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

Thank you, Brian.

 

To be really honest, the best kind of critique I've gotten were from here. My Creative Writing teacher (nice woman, really liked her) didn't really do much with my work beside the usual, “This is really nice!” and write in red ink to learn dialogue structure...without really telling me how to improve it. I had to come here and ask and it was only through you delightful people that I finally understood the beginnings of dialogue structure. I finally began to understand where I was screwing up.

Yes, the last thing anyone wants to do is to absolutely destroy the newbie writer, to make him/her feel like her writing abilities are worth less than shit and should just give up. That said, the flaws have to be pointed out in order for the newbie writer to learn anything. For me, at least, I have to be shown what I'm doing wrong, not just told what I'm doing wrong. Just merely being told without showing the problem and alternate solutions is just as damaging and unhelpful as pats on the backs and “Atta boy/girl! I think this is really good!!”

 

Writing is objective only insofar as you can objectively observe the subjective responses of your readers. Spelling, grammar, and other conventions are merely a path to producing more effective emotional reactions.

 

I'm not saying the techniques themselves are based on opinion. I am saying that whether or not an author uses them effectively is.

 

And again, I didn't say anything contradicting this.

 

No! The thread is too dangerous to be closed! Save yourself!

 

So then critiques, other than those concerning grammatical/spelling errors, are subjective, ie opinions. And opinions are open for disagreement/discussion (one reader saying a technique was used effectively, another saying it wasn't). I guess I'm not sure what the disagreements here are about then.

 

But the thing is, the rules that you're talking about are used for beginners because most of them are never going to progress farther than that. Why would you teach a 300 level comp course to a guy who's highest level of writing is an essay for a 100 level class? Sometimes it's good to learn to run before you can walk, but I think we have to agree that being able to sit up on your own should be a prerequisite.

 

I'm afraid to go on with this discussion because the more I try to explain what I'm talking about, the more contentious the thread gets and I get blamed for persisting in the discussion.

Here's a summary:

I'm not saying to tear anyone down, new writer or not. I am saying giving an honest critique that includes criticism is better than telling someone their writing is fine when it isn't.

I'm not saying critique is all about objectivity and no subjectivity. That's silly. What I am saying is there are objective writing skills, everything is not merely opinion.

That does not mean those skills are rigid. It does mean however, one can observe when a writer lacks one or more of those skills.

Lacking a skill should not be confused with a style choice, they are not the same thing. And that is the core issue I've tried to convey here.

 

We have a running joke in the commercial art world about "quality", used in the most sarcastic manner possible. In art school, pretty much once a semester someone would bring in an absolute wreck of a piece. It would be clear they didn't understand anatomy, perspective, proportion, etc. And when the professor pointed out how much it sucked they always fell back on, "it's my style!"

And while I hate Perter Chung for his distorted proportions, it's clear that he knows what the fuck he's doing. That's not a reason to teach people that they can break anatomy rules the first time they sit down at an easel.

 

(All of this is directed at the every "you", not anyone in particular.)

Because, again, I approach this entire paradigm from a completely different angle. I never give a critique for the benefit or sake of the person receiving the critique. I write it to help myself. The fact that it looks like I helped the other person is completely incidental. Completely.

Woo-hoo....! I can hear the jimmies rustling across the forum-scape. "You wrote it to help yourself? You selfish prick!"

Yep. I'm a selfish prick.

And you should be too.

At the end of the day, when you are done here, you go home with your manuscript, not mine. If you think you are illuminating me, you are not. I illuminate myself by choosing to either learn or to ignore, by researching or just taking things on faith. If people don't understand what I say, they can ask me for clarification or they can go look the stuff up just like I did way back at the beginning. If anyone thinks they are saving me from bad information or misinformation, take your crusade thither and find some other windmill at which to tilt, because I can already see that some of Your information is bullshit. That applies to each and every one of us.

No one is going to get any awards for the critiques they give. There's no money in it, at least not here. And if you engage the process waiting to see what others have to say rather than getting to work on your own skills, all you end up with at the end of the day is a fatally bruised ego.

If you came here to be told what do and how to write, you are doing it wrong. Simples. 7 forum-pages worth of utter disagreement and little more than locker-room dick-measuring. How much more evidence do y'all need? Most of you engaging this discussion also believe that one should never "write a story by committee", and that is something with which I agree in full. What I fail to understand is how this fits with the idea that getting critique is where it's at, so to speak. The two ideologies are diametrically opposed.

 

As someone who writes for a living, I can honestly say there are objective factors in good writing. Anyone can learn them and make their writing clearer.

It's the same with specific forms: I have found there are factors (relevant to the form) that improve the effect.

I would advise any beginner writer to familiarise themselves with those factors if they want to become good at writing.

 

I agree with this.
There are some issues that are kind of non negotiable. I think because we're seeing pieces on this site it's easy to just dismiss certain things.
But if you watch a writer make the same mistakes over the course of a novel it's kinda nerve wracking. Some - not all readers will recognize rule breaks as style choices because the writing is on a different plane. They can see the writer is skilled. And that the story might need or allow for some quirky grammar. i.e. Kathy Acker. But other times you can see it for what it is, not a style choice but a quite obvious mistake. Take an issue that's not really about grammar but equally annoying. On another site I'm on I've watched a writer overuse at least two words over the course of their novel - flick and bark. Things are flicked, characters bark. This happens in almost every scene. It especially gets confusing when a dog joins in. Is it a subjective opinion to point it out? I don't think so and yet it's not really a rule. Actually I think if someone didn't point it out ( and some who haven't followed the story haven't ) are doing the writer a disservice. And in the end they do themselves a disservice when they go to edit their own piece.

