Hatrack River Writers Workshop   
my profile login | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hatrack River Writers Workshop » Forums » Open Discussions About Writing » Should we be harder then the editors?

   
Author Topic: Should we be harder then the editors?
halogen
Member
Member # 6494

 - posted      Profile for halogen   Email halogen         Edit/Delete Post 
I was at the goodwill yesterday, looking for more sweatshirts (if you wanted to know) and I found myself in their discarded book pile. I picked up a wrinkled 80's paperback and read the first line

"Thorin bellowed -"

...and I closed the book. Anything that has 'bellowed' in the first line is pretty much a goner for me. That's personal preference, I'm not saying it is the worst possible way to start a book, but I can't imagine an editor picking up a novel like that today.

Here's my question (surprisingly similar to the title): should critiques aim to be harder then what you would normally expect an editor to be?

Personally, I would much rather hear 'this is grade-a-poop' from a bunch of people here instead of getting it back in a formula stamped letter from Analog.


Posts: 207 | Registered: Sep 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JeanneT
Member
Member # 5709

 - posted      Profile for JeanneT   Email JeanneT         Edit/Delete Post 
You know, that sounds good, but I get a lot of editorial comments and rarely do any two editors say the same thing about a story. So--I'm not sure it isn't expecting too much.

Also we have to take into consideration where the person is in their development. Something that I will take in stride now would have had me in tears early on.


Posts: 1588 | Registered: Jul 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
annepin
Member
Member # 5952

 - posted      Profile for annepin   Email annepin         Edit/Delete Post 
I think in some way, we already are. The problem is, we don't have an editor's taste. That is, we (well, most of us, anyway) aren't in a position to publish anyone's work.

The reason books like that get published is because a publisher out there liked it. Or at least thought it would sell. This is my theory about agents as well--you could write spectacularly, but if you're not writing something that interests a publisher, it won't get sold. That's why you have to query loads of agents and publishers, appealing to a variety of tastes and sensibilities in the hope that one of them will like it, or think it will sell.

Obviously, the better you write, the more likely your chances are of selling a piece. But a lot boils down to taste. There's stuff here that I would publish sooner than a lot of the stuff I've seen in glossies or on shelves.


Posts: 2185 | Registered: Aug 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Kathleen Dalton Woodbury
Administrator
Member # 59

 - posted      Profile for Kathleen Dalton Woodbury   Email Kathleen Dalton Woodbury         Edit/Delete Post 
Have you ever been in a class where the teacher gives the students an assignment to provide questions for the next test? In the classes I've been in or known about where that happens, the questions almost always turn out to be harder than the ones the teacher would have used in the test.

I think writers here on Hatrack may tend to be harder on themselves and each other because they are developing their critical abilities as well as their writing abilities.

Newer writers also know (or fear) that in order to have a story selected for publication when it is in competition with writers who already have a fan base or a track record, the story needs to be even better than what an established writer has to offer.

I believe that as long as urging/helping someone to be better doesn't make them give up (what doesn't kill us makes us stronger, sort of), it's a good thing. Wouldn't you rather be the best you can be, instead of "just good enough?"

Of course, there are those out there who believe that anyone who can be discouraged should be discouraged, and they go about being as discouraging as they can. That is not the philosophy around here. As long as you are willing to keep trying, we are willing to help you learn and improve.


Posts: 8826 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KayTi
Member
Member # 5137

 - posted      Profile for KayTi           Edit/Delete Post 
Ah, Kathleen's post underscores my aim - to not suck.

Anything I can do to not suck at this, I'm happy with. Sadly, some days I fail.

Should crits here be harder than editors? Well, I think they're just two completely different things. Crits here should be as thorough and detailed as the critters have time for. And authors should be prepared for wildly divergent points of view. And figuring out what to do with all those crits is one of the harder things about writing, IMHO, but it is where you get a chance to really figure things out, again IMHO.


Posts: 1911 | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Marzo
Member
Member # 5495

 - posted      Profile for Marzo   Email Marzo         Edit/Delete Post 

I think that crits here should be 'harder' than one might expect from an editor, for several reasons.

