Toxic Feedback

I'm not sure the term "toxic" was meant as an attack on the critics/editors she's worked with. I took it to mean, simply, that such feedback is unhelpful for your work and if you had taken such feedback on board, it would have ruined your work, rendering said advice "toxic". I don't think it was a comment on the character of the critic. What she outlined sounds like sound advice to me - it's about being wise about who you show your work to, who you listen to, and basically advice on when you should legitimately ignore someone's critique. The description "toxic" was probably a little strong, and likely there in the title because it makes for better click bait

 

Regarding: Oh my lord, you are just so bloody important, I bet Babs Kingsolver has you over for tea on the weekends, doesn't she?



Funnily enough, that didn't annoy me. I guess I took it to mean that it was the writer engaging with authors of a similar style, indirectly, not like knowing them personally. /shrug

 

TBH, the only point I'd call "toxic" is the one about attacking the author rather than their work. When I think "toxic feedback", I think "Your work is a complete pile of shit and you should quit writing." Calling the rest "toxic" was probably a little bit harsh.

The thing that really nettled me was that bit at the end about "If I had...would I...?" It sounded a bit like "Ooh, look at me, I've won an award and had all this praise, aren't I wonderful?" While it's actually a valid point, I think it would have offended me less if it had been shorter and the focus had been brought back to the reader (since this was supposed to be an advice article). Something like "Sticking to my guns made my book successful (to an extent) and it can help make your book successful too."

 

Wow. Tough crowd. I don't think the author was trying to appear ungrateful or like she was too good to get negative feedback. I think learning how to take feedback and who to listen to is something every writer goes through. I just saw these as some tips to navigate that world.

 

Tone aside, the things mentioned in the article can be harmful to beginning writers, because they're more apt to internalize the advice, not knowing any better. Those who have been at it for a while already know how to sift through critiques, take what is useful and discard the rest.

 

When people learn a complex physical move, like a spinning hook kick in taekwondo, there is a ton of stuff you can critique after they work on it for a week. Most teachers will have preferences for where the hands are held and if the fists are closed or open. They'll have a policy on dropping the heel (yes or no) during impact. Foot pointed or pulled back. Shoulder up or loose. There are lots of clever little details when it comes to kicking someone in the head.

But, for a long time after learning it, most people can't even open their hip all the way, or put their support foot in the right spot to hold themselves up. If you walk up to someone practicing a spinning hook kick, noticing that they are falling down, and you start bitching at them to keep their fist closed, you are going to distract them and slow down their progress, even if in your mind you are exactly right.

I think writing is the same way.



So, lets say someone gives you a story and you think it's all crap. Their metaphor is bad. Their voice is bad. The mood of the story is wrong for the genre. They are only giving visual descriptions like a silent movie. Dialog is on the nose. All that, and you can't even tell what's going on, what are you going to tell them?

It's sort of a nasty thing to do to indulge in tearing up every aspect of what they wrote, because it's not going to encourage them, it's clearly too advanced, and they aren't going to be able to apply it. You can be brutally honest without pissing in the wind by telling someone about their dialog being on the nose, when you can't even tell what's going on.

I know people helped me bigly by giving me specific critical advice on things I could change. I wrote stuff that had bad everything from top to bottom, but I got lucky and met people that critiqued specific things in the flow of sentences, and that elevated my skill to the point that I was able to write whole stories that people could finish, even if they still thought they were stupid.

 

Yes, I am with the general consensus that Susan DeFreitas has an abundance of good opinion of herself. I have hired one editor, and my wife is working with a second. We paid good money to hire them, and in both our cases, we obtained a less expensive sample of their work, to make sure we would be getting what we expected. Having done so, I feel obligated to listen to their critiques. And I am not so awash in money that I would reject one to hire another ... they are not cheap. I am amused that she felt they just didn't understand her story. Did she think her readers would?

She also talked as though she were forwarding draft material to editors. I don't think it is considerate or financially wise to hire a professional editor to review anything less than what I consider my finest possible work. That is what beta readers and critique groups are for, to review the less-than-final product for free.

@K McIntyre is carefully taking in what her editor has to say, the exchanges have been professional, and the recommendations generally very helpful. There are recommendations that she doesn't take, and she politely thanks her, gives her a reason for not doing it, and a chance for a final rebuttal, but it is, in the end, her story. And her editor understands that. Other recommendations she will skull-session with me, mostly looking at motivations for a particular central character who is important to the story.

I am glad that Susan D. was successful in her publication, but I suspect it was in spite of her attitude.

 

And for those of us who edit or critique others' works, the cookie principle is a good way to deliver bad news. Tell them something you liked about the story first, then the harder critique, then tell them something else good about their story.

 

Whatevs. I agree to some extend and disagree to a whole new other, but in the end if you are soooo content about your piece of fiction, and nobody wishes to publish it as it is, but yet again, I highlight it: If you are so content about your piece of fiction, then why not get a loan from somewhere, anywhere and publish it yourself? You might even become a millionaire and rub your success in the face of your adversaries!

I'll keep it really short upon this article.

1) Today, there are no taboos upon subjects. Tell me a taboo. I challenge you to do so. I am pretty sure I'll find a very successful novel or manga or whatever that centers around it. You chose to show your rapist-antiheroe novel to a bunch of dedicated Catholics? It's your bad call for readers. Oh, I see. The whole world is just a bunch of dedicated Catholics. QQ for you. What a hell you're living in! But still. Think of this. If you succeed into persuading a bunch of dedicated Catholics that your work is good, then how awesome is this?! You just broke a cycle (and corrupted the world with your ill fantasies).

2) Why on earth would you send a first person narrated story to a person that simple can not withstand it (and has already told you so)? Why on earth would your reader accept to read your stuff and critique you? Aw! Maybe he loves you too much or feels he owes it to you, but yeah... You should be more objective upon your readers and not test them when you know that they can't handle at all something so basic as in which person you narrate in. Some things we just have no control over.

On the other hand, if he wants to know more about your secondary character maybe it's because you accidentally made him more interesting than the MC? ... Just saying.

3) I totally agree with this point. Waste of everyone's time. The critique is just having a bad day or is generally being a dick for once again.

4) I agree with this one as well. Editors should keep their bad days to themselves. This is not helpful feedback at all. This is bullying. It's better to say "Sorry, I couldn't get through with this" rather than rant out "What a bunch of bullshit is this? Aaaaa!" Especially when someone gets paid to do so, a professional should always be polite and state in a truthful and comprehensive manner their concerns. Be a teacher of some sorts, not a villain.

5) Who cares about your student loans? Maybe you took the classes but failed to learn the lessons. Who knows? If an editor tells you something like this, it doesn't mean that he's right but maybe, I said maybe, he meant no harm and only tried to help you out. He saw a successful formula and passed it on to you. I get how this might get irritating though.

6) No, nah, not. You are the writer. You don't like anyone else messing up with your story. You find a creative way into persuading the reader. That's the whole point. You can brainstorm with friends. Not your editor. He is the enemy anyways.

7) I agree with that, although I find it highly diplomatic to know what the enemy thinks sometimes too.