 

This is not true. Besides coming here to learn from other writers, debate has its benefits as well. It took me seven pages to refine what I was trying to say. In doing so, I grew my own understanding of something that was bugging me but which I was having a hard time precisely articulating.

Much as some people can't stand discord, for me, it sharpens my thoughts to respond to challenges to my thinking.

As for giving critique, absolutely the same thing happens. Earlier when I broke down show/tell/and filters in a related discussion I sharpened my own knowledge of the issues and am now composing a thread on showing vs telling when describing facial expressions. And I think it has broader implications as to why there is so much debate about what show vs tell means.

And finally, it's clear (to me anyway) that it's time to start calling it 'show vs tell', not, 'show/don't tell'. The word, don't, is distracting people. I wouldn't have seen that had I not crossed people debating the issue.

 

If you post your work in the Workshop for critique, what you should get is an idea of whether your own vision for the piece has worked. If people 'get' what you were trying to do, you've probably nailed it. If they don't get what you're trying to do, then you haven't ...at least not with those particular critics.

It's got nothing to do with following rules or procedures, really. As @Steerpike pointed out in the posting above, it's all subjective. And it's got nothing to do with your vision as a writer.

I get what you're driving at, but the idea of not writing by committee and that of not taking critiques aren't necessarily linked.

Writing by committee (at least as I define it) is wanting other people to tell you what your story should be like before you write it. (What should I name my character, what do you think should happen next, how many characters should I have, which of these two lovers should my main character end up with, etc.)

Getting a good critique lets you know if a piece you've written has the effect you were striving for. You're getting feedback on what you've already written—not seeking approval of what you're thinking of writing.

I don't consider critiques as writing by committee. However, I suppose everybody's got their own definition of these terms. Especially on THIS thread.

 

Just a funny observation. Even the best authors can over-use a phrase or a device. I love Joe Abercrombie, but I lost count how many times the tough female characters in his latest book blew their noses by blocking up one nostril and projecting a gob of snot out of the other. It became funny, and I don't think he meant it to be. Possibly his contract is forcing him to churn out books at a faster pace than he'd like, so these things get missed during the edits because they're not actually errors. But good to know that even the best authors can make this kind of mistake! (And no, it didn't ruin the book for me at all ...but I did notice it. It's not the sort of thing you wouldn't notice, is it?)

 

Eeew.

 

This "debate" is not a Workshop critique thread. The fact that you learned something from your manner of engaging this thread is not to be confused with what I was saying at all. I only spoke to the manner in which I engage critiques. And, it seems, that manner is no different to how you engaged this thread. So, the POINT I was making concerning the critique process is validated, not negated by your admission.

 

Gross! I think that action would be once is enough for me.
I've seen this too - Nabokov loves his mottled sunlight, and downy arms - lol. Though he usually restrains himself to mentioning it oh maybe twice in a story.

I've seen the committee thing happen on several sites. It's quite scary actually to see a writer hop to addressing every comment until the third version looks worse than the first. Though I've watched other writers carefully choose the advice and make really stunning changes.
Some of the trouble however I think lies also in genre expectations. If you're putting a label of romance on your work how do you address the work when it fails to meet current expectations. I was nailed for my fantasy not bringing in fantasy elements fast enough ( I took that to heart though and realized they were definitely right. ) But it's interesting to watch people defend their writing even though it's in real contention with it's genre.

 

Christ. I hope I didn't start this shitstorm by mentioning objective and subjective factors.

Look, the objective factors are things like spelling, punctuation, and grammar, for which there are concrete rules (and even they have some fuzzy edges). But these are the least important components of critique. Sure, when a writer needs help with these, that should be the focus of the critique. Mechanics before style. But real critique dives into the intangibles, where "rules" are really guidelines and generalizations. Two or more critiquers can disagree, and yes, they can both be right.

At the same time, they can both easily be wrong. Again, the final arbiter is the writer. It's his or her choice to what degree to bow to convention (real or imagined) to please potential publishers.

Critiquers and critiqued alike, set aside your egos, and find what is useful, either to offer as critique, or to apply in the revision process.

Turning this into an incendiary thread benefits no one other than conflict junkies. And they don't count.

 

This thread was intended to be a discussion about critique. It was never intended to be a debate.

As for learning from what we post, the analogy holds.

 

I'm not sure anyone here was saying that.

Yes - SPaG. Going past those basic skills is where the subjectivity comes in.

And to add my other 2 cents, I think if someone is starting out writing, one should not give all-or-nothing rules as if they think "new" writer = "dumb" writer. That's why we end up with writers who quit or writers who pop out "meh" stories. Instead of saying "Don't do that!", say "Well, it can be done - let's see what you've got.".

 

@Link the Writer said this:

No one is giving all or nothing rules either.

I'm going to repeat what I said upstream, "Lacking a skill should not be confused with a style choice, they are not the same thing."

Basic writing skills go well beyond spelling and grammar and while there may be some subjectivity as to how said skills are being applied, there are plenty of objective elements in that skill set.

 

Your post had nothing to do with this except I do agree with what you said:

They can be right or wrong, however. It's wrong for example, to call a skill deficit a style choice.

 

Because it's somewhat relevant, I thought I'd point out that reviewing a work of fiction is different than reviewing nonfiction like an essay or academic paper. For nonfiction, you usually want to make things as clear as possible and not leave any room for interpretation (e.g., scientific papers). For such cases, it's far easier to make the argument that there are certain objective skills the writer(s) should aim for, such as clarity, spelling, and grammar. On the other hand, fiction isn't as constrained, and leaving things to the imagination and/or leaving room for interpretation can be a good thing. There's much more bias in reviewing fiction, which is why so many of us pointed out the lack of objective criteria by which to judge fiction.