Absolutely. I wish I could find 40 non-bias people to critique my work! Oi, that would be the life. I agree about the books. I also agree with what Cognito is saying, don't take someone as the word of God just because they are published, but I've been reading a book I feel is very well written and has helped me. It's called "Becoming a Novelist" by John Gardener. He doesn't really tell you how to write, but talks a lot about certain aspects of being a writer and sort of.. dissects a captivating story. It's very interesting and well written so I suggest it for anyone who wants to pick it up. Haha yeah, while flattery is nice, there are a few of my friends who never critique anything and I KNOW they could. "Nice job, keep up the good work, I loved it!" -Every time. I'm glad and all but it doesn't do anything to help me, aside from fuel my confidence and drive, which I guess is nice.
Always search for the critiques whom you trust, and that understand your writing. There's nothing wrong with posting your writing for everyone to see, but there's always going to be someone you disagree with. Unfortunately, due to the implicit nature of the internet, people aren't as inclined to treat you nor your work with the respect it would normally get. So don't feel downtrodden if you meet someone who is acting rudely, just pick up where you left off and talk to those you're comfortable with. Also, never trust a critique who uses the words "pretentious" and "writing" in relation to each other. It's a dead giveaway that the critique is an amateur who doesn't know how, yet, to write himself.
erm. . . The comments I generally disregard are the offhanded, careless type like that above. . . Some writing is clearly pretentious, especially from amateurs who are trying too hard. Mammamaia, our resident expert, is often the first to say if a piece is overwritten/pretentious/too purple. She has also had an extremely successful career in writing and has a great deal of experience in mentoring other successful writers. Purple prose - or pretentious writing - is a major problem with beginners, especially those who think they know something about writing. I personally had that problem when I began. Purple prose is by far the most difficult writing to pull off successfully. I've never seen a beginner with a purple style that didn't make me wince. It is simply a bad way to begin. It takes an incredible talent to write pretentiously, and in so doing, captivate the reader. Vladimir Nabokov's Lolita would be a great example of purple prose mastery. Any beginner's attempt to mimic his style would be laughable. It's also one of those things that publishers hate. . . Your first excessively purple line is apt to earn you a spot in the garbage bin, unless it's 20 excellent pages into a solid MS - and maybe even then.
Its a generally negative term that implies the work is over-written and unnecessarily verbose, like the writer is trying their best to use fancy words or elaborate sentences and structures when simple ones would do. When you see it applied to people on this site, its invariably a negative comment (ie. use words more economically, etc etc). When its applied to people like Nabokov, its not necessarily negative, it just implies that the writing is particularly wordy, often heavy in description and complex. A good (great) writer like Nabokov can genuinely pull it off - Lolita is his love letter to the English language, and the way he writes literature is almost treating it like a puzzle for readers to solve, one that is endlessly complex and engaging and....I'll take off my fanboy hat now.....
Trying too hard, pretentiousness, lofty writing, these are all vague terms to describe one's dislike for a style of writing. I understand that teens tend to fall into the trap of thinking they must use big words or complex sentences, but pretentious is a very derogatory word to begin with, and I don't think it helps the writer when you say his writing looks haughty and pompous. Many great works, especially Victorian works, are what some would, mistakenly, call pretentious, or what I would call poetic masterpieices, but then again, I was a bit spoiled by Dickens and Melville when I was younger. I think it's better to just get out of the way and let the writer learn from the greats. Remarks like, "those who think they know something" aren't helpful to a writer neither. The greatest writers didn't have forums like these or places to discuss writing styles. They read and they wrote, and then they were published. I'm not saying that advice isn't helpful, because it is, but there must be a line drawn between the writers creativity and the critiques personal opinion. Don't tell a child to stop playing baroque because he's playing Bach with too many errors; let him practice. Also, let the child explore his writing. Constraining him wont do anything.
Funny how just after I asked about purple prose I see a thread about it. I totally understand what it means now. I dislike that style of writing much. Anything too complex or too showy and I lose interest. I love a new word here and there for me to learn, but if too much of my time is spent trying to figure out what the heck is being said it drags me out of the story. I guess that's the whole issue, hehe. Yet so many people seem to write that way! Another issue I sometimes have with critiques is people telling me, "I've never heard anyone say that", in reference to something my characters said. Usually it's slang terms. I am very very heavy on California-esque slang because naturally, I'm from California and so are my characters. I wouldn't have thought Cali was that different from the rest of the civilized world when it came to slang but apparently so because a lot of people are like "What did he/she mean by that?" And it always blows my mind. "Whaaa? You've never heard someone say [insert slang phrase here]". I tend to not change anything because of those critiques because it's a realistic way of talking that fits with the characters.
