So maybe you have room to improve? You knew that already; it's why you are here. Don't take critiques to heart. They aren't personal and not intended to tell you that you shouldn't write.

You HAVE to develop a healthy attitude about it --- "Hmm, this person is trying to point something out to me that, if corrected, could improve my writing. What is he/she trying to show me?"

Instead, ask yourself: what does this critiquer MEAN by "raw"? Without seeing your writing I cannot interpret that vague comment. (Frankly, unless there were specific examples of what they meant by "raw" I'd say your critiquer needs some work on THEIR wordcrafting skills.) "Raw" to me might mean a couple of things: Is your technical mastery up to speed, ie: spelling, punctuation, grammar? Is your premise/plot cliche? Are you using a good balance of dialog, action and narrative? Are your characters well developed, each having a unique voice?

Being "raw" isn't the worst thing in the world. The challenge to you is: how fast do you improve? My suggestion is that if you have not yet done a full critique for someone else, like a story of 2000 words or more, start volunteering to read and critique. By seeing the "raw" writings of other people, you'll probably begin to see what your critiquer felt was raw about your own stuff. Seeing it is half the battle. Once you know what raw MEANS, you'll know what to focus on to improve.

Or, you COULD just give up. But if you are a real writer, it would be easier to give up breathing.

It's only when the writer emails you back and says something to the effect of: "You stupid cow, can't you tell how brilliant my writing really is? You must be blind. By page 419 you'll understand everything!"

THAT sort of response really doesn't sit well with most critiquers.

If anyone is uncomfortable using the word 'critic' because they find it has harsher connotations than they intend, then they should use the words 'review' and 'reviewer'.

The made-up word 'critiquer' is used around Hatrack all the time and is a personal pet peeve.

As to your question:—

'Raw' in this instance could have meant many things. In my opinion, it most likely meant that the reviewer thought they saw elements in the story that betrayed the writer's inexperience. At Hatrack, we are all new writers and, in one way or another, we are inexperienced. The only way to gain experience is to keep writing and keep sending out stories to reviewers while resisting discouragement. The frustrations we experience along the way are normal. It is also 'normal' to quit writing because of them. What is not normal is to have the heart to keep writing through the difficulties. Assiduity is the trait that allows a writer to master their craft.

Many are the English teachers who repeated to me that "critiquer" was an abomination unto the Oxford Dictionary of English

(edited for typo)

Realize that, at most, a critique is an OPINION. I've done several critiques for folks here, and any one of them can tell you I'm pretty blunt and opinionated. I can do this because it's not my story, and I don't have the emotional investement in the writing. That's the whole point of reviewing circles such as Hatrack or more traditional writing groups. It's a tough thing to watch your baby get dissected by someone. That makes it incumbent upon the reviewer to critique without criticizing, but it's necessary. If people who are willing to read your work are "underwhelmed" by it, then trying to get people to lay down their hard-earned cash to read it is going to be next to impossible.

I try to be as clear and as honest as possible. I also try to give ideas on how to correct or change things. I don't assume the author sees what I see or sees it the same way I do. Maybe something I point out may spark a totally different idea for the author. If the author likes my ideas, great. If not, oh well, it's not my story. It's just my opinion.

And as opinions, getting several reviews is key. I wouldn't rely too much on what one person says (although you should at least give some thought to their comments). If several people read and point out the same things, sit up and take notice.

Good writing is a process of revising - period. If you can, find a copy of The Real Story by Stephen R. Donaldson. The version I have has an appendix where he takes us through the creative process in writing the book. It took *years* just to "polish" the concept, and even then he knew there was more to the story than what he'd written. He wrote it, revised it, let it sit on a shelf for a while, revised it again, and eventually it worked.

This is my 800th post, how cool.

quote:

---

I know that there are people who think I should give it up. One in particular on this board tries to remind me of that every time he/she responds to anything I say.

---

That is disturbing if it is true.

Thinking about your comment, I don't believe there is anyone here on Hatrack, and certainly none I have encountered, who would deliberately discourage anybody else from writing. From my experience here I believe it is not part of this group's ethos.

On another note, my comment on 'critiquer' is not the important part of my post. It was not directed at you alone. Look through the posts and the 'word' pops up a few times. You will find it throughout the whole of the Hatrack Writer's Forums.

The important part of my post was about developing the qualities of persistent application and unflagging effort while avoiding disheartenment at the obstacles. The obstacles, especially the negative remarks of others — or a particular individual who just can't seem to 'get it' — are normal.

There is something else I want to mention. Sometimes when a person gives a whole-hearted and thorough critique they receive a response that is similar to the sort anyone might get from a she-bear defending her young. It can really surprise the critic and shake up their confidence in the value of their criticism.

I am not suggesting you are more like that than anyone else. We all get that way from time to time. I find that, when I receive that kind of visceral reaction from a comment, I have to look carefully at what buttons the critic pushed and why I reacted the way I did. Did it somehow challenge the image I have of myself as a writer? It is a valuable exercise that, if done honestly, leads to improvement.