I think we've all had some encouragement and criticism about our writing along the way to where we are now and where we will go with our craft. But has one helped you more than the other? Some people like that tough-love approach. They might even feed off any negativity in a positive way, thinking I'll show them. But at the same time others might feel crippled by the same kind of criticism. Then there is the encouragement. The praise. Good job. Maybe first publication. Some sort of validation that above all feel really good and makes us want to continue. Which do you think helps a writer more? Which has helped you? Maybe a combination? Or maybe one just pushes you in the right direction more than the other?
For me a combination works best. When told that you're doing good, you feel inspired to continue to do good. When told that you suck ass, like you said, you feel that you want to show them that you can do better. Though I've never really been faced with any harsh critique. Sure, people have disagreed with the way I have done things at times, but they often do so in neutral tones. Or maybe I just have thick skin and don't notice the harshness? Then again, I don't have much text out there, so the harshness may still come. I think balance is important in everything.
Lol I don't think anybody has ever told any writer that! I mean not here anyway, maybe in places like Reddit. Personally I don't come here for praise or back-patting. You can get that just about everywhere else, from family and friends and strangers on Wattpad or wherever. It's a nice ego boost, but isn't really very helpful. That said, sometimes I read a piece here and all I can say is how amazing it is. I feel bad about that, because this is a critique site, we're supposed to be helping them figure out how to improve the work. The kind of criticism that's helped me is when people point out weaknesses in my work, often that I wasn't aware of or had no idea how to solve, and then offer solutions. It's because of criticism like this that I've learned about lots of things I then followed up on and studied in order to improve my writing. So that's the kind of critique I offer as well. Sometimes I can get so caught up in that I forget to throw in a spoonful of sugar, especially if I'm not operating at 100% (tired or stressed in some way). But I don't see the sugar as the main point, it's just the dessert on top of the meal, which is the actual helpful criticism. But when I'm firing on all cylinders I can be encouraging at the same time.
And I know critique can be hard to take, trust me!! I'll never forget the day I stayed up all night trying to do a painting for art class, fueled on a pot of coffee, and the tiredness hit suddenly as I was driving to school in the morning for critique day. My piece was crap—I had waited till the last minute (literally after midnight the night before) and didn't have time to do anything worthwhile. I KNEW it was crap! And I was prepared for the criticisms. But I was wiped out from lack of sleep and too much caffeine, so when the cold hard truth came rolling in I curled up (metaphorically) into a fetal position and could feel my eyes welling with tears. How embarrassing! Even though intellectually I knew everything they said was true, I was just too stressed to deal with it. But I also know any hurt feelings fade rapidly, while the knowledge you gain will stay with you from that point on. Growth doesn't come from stroking someone's ego. As I said recently on another thread, an expansion of consciousness (growth) only happens when you're willing to do some critical self-examination. In fact a big part of what prospective writers need to learn is how to deal with criticism, because if you're going to present your work to the public or to professional editors, you're going to get a lot of it, and they're not going to sugar-coat anything. But I think it's good that we have different kinds of critiquers on the site. Writers get both extremes of the spectrum and all points in between.
For me, even a negative critique still means that someone read my work and put a lot of thought into it. The act is flattering despite the content. It can be initially upsetting on occasion, as we unfortunately all have emotions, but there's some maturity/skill involved in taking it gracefully and maintaining perspective (or making sure to get more perspectives). It's kind of funny when someone places work for critique in the workshop and it turns out they definitely did not want any kind of critique. That's rare, though. I won't lie that encouragement is nice too, but it's hard to take it seriously if it doesn't come with areas for improvement.
To frame this from a broader perspective, what we're talking about is really the difference between the masculine and feminine approach. Imagine if you will—twin children. A boy and a girl both 7 years old. They were out playing in the yard and both fell and got small cuts on their arms. They run in crying to their parents, the girl to the mother and the boy to the father. Mom says, in her sweetest voice, "Oh you poor little thing! Come here and let mommy fix everything for you!". She kisses the ouchie, washes it, puts ointment and a band-aid on it, and kisses it again, making nummy sounds. Meanwhile the dad says to the boy "You know where the ointment and the band-aids are, and I showed you how to push the stool up so you can reach the medicine cabinet. You need to learn to toughen up and deal with these things yourself, there won't always be someone there to take care of you." Which of these kids is learning to deal with adversity and take care of himself, and which one is learning to expect to be pampered? Ultimately the job of parents is to prepare their children for adulthood. And that's pretty much the job of us here—to prepare up-and-coming writers to deal with critique, while hopefully teaching them a few things that might be helpful.
