quote:

---

Of course, if synopses are provided with novel segments (which is highly recommended), such questions would be less likely to arise.

---

I thought the joke was obvious.
Clearly I was wrong.

However, KDW, where does the boundary lies between "author self indulgence and audience interest"?
At what point does the deployment of an esoteric vocabulary serve to resist the admission of 'outsiders'?

How did he come to that understanding?

Obviously, he (and perhaps others) began with an assumption.
What was the assumption?

In a different vein, and somewhat related to story, empathy in particular, my vocabulary is a consequence of being widely read. Reading is the one constant, unspoiled satisfaction in my life. Reading more than anything else makes my life worth living. Reading provides a good deal of my intellectual stimulation, without which I'd probably be extremely depressed by my circumstances. However, intellectual stimulation is a double edged curse. Like an addictive drug, the more I intake, the more I want, the greater the stimulation I want. Suffice it to say, the circumstances that drive my ravenous intellectual stimulation cravings are further exacerbated by that pursuit.

I've read the story that the "too stupid to live" comment was addressed to, read the comments it received at the forum were it was first offered for commentary, the responses to the comments, the responses to the responses to the comments, and so on. I've studied the publication that accepted it as is, with editorial changes that I've not evaluated. I've examined the writing of some of the staff of the publication and the parent publication outfit, excerpts from their published works and critical reviews of their works. In my estimation, the story is a perfect fit for the publication. I'll post no other value judgements besides everyone who's entering the publishing rat race has to start somewhere, writers, publishers, screening readers, and editors. The Internet has opened up a gateway of possibilities for emerging artists that's only beginning to be realized. Congratulations, Merlion-Emerys.

On topic (sort of, I hope):
Merlion, I feel that people (even/especially when they are critiquing) very seldom say what they mean or mean what they say. What makes writing so difficult is that expressing oneself in a way to convey all the history, emotions, intentions, beliefs, etc. is in itself very difficult. Whether one is writing fiction, where the writing serves to entertain, or nonfiction, where the writing serves to instruct, the writer is burdened by his/her desire for a certain affect and not finding the best means of accomplishing it. It is ultimately our inability to convey our thoughts that causes undesired responses.

I feel, as you do, that too much of the critiques fall into the realm of personal preference. However, it is very difficult for one to separate themselves from what they like or dislike and to consider the greater populace - this is what editor's are supposed to do. I am beginning to believe that the higher tier editors are doing this to some degree (though my peronal preferences are sometimes trampled upon).

I do not believe a character can be too stupid to live. I do not believe that curiosity cannot be a motive (to use a double negative appropriately). And I do not believe "a character is an island", which means that for a critiquer to give a blanket statement as to why they do not believe a character or story is a shortfall of the critiquer. I would suggest there are many reasons they did not believe your character, but they expressed this inadequately. Consider this: any character with any intent can be believed in the right circumstances. I believe this to be true. The difficulty is in getting there.

quote:

---

Reading and deconstructing epistemic intertextual metanarratives happens to be one of my favorite pastimes.

---

quote:

---

Not a few of those "pro-level" screening readers also misuse conventional writing terms or invent terminology out of whole cloth or borrow terms from another discipline that serves more to confuse rather than inform and that contributes little, if any, pertinent meaning to a writing discussion. Myself, when a commenter is responding from aesthetic hunches and missing making a solid point, I have to work too hard to understand what's being said.

---

quote:

---

When I diagnose a story's deficiencies, I begin with an aesthetic hunch and then determine what's causing my discomfort. Often, it's a lack of empathic reader resonance from overlooking reader immersion methods.

---

I am curious about that editor role you performed. May I ask in what capacity your task was in that function?

I'm not calling any of them there clueless. They and myself and all other discerning critiquers in my experience initially respond to a story intuitively based on aesthetic hunches. Like in all my experiences in writing workshops, whenever and wherever, critiquing is a function of feeling how a reader responds to a story. That hunch can lead to a diagnosis.

