And in any case, if the analogy held up, the writer is the one doing the moving, and the critic is the one commenting on it. Further discussion could refine the argument as stated. The writer---and the critic---should be prepared for it.

...oh, yeah, and one should always keep it polite and civil. If, say, extended comments degenerate into strings of obscenities, it's probably time to forget the whole thing. (My only severely unhappy experience with this ended this way---in his reply, not mine---after which I dropped the whole matter.)

The pizza and lemonade method of rewarding volunteer labor is much to be preferred.

And it is telling that Robert thinks it is more appropriate to reverse the analogy. It means that he thinks that the writer is doing critiquers a favor by allowing them to try and help him.

Or that he's oblivious to that whole element of the analogy.

1) Arguing with critiques is a waste of time. No one feels that arguing is useful.

2) It's always important for everyone to be courteous for any time spent or effort made.

3) Being rude is impolite, unwelcome and unnecessary.

4) Asking for clarification is useful since we all seek understanding and to improve our knowledge and skill.

For me as a "new member" I am trying to:

A) Improve as a writer by critiquing. I'm told one does the critique in order to learn what things I might be able to catch myself doing in the future.

B) Help others improve as writers by critiquing. I'm told one does this to help another improve their story and prepare it for a time when the writer will not be told much as to why the story is being rejected.

C) Get stories critiqued. I'm told one does this to help improve their skills as a writer and to have the story improved.

Overall I believe everyone has similar intentions. My intention is never to offend anyone and if I ever offend anyone while participating in either A, B or C then please let me know either via an email or on the forum. That way I can make amends for my mistake.

(Seriously.)

I remember once getting a rejection that mentioned a published story as something I should read. Well, I had read the story. I did not think it was a good story. I believe it went on to win awards, but I still didn't like it any better.

Am I right? Or are the others right, and am I just mistaken? Should I go with the majority, or maybe just the consensus? Or should I stick to my guns and stick with my original opinion?

I draw an analogy from a hiking class I had in high school. We went off as a group, on our own. At one point we had to turn one way. The group argued that we should go off one way, and I argued that we should go another way. (I had an insight by knowing the lay of the land; I'd been there before.) After a while, they went one way, and I went another. They got lost. I didn't.

quote:

---

Am I right? Or are the others right, and am I just mistaken? Should I go with the majority, or maybe just the consensus? Or should I stick to my guns and stick with my original opinion?

---

It depends what you're trying to achieve. For one thing, you need to be wary about incorporating too much from your critiques; ultimately, you're trying to write in your own voice, not in anybody else's (and it is entirely plausible to get diametrically opposed critiques; I've seen it happen).

But it very much depends on what the critiquer is saying. If one critiquer just doesn't like a particular phrase, but you do, then it may do no harm to keep it (Cf a recent thread where there was a marked difference of opinion over the phrase "The fat white moon shone, sad and perfect..."; some loved it, some hated it). But if the critiquer is saying "I was confused at this point" then you need to address that issue (particularly if it's been mentioned by more than one critiquer).

What I'm looking for in critiques is, I think, two-fold. Firstly, there's the basic stuff; although I proof-read and re-read and try and catch everything before I send out something for critique (Flash fiction obvisouly excepted...), there are things I miss, and if someone points out grammar problems (that aren't stylistic choices) or spelling issues, or deeply inappropriate word choice, or consitency/continuiity errors, then I'm really grateful to have those extra eyes watching out for me. But the primary purpose is to see whether the effect I'm having on my readers is the effect I''m intending to have. Are they drawn in? How do they feel about the characters? Do the action scenes have a real sense of tension? Do people think a particular line is funny? These are the things where feedback is vital. As author, you know precisely what you want to achieve with a given scene - but until you have readers, you can't possibly know if you've succeeded. Those are the crits you should really listen to, because if people don't get the emotions that you want, then you're failing in your job as a writer - because your job is to communicate.

You are confusing arguing with critiquers with taking every last bit of their advice. The two have nothing whatsoever to do with one another, I assure you!

I received a critique once in which several people told me that one of the strengths of the piece was strong characterization. This made me feel good, because I have often felt this is a weak area for me. Then, on the same piece, someone told me my characterization needed work.