As mentioned above, I think a combination of both would suit most people. Personally I have no problem with receiving criticism providing it is constructive with suggestions on how / where I can improve. I should add that how / tone / manner in which criticism is offered is important.
One is not much good without the other. Knowing what one has done right is as important as knowing what one has done wrong, and vice versa.
Id say encouragement definitely. Or at least in the first instance. Its important to recognize that when one gives critique that you are inside the writers head. What on the face of things is an invite to help and evaluate a piece of work, (what the creator/writer intends to gain) unintentionally results in the inner soul of the writer being exposed to the critique giver. An invisible barrier is crossed. The consequences can often be profound in either a good or bad way. If you are one of those critique givers that is like, 'toughen up and take your medicine!' vs a sensitive soul then someone will get crushed. In fact I would say that tough love doesn't work in any respect, but I will leave that there. Having been on this site for a while and had more than a few bad experiences I view it mainly as read only which is a shame. If I do get involved, I follow my own rules for giving and receiving critique: 1. Respect the fact that you are in the writers head so be polite and respectful 2. Make points only if you have a true understanding and conviction. (No half baked theories or ideas that have just popped into your head) 3. Leave the transaction when asked to do so. Its up to the writer to say enough is enough not the critique giver. 4. Don't pile in after others have made points especially on forums. Ask the writer if you can contribute. 5. If you are the recipient of critique, do say when you have had enough, but be polite and respectful. Also @deadrats you have published works I believe, so once your work is out there these rules don't apply I suppose. Anyone can say as they wish. Unfortunately there is no @big soft moose to step in and stop the fight! Caveat: Of course the truth is important. As long as it is not misguided...
I disagree with @deadrats' angle and @Richach's points - because of the point he goes on to make afterwards to deadrats "once your work is out there these rules don't apply" I say they don't apply beforehand either In critique's natural state, the fiction is published and the critic is writing in a newspaper Moreover, we first study the art of critique in its ideal world - where the author and their language have both died so that the work can be understood in a settled context So the purpose of critique-in-itself isn't, and can't be, to improve the work or to encourage the writer "Well done Shakespeare, I loved how you described Romeo and don't take this the wrong way but people might think he's a bit of an edgelord" These priorities come in from outside, and I believe they impair critique. Constantly offering supportive comments to people's first drafts of Vampire Romances weakens (or at least doesn't build) our ability to find subtle problems in later drafts Including because we're conditioning ourselves to find "show-don't-tells" that in any serious effort would naturally work out WF presses critique into serving the other writer, but it's an art-in-itself Tonstant Weader Fwowed up Wagner's music is better than it sounds Who killed John Keats? I, says the Quarterly So savage and Tartarly; ‘Twas one of my feats. To think those jewels might have fallen foul of the forum rules! But certainly their value didn't derive from upsetting the writer with negativity for the sake of it (least of all Keats) - the barbs are for the benefit of third party readers (which WF does have) And something WF is right about is that critique improves our craft - so it's also for our own benefit. To be able to be barbed we must (in addition to fully obeying the forum rules) have achieved a high degree of certainty in the criticism and the evidence we're basing it on. It is in a barb that the critic exposes the extent or limit of their craft. And I think most forum users do get that.
I call that criticism, which differs from our specific kind of critique. Ours is specifically to help new authors learn how to improve.
I think, ultimately, feedback doesn’t provide any real benefit. A writer who eventually secures a commercial publishing deal will do so whether that feedback is negative, positive, or non existent. They will make it as a writer regardless of feedback, not because of it.
Do you really believe this? I have a hard time understanding that viewpoint. Isn't it through feedback that we improve? It can be feedback from teachers or strangers, but still, we take it to head and heart. Without feedback I would still make the same mistakes over and over, and probably never get published. But with feedback, I stand a greater chance at being published. Same goes for every profession I think, musicians, painters, architects. Without anyone giving them advice and feedback, they wouldn't develop.