From there, though, the ability to express deficiencies' causes and fixes doesn't follow on as much as I think is beneficial. What does "What's the point?" mean? Of what benefit is such a question to a struggling writer? What about asking a more pointed and targeted question? Like, what's the message the story is trying to convey?

From appreciating a lack of a clear message, then an obvious to me diagnosis is limited development of theme and tone. From there, then, a fix is to reexamine a narrative point of view for whether an objective toned narrator is the best vehicle for telling the story, or would a subjective tone carry more meaning and drama.

Theme, a common deficiency in my experience, start with what's the conflict and what slant on a theme a story's trying to depict. Start with a basic conflict, good and evil, for example, which is a relative perception, but that conflict ought not to be ambiguous or be narrated by an ambivalent narrator. Maybe a first person narrator, maybe a subjective, condemning third person narrator, or maybe a focal character's point of view takes up the tone slack.

Narrow down the conflict, the good of personal anarchy opposed by a totalitarian theocracy. Narrow it down more, make it a personal conflict, a desire for independence from the strictures of a religiously oppressive community. The conflict, be a part of society or apart from it. The theme then might be a man is not an island. The message, perhaps, a man can live in solitude but not entirely alone.

quote:

---

I'm not calling any of them there clueless.

---

quote:

---

No matter how well-intended someone's razzing is, it only serves to remind me of my human frailties and shortcomings. Empathy, feel my pain. I'm not a cold fish, no, I feel too much. I'm an empath who feels other people's pains too deeply. My ready withdrawal from nominative normal social activities is partly caused by feeling so deeply.

---

quote:

---

I've published as an editor

---

I think snapper isn't the only one interested in learning more about extrinsic. Perhaps extrinsic's topic in the Next, Please Introduce Yourself area might be a better place for such a discussion.

http://www.uncwil.edu/writers/PubLab/book/publishing_the_hatterasman.html

I've also worked as editor for a local tabloid format weekly newspaper, plus a few other projects in my editing career.

quote:

---

I feel, as you do, that too much of the critiques fall into the realm of personal preference. However, it is very difficult for one to separate themselves from what they like or dislike and to consider the greater populace - this is what editor's are supposed to do. I am beginning to believe that the higher tier editors are doing this to some degree (though my peronal preferences are sometimes trampled upon).

---

Giving really good critiques does involve walking a very fine line because on one end you've got the "too much personal preference" end where the critique sounds like a movie review but on the other end you've got those that feel fully qualified to objectively speak for "readers" in general and for the desires of all editors, which doesn't come off well either.

When I critique I try, especially with points I'm unsure of to present both my personal view "this is what I think, this is how I'd do it" and a more general thing based on what I've heard from other readers "However, judging from what I've seen of current trends with this type of story" etc, and I also tend to state that I'm basing what I say on what I can derive of their intent, but I realize I may not be understanding what their trying to do.

quote:

---

Giving really good critiques does involve walking a very fine line because on one end you've got the "too much personal preference" end where the critique sounds like a movie review but on the other end you've got those that feel fully qualified to objectively speak for "readers" in general and for the desires of all editors, which doesn't come off well either.

When I critique I try, especially with points I'm unsure of to present both my personal view "this is what I think, this is how I'd do it" and a more general thing based on what I've heard from other readers "However, judging from what I've seen of current trends with this type of story" etc, and I also tend to state that I'm basing what I say on what I can derive of their intent, but I realize I may not be understanding what their trying to do.

---

I'm obviously new here, so I'm finding my own critique-legs. But so far I try to steer clear of Voice critiques and stick to the basics of what is technically good writing. Avoiding passive voice, -ly adverbs, showing vs. telling, and so on.

I don't really trust myself to say how I would fix a segment, though, because I tend to add my own Voice in doing that.

Genre specific critiques haven't come up yet with me, so I don't know how I tend to tackle those.

quote:

---

I'm obviously new here, so I'm finding my own critique-legs. But so far I try to steer clear of Voice critiques and stick to the basics of what is technically good writing. Avoiding passive voice, -ly adverbs, showing vs. telling, and so on.

