I'm not saying only take notice of the good reviews. What I object to is when someone leaves a review that says nothing more than "I didn't like this book, gave up after five chapters, don't waste your money or your time." Obviously the reader felt strongly enough to leave the review (it's not one of mine but I have read this type of thing on other book listings) but the review serves no purpose. We don't know why the reader disliked the book, was it the story, the characters, the plot? and I certainly don't agree with telling other potential readers whether or not they should waste their time/money on it. After all, the reviewer themselves had a free choice.
Any critique that makes you think about what you've written is a good one, in my opinion—and just about every critique will do that. If the critique-giver obviously doesn't have a clue (gives you wrong information), or has a personal axe to grind, I would be less likely to take their opinions on board. But I always pay attention and think about what they've said. Far more often than not I do make changes to the parts that bothered them. Not because I feel pressured to, but because they are so often right.
Again, there is a difference between a review of something that is already written, published, and offered for sale on a site like amazon, versus a critique of a work in progress. I agree that a review such as the one you mention isn't, by itself, all that enlightening. But, if there are a few hundred of those reviews, and the 2 or 3 star ratings that accompany them are merged into the average rating of a book, it does give some information about what readers thought. In some ways, they actually give the book some more credibility, since if a book has 20 or 30 reviews, and they're all 5 star reviews, I assume that the reviewers are the author's mother, and his friends, siblings, and critique group. Yes, I'd like to know more about why, specifically, a reader doesn't like a particular book if I'm considering reading it. But a simple star rating with a short explanation isn't nothing. (And, in your example, that "I gave up after five chapters" is a nugget of insight -- if other reviews mention that it started out slow but then got really good, it could explain the review.)
Always keep in mind that preference & baggage plays an enormous part in a lot of critiques. They're bringing belief's, grammar strengths, weaknesses, pet peeves, likes and dislikes to the table. With that in mind I read the critique to see if it's addressing the work itself or upholding a rule, archetype, or belief set.
I think you have to take it seriously enough to consider their point and see where and how they came to that conclusion and see whether you agree or disagree with it.
Usually, a critique would be done by a person who says more than just "didn't like it, gave up after five chapters" They would at least go into why they didn't like it, which, lets face it, the reason why one person hates it could be the reason why another person loves it. I can't agree about the part where you assume that 20-30 reviews with five stars are all from friends, family, siblings and an author's critique group. Mainly because out of all my five stars (I don't have many reviews) less than half of them are from people I know and none of them are family. One thing I've learned from my experience of being an author so far, is that you cannot assume anything in the writing/publishing world. Whatever you believe, there will be someone out there with different experiences and the proof to show it. Nothing is set in concrete, there will always be someone telling you how it should be done and someone else proving how something that shouldn't work, does work.
Once an editor of a really popular magazine said that I write very really bad. Since then I don't write at all.
I was very worried that I would get really defensive and upset about getting negative critique. It took me a lot of courage to put something up for scrutiny. In the end, I didn't get either defensive or upset because I could see the value in what everybody was saying. It made the chapter a lot better and that was my aim in posting it - not to be lavished with praise. I suppose that's the difference in asking for critique and simply putting your writing out there to be enjoyed. I would imagine it's much harder to publish something with the hope of people enjoying it and then having it shredded to pieces. I probably would be upset if I entered a short story contest, for example, and somebody PMed me to say how much they hated it. On the other hand if I posted it in the workshop, it's because I know it isn't perfect and I want to improve. I think we also have to remember that, whatever our favourite book is, it's bound to have a multitude of one star reviews on Amazon. Does it make my favourite book any less good in my eyes? No. Apart from SPAG, writing can never really be correct or incorrect (and even SPAG can be purposely abused for effect) so we can't please everybody. If that's your aim, you're doomed to failure. What I'm saying is I think it's about expectations. We have to be in the right frame of mind when we put our writing out there and understand that it's impossible for everyone to like it.
It depends on the criticism. What we're not allowed to do, though, is to start a flame war over that criticism. Whether we think it unfounded insults (ie, this book sucked monkey balls, don't buy it) or not, they have the right to that opinion and our pitching a fit over it will make us the bad guys. I think what's important to realize is, as @Tenderiser said, people can, and do, have vastly different opinions. We're basically asking them to take a moment of their time and hard-earned money to read our books. They have a right to feel angry if it feels like we've wasted their time and money.
