now if you happen to have a video of the sender being deeply moved and crying tears of sublime joy, and then got a critique in which your text is described as bland and cliche etc., then perhaps you could pick a fight over that. Still, that isn't quite an argument.

When readers tell you the way the story affected them personally, you have to take those people at their words. If you even feel the impulse to argue (as opposed to the impulse to ask for clarification or consolation), that means you're forgetting that the critique is an opinion. True, as a writer your entire effort is dedicated to the opinion of your readers (if your writing only for yourself, then don't ask anyone else to read your writing, either), but the only valid means that you have to change someone's opinion of your writing is by writing well in the first place (or in the rewrite ).

Also, if you remember to phrase your "argument" as a request for clarification or consolation, then you are likely to get some useful results.

For instance, if people say that they simply do not buy the idea of evil zombie ninja robot monkeys, then you could argue with them, or you could ask them what it would take for them to accept the idea. And it is very likely that they will tell you some things that could make the idea a bit more tenable.

"I'd buy ninja robots, or zombie monkeys, but I simply can't see how something could be both."

"Monkeys are so cute that they couldn't possibly be zombies, even if you implanted them with cybernetic devices that caused tissue necrosis."

"Ninjas have been slandered in the popular media for too long already, I think that evil ninjas is just one of those totally unacceptable cliches."

"Zombies are victims of evil, they are not of themselves evil beings...."

I've found recently one forum in spanish which echoes the structure of Hatrack. I was terribly disencouraged when I read the postings. Flame war all over the place. No intend of helping anyone. Just being smart and nitpicky.

Ah, djvdakota, I know I've said something similar before, but here I go again. The thing about being honest and trying to help with one's critiques is specially true in your case. Don't feel paranoid at all. One of the things I pity more of writing in spanish is losing the posibility of hearing your opinions.

Edited to add: Thanks Kathleen for the proverb.

For me all critique is usefull so long as theres a reason to explain why. Personally I hate it when people say "well that was crap" but dont justify thier opinion. Where as if they explained what they didnt like I'll listen, however and this is always a biggy, its always good to explain what you did like, that way your offering a sweetner to offset what you thought was so wrong.

Still, I often worry that I don't do enough of what has been said recently--I don't think I dwell enough on the positive of a piece. Generally, though, in receiving critiques, I figure if nothing is said over a long stretch of narrative it must at LEAST be good enough that there's nothing overtly WRONG with it.

But since my time is fairly limited, I think (and I hope I'm right) that someone receiving a critique from me would rather have the helpful stuff than to have me do a less thorough critique that includes a balance of comments on the stuff that was done right.

I try to make critiques useful. You can often gauge the level a writer is at in there development with their first submission. I think we should take that level into account when critiquing.

I remember in highschool art class there was one girl who was really starting to develop as a painter. But we had a teacher who, for whatever reason, told her that she should stop trying to make her pictures look 'real' because she would never get there. He said 'You've got an artistic flair but no real talent.'

She was devastated, stopped painting and the next year dropped art class entirely. Was he trying to help? Probably, I am not sure.

The further developed a writer is, the less likely that they will 'choke' on a critique.

It sounds like I'm advocating a beat-around-the-bush approach, but rather I am saying to adapt your critique to compensate for the writer's level. If they are a tender bud, maybe give them one or two things to look at. If they are a gnarled old branch ( like DJVDakota ) let 'em have it!

quote:

---

Ah, foolish Goatboy. That's impossible. Why on Earth would Demonically Possessed Ninja Robot Monkeys come from Venus? That planet is way too sucky for ninjas.

---

How do you critique? What are some of the techniques you use?

I know we've had threads on critiquing in the past, but it has been a while.

http://www.hatrack.com/forums/writers/cgi/forumdisplay.cgi?action=topics&forum=Ways+to+Critique&number=21&DaysPrune=1000&SUBMIT=Go

I go over these lists once in a while just as a refresher.

Second, as far as I'm concerned, if I have time to read and critique all at once I give the story a single read through, making notations as I go. Why? Because that's all you're likely to get from a potential audience, and if the story is flawed, much more than you're going to get from an editor. You should very much have the benefit of a reader's first impressions based upon that single read through. If things aren't making sense, you need to know it on the first read through, because your audience generally isn't going to go searching back through the text to try to connect points A and B that your narrative didn't clearly connect. They'll just give up and put it down, never to be picked up again.

Sometimes I'll do a second read-through. If that happens I'm usually going back over for my own clarity of thought as I feed my jotted-down comments into the text.

The same thing happens with writing, I think.

In the few times I seen parts of the show, I've never heard anyone say, yes you can sing, but not at the professional level. Canadian isn't much different, but I heard them at least say things like, you have some talent, but you are not a pop singer.

It goes back to the "this is great/this is crap" type of critique. It doesn't help the person who happens to be on the receiving end. Of course, choosing to argue with someone like Simon, is counter-productive. Especially since you know going in what sort of response you are likely to get.