I asked him where he got the impression there was two POV's and he replied it happened right from the start of the chapter, beginning with one POV and then switching to a different character (the actual POV) later in the passage. Good of him to reply but I'm not sure where he got the idea from as the chapter clearly starts out with the intended POV. I thought it might have been due to confusion in how I wrote it but I honestly can't see it. Ah well, part and parcel of getting reviewed I guess.
I dont have anything published, so i'm just assuming here but i think analysing bad reviews would be good for self improvement, but sometimes you just have to accept that the reviewer may be completely wrong in their oppinion. Joe Abercrombie used to do (or may still) small reviews of peoples reviews of his books on twitter and it just showed how bad some readers oppinions can be.
You've been rather cryptic about what the bad review was actually on, but you've said more than once it wasn't on anything you wrote. I'm going to guess that the piece that got panned was something like a painting or a musical composition. The same principles apply. The reviewer found it "wooden," said it lacked emotion, and it needed to be given life. (I'd take the "lacks . . . quality" bit with a grain of interpretation, since it's linked in with "lacks emotion." That tells me this reviewer equates quality with a work's capacity to move him.) All right, do other reviewers find it lively and moving? If so, you may conclude that this reviewer is not part of your audience and move on. But suppose this reviewer is someone you wanted to appeal to. And somehow, you didn't. That's what hurts, isn't it? To feel you put your life and soul into a work of art, then have someone whose opinion you value say it came off dead. But in your emotion did you remain faithful to the central idea of your work? Did you exercise discipline in embodying your idea, as well as passion? Or . . . did you trust that felt passion alone would carry you through? 19th century actor and critic Constant Coquelin, cited by Dorothy L. Sayers in her book The Mind of the Maker, says, "'In order to call forth emotion we ourselves must not feel it.'" Sayers goes on: "[H]e does not say that we must never have felt it, but only that, 'the actor must in all circumstances remain the absolute master of himself.'" Sayers concludes, "[T]he artist must not attempt to force response by direct contact with any response of his own; for spirit cannot speak to spirit without intermediary" (MOTM, page 155). Your craft is that intermediary. If you are able, reexamine your work objectively, pretending you're not the artist at all, but a random connoisseur. Or submit it to some kind but perceptive friend who can do it for you. See where your basic idea has failed to come through on the canvas or in the score, and use your craft to rectify the matter. If your idea is strong and your method in embodying it is as strong as your idea, the emotional response of the viewer or listener will be strong, too. That said, just because one reviewer panned your painting, musical composition, or whatever it is doesn't mean you're a lousy novelist. You may be a much better writer than you are a composer or visual artist. I've produced work in all those branches of the arts, and I know that while my various musical pieces and paintings are okay, my writing has produced a much more positive effect. And look at it like this: If you show your novel to someone and they (correctly) judge it needs work, a piece of writing is a lot easier to modify it than a painting.
I think that people should be be glad someone took the time to comment on work they have posted online. They took the time to write something and they didn't have to. Them putting a comment might have triggered other reviews. I've recently had a bad reaction to a review on another site. It all began with a single word threw me off and stopped me reading and I felt I should mention it to the writer based on her title of work and the word used. That got a reaction from writer that then made me think, ok - I'll read the full work another day which I did. I then posted my reaction to her work which again was negative. To which the reaction I got was BUT OTHER PEOPLE AND MY FRIENDS LIKE it. To which I replied, well these are my reasoning to explain my original critique. To which I then got underhanded insult all wrapped nicely in a 'thank you for your comments'. I should have just left it to this person not wanting to hear anything negative and moved on. But me being me and wanting to know if I did indeed miss something, gave it one last go. It still sucked to me - only worst the second time around. So I said quite civilly I thought, that sorry it was rather crap. To which she then got angry that I told her 3 times it sucked and delivered more underhanded insults, and then said, this work is not serious (so she was wasting our time) and critiques were subjective (duh!) so it was all meaningless to her. She then ended it with being childish which I thought was funny. Note, she may have thought I was being a jerk but I genuinely spent time to read her work. But rather than just being polite and try to understand where I might be coming from, she had to have her digs. Really, she just needed to behave graciously, it's not hard. People do not have to spend time on her work AT ALL. Based on her reaction, I won't spend the time on that particular site to critique. I will also say it bothers me to read people complaining and calling people who gave them negative critiques 'jerks', and ridiculing critiques even after the fact. All it does is deter people (at least me) from spending the time to give honest critiques online for a particular site.
Example of the two type of bad reviews mentioned in my post: Example 1 Did you gain anything from this critique? Didn't think so. However, they are one "critique" closer to being able to post in the workshop. Example 2 Did you gain anything from this critique? Does it appear that I even read your post? Did I address anything that you actually wrote about? I don't think so. Some critiques are just worthless, this would be an example of a worthless critique. ETA: The work that I "critiqued" was your comment, which is quoted at the top.
@KhalieLa my issue is not about whether you got anything out of this person's post. It's more to do with the conduct of writers online that I have been noticing. You get enough people on a website having a bitch about bad critiquers for whatever reasons and people like myself will just go it's not worth the energy, on the off-chance people will just get butt-hurt anyway. Because they don't understand me and I don't understand them. Who needs that crap when we all should be focusing on our writing. I am idealist and I wish everyone would just take a more polite attitude to other people's time. You're nobody to them but they took time out of their life to react to your stuff. Wasn't that what you wanted? Or do you need them to go through a selection criteria of worthiness? I guess you might have to pay for that. You did put your work up for review after all to invite criticism, and that would include the crazies. People will have a rant and will react not the way you expect. It's still worth knowing it got that reaction, which will go automatically in the discard pile. No need to talk about this jerk and that jerk back then and when and etc. But go forth and complain if it makes sense to you. Just letting you know what reaction it got from me.
@LinnyV I'm all for a more civil internet. I also believe people need to realize that critique is a two way street. If you want me to take the time to critique 20 pages of your work, looking for SPAG, characterization, pacing, plot holes, issues with setting development, etc, then you need to be prepared and buck up to do the same for mine. If all I'm going to get are single line responses, why should I devote my time you your work? If you want me to read your work in it's entirety and give substantive feedback, then you need to be willing to put in the same kind of effort in return. Very few people are willing to put in the time to give valuable feedback, yet they want a high quality critique of their own work. This is even more infuriating when it happens in real life. Why should I spend a couple of hours reading and reviewing your work, re-arrange my work scheduled to have Tuesday night off, then sit with you for 2 hours for the purpose of exchanging critiques if all I'm going to get is a one line response or a bunch mindless babble. The simple answer is, I'm not. If you want good feedback, you have to give good feedback.
@KhalieLa I understand your frustration but I am not talking about the quality of critiques. Just how writers handle them. Also, in the past I did heaps of detailed critiques on the other website and people appreciated it. I never posted one thing because I wasn't ready and to be honest, I spent way too much time on other people's work. So I can say that not everyone is there to take. Some people are happy to give. So in the spirit of encouraging more participation, it would be more helpful to hear writers sound appreciative or at least neutral of critiques even if they aren't the best. This goes both ways. I always get a little put off when read a group of writers griping about internet based reviews, giving them or taking them. It's the Internet after all. People should expect to filter through a lot of unhelpful stuff. I think shitty critiques just aren't even worth mentioning if it means it will make me sound judgmental. I would want as many people as possible to want to comment on my work, and not be worried they'll turn away because they think they will get the same reaction as the previous guy. But that's just my view.