I'm glad somebody does!! lol Re what you said about slang. . . I agree to a point. But at the same time, you don't want to limit your readership to Cali, do you? I mean, it's a question of balance. You don't want to alienate readers from elsewhere, that's all. You should take a hint from the frequency of those comments. Maybe keep most of the slang, but cut down on more obscure phrases? *shrug* It's your call, but that's what I would take from it.
In general, for any critique, I only acknowledge objective statements. "This is good/bad because of this/that." If you just say "You're wrong" or "I don't like it" with no reasons, I categorically dismiss whatever you said. I have actually wrangled with the slang thing in my current work. I have a character who is particularly expressive, but I don't want to use "ain't" or "gonna" because it feels like I wouldn't be taking myself seriously as an author. But then again, I feel like his word choice is an important part of his character. I have stuck with proper english, but I don't know.
There is nothing in there I'd thing 99% of the world wouldn't understand. For example, one of the things was saying "caught up". Like, if you were in the midst of buying some pot on the corner and you got "caught up" by the police. I didn't even exactly realize that was slang, but someone pointed it out to me that they had never heard anyone say they'd been "caught up" by the police before. I was like... uhhh really? Well you can figure it out based on the context, no? It definitely is a question of balance and not wanting to limit the audience, but with stuff like that it seems to me it's obvious what the character is saying. It's not really even "crazy snoop dogg esque fo shizza my nizza I'm getting hyphy and crunk wit it down by the club" talk or anything like that. Just normal little phrases. Oh and seta, I use aint and gonna, but only in dialogue. I think if that is how a character talks, that is how you should write.
Cool. I'll start trying that. I just remember in a few books (I think "Of Mice and Men") it really bothered me when the author used such slang. But then again - it was representing uneducated share croppers. I guess it's just a personal stigma I have to get over. Thanks for the input!
i see it as critics are if ment well goor do reply on if it is just mindless YOU SICK id say why bother replying
You're the writer. It's your work. You can disagree with someone. It's polite to thank them for their input. That doesn't mean you have to kiss ass. On the off chance they come back when/if you re-post your work and ask why you didn't make the changes, just tell them straight up you thought it unnecessary. Be nice. But if they start to bite, tell them to step off and work on their own goddamn story.
Heh... I've had some wicked ****ty critiques. I suggest that you should add more characters. There is no dialouge... And maybe a bit less similies and metaphors. It seems like your trying a bit too hard to describe everything. But its a great start to probably a decent story! She was talking about the first page of the story.
Not on this site. If someone starts to bite, use the report post icon isntead, and do NOT reply in the thread. Let the site moderators handle it.
Addressing the thread title, I'd say never ignore a critique. I think, in even the most harsh critiques, information can be gleaned that aid in you becoming a better writer. The example supplied isn't even all that bad. It's vague, somewhat insulting, and doesn't really describe what's wrong and why, but it's better than getting nothing, IMO.
I don't see the problem with this, except that the reviewer should have been more clear. More explanation would be nice. Basically, what I'm getting from this is that you didn't have much of a hook and your work was overwritten. Both are common issues; both are significant, too. If your words are getting in the way of your story, it's time to trim the fat. Similes and metaphors should be used sparingly along with everything else, like intentional repetition. Think of these things as spices; too much of anything will spoil the meal. Just like cooking, writing is a balancing act, and the reviewer simply informed you of losing your balance. You don't need to describe everything, so that's a valid point as well. It is generally better to describe only what is essential to the scene and story. Also, the fewer words used the better. If your story is lacking an effective hook, character actions and dialogue help to quickly catch the reader's attention. I probably would have asked what, specifically, she didn't like, to better assess the issues. . . All of the points could be good ones - I don't really know without reading the work myself - but more detail is needed. The lesson (ahem) is that there's generally something useful in every review, assuming the person actually read your story. Once, I was told to remove every single one of my dialogue tags, out of an entire 4000-word chapter. After giving this a lot of thought, and leafing through my favourite books for examples, my conclusion was that I could stand to lose a lot of them, but removing every single one would just be silly. I also realised that I hadn't been handling them very well, even where they did fit. It was quite a mess. In the end, even though I didn't take his advice exactly, he did make an excellent point, and it helped my writing immensely. Try to understand the reasoning behind the review. Someone found something objectionable - why? I could have ignored my tag-hating friend entirely and been perfectly justified in doing so (delete all tags?! ridiculous!) but then I wouldn't have learned anything.
