Critique is not always pretty, and that's a good thing.

"And if everything is subjective personal preference, what makes skilled writing?"
Nothing. There is no formula. A skilled writer is someone you personally find to be better than other writers. Other people will probably disagree with your opinion of that writer being skilled.

 

And, here I was thinking, "Oh, look! Ginger gets it!"

But for @BayView's benefit, as she is relatively new here, Ginger and I have not always agreed.

Ineptitude has nothing to do with it. You're question is off-topic. That's my reason for not answering.

 

@The Mad Regent
Really? Name calling?
This discussion has reached its end, I think.

 

I don't see you being referenced in this conversation at all, until Ed pointed out that you were trying to derail the thread.

 

But when we're critiquing, we're looking at a limited sample of the work. I haven't read 50 Shades, but I'm going to assume there was a segment of it somewhere that didn't include the elements you think make it well-written. So if that's the segment that's up for critique... does it make sense to critique that section based on criteria that make other books great?

And, yes, I think I answered your questions as far as they made sense. Feel free to actually read my posts before responding to them.

 

Well, he was referenced pretty damn clearly to those who bothered to click on @GingerCoffee's history and figure out who she was talking about. It's not that big of a board - passive-aggressive 'new threads' aren't going to work that well, here.

 

I don't think @GingerCoffee was being passive aggressive.
She had a fair point and it's about a topic we generally discuss as a subtopic on critique related posts.
I mean, the guy even apologized and wrote a very nice post about learning to take criticism better!

This entire thing is just out of proportions at this point with one faction yelling this and another that.

 

So... another Saturday night?

 

Yeah I did that and really don't see the conection you're making here. If anything it looks like a response to @carsun1000, who has also responded to this thread, as @A.M.P. points out, apologetically.

You've missed a lot of this forums worst moments if you think this qualifies as passive-aggressive in the least way. @GingerCoffee made an observation about critique, and someone decided it was all about them. That's not her problem.

 

And here's another time when interpretation is subjective!

 

https://www.writingforums.org/threads/showing-here-or-telling.140269/#post-1352050

Now read the thread again, specifically @GingerCoffee's posts.

I didn't call any names. Just stated a fact.

This thread ended the minute it started. People are searching for answers in something that doesn't even have a real answer. This thread hasn't achieved anything and won't achieve anything. And on top of that, this thread was started on the basis of how feedback is provided, which I can tell you with all certainty, isn't blunt or brutal; there is a reason why in schools teachers use psychological techniques and reward systems to encourage students and boost their confidence. They don't just pan their work and say, 'deal with it,' shattering their confidence or ambitions.

And you're all talking about skill? Seriously, no one on this forum, including myself, has the knowledge, talent, or experience to comment on such things. Only when you're at the apex of the mountain can you look down on all its glory and lay claim to the hardships of such an endeavour. You want blunt and brutal? Well even those here that have succeeded or even been published in some aspects don't have that great claim to writing, and I know, because I've read a lot of peoples stuff here. A lot of people make extremely wise and intelligent points, like @EdFromNY always does, but sometimes even the right way isn't always the right choice.

You wondered why I asked if you look up at the stars? Because if you're able to catch that beauty in well crafted and articulate sentences, then you have a skilled piece of writing. Writing isn't just about how you write, it's also what you write.

As for massive best sellers like Harry Potter and 50 Shades of Grey, they -- for the most part -- find success by filling a gap in the market and then succeeding through a chain reaction in the media hype train. Hell, people even buy those books just so they can say they own a copy. Are they skilled pieces of prose? That's up to the reader to decide. You can understand word mechanics and character development all you like, but like I said, there are two sides to writing -- how you write, and what you write. Ultimately, this is why a lot of authors say that writing can't be caught. You just have to learn the methods, sit down, and write, and people will either like what you write, or they won't.

 

I wasn't too inept. There are other reasons people don't reply to a post you know, such as there are a lot of posts in this thread and not a lot of time in the night.

I thought that video was akin to the formulaic writing I said was going too far the other way. The whole point here is that some elements of skilled writing are objective. Not everything is subjective.

The point was never about formulaic writing. It wasn't a list of things skilled writing must contain.

Rather it was about recognition that certain elements of writing weren't pure preference, pure opinion. If that were true, like I've said a number of times here, then what makes good writing?

 

So rather than a rhetorical question, let's make that a real question.

What does make good writing, @GingerCoffee?

 

So no writing is more skilled than anyone else's?

I must be misunderstanding your post.

 

I just want it known, I tried hard to have a discussion without it deteriorating.

 

Time to unwatch.

 

When you are critiquing, do you tell people, "I like this, I don't like that," without verbalizing what it is about the writing you do or don't like?

 

Oh, you must not have seen the part where I did that. And didn't see what your thin skin projected on the conversation. If it's about anyone it's about @carsun1000. Sorry man, I'm sure that hurts.

 

It wasn't rhetorical nor hypothetical.

The reason I've avoided a discussion about what makes good writing is because the discussion would shift to whether that was or wasn't good writing and that's not what the thread is about.

The discussion is about the claim there is nothing objective here, only subjective, only opinion, only preference as if skilled writing had nothing more than popularity to identify it.

 

It depends on who you're asking. I think Hemingway is very skilled writer. Others will say he's a caveman who can't form a sentence. So is Hemingway a skilled writer? I don't know. It depends on who you ask. When you average out all the opinions, people worldwide will find that he's an average writer probably.

 

The whole 'thin and thick skin' line. What has that got to do with writing or this thread?

Why would it hurt? As far as I'm concerned, this thread's been an entire joke in search of answers to highly philosophical questions that don't have black and white answers. Not only that, but it doesn't achieve anything what so ever, and if it does ... please enlighten me.

 

So are you trying to prove that there are objective ways to evaluate writing quality, but refusing to delineate what those ways are? That seems a bit awkward...

ETA: To clarify - it wasn't a rhetorical question, but... you've avoided a discussion of it. So why would it make sense for others to embark on a discussion you yourself are avoiding? Is it because your question was actually... rhetorical?

 

Often, yes. "I didn't really care about your MC" or "I really liked the secondary characters" are, to me, totally valid, valuable critiques.

Again, I can see how they might not be worth much to you, or to those who write like you. But to those who write like me, those types of comments are a hell of a lot more useful than some random internet sage telling me what's wrong with my story, without adding the "according to my incredibly subjective standards" to their comments.

 

Thank you.

Well the thread is about thin skinned people responding to critiques is the topic of the thread. I would say they have a lot to do with it. But to enlighten you, the topics on this forum are here for people to form and cement their opinions on topics. If people read the thread and thing, "Huh, maybe I need to just accept the critiques I ask for," then it achieves it's purpose.

Honestly, that answer should have occurred to you around your first emoticon response.

 

If all you hear or read is "my opinion of Hemingway" you have nothing to go on. If, on the other hand, one identifies specifically what the writing contains or lacks you have something upon which to decide whether he has skill or not.

I'm skeptical the naysayers have much of a point, but I'd be willing to consider it if they articulated more specifics than only opinion.