The art of the critique.

I like getting feedback on both. But I agree that it can be frustrating when you only get comments about a few grammar slip-ups or typos and not a single comment about deeper things like character, plot, etc.

When I give feedback I include SpaG *and* story. It always confuses me why people don't comment on both unless it's practically unreadable.

The way I see it is SpaG is worth doing to the best of your ability because it will increase the likelihood that readers will be able to get to the meat of the storytelling in their feedback. While it's true that perfect SpaG isn't going to save a bad plot with poorly written characters, nobody is going to appreciate great characters with an exciting plot if they can't get past the poor writing. There's a lot of overlap, like a Venn diagram, since the story ultimately comes to life *through* the craft of language.

Ideally I don't just want feedback on my writing, or just on my storytelling, but both. Authors need to be good storytellers *and* writers.

 

A piece with extensive SPAG errors can’t grab me, because those errors make it impossible. A reasonable level of correctness is a mandatory prerequisite for any other evaluation.

 

So are the errors "extensive?" Are you accusing me and others of TOTAL incompetence? A lot of things get past spell-check such as "fail" vs. "frail" or "Lightening" for "Lightning" but not many. The story isn't near ready for publication, that's why it's here. I have two novels currently in the works and a backlog of many others. There is no point, NO POINT, in sending them anywhere until I fix the fundamental flaw in my story telling. "So, what is the fundamental flaw in your story telling?" You may ask. "I don't F****** know!" That's why I'm asking you.

https://www.writingforums.org/threads/robots-squid-men-and-waldo.159107/ This is, ( I think) my strongest work and I got 1 comment, and that on typos. Am I making my point clear at last? Or, is this just an other example of my poor communication skills?

 

I’m not accusing you of anything. I don’t recall reading your stuff before now (though for all I know I may have). I just now had a quick glance at the piece you link to below, and my initial impression is that you have a good, dry-but-amusing voice. I like the voice. If you don’t see a critique from me there within, oh, two days, feel free to message me. (Never mind; just did it.)

But I think it’s counterproductive for you to try to fend off SPAG critique. Embrace it but also ask for more. Maybe you already did that; I don’t know.

I want to know my SPAG errors, because they’re frankly pretty rare, so if there’s an error I want to figure out how I committed that error.

 

I hope I always defend the story choices I've made and believe in. And I hope every writer I critique defends the choices they believe in. I don't understand the logic that less conversation helps anyone grow.

 

Eh. Arguing every critique point, instead of taking what works and leaving the rest behind, is likely to make people less willing to critique that author's work next time. "Defends" suggests that you regard the critique process as a sort of attack. People don't like to be perceived as attackers, when they probably feel that by critiquing they're being helpful. So they'll likely move on and critique somebody else's stuff.

 

Well, let me start with the word 'defend.' The poster I quoted used defend so I continued on with it. I don't doubt there's a better word for pushing back against a piece of criticism. Truth be told though, I'm not real sensitive about it either way.

If a writer chooses to ignore criticisms they don't agree with so they don't frighten away future critiques, I guess I have some sympathy for that. It's not what I would do. More importantly, it's not what I want the writers I critique to do to me. There's often value/insight that comes with a writer's explanations imo. And I, as someone who leaves feedback, appreciate that insight. It helps make me a better critic, which helps make me a better writer.

 

'Explanation' is key I think. When you get criticism you find questionable, explaining what you were trying to do with it could help direct suggestions. Likewise, asking further questions about what someone thinks, providing more alternatives for comparison, is helpful.
I think defending your work is acceptable, but I think it's important to try to get to the point while making it the least defensive as you can.

 

Because one person might think you're the greatest thing since sliced bread and the other might think you're pond scum. They can't both be right.

 

That's why I prefer "How To" people who provide specific methods, things to look out for, illustrative examples and comparisons and such.

 

I don't think that "pushing back" against criticism is a useful concept. Asking for clarification or providing clarification is a different thing, and might be useful.

For example, if someone says, "I didn't like Jeff", I think it's relevant to clarify, "You weren't supposed to," because that might inform further conversation. The reader thinks that they were supposed to like him, when really they were supposed to enjoy NOT liking him. But there's still something wrong, because they experienced not-liking him to be a flaw, instead of something enjoyable or absorbing that they could embrace. So that may be a useful conversation.

But if someone says, "I didn't like Jeff," and you explain why they should like Jeff--that, I think, is a waste of typing. They didn't like him. Explaining all the logical reasons why they should like him is not useful.

 

You might be able to explain what you were trying to do though in order to make him likeable, which could prompt more tips. Of course though, that would be better delivered as a request. It can be easy to use an arguing frame, even when you aren't that mad, when a questioning tone is actually a better frame of speaking for discussing advice. Certainly something to apply and work on.

