Though yes, as a general rule, we are pretty far down in here. (Lord knows I am. Damn story!) Anyone got a rope handy?

It's utterly lacking in context, but (upon re-re-reading) it appears to be the start of a speech or a forum thread - definitely a formal request. It's an interesting technique, but it may take a bit of work to make sure it doesn't turn into a gimmick.

I feel like I've just been thrown into a milieu, and as it stands, it doesn't have enough hook to make me want to tough it out until things become clear. Maybe you could try moving the conflict forward? It may just need to have the paragraphs switched followed by a few semantic clean-ups.

I think it does bear reminding that a critique is, first and foremost, an opinion. As a writer and even as a fellow critiquer, I have seen many styles of crits that annoy me. I tend to be most annoyed when a new writer learns a new "rule" and points out every instance in my story of violating that rule. (I once had someone highlight every being verb in a story, even the ones in dialog!) Still, you take what you can from it and move on

Until today, I have never felt compelled to give this advice to other critiquers.

lehollis has no direct stake in the critique "conflict" other than a tangential one as a member of Hatrack yet because said interaction is posted publicly it becomes everyone's business. I personally don't think that either side of the conflict are ready to take gloves off and I personally enjoy a bit of lively discussion as mfrievald can attest.

F&F is a training ground not only for those whose stories are available for critique but those who are giving critiques and observing critiques. When I give a critique, I am not seeking to destroy a writer but to improve one as "iron sharpens iron." Likewise, I must also posses enough reflexivity to ask myself am I making these same mistakes? If so I take myself to task and set my proverbial house in order.

No one controls F&F (except of course KDW) but by the same token, all hatrackers past present or future share in ownership of this important training ground.

yet approaches vary and this impacts how people feel about it. What's worse are that stories come to F&F in all stages. Some people bring their first 13 without having anything else written, while others bring the first 13 of a work 6 months sometimes 6 years in the making. This uneven approach by we Hatrackers has of course yielded wildly differing results.

Writing is a deeply personal thing but it is not done strictly for one's self otherwise as Heinlein noted it becomes "pseudo-intellectual masturbation."

Thus we must understand that in writing we are not doing this for the story or for our writer's soul but for the reader. F&F is where our stories often meet "good" readers for the first time and not simply pleasant ones.

Some may approach F&F as a treadmill or track where one goes through paces in order to prepare, others may see it as greenhouse where seedlings are nurtured while others may see it as dress rehearsal for opening night; while others may approach it as an inter-team scrimmage where each side must play hard if the team is to improve.

No matter which analogy one might prefer F&F is a service that comes in all shapes and sizes and its almost guaranteed that there are Hatrackers amongst the 3300 of us who can provide whatever tone of feedback a writer desires but one's preference does not invalidate anothers.

On a more personal note, I ask that we all assume positive intent. As an example I know I come across rough but its only when I come across at all its only to help the story. I try to read every new thread in F&F but I don't respond to every first 13 because quite often I don't either a) see anything technically wrong (ie structure or presentation.) I never critique style/voice except when it effects presentation drastically or b) I simply cannot provide anything I believe is useful to the story. I don't know anyone here from Adam and claim no gatekeeper role.

Free Advice is just that and as always TANSTAAFL.

quote:

---

Trousercuit, thank you for your feedback. I'll consider your suggestions during the rewrite.

---

I feel I should point out that my post was in jest, but may have been quite opaque, owing to the fact that I wrote it at about 5:00am. I was critiquing your post which started this thread, not your post that started the one in F&F. Ha ha. Ain't I a stinker?

Um, yeah. It was darned funny at the time, though.

I also feel I should point out that rather than not getting my ill-delivered joke (such as it is), you may simply be matching my dry tone - but I can't really tell.

FWIW, I think a critiquer shouldn't critique another critiquer's critique. That's fairly bad critiquiquette.

Admittedly if you do, it's sure to start an argument. But if someone is giving poor or useless critiques, how else will they know that unless someone says something? I think if I were putting time and effort into critiques that wouldn't help anyone I'd really want to know.

Generally, I have to agree that it's best to let a poor critique go, but I do wonder if at times it might not be a worthwhile thing to tell someone that they need to rethink their critiques. Then again, I've always been considered contentious, so that's just me.

quote:

---

...since I don't critique here...

---

Hmmm.... there must be someone wandering around masquerading as you and critiquing people's first 13's.

quote:

---

Hmmm.... there must be someone wandering around masquerading as you and critiquing people's first 13's.

---

There must be then, because I did two or three crits here when I first registered a couple of months ago and haven't critted here since.

I decided I disliked the concept of critiquing the first 13 lines. I just don't find it productive and don't do it.

I understand that some people like doing it that way. I just don't, personal opinion. I drop in occasionally for a little discussion when I'm procrastinating writing as I am right now. *chuckles*

quote:

---

I don't know what critique is being referred to since I don't critique here, but just as a thought on critiquing in general: I'm not sure that a critiquer should never comment on another's critique.

---

For me, I may post in response to a critic's post, but not directly to them. For example, He Who Must Be Bold made a comment I disagreed with in a recent critique. Instead of saying, "InarticulateBabbler, you're wrong about that." I simply said something like, 'I didn't have a problem with that line, I think it's fine as is, I felt I understood the author's intent, etc.'

quote:

---

I think it's up to the author to decide who to listen to

---

Hatrack works because and only because people come here that care about writing more than ego, about learning more than about scoring debating points. If that stops being true, I expect Hatrack will stop demonstrating its historcial openness and usefulness.

quote:

---

Quote:
Showing a rape shows respect for women? That is a rather bizarre way of looking at it. Or is what you are trying to say that in your book women are helpless and victims and that in this scene you are setting this up? - posted August 9, 2007

I don't know, Matt, it sounds pretty critical to me. We better call the crit police and let them know there's an imposter around!

---

Hmmmm Another attack from Debhoag. Interesting.

You might want to make your attacks on me a bit more accurate.

Just to make it perfectly clear that quote that Debhoag claimed was a crit was not. It was from the "A tricky situation" thread about whether a rape in a novel was a good idea. I hadn't read the piece. I couldn't crit and and didn't crit it. I expressed an opinion on the situation which is exactly what the poster asked people to do.

I do not post crits on this site.

Edit: Assuming what, Matt? I made no assumption. I stated an opinion which I had the good sense to label as a personal opinion. If you (and/or Debhoag) have a problem with my personal opinion, frankly, that's fine with me.

Guess so.

The way lehollis recommends responding or commenting on someone else's feedback:

quote:

---

For me, I may post in response to a critic's post, but not directly to them. For example, He Who Must Be Bold made a comment I disagreed with in a recent critique. Instead of saying, "InarticulateBabbler, you're wrong about that." I simply said something like, 'I didn't have a problem with that line, I think it's fine as is, I felt I understood the author's intent, etc.'

The difference is that I posted my own feelings on an issue that had been raised. I didn't try to speak for everyone, or act like my way was best. InarticulateBabbler might be right, but I think it's up to the author to decide who to listen to. (In fact, I suspect if a poll were taken, more Hatrackers would agree with IB than me on that one.)

---

Is the way it should be done if it is necessary to do at all.

If you don't like what another Hatracker says, please either ignore him or her, or state your take on the subject. Please don't go around quoting what you don't like and then commenting negatively on it.

Commenting on what someone else has said when they haven't asked for those comments risks being something other than critiquing and can lead to trouble.