Most editors, I imagine, have neither the time nor the desire to detail why they disliked and rejected something. When they send you that form letter that says 'this isn't right for us,' that might mean they're booked for the next few issues, or it might mean the editor read your short story and had a million nitpicks with characterization, setting, flow, theme, etc - but they're not going to sit down and write that out for you. So, we rely on fellow writers to give us that tough love we need to improve.

So long as the hard-nosed approach is more of a thorough one, and done in the spirit of assistance and constructivity, I think that stern fellow readers and writers are a boon. I'd rather see detailed criticism, even if may be difficult to take on the ego (or praise, ha ha) on one of my works, than a vague yes/no.


Posts: 201 | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JeanneT
Member
Member # 5709

 - posted      Profile for JeanneT   Email JeanneT         Edit/Delete Post 
Well, the other day I got this really detailed rejection from an editor. He did what was practically a line edit on the first scene and he really ripped it to shreds. I've never gotten another rejection like it--two pages of detailed rejection! LOL

So I was going over that, looking at it, wondering if I should re-write the story and an email came from another editor (they accepted sim subs) saying they were holding that story for consideration and that he really liked it. So that was funny.

But anyway, I don't think we can think like editors, so I'm not sure if we can even know if we're being harder or easier or even if we're looking at exactly the same things.

When I crit a story I ALWAYS find at least one thing I like about the story to mention and start with that. If I can't, I won't crit it.

Then I try to go into everything I see that would improve the story. And I am a nit picker although not so much of grammar, but of writing style. If you over-use words like "then" or "that" believe me, I'll tell you. If I see plot holes or I find the characterization lacking. Probably characterization is the hardest to crit for me because I like to say how I can see a problem fixed, and fixing a flat characterization can be hard.

And I always include a reminder that it is my own opinion so the author may or may not agree. Because 1. it's true and 2. having your work taken apart bit by bit can be a painful experience.

Anyway, those are my morning's musings on the subject.


Posts: 1588 | Registered: Jul 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
lehollis
Member
Member # 2883

 - posted      Profile for lehollis   Email lehollis         Edit/Delete Post 
Yes, I think we should be harder than the editors, who can vary a lot in their opinion. They aren't another species; they're humans, just like us. Their opinion isn't really that different, when its boiled down, except they have a stake in their opinion--the success of their magazine or house, etc.

I vary my 'hardness' in critiques. If the writer seems to be newer, I will try to focus on what their story seems to need most. I might mention the other stuff, but I don't harp on it. So if I read a F&F piece that has bad spelling, lousy grammar, and immediately jumps into a flashback, I'll probably talk about the flashback. Spelling and grammar is usually pretty obvious; it doesn't need much time. The flashback thing isn't always so obvious to new writers.

But if its a writer who has been around for years on Hatrack, I'll be less focused and hit everything I think it wrong.

To me, critiques aren't commandments. They're help. A critiquer might tell me they hate one aspect, and I may or may not agree. Like editors, they have opinions. They aren't always right. The usefulness of a critiquer is to point you in the right direction, but ultimately the choice of what works is yours.


Posts: 696 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Robert Nowall
Member
Member # 2764

 - posted      Profile for Robert Nowall   Email Robert Nowall         Edit/Delete Post 
I'm picky about what I write of late...I mean I pick at it and try to improve it. But I must be missing the mark somewhere, or not picking at the right things.

Besides, all I usually get from editors is "sorry, it's not for us." Which tells me nothing.

When I critique a story (a rare thing, these days), I do like to dig right down into it and comment on nearly everything I can find. I don't feel I'm holding up my end of things by not being thorough. But I'm also doing it one story at a time, and I don't usually have an editor's workload to dispose of.


Posts: 8809 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wolfe_boy
Member
Member # 5456

 - posted      Profile for Wolfe_boy   Email Wolfe_boy         Edit/Delete Post 
The point, I believe, is not to be harder than an editor, or soft enough not to hurt feelings. The point is to critique, and to do it judiciously. Point out problems when you see them, because if you see it, it's likely a problem. Blind praise or empty comments do not lend themselves to improvement.

The point is, be an editor when you critique. At least then you'll be getting feedback from their point of view, rather than a form letter.

Jayson Merryfield


Posts: 733 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
   

   Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Hatrack River Home Page

Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2