Cutting words: Why?

I don't know, guys.

It's certainly nice to say a critique should be done with a certain amount of thought and respect for the work of the original author (and it should!), but we don't live in a utopia in which that sort of thing happens every time, no matter where you go to get critique or at what level.

It can only realistically be on the author to decide what to accept and what not to accept. Sure, when I first began getting serious with my writing, I got plenty of critique that wasn't helpful, and as a result, I found a way to use it to my benefit, even if that benefit is learning when to not accept critique, or learning that my vision is important.

There's value in that, right? I wouldn't have half the confidence in my work or nearly as thick of a skin without some of the truly shitty critique I've received. It comes down to a choice, right? The way I see it, I can either get pissed about the inevitable critique and stop putting my work up...or, I can work harder at trying to find a positive takeaway, even if that doesn't involve changing any actual writing.

I guess I think of this pretty much the same way I [try to] think about things in the rest of my life. Negative, unhelpful things will happen to me regardless of what I do in my life. That's a fact of being human, and critique will never be an exception. Do I benefit more from not putting my work up, or from finding some kind of positive takeaway? The answer, for me, is pretty clear. I couldn't survive if I wasn't able to turn a negative situation into a positive one, received critique or otherwise.

 

But those three lines aren't written in a vacuum. Going by the instruction of what the thread is, I would be giving you the first three lines of a finished piece I'm polishing for publication, to see if my opening three sentences are strong enough.

And of course I learn from that, as I would learn from what an editor would tell me. The only difference is the final destination: my proverbial file cabinet, or submitting it.

Sorry for the double post. Bay made a really important point about interpretation of what the thread is.

 

So the critiquers don't want to improve their skills at critique? Seriously? Just sit down and shut up and let the critiques get worse? Because the over the top voice-changing rewrites are a fairly recent development.

This has nothing to do with thick skin vs. thin skin, Spence or not being able to handle the criticism. I want my stuff torn apart, and believe me, the person I'm working with privately is doing that, because they're one of the harshest critics here. But they're also explaining the whys and having me do it in my words, not theirs, so I'm learning something.

I want to know why, instead of having them just do it for me, so I can then take what they're saying and apply it to the next thing I write, and the next, and the next. That's how I learn. Otherwise, it's just ghostwriting.

 

I don’t waste time being bothered by lazy critiques. I ignore them. But I don’t subscribe to the idea of “I don’t have time to do this right so you should take what you get.” If you don’t have the time (and I’m often in the category of someone who doesn’t) then don’t critique.

 

Please don't twist my words. I never said critiquers shouldn't try to improve their skills. And, I certainly didn't say "shut up and let the critiques get worse." My emphasis is purposefully not on the critiquers. It's on the people receiving critique. Do I think we should try to foster healthy critique? Absolutely. But doing that will never totally get rid of the issue at hand (unhelpful critiques).

No matter how hard you or I rail at the bad critiquers, it won't stop. You and I will always get bad critiques, as will everyone else. Why waste your energy on trying to educate someone who may or may not want to get better or actually be helpful? It certainly does have to do with thick or thin skin. Having a thick skin is being able to see the unhelpful critiques and ignore them, rather than trying to tell someone they are critiquing the wrong way.

All I've been trying to say is that there is value in the things we don't agree with, even these "over the top voice-changing rewrites." Or, more accurately, there can be value if we make it so. Besides, just because something isn't helpful to you or to me doesn't mean it will never be helpful to anyone. There is no such thing as an absolute in writing. It just doesn't exist. I'm sorry that there is no value in those critiques for you, and usually, there isn't for me either. But sometimes there is, and I can't see the value in pointing out a right or wrong way to critique.

And, no, those critiques aren't a recent development. They happen everywhere, and they cycle just as the membership/population does. It will never be completely eliminated.

I'm going to bow out on this one. I appreciate the discussion, but I think I've said all that I can. I appreciate your input on the forum @Shenanigator.