---

I just personally consider it a good idea to keep an open mind even with these things and remember that they as well can be subjective. Many of them (such as show/tell) I see as simply different tools, although you'll find a lot of people consider one inherently superior to the other.

I'm curious though...what do you mean by voice critiques? The things you mention I would consider to fall under the catagory of "voice" but thats just me.

quote:

---

Genre specific critiques haven't come up yet with me, so I don't know how I tend to tackle those

---

For me its not even as much a thing of genres as of specific stories. I believe strongly that critiques should be focused on improving a story as what it is, but some due to (generally well intentioned) issues of personal taste or views of editorial preference some times give critiques that involve essentially instructions on how to make it into something else (at least in my view.) Or, as with this "too stupid to live" subject, classify whole concepts or structures as inherently and inalienably "weak."

When critiqueing I prefer to either ask or try to determine the authors intentions with the story, and critique it in that context whenever possible, since in my view the "rules" we hear so much about are actually just more tools in our storytelling utility belt.

Regarding show vs. tell and the others, I think it's generally accepted that they are rules. And that all rules need breaking from time to time. But if every sentence is telling, I'm done reading unless the author has an AMAZING Voice.

As for keeping an open mind and considering author intent...I'm sceptical. I can't imagine the slush pile reader has the luxury of an open mind, or the time to ask the author what they meant. So am I really helping if I do those things?

(If I've gone off the rails critiquing, I hope someone will correct me, though. I can be...zealous.)

quote:

---

Forgive my ambiguity. I did not mean voice as in active/passive. I meant Voice, as in the author's unique style. As in, why I pick up a new book, 9 times out of 10

---

Thats more or less what I thought you meant.

quote:

---

Regarding show vs. tell and the others, I think it's generally accepted that they are rules. And that all rules need breaking from time to time.

---

To me, "rules" that need semi-regular breaking aren't rules, they are at most guidlines. They are things you do most of the time, but that have frequent situations in which you do differently. And so, to me, they are really just tools. Showing/telling for instance...all writing is, in truth, telling. Its declaritive versus descriptive...some things should be described (objects, settings, creatures, actions) other things often should be or even must be told at least partially be it in narrative or dialogue (thoughts and emotions spring to mind although emotions especially can be done both ways, and which is "better" is pretty much a matter of taste.

KDW posted an article recently about "Stages of a Writer" by an apparently successful author (though one I'm unfamiliar with) who seemed to feel that learning to not be trapped in the "rules"...and in fact to basically make your own is a big part of a writers advancement.

quote:

---

But if every sentence is telling, I'm done reading unless the author has an AMAZING Voice.

---

I feel that many of the things some call "rules" are often basically choices of style (voice) in the end. You don't like telling (or what you percieve as telling.) Thats totally fine. I, on the other hand, generally have no problem with it in certain types of stories or certain writing styles.

I feel what we're writing should determine what "rules" we use not the other way around.

quote:

---

As for keeping an open mind and considering author intent...I'm sceptical. I can't imagine the slush pile reader has the luxury of an open mind, or the time to ask the author what they meant. So am I really helping if I do those things?

---

Ok, two things here. One, putting true total basics (spelling, basic grammar, punctuation) aside storytelling is inherently subjective and based on taste. A story that the slush readers of one magazine may hate may be loved by those of another, because different publications publish different types and styles of stories. For instance, many publications right now (like F&SF) are big on heavily character-driven drama type stories but then there are others (like Black Gate or Flashing Swords) that prefer plot-driven adventure stories and still others (like Fantasy Magazine) that publish things that don't even seem to really have plots or make any sense (at least to me.)

Thats why when you critique, you critique for the story type as best you can. If a story is meant to be a plot driven Sword and Sorcerery adventure you don't tell the author that they need to make it more character driven and spend lots of time and energy on deep emotional motivations and the like, nor if its a character-driven drama do you criticise it for not having enough action (these are just examples or generalizations obviously.)

