Critique is not always pretty, and that's a good thing.

Are we talking about a Workshop thread or not? Someone please just give me a str8 plain answer.

 

I was trying to leave anything personal out of this thread. While it wasn't a workshop thread, it was a thread that asked for some very specific feedback.

 

Perhaps I was a bit too tired when writing that. lol.
Also you are awesome.

Though I still wish to affirm that discussion can be useful. I see what you mean. That discussion can be a way to argue good advice. This is certainly true but as I was attempting to say. Not all advice is good. Or maybe sound is a better word? (Admittingly I am still a bit tired.)

I mean after all we could both comment in the same workshop entry and say the exact opposite thing. While it may be said that improving writing style is not purely objective I think by the definition of standards there is some objectivity in it. Also in the case of us disagreeing in an entry I would probably assume you were right. lol.

I was only trying to point out that a writer should not take the word of a reviewer as if it were god and listen to every point on faith alone.

If that makes sense? lol

 

@GingerCoffee, while I agree that not all opinions are equal, at the end of the day, the only real skill is getting your point across to your intended audience. Other than that, it really boils down to personal taste and experience. Different writers use different techniques/styles. And some styles may eschew the traditional rules of SPaG, which is perfectly fine.

(There's also the issue of whether good literature is subjective or not, but that's a separate issue that already has its own thread somewhere in Book Discussion.)

 

Maybe there are two kinds of critiques at work - one is when a more knowledgeable writer critiques a newer writer, and tries to teach the newer writer. And the other is when the critiquer functions as an early reader, giving subjective feedback (this worked for me, this didn't) as an equal.

For me, the first kind of critique is really problematic, especially on an internet forum, because who the hell knows who's a more knowledgeable writer and who needs to be taught? If I'm taking a course and have researched the qualifications of the instructor and am convinced she's a more knowledgeable writer and understands the genre in which I'm writing, then, yes, I want to be taught.

Mostly, though, and especially on internet forums? I'm just looking for a fresh perspective, not a lesson. I want to know how my work is coming across to readers. I want to know if there's a problem, but if there is, I'll figure out how to fix it myself, my way.

Maybe some of the frustration is coming from a confusion of the two sorts of critiques?

 

I did say that:

"I don't mean one needs to continue a debate. I agree that's not helpful. Better to vent somewhere else. And one need not worry that walking away means some will think the bad advice was equivalent to good advice because they will eventually figure it out or they won't become good writers."
​

And I'm not saying there is nothing subjective about critique, obviously it's heavy on subjective.

What I'm annoyed about is what seems to be the claim it is all subjective and there is nothing objective at all. If there are no objective components, we might as well all just go on our writing binges and oh well, either people will like it or they won't.

That's not to say sometimes the writing 'rules' don't have their own problems. The other end of this spectrum are the banal writing formulas that make me roll my eyes when I hear them.

Three act structure
Mid-point reversal
​

It's fine to analyze common story structures, especially since certain structures can be commonly found. But when one hears this is the way to learn to write, that kind of objective formula analysis is not something one should treat the same way one treats other aspects of skilled writing.

So everything objective is not necessarily a component of good writing. But writing skills are not simply subjective preference. How one applies those skills is another matter and just because the skills are objective doesn't mean the end result has only one option.

You don't learn a skill by denying it's existence and calling it no more than subjective preference.

And when someone describes a particular skill, not everyone understands the thing it is they are describing.

 

Hmm. I missed some excitement.

I don't know if critique is so cut and dried. In my mind it is. And certain things are - but it's their novel. And I don't believe everyone that comes to these sites is looking to become writers or published or even better at their writing. I think sometimes they've got an idea about writing or a story and they get excited about it, want to share it with someone and that's that. I'm not saying that's what happened but there is an air of look-at-my-baby! to these sites. I'm on a few of them and the tolerance level of critique varies. On one site they're pretty bold, on another they can get mighty miffed no matter how nicely you put things.

I gave some critique to a writer ( actually a lot of critique - I think I followed her story from Chapter 1 to chapter whatever ) whose romance was hampered by one major issue - the characters felt too young. No matter how I worded it, in every rewrite the same issues came about. I started to realize that unless someone mentored her and went over every detail of her writing this story was going to continue on in the same vein because it was the best she could do at this time. I could see the flaws and errors and no matter how I ( and others ) tried to point them out, she still kept writing the same way. She just wasn't getting it.
But it wasn't a loss as far as I'm concerned, I learned a lot from those critiques and I think that's the main thing. Don't write a critique to set the author straight, write a critique to sharpen your own editing skills - set yourself straight.

Do I think some issues are non negotiable? - yes. But wording the issue is key.

 

It's not about the 'expert', it's about the information they convey. You know because eventually you learn a skill and you can see who was 'knowledgeable', and because something that is correct makes sense.

 

I think we have very different perspectives on writing. I can't see it as being a collection of skills that I just learn and then I'm done learning. Can you give me an example of these skills? Like, things that can be mastered to the point that you can say someone is doing them wrong? It doesn't make sense to me.

 

I was going to ask the same thing, but BayView beat me to it. Some examples would be nice.

 

Make it three for what skills we're talking about. The only "objective" skill I know of is SPaG (or is it SpAG?). Otherwise it's just experiementing to see what works most effectively in getting one's ideas across to the reader. I don't really care for critiques from a writer's POV any more (which I guess would be the "professional" or "expert") - I want to know if the readers are getting it.

 

I am sort of Ginger's side here I think. Don't want to put words in mouth.


I find the reverse equally useful in critic. I mean I am a very inexperienced writer but I have grown. My growth hasn't come from readers. It has come from writers that have made my errors and are able to point out why my stuff is failing. Not simply saying it fails.