 

This--what I've bolded. Because what I'm trying to get at, and maybe I haven't been clear enough, is that when we're learning--and by "we" I mean all writers---we don't even know enough to know which critiques to overlook.

Having those why's in our back pocket helps us become discerning about which critiques to use. None of us has that discernment when we're starting, so without the why's it becomes accepting or not accepting the crit based solely on how the crit makes us feel instead of by solid reasoning. That's not helpful. I don't want applause, I want information that will help me improve.

 

I may be wrong, but I do think @Shenanigator is saying is that a new writer wants to learn. They know they are probably making mistakes. What they want to do is learn how to correct them. In order to learn quickly, they need to hear reasons why what they wrote needs improvement. And it would be helpful to get suggestions for how to improve it, if the critique-giver can provide them. I don't think that's unreasonable expectation for a workshop entry.

A critique is not a review. A critique is kind of like going to school, where a student is not an inanimate creator of a project. You don't expect a student to turn up on the first day of school and take the Final Exam, do you? A student goes to school expecting to be taught by people who want to help them learn, so when they do take the Final Exam, they can ace the thing.

A review is like a final exam. A review doesn't explain how to improve a piece. A review gives a verdict. The creator is inanimate and unknown. A review is a 'grade' on a finished product. Four or five stars. One star.

A critique, however, is part of the learning process that comes before you take the 'exam', and there is no 'grade.' No pass or fail. Just a learning situation. It's meant to help the author, not the reader. I think it's a mistake to expect critiques and reviews to achieve the same result.

 

I left this thread for a second to catch a breather, the first topic I saw was something positive. What's the best compliment or nicest thing someone has said about your writing. That brought me back here.

I'm not going to apologize for only having questions.

My question is this. If the best thing a writer can learn is sometimes the worst thing a critter says about there writing, I feel like, I don't know. Is this the commercial aspect speaking? Are we that brutal to ourselves and other writers work as the most sincere kindness we can do is throw there story ideas to the wolves and hope that the young story comes back triumphant with six wolf pelts on there back and a newfound knowledge and courage that will only help them become stronger with each step they take?

I made a post earlier in this thread, I'm not not looking for any glowing remarks on this earlier post, everyone glazed over it perhaps because they were meaningfully trying to add there own point of view. I only quote myself here because I'm asking is there any room for, positive crit helping the author keep there voice while adding valuable knowledge. Which in my view is greater than silver or gold.

Michael Angelo's saying of taking "cutting" what isn't needed to reveal that which was already there.

This to me sounds exactly like the work that Michael Angelo did when he worked with a block of marble. This to me sounds like the artist in editors coming out to shine. However I also ask myself this, does Michael Angelo feel critical of his work when he creates through subtraction? I don't think so, not until perhaps very late in the game of his sculpture WIP.

I feel he only comes from a place of positivity, because as an artist, and dear god no I'm not comparing my work to his. Just the idea and feeling. The positivity, the inspiration, these are the things that breathe new life in me each day. I constantly return to that spring that has an infinite source of inspiration.

I think that the art of critique is in some sense. Too commercial. Too clinical. Doctor says, "hand me a scalpel." When the words are said, the patient *both the story and the writer* have to sit in a hospital bed for thirteen days because they have to heal. They still have even more healing to do once they get home, on this road to recuperation.

I had some very helpful posts said about my little piece in the three sentence thread. It's still difficult for me to wrap my brain around all these concepts. Is there any room for positive, words that gently guide the writer down the stream?

 

Oh my God, @jannert this is exactly what I've been trying and not succeeding to say in all my posts in this thread!!!!!!!!! All of it, your entire post, is spot on, but especially the parts I've bolded.

Thank you, thank you, thank you @jannert . A thousand thanks, thank you. (Will you be my editor? Better yet, teach me how?)

 

Homes, I don't care if you flat out say "This fucking sucks, Shen" as long as you tell me why and how the hell to fix it.

I'm dead serious.

