posted
I thought of an apt analogy for this when I was out of town. It is the difference between applying the medical arts to an actual disease or disorder vs. enhancing a healthy or functional person. We know that certain medical procedures are not insurable like face lifts and breast enhancement. Some plastic surgery serves as treatment in cases like cleft palate or dog attack. Breast restoration in case of cancer or other accident is warranted.
When approaching a work, we must concede that the author is the "god" of that universe and there are boundaries that we play god when we tread them. Tread them we may, but we will not receive the same accolades as the surgeon who saves lives when all we have done is set out to remake lives in our own image.
posted
Yes I agree, but sometimes a face lift can be quiet helpful. In my case, I have a story that I am having difficulty starting. I have the body and finale in a very believable and plausible scenario, one critter has been helping me iron out the science and social economics of my intro. I thank if for it, and by all means it is a face lift. I am a new "God" in my sci fi world, and the expeiences of others can help me have a belieable world were the laws of physics are applicable and transferable.
It does give me a bit of heart ache to have him tearing my world apart, but in essence I know it will be a much stronger world. I prefer his blunt, and straight forward opinion.
Now my friends seem more like an HMO, telling me how fine and good my work is. They are very encouraging but less likely to give me the judgment I need to improve the story.
I think you really do need to get critique from a variety of sources as you would in case of a life threating or alter ailment. You need the comfort of a friendly "doc", a realistic "doc" and then the one that can play devil advocate.
In this case I want to thank Survivor for his help, and getting me thinking long and hard about what I am writing and not just vomiting out a story. He will be in the credits if this thing ever goes to print with a resounding thank you for the face lift.
posted
I don't think that there's a bright-line distinction between meddling and critique. "Meddling" is a matter of doing things that haven't been requested. "Critiquing" is a matter of applying critical analysis to a work. You could be applying critical analysis to a work with or without a request. You can also throw thoughtless suggestions at a subject with or without being asked.
If someone asks you to participate in a brainstorming session, you are neither critiquing nor meddling (at least, not if you're brainstorming correctly). If someone has not asked for input on something but you insist on offering many reasons that it has to be done differently, you can be doing both.
I'm terrible at "brainstorming" because I have to understand an idea before I can express it. Thus I can't truly throw out a completely uncritiqued idea unless I steal it from somewhere else. I also see relatively little point in meddling, because if a person seems closed to my advice there isn't much logic in offering it. Perhaps someone needs to be told something...but I usually prefer that somebody else say it first.
When I think of the medical comparison, I think more of doctors who insist that a patient be forced to recieve expensive and potentially dangerous medical treatments which are "necessary". I suppose on the other hand you'd have advocacy groups that work to make certain "unnecessary" treatments illegal or unavailable. Just because you think that a story is dead without your advice, that doesn't mean that you should waste everyone's time trying to force it upon anyone that doesn't want it. And even if you think a story is almost perfect, it isn't meddlesome to give any requested feedback.
quote: I suppose on the other hand you'd have advocacy groups that work to make certain "unnecessary" treatments illegal or unavailable.
I would only favor such advocacy because I'm one of those chicken littles who thinks that we're going to run out of healthcare, or that it is going to become priced based on scarcity. But I guess in one sense that's always been the case.
On the flip side, I'm a conspiracy theorist who believes the drug companies are deliberately culling the baby-boomers to avert such a crisis.
Mostly, I'm up past my bedtime. Oh, yeah, this is really about writing. Well, I don't think either scenario really appeals to writers.
posted
I would say they're milking the baby-boomers, or perhaps just bilking them. Whichever you want to call it, the main motive seems to be profit, which is maximized by getting as many people as possible on those prescriptions.
In critiquing, it's very easy to get caught up in "magic pill" mode and dole out the exact same advice for every story, whether or not the writer needs it. "Show don't Tell" is an oft cited example of this kind of cliche advice. In medias res is another, perhaps. My own favorite prescription is "POV" Each of these can be good advice when offered after thoughtful consideration of whether the writer will really benefit from it. But there are plenty of times when a writer is already using very solid POV but has some other problem which is unrelated, like a lack of drama or plausibility. Or is starting with very engaging action but has syntax and usage problems which make it difficult to understand what's happening. Or is describing everything with vivid language but fails to identify which details are of importance to the story.
There are plenty of other bits of advice that often are offered without any consideration of the text under consideration. "More dialog", "fewer adverbs", "shorter sentances"; the list is very long. This doesn't even count advice that is simply wrong.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
Each of these can be good advice when offered after thoughtful consideration of whether the writer will really benefit from it. But there are plenty of times when a writer is already using very solid POV but has some other problem which is unrelated, like a lack of drama or plausibility. Or is starting with very engaging action but has syntax and usage problems which make it difficult to understand what's happening. Or is describing everything with vivid language but fails to identify which details are of importance to the story.