 

It may depend what stage you're at as a writer, or what aspect of your writing you're hoping to develop in a particular critique opportunity.

I'm wondering if there may also be an element of 'learned' vs. 'natural' writing styles at work. I consider myself a fairly natural writer - like, not natural as a value judgement or with the alternative being unnatural, but more 'instinctive'. I've never taken a writing course, and have only read a few how-to books. What I know about writing comes from reading fiction like I was breathing air, for most of my life.

I get the impression that there are some writers who are a lot more technique-based. They understand their writing as a collection of skills, as I think @GingerCoffee is saying, and they've consciously worked to develop these skills.

So for me, a critique that focuses on these skills is kind of a foreign language. I mean, I'm educated, I know what the words mean, but they aren't how I think about my writing so they aren't that useful to me when I'm trying to improve my writing. For someone else, someone whose understanding is based on these skills, I guess it would be sort of useless for a critique to just say 'I didn't really feel grabbed by this, but I liked the MC'.

Differences! All part of the fun?

 

Yeah. I am in your boat. Never took a writing class and was kind of a C- in highschool english.

My writing improves from I think sheer effort. I write a lot. lol. I try to average 15k a week. lol. I need to read more though.

So I guess I am in the "Hopeless Amateur" aspect of writing myself. If that makes sense?

 

I agree with @shadowwalker that the best critiques are done when the reviewer reads the work as a reader, not a writer. Some people can separate the two, some can't. Although there are some objective aspects of fiction writing, I don't think you can easily set forth objective rules and say that if someone just follows them the writing will work. I also think there is a lot more subjectivity than people are comfortable admitting.

 

It probably goes back to stage of writer as @BayView was saying. I think. I am kind of tired so ignore me if I am stupid. I mean a best selling author is doing something right. He or she probably doesn't need writing approach advice as they can write. Thinks we might think are bad about them might just be part of the style they are known for.

Me on the other hand? I am new and admittely kind of bad. So someone going "I liked it." or "It was okay" or even "I didn't like it" is not going to help me. Because my story ideas might be good. I just might be failing to show them. A writer on the other hand might be able to see where I was going even if I didn't make it and can share how they got through that problem.

Also. I know some people that say writing is 100% subjective. So.. it is a mixed bag. lol

Edit. opps I don't know what I did. But I think I fixed it

 

I will answer more later but I have one question that hopefully gets to the core here:

Do you think there are objective elements of skilled writing that are identifiable and describable? Or is everything subjective personal preference?

And if everything is subjective personal preference, what makes skilled writing?

I don't mean what makes you love a book. I'm asking, do you recognize skilled writing when you see it, regardless if the story interests you? What are the elements that make it skilled vs unskilled?

A piece need not have all the elements, and one can do any number of creative things with said elements. What I'm saying is, regardless of all the exceptions, there are identifiable, describable elements that indicate skilled writing, and one can see when a writer has yet to master the basic craft.

 

Simple answer. Yes. I think there is an objective element to skilled writing that is identifiable. Though admittly I have no idea exactly what it is. lol

 

Identifiable and describable? Honestly, no, I don't think so. I know when something works for me, but I can't necessarily say why.

That's not to say that these elements don't exist. Maybe they do. Maybe other writers are aware of them and make conscious use of them.

But for me? I'm reminded of that scene from early on in Dead Poets' Society:

 

I'm reminded of the Supreme Court justice who once said, "I can't tell you what pornography is, but I know it when I see it."

We know what the rules of grammar are, and using them to one's advantage is, I think, an observable skill. We know what combining action with dialogue is, and that's observable. We know what proper use of showing and telling is. We can usually spot a really great use of language (at a pitch conference I recently attended, one of the members of my group had written a novel set on the Eastern shore of Maryland, which she described as "a land of drowned rivers"; every member of the group commented on that).

This does not mean that the success of employing these skills can be quantified to the point as to come to a determination of a numerical value of beauty, which was the point of the scene in "Dead Poets Society". But if there are no skills that we can identify, how do we know what we're doing when we give feedback?

So, I'm with @GingerCoffee, here, even if her set of identifiable skills is completely different from mine. We each have something we focus on when we read.

 

Finally, something of value in this disgrace of a thread, which has been in parts a blatant attack on me.

Who here can tell me what makes this scene in Dead Poet's Society so great? Explain to me, why is it so good?

 

Good for you.
When you ask for help with writing, people can't help but give advice more than what is asked.
And odds are, as a type or artist, your will will always be criticized whether negatively or positively.
You'll learn to accept everything and hold on to the parts you want to hear and forget the ones you don't.
That in of itself is a skill.

 

Ooh, I recognize that one.

Yeah, if I was going to find one ability that should be part of every successful writer's toolbox, it would definitely be the ability to take what's valuable and leave behind what's not, without letting any of it shake your confidence.

Skin that's thick but still permeable? A writer's greatest tool!

 

This is also for @GingerCoffee

But, story telling, in all its forms, existed since forever.
The earliest writings and stories that are known to us whether Norse Sagas or German Folklore (So much messed up shit... like, even adults today wouldn't want to hear it) were written and told in different ways.
So were technical texts and simple stories. The tools changed, the style changed, and so did what was considered good and bad.

In time, I think, we keep trying to perfect it, making new techniques available that are superior, but I don't think that means it's necessarily better or the new and only way.
Kind of like we can still perfectly well use old cars who don't have all the fancy gadgets but still run perfectly and feel good.
All it amounts to is, when your reader read you, are they enjoying the story?

Isn't that all we're supposed to achieve or are some of us trying to be more than just story tellers?

 

I just thought of a good pick-up line you guys can use the next time you go to a writer's convention. "Hey baby, critique isn't always pretty, but you certainly are."

I'll make a more serious post a little later.