posted
I am not posting any lies at all. I do not want feedback. So why, you ask, am I starting a thread at all? Because I felt like sharing a flash of inspiration I had the other day....
Sometimes critiques hurt more than they help.
Why? It's probalby my own fault for not knowing when to take advice and when to leave it, but I've bee asking for feedback on multiple works lately, including one short story that I got feedback on, changed, got more feedback, changed, got more feedback on, and changed again! Forget the feedbackers liking or not liking the silly thing...I hate it!
So yesterday I took a short story I had written a year and a half ago and rewrote it, applying many of the things I have learned in the intervening time (in large part due to that critique I do not want on this particular piece). I went straight through with almost no hiccups. It was short, sweet, to the point, and completely fresh. I have not edited the life out of it, just made sure my spelling, and grammar were correct and rephrased a couple of awkward paragraphs. I have not critiqued the life out of it.
So without anyone else having read it but me, I am sending it off to the Writers of the Future Contest. It may not be perfect but it's mine, and I hope you will all wish me luck.
posted
I also sent my WoTF submission today, but I wish I was as confident as you.
The second it was in the mailbox I regretted not having waited just a little longer. I suddenly felt I should have asked for some more opinions or edited it again, or something! I came back to my computer and pulled it back up and instantly regretted the way the first sentence sounded. On the other hand, I admit it feels good to have actually sent something off into the wild world.
So in short, good luck to you, maybe we can be in the book together!
If critiques are getting to you, do without for a while. They're only useful to you if they help you figure your story out. If they're driving you crazy, you won't learn anything from them.
Random, good luck to you too! And once you send something, never look back at it until you get a rejection letter...then you can look it over again. Wait a minute, what rejection letter. Of course we will both end up in their anthology! Sheesh, silly me.
posted
I think critiques have their place, but as you know you cannot please everyone. People like different things in their stories. So long as you are happy with that, that is what counts. Good Luck Christine...
Posts: 575 | Registered: Dec 2003
|
posted
We have something in common. The first time you tried to apply some of my critical advice, I hated the result too. I've seen it happen before. As one that looks at it from the critic's perspective as often as not, I have to agree that the first thing to remember about critical advice is that it is advice.
Remember that, both when critiquing and taking critiques. When you read a re-write particularly, remember that the measure of whether it is better isn't whether the person has used your advice. I've seen literary atrocities commited in the name of using my advice, and if you honestly read a re-write of something you've critiqued, you'll see a few things that make you cringe too.
This is exactly why I'm so opposed to the critique approach where the critic prescribes fixes without saying what's wrong or how the fix makes it better. Unless you feel that the problem is obvious, and the superiority of the solution equally obvious, then explain both.
And keep in mind, as both critic and writer, that when one person finds something self evident and another person doesn't see it, there is nothing to be done. "Self evident" means that a thing is evident taken by itself; if it isn't evident to the writer, taken by itself, then it isn't "self evident" to the writer. If a critic finds the reasons for a change too obvious to explain and the writer doesn't see the point at all, then both need to simply leave it at that.
posted
I think one thing that makes critiques less than helpful is when they prescribe a cure.
example: I don't like such and such a part. I think you should write it like THIS.
Now, critique that I find very helpful is critique that explains to me the symptoms.
example: This part worked for me. I really liked/disliked/didn't care about this character. This part confused me. Etc. etc. etc.
Maybe it's just my writer's pride, but I generally pay a lot of attention to feedback about symptoms and pretty much disregard prescriptions. I like to figure out how to fix it myself. It's my story, not the critic's.
quote:Unless you feel that the problem is obvious, and the superiority of the solution equally obvious, then explain both.
quote:I generally pay a lot of attention to feedback about symptoms and pretty much disregard prescriptions
This is what makes critiquing so much a mine field. Sometimes the easiest/quickest/best way to explain something is to give an example of what you mean, yet often the critiqued doesn't like anyone putting "words in his mouth," especially if a critiquer's example goes somewhere the writer wouldn't.
I've been on both sides, and though I tend to disregard most creative prescriptions, they do tell me if the critiquer is on the same wave length as I. Consequently, they help me evaluate the rest of a critiquer's suggestions. But I have used a number of creative suggestions, tweaking them my own way, of course, so I can't say I've never found them helpful.
posted
I'll admit it. I am often guilty of giving prescriptive advice when I see something I consider to be a problem. It's my nature: I see a problem, I try to fix it. So unless I'm specifically told not to, if I have a suggestion that I think might strengthen a story, I make it.
From the other side, I have no problem disregarding advice that I decide I do not agree with. So I don't really worry about unhelpful advice.
Imagine two critiquers A and B.
Critiquer A gives you two helpful comments and no unhelpful comments.
