posted
I wrapped up “One Great Way to Write Short Stories” (Writer’s Digest Books 1998) by Ben Nyberg, and thought the following excerpt aptly described the importance of critique groups:
“The process of writing inevitably engenders a felling of closeness between you and your work. It has often been likened to the bond between parent and child. Just as a parent finds it hard to see the flaws in their offspring, artists have difficulty spotting defects in their artefacts. Knowing all the work you’ve put into it you, you are likely to be so impressed with your stories strengths that you overlook its weaknesses.” - Ben Nyberg
Though if a writer doesn’t engender that bond to his writing, could he write anything worthwhile? So presents a difficult paradox. The story needs to come right from the womb of our imagination, and reflect all our craziness and passion… But at the same time we must stand back and look at it as if was another’s persons work.
Does that sound at all right?
I find critiquing other people’s work has made a dramatic improvement in editing and revising my own. This state of mind is growing, where I treat my own manuscript like someone else’s writings. I fill my pages up with the same notes I write others, but for myself instead, to follow-up on later.
Things have become much more systematic and effective. It hass because easier to switch from “writing mode” to “editing mode”, which I’m starting to discover are not all the same thing, and probably best kept as separate.
posted
I had myself convinced that I treated my story like the ones I crit.
Wrong. Since receiving feedback on a couple of my stories, I saw that I had not been listening to my internal editor closely enough. Several of the points people made were things I felt uncomfortable with in the story. Why didn't I listen!
I think, for me, a wise reader will always be necessary.
posted
I believe that writing and editing are, and should be, treated as completely separate skills. Too many writers don't realize that fact.
Think about it: writing is a right-brained, creative process. When you are in a writer's mind, the ideas flow and you can open yourself up to inspiration. Editing is a left-brained, analytical process, looking for flaws, filling in missing pieces.
Most of the time when someone complains about writer's block it's because they are stuck in editor's mode and not allowing their inspiration to flow freely. Writers forget at times that they can ALWAYS go back and edit--later. Sometimes you have to tell the internal editor to shut up and give yourself permission to write, even if you are writing crap. Once you've gotten the words out, THEN you have something to work with.
posted
I feel better when the critiques line up with what I was already thinking. It shows that my radar is working well. Plus this is just the conformation that I needed to make the change that might have otherwise been a mistake. I find it's difficult to distinguish between my writerly mood-swings and my internal editor sometimes. The critiques helps me do this.
Posts: 811 | Registered: Jan 2005
|
quote:I feel better when the critiques line up with what I was already thinking. It shows that my radar is working well. Plus this is just the conformation that I needed to make the change that might have otherwise been a mistake
I agree. More often than not, I know what's wrong, but don't want to admit it. Sometimes it takes somebody shoving the ignored error back in my face for me to actually do something about it.
Posts: 292 | Registered: Feb 2004
|
posted
Thanks, it is good to get confirmation on this.
In case my post came across wrong, I wasn't suggesting that by critiquing other people's work I would learn how to critique my own to such an extent that I wouldn't need feedback from others.
I know some professional writers trapped in the snare, and I think its nothing but ego. Anybody can give a extremely valuable gut reaction, without knowing the first thing about writing.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
