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

Oops.

 

Cool. Did you decide on a course? You were debating between two last time you mentioned it.

 

"Yeah man, I'm like on a whole other level, that's why nothing I say makes sense." It's pretty easy to dismiss "irrelevant crap" when you don't understand any of what's being talked about.

So what have you read? I'm working on Murray, at the moment, and then Rohman and Wleke, which was okay. But Nancy Sommers was the really difficult one. I brought up Macrorie earlier, I don't know if you saw my post on "Engfish" but he's got some really interesting ideas.

But I'd love to hear what ideas you have that contest published doctorates on compositional theory.

 

Both my major and minor are going to take some serious writing technique because they entail some deep thought involving ethics and abstract thought. MY major is Criminal Justice with a minor in psychology.

I think both are difficult to write productive pieces, but maybe more difficult yet to critique because so much of the material becomes opinion. How do you critique someone's opinion? Especially when the opinion is based on abstract pieces that can't be delineated into right or wrong?

 

I still think if you look at the landscape of literature, you can see how much is subjective in terms of whether something is good or effective fiction. I can think of novels that I didn't find very good, but where no one would doubt the technical ability of the writer. An example that comes to mind is The Handmaid's Tale. I thought that was pretty bad, personally. A lot of people love it. I don't think anyone, including me, would argue that Atwood isn't technically proficient - she knows how to write. She didn't put together an effective novel in that instance, in my opinion.

Bestsellers, great works of literature, etc. - for any of these you'll find people who really liked a given work and people who didn't. Then there are bestsellers where the writers don't seem to me to be particularly skilled. I guess some of it can go back to an argument of writing skill versus storytelling ability. I think those are two different things, and I think the latter is more important in terms of success. But even there, when judging whether a story works from a storytelling perspective, you're going to find differing views among readers.

Even if you're looking at what many consider to be more akin to rules of good writing, I don't think you can use those to judge skill. Was Joyce a skilled writer? How about Virginia Woolf? I'd say they were both skilled, and they both broke a lot of conventional wisdom about what makes for a good novel. Cormac McCarthy doesn't use quotations for dialogue. Neither did Faulkner. That's something that most in a writing forum would probably point to as a simple rule of grammar. Some people nevertheless like McCarthy and Faulkner (I'm in that camp), others find that way of handling dialogue to be off-putting and as such the writing style doesn't work for them.

As I noted previously, there are some very good stories that are largely telling rather than showing. Were those written by unskilled authors? I don't think so. They were written by authors who chose to 'tell' and did a nice job of it.

So if you can't define a good, core set of rules that remains inviolate across whatever is to be deemed good or skilled writing, it is hard to say that much of it is objective. Even in a critique forum, as we've seen here and I've seen on any number of other sites as well as in critique groups, the reaction to a given work can be all across the board depending on who is critiquing. If something really works for one critiquer and doesn't work for another, are we to conclude that one critiquer knows what he's doing and the other is wrong? That may be the case, but you can't say it is necessarily the case. Both points of view may be perfectly valid and you're left dealing with subjective preferences.

I think a lot of writing is subjective. I also think writers want it to be objective. Writing is an art form. Success isn't guaranteed for any writer - in fact the odds are stacked against us. So it is natural to want to believe that there are rules or formulae that we can follow, and that by following them we'll be guaranteed to produce a successful book. But it's just not the case.

So why are critiques helpful? They're helpful because they allow a writer to see where she's falling short of her own vision for her work. A critiquer shouldn't tell a writer "you have to show," or "you have to write that passage like this." A critiquer should understand what the author is trying to do and make an analysis based on that. That doesn't mean the critiquer doesn't provide their subjective opinion of what the author is trying to do, in addition to how they're doing it - both of those are valuable to the author. But if you don't understand what the author is trying to do it is easy to confuse your subjective preferences as a reader with something that objectively can't work, and I think that when subjective preferences are presented as objective deficiencies in a writing it can harm new writers.

There is also a burden on the author to have a strong enough vision of their work that they'll stick to it, even in the face of comments from people critiquing the work. I can think of some great reads that would have never been written, or else would have been ruined, if the writer had run them through a critique forum and changed things based on majority feedback.

My approach to critiquing is generally to point out to the author that they're getting one person's opinion. The vast majority of it (if not quite all) is inherently subjective. That understood, I'll point out what I liked and didn't like, what I thought worked and didn't work. But I fully expect the author to hold to their vision of the work and to discard any advice I give that doesn't align with their vision. Changing something merely because 1 or 10 people say to change it is a bad idea. If 10 people think it is a bad idea, or poorly implemented, then it's worth taking a look at what you've done and trying to figure out why those people unanimously had a bad reaction to it, but if your vision for the story runs counter to what the critiquers have said, then you've got to go with your vision and critiques be damned.

 

Well again, I'd point you toward Macrorie. And then there's a fantastic scientific study by Flowers & Hayes that focuses on cognition theory. It's really cool stuff.

