Because you wrote it, they didn't. If you do enough work on a story before letting anyone read it, there shouldn't be any big changes to make. That's not always the case, of course, especially in longer works, but I don't understand this concept of completely rewriting a story based on critiques. That's not only a never-ending battle, but it implies you aren't satisfied with the thing you've created. If you're not satisfied with it, why are you letting other people read it? Do you know you're a good writer? If yes, then why would you let anyone discourage you? If no, then figure out what you can change to become one. Maybe one step is paying less attention to critiques.
I think coming from an MFA program, revision and rewriting is something that I usually plan on having to do. Sometimes it's a whole rewrite and sometimes it ends up being a pretty different story. Other times I can write something and it comes out pretty decent, and it doesn't need much more work at all. I am talking about short stories and not novels in my case. I often tend to feel satisfied with my work prior to critiques. I've never asked someone to read something I didn't think was good. I haven't sought out someone to critique my work on this forum. Most people on here are writing novels it seems. I have a bunch of newish stories that no one has read. They haven't been submitted yet, partly because I was debating if getting someone to read any of them would be beneficial or if I should take my chances with an editor. I do have a bunch of other older stories that never got submitted because the critiques I got made me feel like spending any more time on them let alone submitting them for publication would be a waste of time. For awhile, I stopped submitting my work altogether. I think it is very hard for a person to tell if they are a good writer or not. I mean how else can you really know something like that other than if your work is selling? Editors buy good stories. Some editors have bought stories from me, but far many more have rejected me. I would like to think I'm a not bad, but I have no idea how I would "figure out what you can change to become one." I read and I write and I try real hard. If you've got a better plan, I'm all ears.
For what it's worth, all of these are items I'd want my critiquers, beta readers, etc., to flag. If my manuscript has them and the person giving me feedback doesn't mention them, their critique lacks the value it could have. There's nothing at all bitchy or authoritarian with hoping or even requesting that people look out for these problems and alert us to them. However, given the nature of this all-too-real world, it cracks me up when certain writing pundits, some with blogs and some on YouTube, tell writers to submit a very particular check-off form to all their beta readers as they submit their WIP to those readers one chapter at a time. The idea is that all the readers will answer all the questions chapter by chapter and you can compile them neatly to see how your story is coming off and where it needs improved. But in what universe will every beta reader adhere to the form? I tried it when I first embarked on the adventure of having my novel beta-read, and found that few, if any, do. So IMHO it's perfectly all right to have an idea of what constitutes a "proper" critique--- as long as you can accept that a lot of crits will be improper indeed.
As a fellow short story writer, I can relate to some of your pain, here. I learned quickly not to waste my time trying to get critiques out of casual readers. They're not looking at my work (or any work) with critical eyes. They read to escape into the author's world for a brief time, and that's it. They're the betas who are going to say "I liked it" or "it was okay" or "Not this time." Instead I have 3-5 people I trust to give me real, honest feedback. I have them read ALL of my stories, and I make changes and adjustments based on their reactions. Everyone else is just a casual reader. I can get an idea of how popular any given story of mine is by their feedback, but I don't change anything for them. Others have pointed it out: Not all betas are equal, and not all critiques are equally valuable. I remember reading in another recent thread of yours that you've been experiencing a lot of rejection. So something isn't working, right? Why not submit a few stories that are exactly what and where YOU want them, and forget about the critique altogether. What's the worst that can happen? Your stories are already getting rejected, right? I also want to spend a moment on this: "I mean how else can you really know something like that other than if your work is selling?" Sales isn't a measure of quality of authorship. It's a measure of popularity (and to some degree, luck). Stories and books can be popular for many reasons that have nothing to do with the author being a "good writer." I'm sure you've read and written enough to know where you stack up ability-wise to other published folks. As far as other advice goes, I thought I remember you saying in your rejection thread that you're submitting to high-brow mags and other publications you've always admired. Have you considered alternatives? I'm still new at this, but I've already discovered quite a few publishing houses that are interested in publishing short story collections. It sounds like you have enough material to market three or four of those right now.
See, that is what I think is not working for me. I too make adjustments based on feedback, but that's where I seem to screw things up the most. By the time I show someone my work, I believe there are no problems. I don't like to show a story too soon or I get messed up even more. It wouldn't bother me to get thoughts from a casual reader vs. another writer. Either way, they are probably not going to be much help to me in the end. Sure, I'm getting lots of rejection, but the stories I have out right now I feel confident in. This is my career and livelihood and I take it very seriously. Where I publish is just as important to me as what I publish. I'm not trying to come across as a literary snob. It's just that I have spent many, many years reading these journals. Reading is how I learned to write this way. I studied writing in school, but what really taught me how to write a good short story was reading so many of them in what I consider great publications. I'm sorry about my venting on the other thread. I submit a lot so of course I am going to get a lot of rejections. Even the writers I know who publish in these places get a lot of rejection. I have sold my work but not to anywhere I imagine will really help me sell to The New Yorker. And maybe it sounds foolish to actually submit to The New Yorker, but I don't see the harm in sending them my best work. I did get a personal rejection once from The New Yorker, but I know that means very little to anyone but me. Anyway, I think I might take your advice and just send some of these new ones out. There really are no alternatives. This is what I want to do. I would never publish a short story collection without at least selling half of the stories that would be in it. My goal isn't just to publish. I've been published a few times. I had a piece come out a few months back. It was really great, but now I have to do it again with again with a better story. My goal is to get into these so-called highbrow publications. This isn't just a dream or something that would be nice. This is my main focus right now. And I am really, really trying. Thanks for your post. I think all of you are great.
