I'm not sure I understand the distinction. I mean, I think I understand the first part - too often writing site critiques are based on fairly rigid applications of "the rules"--I'd say they tend to push writing toward mediocrity - they'll make weak writing stronger, but may make strong writing weaker (if the author actually pays attention to the crits). But I'm not sure how to divorce that from the process as a whole. Do you mean, like, having your work critiqued by someone who's got expertise in the field and a good understanding of what you're trying to do?
Both. I mention Pet Sematary because Stephen King breaks all of his own rules in it. He uses hundreds of adverbs to describe dialogue (he has a specific term for this I can't recall right now), it's rife with "filler" material--darlings, if you will--that don't do much to advance the story, build characters, or anything else important, and the entire time I was reading it I just felt like it was a second draft rather than a finished product. Nothing of note happens for 80+ pages! There's an entire middle section that's wasted time too. Compared to some of his other material that I think very highly of, I just wasn't impressed at all. That said, it was a solid story and I don't regret reading it. The ending in particular filled my black heart with glee. So perhaps the lesson to be learned is that sometimes the "rules" really don't matter at all, or, alternatively, one might say that even a successful story could benefit from some extra TLC.
I'm going to tie into that other thread about the "passive verbs." It comes down to the writer to divorce the standard critique from the meaningful. The writer has to have a clear vision for their story and accept the critique that fits with that vision. If Douglas Adams posted an excerpt, it got totally roasted, and he took that to heart by going through and removing all of the adverbs, small filler, clever jokes that don't advance the plot, he wouldn't be the respected, beloved writer he turned out to be. (I don't know if any of this makes sense. Ignore it if I've missed the mark here.)
I think it does make sense, but then I wonder what the value of critiques actually is. I mean, there's the critiques-benefit-the-critiquer school, but in terms of the authors submitting work to be looked at... does it actually help them out? Or does it make things worse?
I think it helps the submitter if they know how to take the critique. The thought that I always have to keep in the back of my mind is that it's all pure subjectivity. I also like to mull over the words people have said. Let me qualify this by saying that I'm still new enough to have to remind myself not to take it to heart, so maybe I'm not the best person to answer this question. However, I think I've been both hampered and helped by critique in the past. In both cases, it was because of my own perceptions that I was either helped or hurt.
There's some quote out there about being able to entertain a thought without accepting it. A differen't persons point of view can help you solve a personal problem, one that could have taken years to notice, but only if you recognize it as a problem. The issue pops up when people try and force their own view of whats correct on others. Writing a story is still an art.
@BayView I think it is important to understand the author's intentions and goals when critiquing, not to just cite rules back to them based on generalities. The book I was referring to, above, called The Vorrh, goes like this: 1. The book opens with a scene involving an unnamed character. Sixteen pages in, we get a name. I'm pretty sure it's him, but still not 100% certain. 2. 25 pages in I'm just starting to get an idea of the story, and I still don't know what the central conflict is. 3. There is a lot of telling. 4. The first bit of dialogue happens on page 20. Any of those things are likely to be criticized in a writing forum critique. Here's a random excerpt, shortly after the introduction of a second character, Tsungali: "Tsungali walked in and smelt himself there years before, the rush of memories filling the hollows of his previous nervous system. For so it is among those who shed lives every few years: They keep their deflated interior causeways, hold them running parallel with their current usable ones; ghost arteries, sleeping shrunken next to those that pump life. Hushed lymphatics, like quiet ivy alongside the speeding juice of now. Nerve trees like bone coral, hugging the whisper of bellowing communications. "That old part of him swelled with an essence of himself before, nudging the now in a physical deja vu, becoming two in the stiff interior of his body, ignoring even the stiffer officer who glared in his direction. The overhead fan waded in the congealed air, stirring heartbeats of a larger beast and giving rhythm to the mosquitoes queuing to taste the sweating white skin of the officer who choked out, "You have been asked to come here" -- the claws of the word "asked" scratched the inside of his throat -- "for a very special purpose." This is a fantasy novel. I think a forum would tear it apart. And yet, this is published by Penguin RandomHouse. There are laudatory reviews from media like NPR, Slate, and the Guardian. On the jacket, Alan Moore (of Watchmen fame) says "Easily the current century's first landmark work of fantasy." Filmmaker Terry Gilliam says "Brian Catlin is simply a genius. His writing is so extraordinary it hurts, it makes me realize how little imagination I have." Phillip Pullman says "The English language has given birth to some great works of unbounded vision and imagination, and here is another one...Many books are said to be like nothing else, and aren't, but B. Calling's really is." And so on. There are many more comments. So, reading this book and trying to square it with the general sort of advice one often sees from critique groups, or even advice about what you have to do to interest an agent, seems difficult to me. I think a lot of people would see "darlings" all over the place in this work.
I think the quoted passage was gorgeous - what do you think critters would have to say about it? Well, I guess I can see it if they just didn't like the style. I see that a lot in crits, critters trying to rewrite the original passage in their own style.
I've have never cried when killing a character, but I did cry while writing my very first novel (circa 1991) because one of them got hurt badly and was thought to be dead.
I'd say that's as close to a universal definition as I've read so far... but some will probably disagree.
The problem is that even if we agree on the definition, we still won't likely agree on the application, because authorial intrusion is really subjective. If it doesn't work for the reader it's authorial intrusion, but if it works for the reader it's a rich, intriguing narrative voice.
Yup. I'll drag King back in here as an example... Every time he says, "Dear reader," for some reason it doesn't come across as intrusion. But if I wrote it, I'd feel all oogy.
I know this might sound masochistic but I'd actually like to rifle through some famous authors', and some of the authors on here come to think of it, boxes (mass graves?) of dead darlings. Look forward to receiving some mail.
I tried to post one, but @Tenderiser says it's not actually a darling (and upon further reflection, I agree). Sorry.
Dorothy L. Sayers uses the term and discusses the need for it in her book The Mind of the Maker, published in 1941. Apparently it was a well-known concept among British mystery writers long before that.
Yes, I think they'd say it was too wordy, that it was self indulgent, that the first paragraph particularly doesn't forward the story. They'd say show don't tell to most of what I've read. They'd say you need to ground the reader right from the start. And so on. Not that any particular person would say so, but don't you think that would be a lot of the response? Maybe I'm wrong about it.
For me, I think there's a level of confidence, a level of competence in the writing that makes me feel like it needs to be judged as a whole, not measured against some arbitrary set of made-up "rules". But you may be right that this wouldn't come across to everyone reading in the crit threads. I would say that the more I like the writing in the original posts in crit threads, the less likely I am to agree with the critiques offered, and I like this writing quite a bit, so I guess that means I'd be likely to disagree with the critiques of it! I'm starting to really like my idea of rule-following as a tool of mediocrity - for weak writing, it's great if it can be elevated to mediocrity, but for strong writing, mediocrity is a serious step down. So rule-based critiques are beneficial for weak writing, but for strong writing they're either useless (because the author has the sense to ignore the critiques) or actually harmful (if the author goes along with the suggestions).