Edited to Add: Seller and Goldman also have some really cool ideas, and some writing prompts that go a long way to developing skill.

And then there's Palahniuk which I've linked to before, but will do so again.

All of these are published names @The Mad Regent, and they seem to believe in all of these techniques and concepts. What are you bringing to the table?

 

Just because there is a method, it doesn't equal success. In fact there are going to be some people that no matter how much they try, they are just never going to get it. And that's ok because to some it's a talent like being able to roll your tongue. Not being able to do it doesn't make you a loser.

 

The first book, yes, but not the second two.

 

No, you're right. And there are books that break these rules. But I encourage you to read all the research, because even beyond the techniques, the concepts are incredibly interesting. The expressive, traditional, rhetoric, mimetic model is fascinating even though (as creative writers) we almost always fall under expressive. Just knowing that these elements will help you to understand why and how you write what you do.

Oh, look at the ad homonym attack. Have you considered that no one understands what you say because your thoughts (like your arguments) are actually not very good? Worth looking into.

You couldn't make it more clear that you don't know what you are talking about. I did throw it your way. That's what all of those names were. You can look them all up. I just don't have the energy to search and link all of them.

It's relevance is a matter of much more learned discourse than you are using here. But your dismissal is pretty clearly done without any understanding at all.

 

Now you've said all that, substantiate it ... or at least give it some logic. Edit: because all you've been doing is saying I'm wrong but not actual given any reason why, besides the names of a bunch of 'theory' books.

To put it simple: can you prove it?

 

I thought not.

And on that note, I'm going to bed.

 

. . .
Prove what? That techniques are a thing that exists? That successful writers believe in them? That claiming that they don't, or that they don't matter, is ignorant at best?

Because that's what I've been doing, and pretty successfully. "Showing and telling" are older than the internet. You can find them in books all over the place. See, here's a giant fucking list of people talking about it. The "Expresssive theory" dates back to around the 1980 and has been used by literally hundreds of writers and authors.

You ask me why I'm wrong? Prove that you're on a whole 'nother level. Because this:

Is barely intelligible raving.
Edited for harshness.

 

So this suggests you think it's just a popularity contest. That would mean none of us has any hope of learning to be better writers.

 

Just a minor point of contention, skilled and well written don't have exactly the same meaning. Skilled would coincide with a commercial success. Well written tends to imply the skill is more focused on technical writing skills.

 

Yes, actually. I understand what you're saying. It's just not what the thread is about.

 

The issue is not whether there is a proper ratio of anything. Nor is it about a specific critique of a specific piece.

I think because this is such a basic argument, people are missing what I'm saying. It's not the overlying debate: what constitutes skilled writing. It's the underlying debate I'm trying to get at: do objective identifiable skills one can identify even exist?

How can we evaluate a skill or critique a piece if there is nothing to base the eval/critique on except personal preference or personal opinion? If the whole content of critique is no more than personal likes and dislikes, what is there to learn from that?

@thirdwind likes what I wrote, guess I write more of it, if only I knew what is was he liked.​

Take the issue of showing vs telling. If you think there is no such thing as showing vs telling except individual opinions about what it is, how do you identify it or critique it?

Joe thinks it's this, Mary thinks it's that. Then what is it? Nothing but opinion? Nothing real, nothing of substance, just whatever anyone decides it is. What use it that?

 

Then we agree up to this point. Because I'm not talking about when or how much to use.

Wouldn't one need to understand techniques A through Z before one decided how much of and when to use those techniques?

But if techniques A-Z were no more than the opinion du jour, then what use are they? What can you learn when someone says techniques A-Z depend entirely on whoever is defining them?

 

When all else fails, go for the kill shot. Don't waste time with first or second base.

 

And herein lies the point. There is something you can identify as technically proficient. (I loved the book, by the way.) Above and beyond identifiably skilled writing is personal preference. Underneath that personal POV about a piece or book one can still identify objective writing skills.

From my perspective, we should keep in mind that what we often refer to as skilled writing may be leaving out a different but no less important set of qualities.

Again, if there are renowned writers or best selling writers one doesn't like the work of, one should be able to look at those works and identify the describable qualities one wasn't considering on one's list of 'skills'. And it's useful to identify what the piece lacks that might have made you enjoy the writing when you didn't.

No, I wouldn't dismiss those as unskilled either. Rather I'm challenging the claim no such thing as showing exists, it's only personal opinions as to what is showing is.

I'm not saying one should confine the definition of 'skilled' to a limited set of parameters.

Not exactly what I'm getting at.

Writing a best seller, becoming a famous author, that's a whole different level from learning to write. What I'm talking about is much more down to Earth. I'm talking about identifying the elements of skilled writing so one can learn them and become a better writer.

And here we come to the problem. Telling a writer they should do something because it's your opinion is a different critique from saying, if it's applicable, this piece fails to engage the reader because you are not creating the visual elements that allow the reader to see the scene. This is the core problem. Saying you think a certain style would be preferable, or the story should be [whatever] is a different critique from saying the writing lacks an identifiable XYZ skill.