Hmmmm. So, did I make changes? No! But neithe did I respond to her. What would that have served? She read it, had her opinion, and that's what I was looking for. What good is it to get anyone's opinion after changing their minds, even people whose opinions I think are flat wrong/

I ignored it. I thanked her for some of the other helpful tips she gave me, passed on that one, and went on with my life.

You incorporate two kinds of suggestions into your story:

1. Suggestions that resonate with you and what you are trying to do.

2. Suggestions made by many people. (If id does not resonate with you despite 20 people saying so, there may be other ways around it, but you should definitely take the advice seriously and consider what the implications are.)

Everything else gets thrown out, tossed away, put in the ignore stack. You don't mess with it and you don't mess with the people who said/suggested it. Chances are, they gave you fairly good critiques despite saying a thing or woo that didn't work for you.

Now, I believe you proposed "explaining" rather than all-out arguing. Once again, I don't think so. Unless the explanation of what you meant to do is to get them to clarify for you where you need to go, it is a waste of everyone's time. If you are simply trying to convince them that you're right, why? Why would you do that? What purpose does it serve?

I had two people read my novel WIP; one was of the first kind listed above, the other the second. I used every last suggestion the first person gave me. It was gold. The second person had a few good comments, but was largely off the mark. They wrote their critique like a literary analysis paper for an English class: "Good characterization...I'd like more theme. Maybe you could make _____ your theme, and center everything around that." Yes -- I ignored that. And her comment of "good characterization" was wrong, too. The first reader marked passages where he got mad at the characters for being stupid or acting like little children. He never wrote the word "characterization," but he pointed out when it went bad without fail.

So, I think arguing with someone who said, "this part was confusing," is silly, because, obviously, they were confused. I think arguing with someone who says, "cut this scene," is pointless, because they'll probably just get offended. (I occasionally make suggestions like that in critiques, but always hesitantly, and I start by stating the problem I was fixing. It's hard to resist...)

ARGUING: A direct confrontation. In critiquing, this occurs when someone gives you advice, whether bad or good, that you don't like and you tell them they're wrong because....

CLARIFICATION: A query. In critiquing, this occurs when you aren't quite sure about something and need a little more hep figuring out how to fix something, or whether to fix something. It is always phrased as a question and is never confronational or an argument.

IGNORE: To not pay attention to. In critiques, this means that a piece of advice that is, in your opinion, bad, is shunted aside rather than argued with.

AGREEMENT: To share the opinion of; to take stock in. In critiques, this occurs when a piece of advice resonates with you. Typically, you make a change based on this advice.

I probably offer far more commentary than people like in my critiques, simply because I am trying to share with them my thought process as I read. It's perhaps more in depth than I would think as an ordinary reader, but that is because I am TRYING to analyze what I am reading. I don't expect them to argue with me, or try to explain themselves.

I'm not offering to engaged in an extended conversation in which the writer and I analyze every paragraph, compare the writer's intent to my reaction, and discuss strategies to help the writer rework things to help them actualize their intent. I'm not offering to be the story's mentor. I'm just offering my reactions, and trusting that the author can identify the difference between my reaction and their intent, and can figure out what (if anything) to do to close that gap.

So for me that's the problem with explaining/justifying. It's not arguing - but it's extending the critique agreement to something beyond what I thought I was agreeing to. Most of the time, reading and commenting is all the time and effort I'm willing to put into a piece. Once in a while I'll go further than that, but it's rare that I have that much time and energy to devote to someone else's work. (Or even my own work, for that matter.)

Example:

Me: I thought the POV shifts at the end were confusing.
Author: Oh, but I was trying to convey the disorientation a person feels after being attacked by evil robot monkeys - I wanted the reader to feel as disoriented as my heroine.
Me: Uh, whatever, dude.

quote:

---

Thanks for the feedback. It seems to be getting close to what I want. I’ve never heard of Strontium Dog, so that was not an influence.

I agree with the comment about Henri’s profound wisdom in the mouth of a fool. It isn’t the right line, I haven’t found that yet.

As for what to take away from the story, you, my friend, are one of the few who already know the punch line. I’m not so sure I want to add anything else.

Aside from the reap what you sow line, does the ending work?

---

When I do a critique and ask questions, I am not asking them in order for the author to answer them (unless I say--at the very end--something about really wanting to know thus and such).