And such will always be the way. I'm personally not too keen on Murakami, where others are starting whole religions based on his work and the worship of the Almighty M. Some people hold their copy of On Writing to their bosom as though it were the bible, but for me, it has about as much use as the actual bible (I'm an atheist) because King is a freakin' hack. The only reason he has some good books is purely the law of probability playing out. With that many books in print, eventually one or two are bound to be good just by chance. *shrug* I take trends in critic to heart, not one-offs. But, I also do something that not many are willing to do. Members either tend to post their actual, "live" works, or they never post at all wanting to keep that "live" piece close to their bosom. I do niether. I post items for critique that are either throw-aways, discarded scenes, scenes that have drastically changed or that will drastically change (and I'm already aware of the upcoming change), or highly altered versions of the "live" scene. I also don't want to put my "baby" out there and want to hold it close to me. I show you something that has its nose, or eyes, or lips, or hands, or hair, but never, ever a complete picture of my baby. That may seem like a lot of wasted writing to some people, but some people aren't being asked to write it for me, so I don't really care. In the end it's all practice. Regardless, I focus on the bits of critique that are relevant to whatever element I was trying to show in the given snippet. The rest is often of little value (sorry) simple because it speaks to dynamics that won't be present in the live piece. If I throw a sheet over myself and leave just a cutout for you to see my elbow, all I care about is your thoughts on my elbow. Any comments on the fabric of the sheet, how it folds, its color, its smoothness or lack thereof, are obviously of no consequence. Make sense?
If it's a good critic, I listen to it but I have confidence in my own skills as a reader of books to form my own opinions. Good criticism makes you think more carefully about a work, and give you another good reading of/perspective on, while bad criticism written by hacks who clearly haven't taken the trouble to understand the work can be ignored. If a review was written by Harold Bloom or somebody, as much as I've disagreed with Bloom in the past I still listen to him. Because he actually knows what he's talking about. Some John Q hack writing for The Star or whatever - I barely even read quite frankly.
The good the bad, and the technical. I try to make the best of what little I can get. Best to take it all into consideration (as long as it is not flat out pointless). I am green so any and all practical opinion and insight is well worth the time to take seriously. Even if I disagree with something I will take it into account before simply dismissing it. Part of the learning and development process, otherwise why would I be here in the first place.
Don't give up!Writing is subjective. In a world of 6 billion people you are going to let ONE person determine your future of writing? If that's the case, then maybe you were never supposed to be a writer in the first place. Writers/authors don't give up that easily. We are a stubborn bunch.
I think it's important to get as many opinions as you possibly can. If you go to only one beta and they dislike your style and nitpick all the way through, you might be inclined to think 'oh, I've got to re-write the whole thing!' If you have 20 betas and only one of them dislikes your style and nitpicks at it, while most of the other 20 gallop through the story no bother, and start discussing the characters and what happened ...then it's okay to disregard the nitpicker. You've done your job and got 19 out of 20 people caught up in your story. Develop your target audience, and when this audience finds flaws then pay attention to what they tell you. However, the reverse is also true. If 19 out of the 20 hate your style and one person likes it ...might be an idea to rethink how it's done. My point is that you need lots of feedback from lots of different sources before you can really decide what works and what doesn't. It's like taking a poll. The result of a poll taken of 10 people on the street isn't likely to be as accurate as a poll taken of 5000 people. Quantity does trump quality, to some extent!
Critique is good and you should be willing to accept hard critiques. That said, "the critic is always right" (which I've heard quoted as a rule) is not, in fact, a rule. At least it's not an absolute rule. You should have multiple critics, and if you have one squeaky wheel among a crowd of people who agree with you - that person might have their own problems. Here are a few rules I've picked up after a year-and-a-half in a really good critique group that nonetheless has been hard to take at times. 1) The loudest critic in the group does not make them the most accurate critic or a representation of the majority - even if they manage to hijack the discussion to create the impression of an angry mob. 2) Listen to the most thoughtful people who know the craft, not the people who talk a lot. The quiet people who actually pay attention are usually the best people to engage with, and getting their input sometimes requires isolating them from the larger group. 3) "I don't like this" is not a valid critique - a valid critique is "This doesn't work and here's why". A good critic will try to help you improve something even if it's not their taste. If people give their tastes as a reason for critique, they've essentially invalidated themselves. 4) Don't accept critiques from people who reject your basic premise at a worldview level - even if they're good writers and thoughtful critics of other works. If they so fundamentally diasagree with you view of the world that they demand you change your politics/religion/worldview in order to "fix" the book or make it "believable" - they're not going to be helpful. I had one of these who was so aggressive that I considered giving up on the book because he repeatedly insisted that my basic premise was "beneath the minimum standard of believability" because he has a much rosier view of the journalistic industry than I do (we've both had a lot of exposure to said industry, mine more negative than his). 5) Don't accept critiques that demand you accept genre standards from outside your genre. I'm writing a near future and I have two or three people who bash me over the head every week about not including enough technology for their taste - one of whom vocally insists in every discussion that I really need to set my piece in the present to compensate for the fact that I'm not futuristic enough. I used to take this seriously - I've since stopped accepting it based on the fact that last time he repeated the speech, the group leader actually intervened and shot him down. I'm not writing hard sci-fi, my future doesn't look that way, and it doesn't invalidate the book. Now - all of that said - most of the criticism you get will be GOOD AND WORTH LISTENING TOO. Just make sure the critic is coming from a place of wanting to help you achieve what you want, rather than trying to fit your work into what they like to read .
