Prettyroser, He isn't offended by the comments people give him.. he's angry and frustrated with *himself* for not being able to conform to the high expectations of the writers around him. He's trying to deal with his anger at himself- he isn't angry at the people writing the critiques.
I think what you may find helpful Atari, is that the people who critique your work on here don't know all that much about you, nobody is criticisng you as a person, just pointing out our views as a reader, on what might make your writing more appealing to us. But don't forget that we may not neccessarily be your target audience, & that we as writers ourselves know how it feels to be critiqued. Don't lose your writing style because others can point out faults with it - lots of amazing writers have obvious flaws, which they are most probably aware of; but it helps to define their writing & make it their own. In my opinion, John Fowles who wrote the French Lieutenants Woman, was an awful writer & none of it works very well together, but the book is widely regarded as an accomplished piece. Just keep writing if it makes you happy, don't let the fear of critism stop your enjoyment of it though. Some mistakes are better left un-corrected x
I will tell you up front, I am an extremely hard critic. I have difficulty getting past the first page of some Stephen King books. I thought movies like Wanted and the Rambo series is total crap. I even call the Matrix dry. Atari, this was what tipped me into joining. This here... is beautiful. I made sure telling you this was my second-ever post on this forum (next to introducing myself). In fact, I believe you are a few steps ahead of me in my own style and word usage. I recognize my style of writing anywhere, and I've only seen it used before once (and this author was published, don't remember the name). I think I will learn things from you. My writer senses can detect that we have things in common, with some night-day differences. Unlike you, I love critiques, harsh or praise. It allows me to know where I'm strong and weak, and I take it as an opportunity to get better. Also unlike you, I get all angsty about harsh criticism I know is right. In fact, I have considered dropping writing and even suicide (to a small extent) due to a large number of critiques I have gotten recently that I have been longing for over a year. I think you should look at your anger in a more positive light. People may try to tell you to calm down, deal with it, learn to get happy, etc., well, here's my suggestion: use it. Like you, harsh critiques bring out the writing monster in me. You took hold of that passion and wrote this piece that details your anger. Passion for art can be utilized like the Dark Side of the Force. It brings out that inner thing stored in our hearts that we never would know was there, and it possesses our minds and flows through the keyboard. My writer senses tell me that you even used the thesaurus to write this little piece, am I correct? Your determination to show just what you were feeling (not tell, show) has driven you. When I read your first post, I told myself, "He cannot take criticism? Then he can be no author." But upon closer inspection from reading your feelings, I now understand that you DO care. You care as much as--probably more-- passionately than I do about critiques and the struggle to get better. Your passion for perfection in the craft of writing is unmatched to anyone I had ever seen. God bless the talent.
Bleh Colonel. Reading your post made me reread Atari's example and I have to stop myself from messing with it now >< It didn't bother me until you said it was beautiful, which for some reason in my mind translated as you thinking it was perfect. And no writing is ever perfect, though it can be beautiful. I dunno. Weird. Anyway, I'd disagree with the assessment that authors can't take criticism. Some of the most famous authors on the market deal with harsh criticism every day and I'm sure some of them rant and rage against the critics because it *hurts* them. I used to be one of those people who couldn't take criticism at all. But I physically forced myself to work on handling critiques for five consecutive years until I could handle them with only a modicum of self-deprecation. ~Lynn
You shouldn't speak with so much pride, Lynn. You don't like the idea that I could have written a paragraph that held no grammatical mistakes or poor descriptions or similes. It makes you feel inferior, which you are not, obviously. I didn't write it, anyhow, as an example or to show off (that is, it is probably not good enough to use in showing off, since I'm still a mediocre writer) but because I was demonstrating the way I feel when I receive a critique. In the end, I think he said it was 'beautiful' because he felt that I was using my raw emotion as a filter and boon to my writing. Maybe he felt my passion when he read it. But 'perfect' is often subjective when dealing with art of any form, whether it be writing or painting. A sentence that you find boring could inspire another person. I mean, right? We all agree with that, don't we? Oh, and in answer to the Colonel, I did not use a thesaurus. Upon looking through the post, the only word that one MIGHT need a thesaurus to find would be 'countenance,' which is a word I have known for a while, now, and would not have needed a thesaurus to find.
