Yes, we agree. I see how that paragraph sounds now--it could have been written better. I was actually addressing the technical aspects of writing. When critiquing content, it's not always apparent what has gone wrong to either give you a funny impression, muddle coherence, or lose your interest. I would never advocate staying silent in those cases. I consider that distinctly content-related editing, though. When it comes to the technical aspects of spelling, syntax, punctuation, etc., I've found it generally better to bring up only what I know. That way I can be reasonably assured that I haven't mislead the receiver from what may be in their best interest (cemented styling rules).
I actually rather like the 'tough love' approach. If someone critiques my work and tells me its crap, I'm fine with that - as long as they can also help me in some way by pointing out why and where I can improve. Getting praise for the good parts, if any, is nice of course but if the critique skirts around the real issues then that isn't actually helpful to me. I guess it really does boil down to individual preferences and how thick-skinned a person is.
Any writer who thinks they've done a 'no bad' job on a piece, and then receives criticism probably feels a bit defensive—at least at first. It's hard to say, 'Oh, I never thought of that, you might be right.' It's much easier to say, 'Well I meant exactly what I wrote!' Sometimes defensiveness comes out as wanting to argue, or wanting to dismiss the criticism altogether. Appearances can be deceiving, however. One of the people in my face-to-face writers' group ALWAYS reacts defensively whenever something is mentioned that's not quite right about his work. He is a good writer, by the way, but things he writes can often use a tweak or two. There is an automatic, knee-jerk, no, that's the way I wrote it and that's how it's going to stay sort of response to everything we say that isn't wholly positive. However, I've discovered that if we just let our comments drop there, he'll go away, have a think, and often come back next time to say, "You know you were right about that part, and I've changed it to this." Everybody does this differently. As long as people remain civil at both ends of the exercise, it's probably helpful. But people's writing is often very close to the heart, and they feel protective of it, when it's under direct 'attack.' But later on, they may well take another look at the problem area and change their minds. I think we need to allow people to do this, without thinking they are ungrateful or big-headed or 'can't take criticism.'
I had this exact problem for years, and I still somewhat do, but now it is silent and in my head more. I feel the need to justify almost immediately, and regret it everytime. Now I keep it to myself, and within a couple minutes, I'll be okay again. I have no idea where the response came from, but it is highly annoying and hard to control.
I totally understand that response. It's that old difference between what you assume people will think about your story and what they actually think. It can be a bit of a shock. I still struggle with the impulse to defend my work as well. I wonder if it ever goes away.
I imagine it's kind of like quitting smoking. You can flat out stop, but the desire will always linger. It feels the same to me anyhow.
I also struggled with this. With me it seems to have stemmed primarily from lack of trust toward the person critiquing. I didn't get over feeling defensive until I had one of my novels professionally edited. At first I felt defensive, but then I developed a relationship with the editors and something clicked in my head, that they weren't trying to make my writing look bad, they were trying to help make it look good (I already knew this in theory, but my reactions changed after I felt I "knew" it experientially). And they did a phenomenal job. Somehow that flip translated to every other experience and I haven't struggled with feeling defensive in a long time (except once; it was a vengeance critique though...not very nice). I now have the perception that...my drafts are like balls of raw dough, and critique is like shaping and baking them, haha. So maybe it has something to do with how we perceive the critiquer's intentions? Such an interesting topic.
^Getting critique by some faceless entity on an internet forum is a lot different than face-to-face, in-person feedback. With the first one, there's a chance that the snide voice you hear is actually being projected onto the critique by YOU, the receiver of said critique. With the second one, you can rest assured that you're not deaf.
Oh, how I wish this had always been the case! Unfortunately, with my background, I have all too often taken face-to-face critique much harsher than it was intended to be. I'm a master at projecting malevolent intent on innocent actions and, I must say, it very much is like being deaf.
I understand what you mean. I just meant that, generally speaking, there's less room for error when you can actually hear their tone of voice and watch how they express themselves. More of their intent gets across, whereas much of it can be potentially lost over text. I couldn't even count how many times I've seen innocent comments get mistakenly read in a passive-aggressive tone on the internet.
Not only that, it also helps if the critique giver knows what they're talking about. Either that, or what they say makes sense to you. But that really should determine how you take the criticism inside. Outside ...good idea to just say thanks, etc. If they are trying to discourage you (for whatever warped reason) don't let them know you've noticed. And if they are fairly clueless, no need to point that out either. Just don't use either one of these people to give you critiques again. When you get a good, helpful critique, you'll know it. Even if it's not a thumbs-up verdict. You'll be inspired, not discouraged. That, I believe, is the key.
