Ain't that the truth? I've been learning about more than the mechanics, and nuts and bolts. Even though I've only been here a short while, I've already noticed that some members demonstrate a biased attitude when they critique. One particular member, who shall remain nameless, comes to mind. Every time I read one of his/her critiques, I can't help but feel that he/she is aiming to persuade the author to adopt his/her way of doing things, with scant regard for whether the advice is in keeping with the style of the piece. I've read some of this member's work, and although it is very far removed from my personal taste, I wouldn't slam it for being stylistically different. Luckily, I've been finding it easier of late to spot those members who give balanced, empowering advice and opinion. I just hope that when I finally commit myself to submitting a piece, some of these folks will see fit to give me the benefit of their wisdom.
@obsidian_cicatrix: When you submit work for critique, you have to be prepared that not everyone will like it and you won't find useful everything you hear. Rather than focusing on potential reviewers, try to adopt an attitude that whether what you hear is good or bad, there's always something that can be of use. I used to despair when I got reviews that, like you said, had more to do with the reviewer listening to the sound of their voice, than my piece. However, I realised, if my work fails to impress the most nitpicky, self-absorbed critic, there's room for improvement. And no matter how tactlessly they may have picked up on something, if I focused on that something, I'll alway find the error or the way to improve it. And then, sometimes the nicest, most constructive review will leave you thinking "yeah, I see what you mean, but for this and this reason, I prefer to not go the way you suggested". So to my mind, it's got nothing to do with the reviewer, and whether they are knowledgeable or constructive. Feedback needs to interplay with your artistic vision and help you polish it, not fester performance anxiety and force you into producing work that doesn't showcase you as an artist at all. As with everything, balance is the key
This is a key point to remember. When I took a writing class, the teacher told everyone that it was not an option to have the opinion that we did not like a story because it wasn't for us. We had to pretend we worked for a publishing house, and we were an editor and this story was already bought. We needed to go through it and make it as good as it could be. I think that's a good approach to critiquing. But, it can be easier said than done. When we get a piece that is just not at all what we would normally read, it IS harder to give a good critique. It might be harder for us to get fully into the story, and there might be conventions within that genre that we're not familiar with. I get a lot of dystopian, post-apocalyptic stories to critique in my writer's group, and overall, I just can't stand them. I almost never read that type of story when I'm choosing for myself, and I'm kind of sick of them. (Admittedly, that threshold for me is lower than for others who like that sort of story.) But I still do it. I can still point out where I get confused or when something doesn't make sense. I can point out pieces of dialogue that seem awkward. Even though it takes me longer to read those stories, I do get through them. Plus, I can also see when something is well-written, when the dialogue flows, when the characters seem to be developing well. And if I happen to really enjoy a piece, that's kind of significant, since I really liked it despite the genre. The good thing about this site is that you can avoid the pieces that are in genres you really don't like. There's no real requirement to critique, beyond the two per submission. But you can wait for something that is more your cup of tea, and there are lots of pieces in many different genres.
There's a time for showing and a time for telling. I personally can't stand reading long, overdone descriptions. This is why I can't get past the first chapter of East of Eden. It may be a matter of taste, but sometimes i prefer the blunt description. for instance, another member used the example - "I saw Mary standing there. She was beautiful. I wanted to have sex with her." That group of sentences got a chuckle out of me. The chuckle of entertainment. So I would say it works, no? I think there are enough romance novels describing the heaving breasts, creamy thighs, blah blah blah, of the neighbor you never knew you could...... Though of course that first sentence may only work in the context that it stands out as specifically blunt (in comparison to the surrounding style.) anyway. i don't believe in rules. for writing, nor for life. thinking about the rules when you're writing will only block or augment your natural creative juices. in life, following rules will keep you out of jail and bad situations, which are both good experiences, giving you badass stories to tell, as well as keeping you humble
;-) You are right, Ghost. There could be stories where you want to have that sort of blunt, direct type of monologue or description for a particular sort of character. But I used that example because I see that sort of thing where it is not the case that the writer is intending that type of characterization. They might be trying to use something like that when they describe the time the MC met his wife (which again, could possibly work if you're going for a certain feeling), and they're trying to convey that they immediately had a spark. This just shows that there are no hard and fast rules.