 

He might not know how to fix it; that might be up to you to figure out. However, he should certainly tell you why he thinks it sucks, so you get a clue what the problem is. You can't fix a problem if you can't see it.

 

Yes, thank you. The why is much more important to me, because I can take that moving forward.

ETA: And I know people are horrified when I say "Tell me it fucking sucks as long as you tell me why" but I'm smart enough to know that if I have the why, it won't always fucking suck.

 

I did post the first three sentences of my WIP on this forum. The feedback I got was very useful, and sort of set me on track for the rest of the story. I still tend to write long sentences, but being alert to the fact they should be understood on first read has affected the way I write (though I don't consistently succeed at this yet).

I'm with Shenanigator. I'd want to be told just how bad something I've written is, even in painful detail, if it actually is. You're entitled to shred me to pieces if what you have to tell me helps me be a better writer.

 

I'm not sure about this example. I mean, the second sentence seems to be in a very different style and voice from the first example, so if the objection to rewrites is that they diminish the original writer's style and voice... wouldn't that same objection apply to critiques of this sort?

I've never actually dealt with anyone in the publishing business who was less than courteous and considerate of me as a person.

That doesn't mean they don't suggest edits to my work, but they're just talking about my work. An individual piece of writing that I produced at a given point in time. Criticism of a piece of writing isn't an attack on me as a person, and isn't even an attack on my writing in general... it's just an opinion on the effectiveness of a bunch of words I typed up.

Whether it's critique of three lines or editing of a complete novel, I don't think there's any place for personal comments and therefore there should be no reason for people's skin to be affected one way or aonther.

I agree with this but I don't see how it ties in with the larger point of the thread. Are there people who are just rewriting the three sentences without explaining the reasons for their rewrites? If there are, I agree that it's not good practice, but I don't think I've been seeing that.

I'd say a good critique is based on sharing one reader's opinion of how effective a certain piece of writing is, and explaining reasons for that opinion. Sometimes the critiquer may have suggestions for how the writing could be more effective... sometimes these suggestions may be best demonstrated via a rewrite of a few key sentences. None of this contradicts the idea of critiques as a learning opportunity, does it?

 

Um, but I said it was a bad example, that I'm dyslexic, and hello, I'm trying to learn this stuff. So...[throws up hands]

The example part you were supposed to pay attention to was all the WHYs. That's all I need is the WHY.

I'm saying I don't want the critiquer to rewrite stuff into their voice, per @izzybot 's post above. Don't do my work for me.

 

Friedrich Nietzsche — 'He who has a why to live for can bear almost any how.'

 

I don't know how to make it more clear. I really don't. @jannert and @izzybot understand it, and calling out people whose critiques are consistently the best and most helpful or least helpful would not be productive or healthy for the Forum.

@BayView I feel like you did that to purposefully try to trip me up or feel good about your skill, in a defensive stance, instead of to gain clarity. Seriously.

Now I REALLY don't trust you.

 

Wow. I'm... flattered that you think I'm that devious, but... you're giving me way too much credit. I'm just trying to figure out what you're objecting to.

(And did you KINDA not trust me before? Huh? What's happening? This thread is weird.)

 

@BayView I'm sorry, but my trust is a bit worn after being personally attacked last night in this thread by someone who accused me of something I did not do, because they were upset some of us had suggestions on how critiquers could better help us.

So if you truly were not trying to trip me up, I apologize. From my end it felt like you were using the fact that I have trouble with sentence construction against me. If that's not you, I'm sorry.

I'm trying to help you help me, so it helps everyone get what they need in this place.

 

How confident are you about that, Homes? You didn't accidentally conjure something worse, right? Just checkin'.

 

@BayView Not gonna lie, I'm really sensitive about my dyslexia when it comes to breaking down sentences. I'm sorry if I falsely put that on you.

 

Looking at this from the sidelines, I’m totally confident that BayView was not doing that. (Aside from the fact that I don’t see BayView doing that, I don’t see that there were sentence construction issues.)