Cutting words: Why?

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.)

 

Thank you @ChickenFreak . I appreciate your saying that.

Maybe I should say "sentence deconstruction" issues. It's very hard for me to reverse engineer something is what I'm trying to say. Which is why the "why's are so important. I can build it from the ground up if I know the goal. But tearing apart a sentence not in my voice, then rebuilding to match mine? Can't do it.

But I don't think that's unique to dyslexia. I truly don't.

 

The difficulty is that I sometimes have the reverse problem--it's a struggle for me to explain the why's without the examples. Now, I could try to do both, so that the writer has my attempt to explain, which might be helpful, and my rewrite, which might be useless to many people but might be useful to others.

 

If you have the time to do that, yes, that would be helpful. Thank you.

 

For what it's worth, I learn WAY better through examples than through explanation, and I don't think I'm at all rare. I also think we have to be really careful about demanding that people critique a certain way, because it's out of our control. If you get a critique and it isn't helpful, the only appropriate reaction is to say thank you and move on.

Going back to the opening post, critiques often suggest cutting words because learning how to write tightly is important, and most new / inexperienced writers don't do it. Tight writing doesn't mean stripping away anything but the essentials; it means communicating what you want with the right words and without superfluous words. When people get defensive about "style" and "voice" it's usually, in my experience, because they aren't ready for critique, and not because their style or voice is being trampled on. Honestly, any kind of defensiveness against critique is a reflection on the writer and not the critiquer.

But I have seen people in the three sentences thread, and in the workshop, rewriting someone's work in their own style. It's usually not to strip away words - their version is often just as bloated - but because they don't know how else to critique. I think I might have done that when I was new at critiquing. I think @Spencer1990 is totally right that we can't stop 'bad' critiques (partly because who the hell gets to decide what's the right or wrong way to do something so subjective?) and it's far better to spend your energy learning how to take and apply critique than trying to get the rest of the world to critique in a certain way.

 

I could not disagree with this more.

I have no trouble hearing critique. Seriously.

Let's take voice in musical terms. If I'm a blues singer and you're trying to make me sound like an opera singer, that's not helpful. It has nothing to do with whether or not I can handle critique.

ETA: Be my Neil Strauss to my Nikki Sixx.