I absolutely believe it. Most advice is disregarded anyway. I’ll revise my point and say that maybe, just maybe, a writer may improve their craft with good, expert tuition from a professional. But with all due respect to those here, I don’t think much can be learned from a writers forum because we’re all essentially in the same boat. It’s the blind leading the blind.
I don't think it differs. Critique under any name reveals the inner workings of the creative process. This might improve the writing of (1) the critic, (2) the author (if they are perhaps clinging onto life in the hope of writing some more after the workshop submission), and also (3) anyone who stumbles across it whilst eating their cornflakes. (1) and (2) will be dead pretty soon, but (3) are the true and long-term beneficiaries of critique. Alien digito-archaeologists will someday pore over our discussions trying to work out why Fifty Shades of Grey keeps turning up in early Anthropocene sediment-layers. But a purposive intent to help new authors improve is neither here nor there. If a narrow/restrictive purpose of helping the author is adopted, we'd have to suggest for a lot of them to just stop and take up macrame instead.
This website and others like it are specifically designed for your options #1 & 2. We don't write criticism about the works of dead authors, but of living writers who have submitted here in hopes of getting some help with their writing. Cornflakes are entirely optional.
One can agree with this statement, and even take it (arguably) further, and still conclude the small percentage of advice they have taken on board has markedly improved their ability.
I think you're right about striking a balance and also having thick skin. Writing is tough, but I'm not so sure a critique or feedback always have to be. In the beginning I think encouragement can go along way in helping a writer develop their skills. It's nice to feel like someone believes in you and believes in your work. I'm not looking for harshness when I get or give feedback. I think it can be hard to listen and absorb a critique when our defenses go up. At the same time we do want to know where are writing needs work. How it's delivered can impact what we do with the advice we're given.
Maybe not, but the bits and pieces of encouragement along the way have helped me to continue. I don't think I would have reached the point I'm at without it. That doesn't necessarily mean the same thing as feedback or critique on a specific piece of writing, but sometimes it does.
For new writers, I think encouragement (more like general encouragement) is probably more important than criticism. The new writer will need to wright a lot to improve and encouraging them to just continue writing is probably a lot more useful than pointing out problems in their early works that probably won't lead anywhere.
I've never thought of feedback as a way to improve. Having someone critique a story, the advice and suggestions are usually specific to that piece. Sometimes someone else can pick up on something I've missed and that can be helpful, but I don't think it's really helping me improve as a writer. And I don't really see feedback as any sort of step toward publication. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for having an extra set of eyes on my work before I submit something. It's not always the case, though. And I don't think the stories I've received feedback on necessarily come out better than the ones I've just worked on solo. Your line of thinking is giving someone else's opinion a lot of weight. I tend to agree with you. Except not everyone is at the same level. I think writers can learn from one another, but giving and getting feedback is not the only way to do that. This is where maybe encouragement could be more useful than any specific issues that the person giving the feedback might not really know what to do or what they're talking about.
If critique doesn't pass muster by (3), it isn't worth showing to (2) either, and there's nothing in it for (1). The site might want eyeballs, and some users might want audiences for whatever other mumbo-jumbo they're peddling: courses, cults, ways-of-thinking. Critique - or criticism - provides that best by being what it is in itself. Then when (2) is dead, the critique and the work survive them, which is an important part of writing. Many works only survive in critique - it's the longer-lasting artform.
I learned some very important things thanks to feedback here. I was one of those who got here knowing only first person and third person POV, and I often wrote in objective but had no idea it had a name or any of the rules of it. But critique pointed the way for me and I began to learn about some of the more specific kinds of POV, leading up to very recently starting to look into close 3rd. I also learned about the ways you can transition between some of them. This is very important stuff—not understanding POV can prevent you from getting published.
Absolutely encouragement can help a wannabe writer keep going. But if that encouragement is there for the sake of it you may well be wasting the time of a person who’s never going to ‘make it’ as a writer, and let’s be frank here, that’s most of us. This may sound super negative, but just remember there are several reasons a person should be encouraged to keep writing, and it’s not always because it’s thought they have a shot at the big time. My poetry, for instance, is never going to be published, even if I wanted to go down that route, but I like writing it so I’ll continue to do so, and if along the way someone here says they’ve enjoyed a poem of mine, there’s no denying how good a feeling that is, or how much it encourages me to write more.