@Commendante Lemming Amen. I run on the old Chinese saying: "He who says much, knows little." Here are my least favorite critiquers! 1. The guy who can't tell the forest from the trees. These are the guys who get hung up on the details. They want you to develop the guy at the ticket booth that literally has one line in your whole story into a full 3 Dimensional character. They are the ones that want you to explain all the physics of a mech suit because they don't get how that's possible. They want you to tell them how many blades of grass are on the hill, because otherwise you're just telling and not showing. Yes, details matter. But let's face it: they're just too big to go into every little detail. 2. The guy who puts "rules" on things that either don't have rules or don't need rules. These are the ones that say "vampires must" or "Historical figure never..." or "Scientifically that's impossible..." News flash for these bozos. Fantasy creatures aren't real. There certain characteristics that define a creature as a creature (ie vampires drink blood) but for the most part fantasy creatures are pretty flexible. Much of history is open to interpretation and straight up adaptation of the truth would be, quite frankly, boring or feel underwhelming. And despite it's name, not all science fiction needs to be driven by absolute science fact. 3. The Pep Talker/bragger. I hate these guys! And I've had a number of them. These are not the guys who say at the end, "Just keep it up. I know you'll get it." No, these are the guys who spend 30% or more of their "critique" to tell you all these stupid "pick me ups", "You can either be lazy or you can be amazing. My first story wasn't that great. It's difficult to write a story these days. If you really buckle down, you'll get your story right. I had to try really hard... blah, blah, blah." If you're lucky, they might have sprinkled a few pieces of "advice" in there just to say they critiqued your stuff. If you get a pep talker, just throw their critique in the garbage. They weren't looking to give feedback, they just want to toot their own horn. 4. The Ones who don't understand the purpose of a critique board. Ton of these guys on Yahoo! Answers. These are the guys who treat critique boards like a publishing house. "Why did you waste my time with this shit." "You should find another hobby." "Maybe you ought to use a spell checker." Hello! It's a critique board. People are going to post up less than optimal work. The idea is to learn, polish, refine, and make better. It's people asking for help, not approval. With that said, there's a couple things I consider before I accept a critique: -Does the person understand the premise and my vision for the story? As a critiquer, I've found I give better advice when I understood what the author was going for. As a writer, I'm more inclined to accept a critique, when I trust the reader "gets it." If you don't see it, ask them! -Are they telling you their personal preference or is your story actually broken? Most stories follow a pretty basic structure. That basic structure doesn't always dictate that perfect realism is necessary or that things must be done a certain way. Yeah, a personal preference can be useful, particularly when generally a large number of people share it, but it's not written in stone that it must be done that way. A broken story is when structurally the story is flawed. You don't have a protagonist. You misuse multiple viewpoints. You don't have a climax. Or a clear antagonist. Knowing the difference can show when something desperately needs changing, or you can make a decision either way. -What is their level of literacy? I will admit that I've gotten good feedback from surprising sources. But critiquers are also human. I've critiqued things where I claimed the author didn't explain something very well. Then the author says, "Uh, yeah I did. You missed it." And sure enough, I missed it. Dismiss that bit of advice! Some board require a level of critiques in order to maintain yourself as a member in good standing. So this means that not every person who critiques necessarily has a high level of literacy. Understanding that will let you understand what you should consider when it comes to their feedback.
To be honest, this is part of the reason why I'm nervous about giving critiques. Even in the workshop here I read the stories but I don't comment, because I know how seriously people can take things that are said about their work. I know I have a really hard time too when dealing with critique. I'm not yet at the point where I know if I can just "dismiss" something as a different opinion or if I should change it. That's why I really don't like reviewing, I don't want to put other (aspiring) writers in the position where they feel like they have to defend their choices towards me. What do I know? Who am I to judge someone else? I think it's natural to be sensitive about critiques about something that is as close to you as your writings. But how to deal with it - haven't really worked that out yet.