You've kind of touched on the point I was making. If you had to critique East of Eden, would you have told Steinbeck he should have written it more bluntly because that's what you prefer to read? Or would you have tried to understand his style and critique within it? For many people that's a classic story, so it's not as if he was doing something 'wrong,' or breaking a rule by writing it the way he did. As a person doing a critique, I feel you should be helping the author achieve what he is trying to achieve, not try to get the author to write in a style you prefer to read.
We should remember, as well, that when he wrote East of Eden, Steinbeck was a well-established and very popular writer. He already had an audience - a big one. He was free to indulge himself, knowing that his audience loved his descriptions and would eat up that first chapter like candy. His editor knew it, too, so there was no pressure on Steinbeck to cut it.
Good post! What gets me is this rule has been actually beating the writer down so long that when it comes time to tell, there's a freeze-up. Gosh, dare I actually declare something - the anarchy! Maybe the newbies should be shown were they get the tell right first and then where they get it wrong. Too often it's wrong, wrong, wrong all wrong and soon we're all clones of Chuck Palahniuk.
But... and correct me if I'm wrong here, I don't consider long detailed descriptions of things to be showing at all. That's just really tedious telling. She had a long, narrow face with wide eyes and eyebrows that predominated. or She had a pinched face made mostly of panic and very little hope.
Yes; I think that the word "showing" tends to make people think that it's about visual description. That's one reason why I prefer the word "demonstrate" to the word "show", in this context.
I should break in here and mention that sometimes "show, don't tell" is very useful advice. It helped me a lot in the beginning. I get it, the rule advice is excessively applied in some critiquing. But there are examples in the writing workshop where it's the wrong kind of 'telling' and "show, don't tell" is probably the best advice.
'Show, don't tell' was the first rule/piece of of useful advice I was given. It was merely a starting point, even though I was inclined, at the time, to take it as gospel. During a particularly brutal editing session, it occured to me that I was, in fact, doing a lot of 'telling', mistakenly believing I was 'showing'. Although I'd been given good advice, truly understanding it was proving more difficult than the simplistic term suggested. The phrase is snappy, but it's not exactly self-explanatory. It seems to me that a novice will take it at face value, and feel that use of 'tell' is being prohibited. Now, I can agree with you. For while I was struggling to tell the two apart. The way I finally got my head around the caveat, was to think in terms of demonstration versus explanation. Once I truly grasped this idea, I started to realise that it's not a question of 'show' being more important than 'tell', but rather a question of finding the right balance and application, to enhance the perception of any given scene.
It can also be though of as giving the reader the information to figure out what you are trying to convey himself. For example, "I walked into the room and saw that Mary was sad," versus "I walked into the room, and saw Mary staring out the window, tears rolling down her cheeks." The first is just "telling" us Mary is sad. The second is "showing" us, letting us draw our own conclusion (obvious as it might be).
This is true, if the writer is telling where they should be showing. But it does take creative judgment to know where to do what. This is the point Cogito was making on the previous page - understanding the "rule" is far more important than blind obedience to it.
As a newer writer and just because of my personality, I find it really hard to not follow the rules. I think because so much advice comes across as 'this is the way to do this' that I find myself falling into the trap. I'm annoyed when I read writing books that caution against big words, long sentences, flowery descriptions (whatever the true definition of that is), show don't tell, etc. It's incredibly overwhelming and comes across as discouraging people from finding their voice.
I like your approach to critiquing. It's how I try to approach pieces that are submitted to the writers group I'm in. I put aside if I like the genre or not because to me, a good story is a good story no matter what genre. I usually try to stick to what does or doesn't work and why I do or don't like a story and offer advice as to story weaknesses. I try to stay away from hiding behind the 'rules' because nothing is more annoying than hearing show don't tell but not having that explained *why* at that spot the reader feels that way.