I ask questions in a critique so the author will know what questions came to my mind as I was reading. I consider these questions to be similar to OSC's faith, hope, and clarity. I ask variations on "oh, yeah?" and "so what?" and "huh?" so that the author will know what might need to be reconsidered in the rewrite.

Also, said arguing involves the special circumstances, like, say, one guy looking over the work of another guy...or this kind of bulletin-board forum posting, where a slice of this or that is presented. Seems to me there has to be a certain amount of give-and-take in a forum like this.

I can certainly see situations where that kind of arguing wouldn't work, would be completely pointless, would even be counterproductive. Say a bad book review, or an editor's rejection.

quote:

---

But if the writer has a reason for doing something one particular way, shouldn't the writer be able to present arguments in favor of doing it that one particular way?

---

No.

I (the critiquer) don't give a damn. You (the writer) are only trying to be right.

But guess what? You are right! It's your work and you cannot be wrong about your work.

The thing is, I'm also right. It's my opinion and I cannot be wrong about an opinion.

This isn't a debate over who's running for president. Back and forth and point-counterpoint is not going to win votes for a candidate.

No, this is a piece of art. Once it is put out there in the world it speaks for itself. The writer does not get to speak for it. Arguing in favor of the piece of art having been done exactly the way it is is redundant. The method speaks for itself through the finished product.

But the critiquer isn't "getting it?" You fool! DId you think everyone was going to read something exactly the same way? Did you suppose that your intentions would always ring through loud and clear? Do you think that defending your method to a critiquer today will make it all right for critiquers/editors/readers in the future?

Oh no, Christine! I already explained that to Beth, you see, and she understood after I explained it to her so it's all right now.

P.S. I feel like I'm getting more and more sarcastic as time goes on. I'm wondering if it's hormones or if I'm just not a nice person.

Have you ever said "Hi, how's it going" to someone, only to have them spend the next half hour telling you their life story? It's kind of like that. By reading and commenting, I've put in all that I'm willing to on your story.

One thing you might want to do, if you want to argue for the effectiveness of various techniques, is to open a discussion in *this* forum and argue the point more generally. If, say, you think that randomly shifting POV is a great and effective literary technique, start a topic and argue your point. You might learn more from exploring your argument in a broader context, and find people more willing to engage in a discussion.

Robert, I know it kinda seems like we're all picking on you. But you have to understand, we're just talking about what works here. It's that simple. Writing an argumentative reply to a critique...it's a very natural impulse. We're not saying that you can't feel that way. We're telling you that actually hitting "send" after writing such a reply will not help you get better feedback. It will quickly cut off your access to most helpful critiquers and soon you'll be left with the loons who feel like they have to win an argument with you.

Thanks for submitting your thread, "Arguing with Critiques." I'm afraid I'm going to have to pass on it. There's some nice writing here, but overall the thematic structure got a bit repetative and didn't hold my interest.

I remember one infamous occasion on which the impulse got the better of me and I engaged in a somewhat spirited debate with a critiquer who was insisting that men never, ever complained about illness. He was a psychologist and he KNEW!

I think what made me so annoyed wasn't so much that he was criticising my writing, but that he was telling me I was entirely wrong about reality. He was treating my experiences as of no account. Looking back, he may well have been right about his reality. Who knows?

Anyway, the argument was pointless, and nearly got me into trouble with the powers that ran the workshop. I knew perfectly well I shouldn't argue with critiquers, I just...forgot? got carried away?

There have been many occasions on which I have had to force myself to swallow critiques that I would dearly have loved to argue with. Or where I longed to stamp up to their door and point out that I knew perfectly well they'd only done the absolute minimum in order to get credit, and I'd be grateful if they left my work alone in future. Etc.

All that achieves, however justified it may seem at the time, is to get YOU the writer a bad reputation. Smile through gritted teeth and complain to your friends instead .

Answering critiquers' questions is another natural impulse I have learnt to quash--it's a question! must answer it! So if you really want me to answer something, please say so .

Descretion is the better part of valor.

Remember, I also consider this a two-way street. If I hand a work to someone for criticism and commentary, when I receive said C & C, I feel it may be necessary to respond...to ask for clarification, to explain my choices of story construction...but not to meaninglessly argue petty details.

What do you think of disagreeing with other people's critiques of someone else's work? For example, if on Fragments and Feedback someone said something about a fragment that you completely disagreed with, does it help anyone to say so?