 

And I disagree. In order to "think" that pushing back against criticism isn't useful, you—by definition—have to believe there's nothing either party can learn from it. Because learning is undeniably useful.

I've already learned things from members pushing back against my criticisms on this very site. Furthermore, I've learned things while reading workshop writers push back against criticism from other site members. So you'll have to excuse me if I believe the jury is in on that question, and that the verdict was in my favor.

I can agree with this without moving from my position. The fact that there are things you shouldn't defend, doesn't mean defending any of your choices is a waste of time.

If someone doesn't like my protagonist's name, so be it. More than likely nothing interesting will come from a disagreement over a name. But if Salinger's beta reader expresses he doesn't feel it made sense for Holden to flee Mr. Antolini's home, then I think that's a fine time for Salinger to defend that choice. Both writer and critic could learn something from that conversation. Though in that example, I would think it's the critic who stands to learn the most.

 

I'm not sure why we're talking about Salinger... I think studying successful literate can certainly be useful for everyone involved. But I don't really see the connection to reading something on a critique site.

Can you give an example of something you've learned by reading a defense of a critiqued work on this site?

 

Because The Catcher in the Rye is a work we're all likely familiar with... Famous writers are people too. They've all had their fair share of criticism.

I'd be happy to. Just so we're clear though, you aren't interested in a defense against one of my critiques?

 

But I think it's apples and oranges. Catcher in the Rye has been edited, published, acclaimed, taught, and studied extensively. We can be reasonably sure the author did a good job in convincing at least some readers that what he wrote was either realistic or justifiably unrealistic, and if an individual reader doesn't agree with the author's choices, there are compelling arguments to be made to defend the choices. I'm still not sure it's all that valuable to argue about individual plot elements of a published work - a reader either finds it compelling or doesn't. But I think there's something to be learned from discussion of literature in general, at least.

But... sorry, I guess I'm looking at this wrong. You're taking us back in time to before the work was published and saying it would have made sense for Salinger to argue with an early reader who didn't find Holden's behaviour compelling. I... don't really see how this would be useful. Asking for clarification? Sure, I can see that being useful... like, "Oh, okay, you didn't think it was realistic - do you think it would have made more sense if X, or if Y?" But that's asking for clarification. Just saying "No, it was realistic, because..." doesn't seem useful. Authors don't get to run after readers and explain their books; the book has to speak for itself. So if a beta reader tells you that the book, as written, isn't speaking compellingly (to that individual reader), that's useful information. Trying to convince the reader that the book actually WAS compelling just seems like a waste of effort.

I don't care, really... I'm just trying to understand the idea in general.

 

But at one point in time it wasn't. Not that I agree that any of that matters.

 

Yeah - I addressed that in the second paragraph?

 

Nah, you just strawmanned me.

 

Not deliberately - I'm having trouble understanding your position, so I'm guessing at what you're saying. If I'm guessing wrong... maybe the examples would help?

 

I have my doubts. My Holden example sure as hell didn't help you. But I'll provide an example from the workshop just the same.

 

@BayView Here's a link to the workshop example, post # 9 : https://www.writingforums.org/threads/dominion-of-faith-speculative-dystopian-sci-fi-prologue-chapter-1-7000-words.159339/

Let me be the first to say that I believe Nariac is a capable writer. He's better than me—not that that's saying much. I'm just self-aware enough to understand that.

Anyway, I criticized his prologue for having early dramatic deaths that didn't land (for me) with the emotional weight I wanted them to. They died before I was able to invest in them.

Nariac countered that it didn't matter if I cared about their deaths, only that I understand his protagonist's motivation - that being revenge. That's the moment I had to consider if his narrative choice was a reasonable line for a writer to take. That reflection was an opportunity to learn something. Not just about his fiction, but about fiction in general.

Ultimately I came to the conclusion that his choice to present those deaths with emotionally charged language was too strong a signal to the reader that, they, in fact, were suppose to care. That it wasn't the early deaths by themselves that I digested poorly, but the combination of the deaths and the emotionally charged language.

Because Nariac defended his choice I formulated a clearer diagnosis of what didn't work for me in the prologue. And I'm grateful for that.

 

Interesting.

Do you think Nariac learned anything from the exchange, or was it just beneficial to you?

 

I found it useful, but I'm still thinking about what to do with the feedback. There's a lot of things at play. Essentially though, I guess it boils down to "the gun on the mantelpiece" - By drawing so much attention to the emotional weight of the prologue, I tricked the reader into thinking they should care more than they do.

I'm just unsure of how to fix that. I was going to wait until more feedback arrived but sadly I think it's fallen too far down the page now.