So I'm sure we've all been there, We posted our newest handy-dandy piece of writing, our soul was in it and our fingers on fire. We throw it out there somewhere in a dank corner of the internet asking for critique. Then it comes: Actual Critique. Its constructive, fair, and .... when implemented goes against everything you were attempting to achieve. Its not that it was bad advice, they had good points and offered solutions to the problems they pointed out. It just didn't mesh with the theme you were trying to convey, or it uprooted other sections that were essential to the story, or any of a dozen other things. So my question is this, How do you thresh good critique from good critique that isn't right for you. We all know what bad critique looks like, but finding and following the right advice is hard. Sometimes it feels like you have to throw your own mind out the window and just do what the internet tells you. Of course the worse option is taking no critique at all "I know what I'm writing! Dont you dare tell me to change it!" Where is the balance? What tips do you have for me?
I don't remember who originally said that when someone tells you that something doesn't work in your writing, they're usually right, but when they tell you how to fix it, they're usually wrong. So if they tell you that your protagonist is boring, and suggest how to make him more interesting, take on the "boring" part--or at least consider the possibility. But there are probably a thousand ways to make him more interesting, and you know much better than the critiquer which ones will work for the rest of the piece.
Well, I suppose it depends on your genre (or more specifically your niche; the kind of people who enjoy similar things you do, or even more specifically enjoy the things you write). I think the best criticism comes from those who would buy your book if it was published and the worst (that is actual criticism with a fair basis I mean) would be from those who'd never buy anything resembling the sort of book you're looking to sell. You could (and maybe you already have) look up to financially successful authors who wrote books similar in taste to what you're writing and see how they did things (although there is a risk of writing a poor clone rather than a fair contender) as chances are it'll be at least somewhat applicable to what you're doing. Ultimately, however, unless you're writing very similar things to what already exists and is proven to sell well enough to justify writing it in the first place, you are essentially a pioneer in search of new land and therefore you will have to make your own maps and use your own judgement. Yet, having said that, I think if you can find people who like stories similar to the kind you're intending to write you might have found the best source of criticism since they can offer it without necessarily steering the intended story too far from what might have been originally wanted/intended (which admittedly is something I do rather often--it's hard not to offer criticism and give advice based on what would make me enjoy it more, which can be bad if that contradicts an audience the original work is much closer to appealing to). Perhaps the existence of anyone--anyone at all--that seriously finds your work interesting/fun/good is a sign enough of potential financial success; after all, the opinions of readers far outweighs any others. However this approach relies on you being good at something enough to pull someone in the first place; I'm really not sure what to do in terms of taking/applying criticism when there isn't at least something that's identifiable as a fun pull. Maybe you really are best just accepting all criticism and taking notes even if you don't change all that much because what little changes you do make could be enough to seriously furbish your story for the better. At least this applies for specific details (like dialogue versus descriptive paragraphs, show versus tell, internal monologues every now and then versus very rarely, etc. etc.). I'm not sure about thematic criticism while plot criticism is especially subjective (what is a caffeine rush for one person could be a sleeping pill for another).
Irina Samarskaya I hear you. It is definitely best to get feedback from my intended audience. The real issue is: I'm not very good. It's hard to find someone willing to read and offer real constructive criticism of work that is still subpar (no matter how enthusiastically written.) Typically its a struggle to find someone willing to devote 10,000 words of their life to something that needs significant work. Of course getting someone to review a chapter is easier, but still not easy. But thats all excuse I think, The moral of the story I'm getting is : evaluate the source of the critique and decide how much their goals align with your own.
There is no recipe. There are no guides how much character to put in a book, or how much description, or how many short sentences vs how many long sentences. There are no numbers. It's like music. Nobody can tell you which notes are right for your music and how many As or Cs or D majors to include per page. If you decide to do what the internet tells you, that's up to you. It's not a universal recipe either. You're in charge of your book. Maybe it will be a success if you listen to every piece of advice you hear. Who knows until we try it ... Of course you can decide to not jump in the dark and accept advice you don't understand. Maybe try to acquire some understanding first? If the Internet tells you not to use adverbs, then you can either do that, or you can do some searches and try to find out for yourself what adverbs are and what to do with them. Then if the Internet points out at an adverb and tells you to cut it out, you can look at it and make an informed decision. Maybe that adverb can be replaced with something else, indeed. Or maybe the Internet is wrong (it happens!). Yep. Nobody's going to sit through with you and hold your hand and guide you through every page. But they can look at few pages and point out things that you might have overlooked. Writers become blind to the flaws in their works the same way parents become blind to the flaws in their children. Crosseyed Ollie is the most beautiful child in the world, sure. And that 600 page novel about the magic sword, consisting of one single sentence (not a comma in sight) is the best book ever written. Then comes a critique person (from the Internet ) and tells you that commas are a thing and you should divide your book into smaller sentences. If you have no idea what commas are (hypothetical, of course), you may start putting a comma after every word, "because the critique said so!" or you can go read up about commas (and where to put them) and then start putting them where they should be. Then you don't need the critique person to read all of your novel, because that problem will be sorted out. New writers usually have persistent problems like this, so there's no need to read the whole work to know the same problem repeats over and over. The people who read the whole of your book are your "beta readers". Once you've sorted the persistent problems, of course there might be a problem with a certain chapter, with the overall arc of a character, or with plot holes. Then, after the beta points those out, you do exactly the same: try to educate yourself on the issue first and then start changing the book. Most of the time it will come down to having "a nose" for what a good book is, what works and what doesn't. How does one recognise if a piece of music is good? Same thing.
