No I made this thread because its' difficult for me to have a life outside. My disabilities sort of hinder me and make me an outsider. So to find a really good group that I like is rare. And my mind always goes to the worse case scenario. I have been ostracized my whole life. It was more to deal with and how to adapt to how others may react.
But whether a story has character development is subjective. Whether a story has too much or too little is subjective.
But character development could come from just about anywhere... I don't think I can imagine a character that does anything that wouldn't show at least a little bit about the character... I'm drawing a blank. If there's dialogue, that's character development. If the character performs any action, that's character development. Right? Like, even if there isn't explicit reference to how the character does something, the lack of evidence contributes to characterization. I can accept that there might not be enough characterization for the taste of most readers, but absolutely none? I can't think of how that would work.
If you ever heard of a Checkoff gun, if you see a gun the gun should go off. The reason I bring this up. Is because even if a dialogue can develop the character. There are those times where dialogue serves neither of the purposes of showing a personality and it just feels like dialogue exist. The Dialogue is the checkoff gun, if Dialogue has purpose it is to inform or it is to show the personality of the character through the words they speak and chose. And a writer on a mechanical level can fail to do so. Again, Mechanical and Technical Language are not subjective. They are either there or not.
I think application of the Chechov's gun idea is subjective, too - we've had long, long threads about whether, for example, indicating that a character is gay or non-white or whatever is "justifiable" as pure characterization or whether the Chechov's gun "rule" (which is, of course, no more binding a rule than any other so-called rule) means that whatever is included has to actually contribute to plot or other elements beyond mere characterization. There's debate and disagreement about how much needs to be involved for us to say the figurative gun has figuratively "gone off". Your post used the the phrase "it just feels like [the] dialogue exist" - and I think your use of the word "feel" is telling. It feels that way to you, but it may not feel that way to someone else. Because it's subjective. And I'm not clear what you mean by mechanical and technical language. There may be grammar rules, but there are also loads of reasons an author might legitimately choose to ignore those rules. Like, sentence fragments are grammatically incorrect, but I use them all the time. That might bother some readers, but others are fine with it. Subjective.
"it just feels" doesn't say I FEEL. It Just Feels, as in the story itself. I Feel is completely different from. The Story Feels. Again. Objective observations are not Subjective. Period. You can't have a flaw in a film works camera work and be like, "the cinematography is off" and then be like "that's a subjective opinion". No if there are noticeable flaws. There are noticeable flaws.
And yet critique is often very successful helping people improve their writing. Not to mention, do you have a more productive method? I understand there are many things which simply don't work for all people. And it doesn't surprise me to find people who find critiques to be less than useful. A blanket assertion that it is nothing more than some subjective opinion dismisses the fact so are actual readers' receptions of writing. Do you dismiss collective reviews? Not the individual review worthy of being written off, but how about reviews that result in books spreading by word of mouth? Subjective or not, it's not a coincidence that many readers find the same book exciting and tell the next person. In the case of the reader, they may or may not be able to articulate what it is about the work that they like. In the case of critique, skill levels vary immensely. But within that variation are critics who truly do have an eye for useful critique. There is a range of skill within that range of subjectiveness.
But stories can't feel. Readers feel. And I agree, objective observations are not subjective. That's self-evident. My point is that there are very few objective observations, and probably no objective conclusions, possible in a creative endeavor like writing fiction. But I sense I'm not convincing you and I have no new ways to present my ideas, so I'm out. I hope your critique group goes well.
You can give a someone a brush and can teach them how to use that brush. You can tell an artist what to paint, but you cannot tell a painting what to be. Give someone the brush is a technique Teaching them how is a mechanic These are objective parts of a critique and review. Because they aren't something that is up to the writer or the painter, the way to project their art is utilizing the technique and mechanics. These are objective. You can tell an artist what to paint, publishers do it all the time. But that is subjective. And telling them what to pain it also subjective.
It is probably a good idea to ask people what kind of critique they want. Some people want specific help and would rather not deal with bigger issues you may see in their work. Offer what is asked for and then ask if they would like to hear further critique about what you believe would help them. I find most critique is about self-reflection. Really what you say is what you yourself focus on in your work (make this clear).
And for me, this sounds like an odd confession from a writer. I don't find myself imaginative or creative as some like to say. I like to answer questions, Speculative Fiction you speculate "what if". I find myself more like a creative builder. My favorite part about writing is actually the construction of it and the building of it. I like building worlds and characters. But I don't see that being created by the mind of someone with imagination.
Yes. You have an issue with how JPClyde took your critique in another thread. I steered clear of that exchange as it didn't seem useful. But you also went off on a different discussion. You said: A reader's subjective reaction is helpful with reviews, maybe with beta readers, and maybe that's the most useful thing you find in critique. Many of us find critique is useful when it helps us as writers improve our skills. As I read your posts in this thread, you expressed a different view of critiques.
Exactly this. Instead of focusing on how a piece makes me feel. If this were a painting I focus on the brush strokes. The individual mechanics and techniques another artist uses. Those are where my critiques hit.
The most obvious problem with this is approach is "why should I trust that you know anything about writing mechanics?"
Because its my area of study and focus. And continue to educate myself on it. But the question is, why should I have to prove this? If my critique resonates with people, which I said in the opening post it does. I have gotten a lot of people Online at least thanking me for my critiques because I really help them grow and evolve as writers. I shouldn't have to answer that question. If my advice works. Is sound. And someone resonates with what I said. And it moves them enough to review their work and edit it. Then, shouldn't that speak for itself?