You're really missing out on a great opportunity to improve by choosing not to critique other people's work. It also helps you take criticism as well, when you have to put yourself in the critiquer's shoes. I understand the fear of backlash. But I've honestly never had anyone backlash against a critique I've had. I've had them question it and I've respectfully replied and it's turned out to be a great dialogue. I've personally got angry at only one person who critiqued my work. But that person literally wrote two sentences that I could reasonably consider a critique, called me lazy and then wrote sentence after sentence about how I could choose to be a great writer (and pretty much write like him, because according to him, and I'm not kidding, he was better than Plato and Shakespeare) or I could choose to continue to be bad and write rubbish. So yeah, so long as you don't show yourself as being pigheaded and downright mean, you'll be fine. But seriously critique other people's work. I've learned soooooo much doing it. I've learned things I would have not otherwise learned.
I try to critique what I know, what I've learned from other writers. I don't go into territory I've not yet conquered myself. As for how seriously to take criticism, that's not how I look at it. I look to see if the criticism is something I can build on. Does it make sense? I'm not only looking at the criticism. I'm learning from all the sources I can learn from. That's how I know when a critique makes sense, when there's expertise in it. Because it all fits with my growing skill as a writer.
To answer the OP's question: I take criticism very seriously. However, as previous replies have stated, it depends on the quality of the response and if the reader understood what I was going for. A carefully-thought-out reply citing examples and asking me questions will always help me solve the problems; someone complaining that a particular thing doesn't fit with what they themselves want? ... not helpful. G'bye. Next. I've found it also helps to have a sense of humor about your premise, your characters, and even your writing style. If you can make fun of your own stuff, the critics are way less intimidating because you already know where your weak points are. Things I have said to myself: "God damn, I say 'smirked' so fucking much. Do I know any other words for that facial expression at all?" "Why the hell is this character doing this? WOULD YOU PAY ATTENTION TO THE PLOT PLEASE. " "I don't care if it's cliché, dammit, I like it." Just my two cents. edited a couple times.
I take criticism very seriously and I tend to listen to my seniors who have a far better command of English than I. I've not summed the courage to post an actual excerpt of my work (on here) because it is nigh impenetrable - though one of my colleagues (in real life) gave it a shot and I was devastated when I was told to "send it back to Hell". He became irate, disgusted and then started gasping for breath in an asthmatic attack. I warned it was "dark" (and he likes horror), but I ended up deleting the entire thing because it took such a toll on me to even write it. The critique and the emotional weight of writing the text severely hurt - I tried to edit it and ended up scrapping a novel's worth of text because it was just too much to take. Though in general for academic writing (the only thing I claim to be good at) - if I am having trouble formulating a concept then I specifically ask for help on it. For online interactions - I prefer short and steady critiques that break up the suggestions and engage in a dialogue - so both parties can develop and refine the text. As a poster or reviewer, make sure you understand the responses and ask follow-up questions if you have trouble understanding it. If you do not understand the criticism or how to resolve it - how can you fix it? Also, back and forth in critiques are more productive and manageable than dropping "all the corrections" at once. The point is not to break the will of a writer - they will stop writing and will never improve. A critic who is sensitive to the needs and holds back is better than the curmudgeon who dismisses the entirety as "a ten-year old's diary entry".
The secret is to listen to everyone who gives you critique, and then ignore the stuff you want to ignore. Some people will give you good advice, some will spout a load of trash without giving you any suggestions or anything worthwhile and some will talk absolute bullshit because they are either jealous of your work or they would have done it their way rather than the way you did it. But at the end of the day, it's your work, your book. No one says you have to take on board anything anyone else says, whether that person is a traditionally published person, a famous person, a teacher, a regular Joe, or me. It's your work - listen to the critique and then decide what you want to do about it. These are your choices. Yours.
It honestly varies an incredible amount. If I respect the person reviewing and I know I can trust their judgment, I'll take it fairly seriously. This also applies to strangers who give a critique that has logic and good motives behind it. If some guy critiques my work (people do this by sample pages on Amazon, which is a truly awful way to critique an entire novella) and he's just another "show, don't tell" guy, I mentally tell him to take a long walk off a short pier. No matter what, I strive to maintain artistic integrity. The best artists stick to their guns no matter how many times people tear them apart.
I really don't take criticism seriously actually. Never have, even when I started writing. In fact the worst the criticism, the more I laugh. See aside from a handful of books written on a whim, and which made some good money, I typically write on rather touchy subjects in the non-fiction genres so criticism is a given. My friends joke I love poking the hornet's nest - and I do. I was on a debate team in college & university for a reason. I love writing or saying things that will get people thinking rather than just dumbly following along as they've always done. It's one reason why I use a penname - which has been chewed up and spat out plenty of times by critics. Even if I used my real name [which I had done once in a German fiction I wrote as a kid, never got any real reception - but on 90% of my work I won't because my surname isn't common by any stretch of the imagination] I really wouldn't be bothered. I am writing cause I want this information brought to light - if people don't like it... tough someone has to say it.