Critiquer B gives you five helpful comments and ten unhelpful comments.
Who would you rather have as critic for your story?
I'd go with B over A any day of the week. I can easily disregard suggestions I disagree with. I cannot regard suggestions I never receive.
posted
I think my point, in this case (and it's fine if you guys want to stray and discuss your own critiquing experiences) was that there comes a time when perhaps it's just better to leave it alone and not bother to get any advice, helpful or otherwise. Too many edits can beat the life out of something. In an attempt to address issues brought up in critiques I have changed the very nature of stories such that I did not rcognize them as my own any longer. This is certainly my own fault. Nevertheless, I decided that enough was enough.
Now to respond to some of the other comments...I prefer critiques that only describe problems rather than prescribe solutions. I'm not afraid to ask for further suggestions if I don't know how to change something, I'm really not. I would prefer a conversation in which someone says, "I did not feel the anger here even though I was sure you main character was angry." and I reply. "Thank you, but do you have any thoughts on how I could make the anger more real?" and they say, "As a matter of fact, have you considered a more poignant inner dialogue and deleting phrases such as 'she felt angry'" Yeah, it's longer, but it's less threatening and it gives me the chance to consider the answer myself, which is part of the learning process. When someone does something wrong (and let's assume in this case that it actually is wrong rather than just an opinion) then it's better to first get them to think about how to change it before giving the answer. Of course in writing it is almost always opinion rather than truth, but this gives the author the opportunity to see if it is a common opinion or one of those weirdisms.
posted
I like a prescription, as we're calling it, as long as it is either obvious what problem the prescription addresses or there is an explaination. But when I can't see how the prescription is supposed to make the story or prose better, it's pretty worthless.
I don't think that I would ever recommend that a critiquer just stopped giving suggestions on how to fix something, I'd usually go in the opposite direction and ask for more solutions to any given problem, as long as the critic makes it clear what the problem is and how the solutions address it.
posted
I just read several critiques of my "Lunch Hour" story. I have to admit that it's a little intimidating how good the advice was. I was very proud of my silly little story, so I was amazed to see so many problems (obvious ones!) pointed out.
I'm still waiting for a couple more, so I won't go into detail, but I've already learned that my biggest problem is that I've been expecting my readers to assume things that I'm not telling them.
Because I thought they were obvious mental leaps, I never would have suspected the confusion that resulted from my omissions and poor description.
Maybe after I've had many more stories critiqued, all the major issues in my writing will be repaired. Until then, I'm sure I'll find them invaluable.
Christine, perhaps you've just reached a point where you are skillful enough that additional critical advice is interfering with your storytelling. If so, congratulations!
In my case, I'm just now succeeding in tamping down my pride, so that I can make good use of the critiques I get. That has required some difficult mental acrobatics, but I can already see it paying off.
It seems to me, you are near the end of a road I'm just starting down. I wish you the best of luck on your new path.
quote:Christine, perhaps you've just reached a point where you are skillful enough that additional critical advice is interfering with your storytelling. If so, congratulations
No such thing! Even professionals get feedback. OSC's wife is his primary wise reader, as my husband is mine.
There are things we won't see until someone points them out to us. We are too close to our works no matter what. It is possible to get to a point where an established critique group can no longer add anything of value to your writing, but it is absolutely impossible to get to a point whrere feedback is completely unnecesary.
posted
This is probably quite true, but sometimes the best advice is simply to polish and submit. Even that should be accompanied by an explanation, though.
Posts: 8322 | Registered: Aug 1999
|
posted
I guess I was a bit heavy-handed there. When you're developing any skill, you go through periods where you need others to instruct you and periods where you need to discover things on your own. I imagine that's been part of the human learning process since the beginning. You see the same process in nearly all of the "apprentice becomes the master"-type stories.
I was congratulating you on your transition to the next phase (journeyman?) in your development.
But, hey, what do I know? I'm still the scruffy, smart-mouthed apprentice.
quote:I've been asking for feedback on multiple works lately, including one short story that I got feedback on, changed, got more feedback, changed, got more feedback on, and changed again! Forget the feedbackers liking or not liking the silly thing...I hate it!
Before you get to this point on a story (and sometimes, even after you do), perhaps the best thing to do is to take all of the feedback and all of the rewrites and hide them (or round-file them--whatever gets them out of your sight).
Then sit down and write the story all over again without any notes, straight from your head. You may have to wait a while before you are ready to do this, especially if you have come to hate the story, but waiting won't hurt anything.
This is perhaps the best, if not the only, solution to rewriting something to death (or hatred).
posted
Yes, Kathleen, I believe you are correct. I may rekindle the story in a few mon ths, perhaps with a new twist I haven't thought of yet. Posts: 3567 | Registered: May 2003
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic
