posted
Quite a few reality television show competitions anymore have judging panels. Commonly, a contestant under scrutiny will say that all negative comments hurt feelings. Judges often reply that the merits of a creative work are for audiences to appreciate; a judge's task is to point out shortcomings so the contestant's creative skills and self-awareness of creative shortcomings are developed.
Yes, but . . .
Positive comments develop a rapport between creater and an auditor. A measure of sweetness soothes harshness.
Yes, but . . .
Niceness isn't kind. All the praise in the cosmos cannot foster growth. Contention and heartache drive growth.
Yes, but . . .
Sincere, warranted praise builds self-esteem and confidence.
Yes, but . . .
Finding praiseworthy features is harder than finding fault.
Yes, but . . .
Finding praiseworthy features benefits both creator and auditor's creative growth.
Posts: 6037 | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
extrinsic, let me begin by saying I'm not disagreeing with anything you wrote. Also, I promise I'm not trying to be an ass, but it does tend to be a natural talent.
I'd like to ask about your statement on self-esteem, so what? What value does the self-esteem hold?
posted
Self-esteem builds confidence. Feel self-worthy as a writer, be bolder, be more creative, and know when overwrought creativity backfires.
"Finding praiseworthy features benefits both creator and auditor's creative growth."
quote:babooher: I'd also inquire to the proof of your last statement.
Years of creative writing workshops where both as writer and critiquer my creative growth developed, and the writing and critiquing skills of my workshop peers. These were workshops that the facilitators insisted upon comparable weights of both negative comments [shortcoming commentary] and positive comments [strength commentary]. Comments about the strengths of any given work encouraged hot-seat writers to build upon those features. Comments about shortcomings encouraged hot-seat writers to rework them. Not surprisingly, developing a shortcoming into a strength was more common than simply excising one altogether. Also, studying the correspondence of writers and poets expressing struggles, guidance, and outcomes is another source for my claim that finding praiseworthy features benefits both creator and auditor's creativity.
posted
Babooher, that blog you linked to has a different view of self-esteem than what I learned in psych 101. I don't think it is really describing self-esteem. I read the link to the research that backed it up. I think it is misleading. I'm not sure how they were measuring self-esteem. It seems like they couldn't separate those who had healthy levels of self-esteem and those who are ego-maniacs and overly narcissistic who can be self destructive and delusional. I believe including those types eschews the data.
Self-esteem is a good thing, but I don't think that people who are so afraid to fail that they never venture out of their comfort zone or only do what they know they can succeed meet the definition of people with high self-esteem.
I think the problem is that people falsely believe that giving praise to kids (and people in general) builds self-esteem, but that only gives them a false sense of confidence and can lead to narcissism (in my not so expert opinion). I believe self-esteem develops from encountering a problem and solving it, especially if a few attempts lead to failure. To me, people with high self-esteem are those who aren't afraid to try and get back up on the horse when they do fail. Not people who think they are totally awesome in every way and better than everyone else (I actually think this is usually the opposite and these types have really low self-esteem). But that is all semantics.
Now to get back to the OP. I think a really good critic addresses both the strengths and the weaknesses of the story. To me, the whole point of sending out a manuscript to beta readers is to get a feel for how the story is perceived, what works an what doesn't work. Sometime you just assume that whatever isn't addressed is working, but that is a pretty big assumption. It is far better if the critique specifically addresses the strengths of the story, not for self-esteem issues per say, but so that the author knows what shouldn't be changed.
Posts: 1102 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
When you read a story for fun, enjoyment is your purpose, and the story's craft is a means to that end. When you read a story as a critic, that gets turned on its head. Understanding the craft of the story is the end and your enjoyment (or lack of it) is merely a means to that end. Many people can't make that transition from pleasure reader to critical reader. They never grasp that in critical reading, their pleasure or displeasure is merely an instrument that helps them see how the story is put together.
Sometimes venting your contempt for a story and its writer is the greatest pleasure that story seems to have in store for you. But if you are delivering *critique*, that pleasure is not for you. Critique takes discipline and self-denial. It's not a job for people who can't resist a little self-indulgence.
One of the disciplines you need is giving balanced critique. That forces you to triangulate your position on a manuscript, even if the view from one or the other perspective might be a little thin. Furthermore, breathless fanboy gushing and heartless hatchet jobs are equally useless, because critique is not about expressing your feelings, it's about improving the author's writing. That's your reward for the hard work of criticism: seeing an improved draft.
As for self-esteem, like any other pleasant thing it is virtuous in moderation, vicious in extremes. It's good to feel that you deserve success from working hard; it's bad to feel you deserve success without working at all. In your role as a critic, bolstering the writer's self-esteem is not your purpose, but it can be a useful tool. If you can encourage a writer get his head in that "just right" zone of self-esteem where he sees improvement as within his grasp, then your work as critic goes much easier.
Posts: 1459 | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wasn't saying anyone was wrong. Simply testing assertions here.
Extrinsic, you titled your thread "Why Being Critically Balanced Matters." How are you using the term "balanced"? Is it a ratio of 1:1 good for bad, tit for tat? Or is there an underlying assumption that a few discoveries of some hidden gems balance out a multitude of negative comments?
Posts: 823 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
There's another reason why positive critiques are far better than negative -- particularly in writing.
A writer's natural strengths will be what drives his work to publication, and if he can hone those strengths -- make them really work well -- that's what's going to make him sell.
Consider:
Would anything call Clive Cussler a master word-smith? Is he a master at deep, compelling characters? And yet, his hardbacks sell 1.5 million copies when they come out.
And then there's Robert B. Parker, with nearly 70 novels to his name. Who reads Parker for plot? No one. That's not why he has fans. It's his hero -- Spenser, Jesse Stone, and to a lesser degree, Sunny Randall.
Also, as writers, it's too easy to disparage what we don't like. I was on another writing forum earlier today, and the ridicule heaped upon THE HUNGER GAMES and TWILIGHT was ... short-sighted.
TWILIGHT isn't to my tastes, but I loved THE HUNGER GAMES. But what does my enjoyment have to do? I can learn *something* from Meyer, can't I? She did sell millions and millions of books. So I have to ask: Even though this story isn't to my taste, why does it work for millions of readers.
Finally, unless a person can objectively state why something isn't working, I typically find that the criticism comes more from taste than from knowledge. I once had someone tell me I needed to flesh out my characters in a particular story; they were too thin for her. She said it would've made the story better. But she were wrong. The story was what OSC would call an Idea Story, and this person wanted me to make it into a Character Story. If she had known the difference, she would've understood what I was doing. Did this mean my story didn't have flaws? No. Only that her criticism wasn't valid.
So better, always, to focus on what is good in a person's work -- on what a person does well -- than the other way. If you have the KNOWLEDGE to help them improve what they're doing, that's different, of course, but only then.
Posts: 62 | Registered: Mar 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by babooher: I wasn't saying anyone was wrong. Simply testing assertions here.
Extrinsic, you titled your thread "Why Being Critically Balanced Matters." How are you using the term "balanced"? Is it a ratio of 1:1 good for bad, tit for tat? Or is there an underlying assumption that a few discoveries of some hidden gems balance out a multitude of negative comments?
1:1.618? For me, how much strength commentary to shortcoming commentary depends on how fully and artfully realized a narrative is.
What's your position?
What does this mean?
quote:babooher: "Also, I promise I'm not trying to be an ass, but it does tend to be a natural talent.
The prounoun "it" has an unclear subject antecedent, even from the preceding sentence, and the meaning could be misunderstood.
quote:Jeff Ambrose: I once had someone tell me I needed to flesh out my characters in a particular story; they were too thin for her. She said it would've made the story better. But she were wrong. The story was what OSC would call an Idea Story, and this person wanted me to make it into a Character Story. If she had known the difference, she would've understood what I was doing. Did this mean my story didn't have flaws? No. Only that her criticism wasn't valid.
Aren't wrong and right relative in creative writing? Strong character development isn't mutually exclusive from a strong idea story, nor does Orson Scott Card claim they are exclusive. I'd interpret a character development comment as a cue to consider further character development within an empahsis of idea development. The commentor may be projecting her personal sentiments and sensibilities, though does she perhaps represent a sizable audience share that feels the same way?
Posts: 6037 | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have to agree with Jeff Ambrose and Matt Leo. I think a lot of folks do tend to allow their enjoyment level and their personal tastes unbalance their critiques from time to time. In particular I find a lot of what Jeff speaks of, what I call reconstructive criticism...a story being criticized, essentially, for being what it is. Obviously any element of focus and storytelling technique can be useful or hurtful to any story, but I think people do sometimes lose track of the fact that there are different story types and in some, certain other areas just aren't going to be a focus. Further I think if you are going to, say, critique character development in an idea story, it should be highly specific and highly serious...a general thing of "I think you need more character development" in a story that isn't meant to be character-oriented is not super helpful.
I think critical balance is very important, and I also think that the nature and presentation of the negative side is very relevant. I think we all want to know the problems in our stories perhaps even moreso than the positives but I think we want those criticisms to come in a way, and from a perspective that is non-condemnatory and useful to the goals and nature of a piece.
I don't think an overabundance of self-esteem is an issue for most aspiring writers. Quite the opposite, most I know are filled with doubt about their skills. I think that when critiquing, it's not about offering nothing but praise, it is about balance and about putting forth the negatives in a manner that is respectful of the author as a person and of the work as a meaningful endeavor.
Posts: 2626 | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
extrinsic, for the most part, I share your position even if my posts are challenging it. I've never thought you posted your observations here as edicts or dictates, but I've suspected you often use Hatrack as a testing ground for both your ideas and your expression of those ideas. To that end, I simply sought to test the strength of your statements using a somewhat Socratic method. I never said you were wrong, nor did I try to prove you were. I sought elucidation and specification, and you have provided both. Thank you.
As for any pronoun/antecedent confusion, I'd say "it" refers to being an ass, a natural talent of mine.
Posts: 823 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Maybe I should've have said that her criticism wasn't valid ... only that it wasn't helpful.
I don't think Idea Stories are mutually exclusive with strong character development ... but I do think it depends on the story being told. And vice-versa, regardless of how you look at Card's MICE theory.
Which takes me back to my original point. Unless you know how to improve a work, it's best to focus on what you like about it and one a writer's strengths.
Which means ... writers should take care from whom they seek critiques, and those who do critiques should always be asking: What can say that'll make this work better?
Posts: 62 | Registered: Mar 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by babooher: extrinsic, for the most part, I share your position even if my posts are challenging it. I've never thought you posted your observations here as edicts or dictates, but I've suspected you often use Hatrack as a testing ground for both your ideas and your expression of those ideas. To that end, I simply sought to test the strength of your statements using a somewhat Socratic method. I never said you were wrong, nor did I try to prove you were. I sought elucidation and specification, and you have provided both. Thank you.
As for any pronoun/antecedent confusion, I'd say "it" refers to being an ass, a natural talent of mine.
Ah, Socratic irony!? Posting about topics also builds stronger understandings of the writing principles I struggle with or have learned. I was afraid the pronoun was self-referential or a different kind of irony, one I don't have a name for yet. I've noted a strange first-person ironic transference in confessional poetry, particularly Anne Sexton's. Unlike the royal plural first person, the singular first person's confessional poetry expression has an intriguingly immersive persuasion. Sexton's poetry feels to me codependently accusatory, manipulative, and toxic, which I'm vulnerable to as a likewise socially dysfunctional toxic personality.
Posts: 6037 | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jeff Ambrose: Maybe I should've have said that her criticism wasn't valid ... only that it wasn't helpful.
I don't think Idea Stories are mutually exclusive with strong character development ... but I do think it depends on the story being told. And vice-versa, regardless of how you look at Card's MICE theory.
Which takes me back to my original point. Unless you know how to improve a work, it's best to focus on what you like about it and one a writer's strengths.
Which means ... writers should take care from whom they seek critiques, and those who do critiques should always be asking: What can say that'll make this work better?
I've read a few literary method analyses recently that explore the concept of narratives that delve into idea, event, or milieu emphasis. The essays are in The Writer's Chronicle, the flagship publication of the Association of Writers and Writing Programs, AWP.
The essays name and detail conventions of narratives that develop less character emphasis. One of which is how less is more in an essay by Steven Schwartz titled "The Absence of Their Presence: Mythic Character in Fiction." Schwartz notes that villains and nemeses take on "mythic" proportions when villainous, antagonizing characters' identities are disguised. These influence characters have strong mystery appeals from not being fully developed and realized, representing the intangible, unsatisfiable concerns of readers' fears and worries and curiosities about the strange and dangerous other among us. Schwartz confuses "mythic" with mysterious, though. Mythic relates to spiritual phenomena, where mysterious may be spiritual as well as or solely earthly phenomena.
I don't entirely agree that a critiquer knowing how to strengthen another's writing is required. Critique commentary individually or in workshops may be less than as insightful and interpretably expressed as is ideal; however, I see the process as audience testing--focus group processes. Average, everyday consumers can and do have aesthetic hunches that, though often less than ideally expressed, may offer insights worthy of consideration, at least as backmind areas for meditation.
I've had epiphanies about comments that, when first expressed, left me thinking the commentor couldn't possibly have read the same story I wrote. Months or years later, I finally decoded what the commentor meant. I've also expressed a few off-the-cuff and uncertain comments that later I realized what I meant.
Also, joining the critique conversation, no matter how effectively, builds critique and writing skills. We all start at the start, perhaps less than ideally helpful at first. It's still useful practice. And anyone who does comment has a fundamental right to participate. Frankly, though, my assessment of critique's benefits is more writing growth acrues to a critiquer than a writer.
Posts: 6037 | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Agree with the last statement -- critiques are often more beneficial to the one giving the critique than to the writer receiving it.
Question: Is giving your story to a group of writers for their analysis the best way to achieve "audience testing"?
*I* don't think so.
In my experience, most writers who'd be willing to be in a critique group with me know just enough to be dangerous. I'd much rather give my work to non-writers, just readers, and get their feedback. Sure, they might not be able to tell me how to make my work better, but their comments are often easier to understand and, if I arm them with the three basic things I want, their comments do help.
And what three basic things do I want? It's the same thing OSC wants from his readers. (I confess: I stole it from him). Other than basic proofing, I want them to write one of three things in the margins:
So what?––for when attention wanders, or when one is growing bored
Huh?––for when they don't understand something.
Oh yeah?––for laps of logic in plot, character motivation, etc.
[ October 10, 2013, 03:01 PM: Message edited by: Jeff Ambrose ]
Posts: 62 | Registered: Mar 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
I enjoy several audience panels as testers. Writers of every stripe: creative (fiction, creative nonfiction, poetry, script writing), scholarly and academic, legal writing professionals, literary critics; and general readers, family, acquaintances, editors, publishers, and writing professors.
I preface with no rubrics other than comments are welcome, and thank them for their consideration. I'm especially mindful and sincere about replying how they've helped.
Posts: 6037 | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
On the asking for more character development in an idea story question: I submit that one of the reasons for taking the time to give someone feedback on their work is that the critiquer is trying to help the writer improve the manuscript's ability to recreate the story in the reader's mind.
If the critiquer is trying to help the writer change the manuscript to recreate a different story, then that critiquer's feedback may not be helpful.
So one of the goals of a critiquer is to try to understand what story the writer is trying to recreate in the reader's mind with the manuscript under question.
Asking the writer to change the manuscript to convey a different kind of story verges on trying to rewrite the story for the writer, and that is not what we want to try to do here (see the relevant topic in the Please, Read Here First area).
Posts: 8826 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