Am not sure if this has been said, ill admit i never read the last three pages This is in no way phsyco babble, This is the way i have got this far in life, its just relaxing, //before s/he starts, Focus on each breath and clear your mind, call it egotistic, but forget everything, and ignore whats being said on a concious level and focus on your breathing, i got my heart rate to 50bmps then went hazy. It helps alot in panic situations, and other high mental stress (not to that extent i did it that was just stupid) stop then ask her to start, this will leave you clear minded and focused, but you should still be relaxed. Thiers medical reason-ing for this but its too long winded. it should help, but everyones different. cheers cb
I was reading this post, and I DO have a response, but first, I just wanted to comment on what I quoted above. I think that is extremely well articulated and hits the nail on the head. It actually reminds me of the preface to The Picture of Dorian Gray, where Oscar Wilde basically rants about art. But that's another story. I just wanted to say that what you said there is perfectly true, and instead of just saying it, you should take that to heart. When you receive a critique - that's not spelling or grammar based - it may not hold true for everyone. Something someone finds many flaws in can be perfect to someone else. That doesn't mean you should IGNORE the critique, because what others say - more often than not - can make your writing better. But it doesn't mean what you write is bad. It just means that it can be better. And, the way I think about it (because it's the way I comment) is that when people comment, it's because they find potential. I know I'm probably overgeneralizing that statement, but that's besides the point. If your writing had no potential, people wouldn't take the time to read it, let alone spend the time writing a critique. It's not that you did something wrong, it's that you could do something to make your writing better. They comment because they find a connection to your writing, because they like something they see, and they want to see it become as good as it possibly can. It's not because they don't like you, or don't like your writing, but it's because they care. They care enough to see your writing improve. They care about your writing. Along the lines of SPaG, though, mistakes are always made. I have never read something - especially a first draft of something - where there wasn't a SPaG mistake, or, if not a mistake, something that is slightly awkward that could be easily fixed. (Much like the sentence I just wrote.) Anyway, everyone makes mistakes. No one is perfect. You wouldn't have put yourself on a site like this if you thought it was perfect. And yes, corrections are not easy to read. I know that I always feel the need to explain myself, and I do. It makes things a bit easier. I mean, it's always going to be hard, but I guess just remember that people are commenting because they care about what you wrote, not because they think what you wrote is horrible. That helps me.
That's the way I interpreted his comment. The passage is not perfect; there were several mistakes. But I do agree with the colonel that your heart is in the right place. Getting angry at yourself means you care, and from the passage, I think it's clear you're angry because you care about writing, not because you care about looking bad in front of others... which has been the reasoning behind many self-recriminations I've had the displeasure of hearing. I think that it's also nice for other newer writers who might read this thread, because they can see clearly that they aren't the only ones feeling such emotions.
For me, the trick to dealing with critiques -- no matter how harsh -- is to remember that the critic (aka: the big meanie) is not critiquing me as a person. He/she is not even critiquing me as a writer. He is critiquing a particular arrangement of words. Words can be rearranged.
i have a similar problem as atari but i have learnt to deal with it as no one is perfect and there is always room for improovement.
...really? The first Matrix movie is an amazing synthesis of literature, philosphy and technology. Analyse it as a literary work and you'll find that it's one of the richest films of modern times. As one of my english lecturers would often exclaim, everything goes back to the matrix somehow! But the sequels were rubbish.
The "bullet time" special effects technique was created for the Matrix, and since then has become a popular way to render action sequences.
I understand Atari. No sweat. Criticism's difficult to take. The best part is, using the criticism is a matter of choice. If they're right, well, what can you do? Groan a bit, make some angry guttural sounds, and change the problems. You'll get over it. If you don't like what they have to say? Hell, don't listen to it. Tune it out. It's as if you have a stupid mosquito in your ear. Just listen to music, and it all goes away. (Of course, my analogies make little sense) Anyway, you're not a prick, man. Power through. S'all good.
You're more likely massively insecure, and you've repressed it to the point where any nibbling on the edges sets off that insecurity. I recommend treating the situation thusly: view all incoming criticism as a devious exploitation of the criticizer, or stop putting your writing forward for critique.
I understand how you feel! I do love critiques though, as they help me so much. But yes, it's hard. It hurts sometimes, even if the person is as nice as they possibly can be. It feels like someone disciplining my child or something. I just want to jump in there and yell "DOn't hit my baby!" lol
I've frequently participated in groups of writers who review award-winning short stories by published, successful authors whose names everyone knows (those folks we all imagine we’d like to be). And while those stories are usually (though not always) relatively free of the kind of "errors" we often see from beginners, they are no less likely to meet with the same range of reader reaction (from revulsion to ecstasy) every brave novice will inevitably face. No fiction I've ever read is excepted from that controversy, no matter how literary, “error”-free, or successful. In fact, the more artful (and certainly the more successful), the more adamant the criticism usually is—especially so coming from other writers. The takeaway from that, I think, is to understand that no worthy literary venture will ever be uniformly accepted. That just isn't the nature of art. A particular audience may certainly gravitate toward a particular writer for similar aesthetic reasons, but no writer will ever appeal to every reader who gives him a try. Genuinely exceptional writing and great storytelling can only come from the pen of an author who has some inexorable need to give his or her own particular voice to one thing or another that arises from his very own storehouse of imagination, intellect, and talent. It seems to me that requires the very ego we're expected to park at the gates when it comes to feedback and criticism. Improving my own writing always involves both my vulnerable ego as well as the perfectly valid opinions of my readership, best I can “read” them. I try to remember, too, that for every reader courageous enough to risk sharing a certain amount of candor (however skillful, distasteful, or clumsy the comments), there’ll be ten others who’ll keep that honest take to themselves just to avoid hurting my feelings. So, my advice to myself (your mileage may vary) is simply to EXPECT to feel dejected and dispirited when a reader doesn’t seem to "get it." Why else would I ever hope to improve if I didn't recognize that improvement was both needed and possible? At the same time, I think it’s important to know (or to learn) it will always be up to me to decide what partner(s) I choose to dance with, or not. Sometimes I’ll enjoy the dance and sometimes I won’t. But if my aim is to keep improving my writing, I surely won’t be dancing with everyone, and my best hope is to learn to choose partners wisely.
