It depends on the reason why someone likes or dislikes the work. It is one thing if the reader simply dislikes what happens or dislikes a character. But often, readers dislike stories due to a lack of characterization, or because something seems very shallow, or too much happens that just strains credulity. Sometimes the dialogue is completely unnatural. Sometimes, there is way too much "telling," and sometimes there's just no tension or drama and the story is boring. Yes, on the big sites there are people who dislike things for all sorts of reasons, some of which are not related to the craft of writing. But there are plenty of people -- including people who know what they're talking about, who dislike stories due to writing issues.
In response to my statement, You replied: What you originally wrote was: You're arguing with yourself. You said that the sentence was problematic. You did not say that it was problematic when you are writing a story from Jenny's POV. I maintain that you cannot say that that particular sentence can never work. I'm not going to defend it too much, because it's not my sentence and I don't believe that it's the greatest sentence ever written. But, in some contexts, that sentence could work just fine. Adding in additional conditions after the fact doesn't make you appear wise. Instead, it makes apparent that what you wrote originally was unclear. In fact, "can be a mistake" is vague and unclear. Any sentence could be a mistake. It could be a mistake because the character is named Lisa. What you should have done instead is point out that that sentence doesn't help us get into Jenny's head, and that what it really does is distance us from the character, which might not be what the writer intends. In a critique group, the readers have presumably read more than that single sentence. So, a critiquer might very well point out that that sentence doesn't work so well, if he sees that the story is supposed to be about Jenny. The next sentences could be, "Charley smiled and looked at his feet. Neither of them knew that was going to be their last moment on earth."
you're right in re a 'critic' and 'critique'... an 'editor' however, can perform a variety of services, from 'proofreading' and a 'simple' edit in which typos, punctuation and minor grammar goofs are not only underlined, but corrected, all the way up to doing a complete 'rewrite'... in between are 'line edits' and 'story edits' and several other levels, plus paring down a too-long ms... there is even the 'developmental' edit that will help a writer decide how to structure the work, before starting to write it... and not all editors are good at all of those tasks... neither are all who call themselves 'editors' capable of providing professional quality work... plus, the ones who are good enough to give your ms a better chance of being published/sold don't come cheap... and certainly don't work 'on spec' for payment if/when the work ever sells, since even the best editor ever can't guarantee it will... which is why i won't take on clients unless they can consider the fee justified as being for 'lessons' in how to do their own editing in future, as well as for improving the ms...
Exactly. You feel you're a published author on the basis of that or you wouldn't have said it. But calling themselves an editorial board gives no more reality to the claim than does self releasing make us published authors.
It's problematic in any POV. You cannot place effect before cause and have the story read as anything but a report. Real life, which our stories attempt to mimic always has cause before effect. If we don't take that into account, and recognize when a given passage violates that we're going to do it ourselves—and shoot ourselves in the foot. No one comes to us to be informed on the events of a story by a narrator who is neither on the scene nor in the story. They want to be entertained. They want to experience the story. History informs, and because it's immutable there's no uncertainty and nothing for a reader to worry about. But readers want to worry. They love uncertainty. A reader is at their happiest when they have a hand to their mouth in shock, saying, "Oh my god...what in the hell do we do now?" That happens if you make them experience the story as the protagonist does. It cannot happen, and there is no "we" when you provide only a chronicle of events. So that minor problem of the narrator getting effect before cause is in reality, a symptom of a much larger, systemic problem that is a guaranteed rejection. So now we resort to personal attack? Why would I want to appear wise? I'm not trying to impress anyone. Nor am I giving my personal opinion. The example I gave was one Debra Dixon used in her book, GMC: Goal Motivation and Conflict. She's had a pretty successful career. I don't think she's trying to seem wise either. Just to help. What I "pointed out" is that we don't learn the basics of writing fiction in either our primary education or by sitting down with others who know no more than what we learned there. Placing cause before effect is one of the most basic issues when writing for the page. It's also a point that the vast majority of hopeful pre-published writers are violating through ignorance. Certainly, no crime, and like everyone else I did the same thing before I took the time to dig into the craft. Somethng to think about: given that you didn't catch that problem, it just might be that the critique group, without an additional, professional source of writing knowledge, isn't helping you as much as you hoped it might. You would be doing them and yourself a service if you chose a book like Debra Dixon's or Dwight Swain's and as a group, read and discussed it to raise everyone's level of knowledge. Then, critiquing with a greater knowledge of technique the critiques would become more useful. There are so many things that once pointed out are obvious, but which we miss, even when it's in front of us, like what's different about the first paragraph of each chapter of nearly half the novels we read. We see it constantly and most never notice till it's pointed out. And if we miss something so basic and obvious, how much that's subtle do we never know we missed?