I love the Wiki entry on Purple Prose noting the origin of the term is (or may be) from this passage: You know it when you see it, and you can tell it is not pleasant reading. Except once in a great while it actually works, like the way HP Lovecraft writes, for example. Here's a short essay on Lovecraft I found useful for more insight into purple prose.
I can't say I think Lovecraft's prose works. I think he created a pretty deep and unique mythology, and had some cool ideas, but he couldn't write at all. His prose wasn't just purple, it was awkward purple. And he was extremely repetitive, constantly trying to scare us all by telling us how "nameless" and "ancient" his beasties were. Though I did learn the word "eldritch" from him ...
I didn't read all the replies, but I have some thoughts on the OP. If we're talking about basic writing principles for beginning writers, I think 'show don't tell' ranks near the top. It seems to me like the issue you have with it revolves around skilled writers, who can successfully 'tell' in some circumstances, having to answer to the 'show don't tell' preachers. What I'm trying to say is, if you say to a new writer that showing and not telling isn't that important, he or she's just going to start rambling in writing, perhaps spewing out facts that he or she wants readers to absorb. Whereas, if you want to help someone build writing technique and shape a story so that readers can piece together what's happening rather than simply being told, encouraging the 'show don't tell' rule is actually pretty good. It doesn't really answer your question or provoke too much discussion. Perhaps you're over-thinking it a tad. If you're a good enough write who can 'tell' as well as 'show' effectively, that's fine. But I wouldn't encourage new or less skilled/talented writers to abandon the 'show don't tell' rule.' Me personally? I like it.
That's it, in a nutshell. Well said. I think 'showing versus telling' can be a confusing concept until it gets illustrated the way you just did. It has to do with revealing conclusions, doesn't it? If you 'tell' something, you have drawn a conclusion on behalf of the readers. If you 'show,' on the other hand, you are making them draw their own conclusions. Mary COULD just have been peeling onions , but in the context of the scene, she's probably sad. And we actually see her BEING sad, and it draws us more intimately into the story.
There's a third option, though. If another CHARACTER "tells us" through his POV that 'she had a long, narrow face with wide eyes and eyebrows that predominated,' and then reacts to how that 'look' makes him feel, you've got not only a description of character One, but character development for character Two. Ha ha...two birds, one stone...
For the life of me, I can't imagine what kind of a face the latter is I do appreciate it if the author -- if they want to describe their characters -- keep it simple when describing them. "Blue eyes, blond hair" takes me a long way, especially 'cause I don't usually even care that much how they look but, rather, what they do. Especially in descriptions, I tend to like short telling better than elaborate showing or faux-showing. But what bugs me most is when the looks are mentioned in some entirely irrelevant context (quite typical in fan fiction); there's some intense fight scene and the writer stops to admire the fighters' flowing hair, long sexy legs, or big blue eyes. Unless done humorously, it makes me groan. I do agree with those who have pointed out that it's an important and integral writing technique and definitely worth internalizing. Suppose that's the only way to learn to use show and tell in an effective way.
Maybe you can help me out here as I'm having somewhat of a philosophical dilemma in my understanding of critiques. While I agree with you, that in giving a critique you should be "helping the author achieve what he is trying to achieve" and trying to understand and discuss the work within their style... here's where I get stuck: A critique is an opinion on a piece of work. So within that context, it seems to me that even if it is not a conscious goal, you are automatically directing the author towards something that is more towards your taste..because what you are saying "doesn't work" in a piece only mean what doesn't work for you specifically. For instance, in a poetry class I took, our teacher was bent on having every straightforward line drawn into images. However, I sometimes thought the students' more prosaic flow worked within certain contexts. Different tastes. I can understand the direct critiquing in terms of "this sentence is awkward" or "this character is poorly developed," but outside of these obvious ideas, I suppose my question is this: Is there any way to have, for lack of a better word, an unbiased critique? And is there a way to take personal taste out of the equation?