I can't help but feel the same way as the started of this topic did. I am very touchy as well. But I guess I view creating art a bit differently than others also. I write for myself and for myself solely and when somebody says that what I wrote is rubbish in some sense or the other... I don't get the feeling that it was my work which was insulted (which wouldn't be so bad) but rather that it's me who is the target of this critique. Well basically it is me anyways, but it's a way to take it more personally. For I am not interested in conventions, only in trying to say what I want to say in the way that seems the best for it. So often, when people don't get that you feel very frustrated - to say it mildly. But I guess I get what I deserve for trying to force my thoughts to an audience of any kind or size or at any form. :redface:
This is a toss-up for me. I love to critique others' works. I also love to receive criticism. The only way to better myself is to get the opinions of others or the corrections other have for my work, that I wouldn't have seen on my own. I think criticism is like a Christmas gift. If it's a good one, you want to use it as much as you can as soon as you can. If it's a bad one, you just stamp return to sender on it and try to get it far, far away from you. The problem I have is when I am critiqued and I completely disagree with the critique. I think there are times that it's okay to say "Thanks, but no thanks." I once had someone tell me one of my characters was too whiny. Well, yes. He was designed to be a weasel-like and annoying character. If I made him less whiny, he wouldn't be the type of character I needed him to be. But just the same, I accept criticism with open arms.
As I see it - it isn't just a matter of reviewing or being reviewed,accepting or just giving. It should be a dialogue between the two. The reviewer makes a suggestion and the writer comes back with reasons for agreeing or disagreeing. This way both parties take something from the experience, learn from each other.
I'm the same way with being critiqued, it's a love hate relationship. What I found about myself was I questioned the good critiques as much as I argued the bad ones. Everyone is going to have a opinion, and sometimes it takes a bad critique to make you step back and reasses a character, maybe he is too whiny, there are always other ways to be weasel-like and annoying (nagging, staring, or even if they just plain smell bad). Either way you're going to learn something, maybe you're doing something right, maybe you're doing something wrong, but like going to the Doctor's you can always get a second opinion.
Hey Atari this is OverDoseD/Infinity from sfdt. Remember me? Your reviews on my movies are great. I love them. On topic: It's bad if you don't accept criticism but it's important you because it helps you improve dramatically.
I've been involved in many writers groups and took classes in college on creative writing and English/Lit. Through that, I have found there are two types of feed back for writing, the Editor or Teacher feedback, or Reader Feedback. When we ask other writers, or editors, or teachers to read our work, they look at it from the perspective of the writing itself. How are the sentences formed, could this be said better, spelling, format, and grammar...that stuff. The Reader gives feedback on how they felt about reading it. How did the book make them feel, happy, sad, anxious, angry? Did they feel what the characters were feeling? Did the go through the experience with the characters? Were they satisfied with the overall storyline and sequence of events? Was the ending good for them? Now in giving criticism, I often find myself giving editor type suggestions. Sometimes I have to let go of my writer's eyes, and read with readers eyes. As writers critiquing other writers work, we often look at the work on how as a writer we would make it better. We start nit-picking at every little thing, and often obliterate the author's self esteem in the process. We all mean well, but often our form leaves much to be desired. When we want to get feedback on something, we have to ask ourselves which kind of feedback are we looking for? The kind to improve our prose, or the kind to improve our storytelling? Ask for feedback from those in the writing community and you will more than likely get advice on your prose. Look for people interested in books like your story, and ask readers not associated with writing their opinion. You will get two totally different types of critiques. People with little writing skill will be more likely to tell you your writing is gold. People who think they have/or may really have, writing skills will point out every tiny mistake. If you haven't developed a thick enough skin to rejection yet, don't aim to ask writers what they think of your work. You're better off finding readers to read you. My skin thickened up after going through acting classes in college. Nothing is scarier than standing in front of a crowd performing a ten minute monologue. And then having the teacher tear your performance apart line by line in front of everyone. It's enough to make you vomit, I can tell you. No critique has every induced vomiting in me before or since, but that first year class made me. I've learned a few things along the way in the world of writing...when it comes to asking for a critique I have found these things soften the blow of negative criticism. When putting a piece up for others to read, I always make sure I have proofread it at least ten times. Fixed grammatical mistakes. Make sure what I wrote reads clearly. Spellcheck! Read my piece once last time, out loud to myself, before posting it. I change anything that is difficult to read out loud, and any dialog that doesn't sound natural. I do those things before I post any type of fictional work for critique. This tends to help writers read more like readers, instead of like editors.