A lot of what you are saying here applies to someone who already has a basic competency. What about when the person you are critiquing is at a different level in their development? What about the writer that is just learning what showing is? What if the piece lacks some basic skills?

Maybe some writers jump right off into gifted expertise. Maybe some don't remember when they were beginning writers. But everyone's not there yet. And when you see that, what good does it do that writer to say, everything's fine? Maybe it's not my kind of writing but whatever floats your boat if that's the style you want to write.

That's not doing that writer any favors. It's not preference or opinion. It's an observable lack of skill that you can help the person learn. Or you can pat them on the back and not help them learn. You can pat them on the back and say, it's preference and opinion, and not bring up the elephant in the room: the observable skill deficit.

 

I have a question for you: do you think reading theory books on sentence composition is going to make you a good writer? Do you think learning the techniques associated with writing is going to make you a skilled writer?

 

There are certainly a few elements one can objectively identify, but those aren't skills. Using proper grammar isn't a skill (!) because the author can choose not to use proper grammar and still produce great work. The same goes for showing vs. telling. So no, there are no skills one can objectively identify. (Cue mob of angry writers.)

I usually don't. I realize that some writers tend to show more while others tend to tell more. This is one of those situations where suggesting too many changes can mess with the style of the OP. When I do address this issue, I simply point out that too much showing weakens and piece, and I give my opinions why I think this is the case. But again, it's just my opinion, and I try to do it in such a way that the original style and tone is preserved.

There are several ways to look at this. First, is Joe your intended audience, or is it Mary? Who's more qualified to give critique? Who has more experience reading/writing in the genre you're writing in? For me, such things are more important than someone who's following some guideline of when to show vs. tell, etc.

 

I knew this thread was going to be trouble from word go...



This thread will relax or this thread will be closed. Of that, there is no debate whatsoever. The pathological need to debate points on the part of some members has chaffed me to the effing bone. That is all.

 

I don't think you need to hide the ball from new writers. I always hated professors in college who did that - you'd learn one thing as fact, and then in a later, more advanced class, find out it wasn't exactly true because there were nuances and exceptions. When I taught, I tried not to do that to students.

A example from a critique I did a while back: the author had POV shifts all over the place. They looked to be inadvertent to me, and I told the author they looked inadvertent. I gave the reasons why the POV shifts didn't work to me, and pointed out that the most common approach was to provide, minimally, a scene break between POV shifts. But, there is a Virginia Woolf story (can't remember which one) where she effectively shifts POV multiple times in a single paragraph, sometimes within a single sentence. I concluded that part of my critique by acknowledging that you can shift POV whenever you feel like it, but that if you're going to do it in the middle of a scene or paragraph it gets tricky. As it happened, in that case the writer hadn't meant to shift POV and corrected it. But I don't think the writer should have been shielded from the knowledge that it is possible to shift POV in the middle of a scene or paragraph, and to do it well. A lot of critiques I've seen would have simply said something like "this is a POV shift; you can't do that without a chapter break," which is just wrong.

There are similar reasons I dislike critiques that point to any technical aspect of writing and just say "no" to the author, with no analysis, no qualifiers, etc. That's just giving bad advice, in my view. Often, I get the feeling the critiquer is doing it out of ignorance as well. Either because they haven't read broadly or aren't advanced enough in their own craft to recognize that unconventional writing can really be made to work. Or else they're just parroting things they've read in writing forums (i.e. they were victims of bad advice when they began writing and they perpetuate it).

Others may disagree with that approach, and think new writers should be restricted from trying anything unconventional or even being made aware that such things can work until they reach a certain level of competence. I'm just not a fan of the "hide the ball" approach.

 

Though my philosophy of giving critique is completely at odds with the neck-bone that is this thread in the jaws of the pit bull that is its mode of engagement, I agree with the above in full. In too many ways it makes the process a two-steps-forward-one-step-back paradigm. To take it down to very simple terms, it's easy to see how hiding the ball leads to poor (and oft propagated) statements like never use semicolons/passive voice or a comma goes everywhere you pause in speech. These "rules" get ingrained and difficult to dislodge later on, and cause the person who has held these rules to their bosom to question either everything they know or the person challenging the supposed rule and... we end up with a thread like this one.

 

Williams takes on the role of the messianic English instructor, one who has had a fair share of dealings with the bureaucracy of the private school system. He decides that he will die with dignity by not perpetuating the doctrine of Cartesian mechanisms of poetry appraisal which was plagiarized from the interestXprincipalXtime equals return equation of personal finance. He is a good politician, winning over both, those boys who do get excited at the thought that they will partake in the truths that Williams charismatically promises and those who will study calculus during "discussion" so they will become better bankers and directors. Williams also has dirt on fixture, headmaster-type man, so he goes along with Williams' theatrics.

Disclaimer: Brian never saw film.