Second thing on that. I realize that here the common wisdom is you won't be able to talk to an editor so why talk to a critiquer but to be honest that seems extremely bizzare to me. It seems to me the very reason we offer stories up to other writers is so we can get opinions from people that we CAN talk to, in order to try and perfect them for those that we won't be able to (generally what happens is you'll form a group of trusted critters and discuss things with them via email. Its extremely helpful.)

quote:

---

As to the original topic, too stupid to live, I think there isn't a general answer. If it works in that particular story, then it's right. If it doesn't, it's wrong.

---

This is basically my whole point in a nutshell, I just believe it applies to EVERYTHING including the "rules." The STORY is first.

quote:

---

(If I've gone off the rails critiquing, I hope someone will correct me, though. I can be...zealous.)

---

Not at all...I enjoy this sort of discussion very much...I wish more of it went on here in the civil respectful manner we're maintaining right now.

quote:

---

Thats why when you critique, you critique for the story type as best you can. If a story is meant to be a plot driven Sword and Sorcerery adventure you don't tell the author that they need to make it more character driven and spend lots of time and energy on deep emotional motivations and the like, nor if its a character-driven drama do you criticise it for not having enough action (these are just examples or generalizations obviously.)

---

I disagree. Doesn't matter to me, as a critic, whether it's supposed to be a plot-driven piece, or a character-driven piece. I don't know what the author's intentions are so I'm going to go with what's on the page. Even if you were to tell me that it's a plot-driven piece so don't worry about telling me about characterization, I'm going to ignore that. All I have is what's on the page, and if you can't tell me what the story is about, or what it isn't about, without a note before the story telling me what you're trying to accomplish then it's a rigged game. It's unfair to the critic, and definitely unfair to the writer.

quote:

---

Second thing on that. I realize that here the common wisdom is you won't be able to talk to an editor so why talk to a critiquer but to be honest that seems extremely bizzare to me. It seems to me the very reason we offer stories up to other writers is so we can get opinions from people that we CAN talk to, in order to try and perfect them for those that we won't be able to (generally what happens is you'll form a group of trusted critters and discuss things with them via email. Its extremely helpful.)

---

The point is not that you CAN'T talk to the critic, but that you can't defend what you wrote to the critic. There's a difference. You can ask the critic to explain why such and such didn't work for him/her, or get the critic to expand on his/her criticisms, but it's unfair to you as a writer (and to the critic) to issue a rebuttal, point by point. It doesn't help you by doing that.

Too stupid to live people abound; too frequently they are us! My first thought was 'unmarried sex'. People do this and then act so shocked when one of the natural consequences occur. It is the whole assumption thing. We make an assumption, in the case of unmarried sex, it is that birth control WILL work, condoms WILL keep us safe from disease, and somehow we can take this (or these) particular relationship(s) to the most intimate level and yet somehow no one will end up hurt... All this in spite of clear evidence all around that.. frequently we fail our birth control, frequently it fails us... condoms are only good up to a point and sometimes they break and hearts get broken almost in every relationship of this type which ends in other than marital bliss.

(I have had a LOT of teens pass through my house! This is a syndrome!) In our culture there is a general set of assumptions about sex which most every kid buys into (our biology makes us want it to be true). Things like: We have a right to indulge without the natural consequences. Boys do; girls should be able to as well. Waiting is old fashioned. How do you know you aren't gay? How do you know you are suitable in that way? I am just getting ready for my wife/husband by doing this with someone else first. Etc., etc.

Well, there are other cultures/other subculturesn and other sets of assumptions. Which we persist on believing even with the evidence in front of us.

There are other things, too. Many times we want a thing to be true so badly that we behave as if it is true. (Idealists) On the other hand sometimes we are so afraid something is true that we just assume that it is and get the anguish over with. (defeatists)

So I don't think it is that big of a stretch. A nominally intelligent person is at least as capable of making a dumb mistake as someone who is just working with low wattage. Sometimes even more so, I think. Smart people, imo, tend to get drawn off into theoretical realms so much that they flat ignore the evidence in front of them contradicting it.

Thanks for the topic. This is something I do think about a lot. (Why did they do that? Who would say that? What was *I* thinking?) The truth is we want to make decisions from 'smart' but it is almost never that simple.