Well, they were outside, professional editors who were not part of our group. I'm not going to go on extolling their virtues, and I don't know at what point you can say that one group of editors at some publication are more worthy than editors at another publication, or freelance editors. I've already gone over why I had even included that tidbit, and I don't see any point in rehashing it again. If you refuse to accept it, so be it. Self-publishing means that the author has written something and is publishing it himself. There are a number of avenues where one can do this. There is no requirement for any sort of quality control. That is, none whatsoever. You seem very intent on believing that I believe I am a "published author." Given that I have said now multiple times that I do not consider myself a published author, I don't know what more I can say. You may think whatever you wish. You also seem very invested in the idea that I am a bad writer and that my critique group is uninformed and worthless. I have no way of objectively and definitely proving otherwise, and at the end of the day, you may very well be right. However, you do not have much evidence to enable you to formulate an opinion, and as such, I don't put much stock in your conclusion. I'm glad for you that you are such a successful author and that you have so much to share. (Incidentally, there are different measures of "success." We need look no further than everyone's favorite whipping boy, FSOG and E.L. James. Is she successful? Commercially, without question, she is. Although she's published by Random House, she didn't get there in the usual manner. She self published initially, and then RH bought the rights. She never went through the standard editorial process. And now she's got millions of dollars. But most writers are irked beyond measure at her success. Many are puzzled by her tremendous success, and believe her writing is poor. Is she ever going to win a Pulitzer prize for fiction or a MacArthur Foundation genius grant? No. There's success within one's profession that brings the respect and admiration of others within the same field. And there's also monetary and commercial success. They sometimes go together, but sometimes don't. It's hard to say that any one measure, including published versus unpublished or self published versus traditionally published is the definitive measure of success as a writer or as a mark of who knows what they're doing and who does not. ) I apologize for my role in bringing this thread off-track. Now, I'm off to go prepare for my critique group.
If only. Let's look at what we expect from a publisher: • We expect them to use their professional skills to select work that's written with professional level skills—work that will be mindful of the contract between reader and writer, in which the writer provides a story which is worth the time the reader gives. There is no such requirement for self-publishing. • We expect them to prepare the work by editing for accuracy, content, and professionalism. There is no requirement for even a poor editing when we self-publish. • We expect editing to be done by people who have knowledge of that story's genre through having worked in that area of the industry. Such people are seldom even available to the self publisher. And when they are you usually have to audition for them to convince them your writing is ready for their services. They are also very expensive. • We expect the publisher provide a professional cover, and back cover copy written by people with knowledge of what the customers for that story will react positively to. Doesn't happen for the self-publisher • We expect a publisher to provide promotion, and to have a reputation that will reassure the reader that they are buying a professional product. That, too, doesn't come with do-it-yourself release. What do we expect from a printer? That they will release what we provide in a manner consistent with professionalism in that industry. The simple truth: Kindle, Smashwords, Lulu, etc. Are printers, not publishers. And hiring a printing house does not make the one contracting the work a publisher, only a customer. Self-publishing is a term invented by the various POD and online houses to try to legitimize what has always been called vanity press. Your words, not mine. I take no responsibility if you take what I say out of context. I've certainly not commented on your skill or potential either here or in my critique of your work. In fact, when I critiqued your story I specifically said, "It’s not a matter of bad or good writing, talent, or even the story." So I suspect you're reading malice into words in which none was intended. One of the down sides of a forum like this is that it's very easy to read inflection into words on the page where none was intended, and then. based on that, do so more strongly with every exchange. This thread is in response to John asking about getting reviews and posting work. Talking about if self-publishing is a viable option in his situiation might make sense, but I really don't think his intention was to have you and I argue about if you were or weren't published.
