Excuse me why did nobody tag me in this. @Tenderiser how dare you, you know this is my jam. When I have more than ten minutes, I shall dive headfirst and guns blazing into this, my favorite debate. @Link the Writer I like to think I had a hand in helping your courage, sir. You've said as much before.
Perhaps there is a paradox at work, jannert. Perhaps by writing to please yourself you create a more engaging work than you would have done by writing to please others.
I don't understand the distinction you're making here. And, again, I don't have to - if it works for you, carry on. But in terms of advancing an argument about how others should work... why on earth is it okay to listen to feedback and possibly adjust the later versions of your work and not okay to listen to feedback and possibly adjust the earlier versions? Brainstorming ideas of your unfinished work means you're not being fully creative, but getting feedback on later forms doesn't mean the same thing?
And I think that's nonsense so... meh. If it's not a judgement of people or morals maybe you can stop using inflammatory and insulting language to describe other people and their work. Language like "compromised", "writing by committee", "a story that isn't yours", and "selling yourself short." Because it's very rude, and you don't generally strike me as a rude person. Most of the successful writers I know do it. I know you think those quotes you posted support what you're saying but you've misread them, somehow, because none of them are about how much input an author has to the creative process at various stages in their writing.
For the record, I never thought writing behind "closed doors" was solely to protect the originality of the writer's idea. Hypothetical situation. Two identical writers in two identical universes want to write the same novel. Writer one talks about his work before finishing first draft. He is only given one piece of advice, which he takes. The result is an additional paragraph that looks like A. Writer two writes behind closed doors. He talks to no one about his work. One day he's sitting at a cafe watching some people and observes something which causes him to write an additional paragraph that looks just like A. Is there any difference between writer one and writer two? Yes. Writer two wrote with authenticity. Writer one did not. I don't think it matters for every work. But it may for some.
Well, it's not my intention to be inflammatory. I'm not sure how else to put the concepts of 'compromised,' 'writing by committee,' 'a story that isn't yours,' and 'selling yourself short.' These are all concepts I did mean to convey—in context. And I think I explained them all as well, in a non-rude way. Probably in more detail than anybody wants to read! I kind of think this conversation has reached its end point. I'm repeating myself. You are repeating yourself. I don't want it to become unpleasant, because I not only like you a lot, @Tenderiser , and feel very pleased at your success, but I also understand that the brainstorming method works for you. I'm ready to call it a day. How about you?
Yes, kinda. I feel critiquing (feedback on a finished story) is different from brainstorming an unfinished one.
Kind of loaded to call one of those writers authentic and the other not. They just came about the same idea in a different way. Why is one authentic and the other not?
But an argument based on your feeling isn't really too compelling for others, right? And it does seem a bit convenient that the "good" way to take feedback just happens to be the way that fits into your own writing process, while the "bad" way is something you would never want to do... ETA: Honestly, if I WERE going to rank the two methods in some sort of order of creativity, I'd probably say it's less creative to get feedback on a finished product than it is to get feedback at the ideas stage. Ideas are a dime-a-dozen--it's execution that matters. So if someone wants to brainstorm ideas, they're getting help with the easy part of the process. Getting feedback (and making changes) on the finished product? THAT's changing your actual words, your best copy, your true expression of self. I mean, was that phrase really yours, when your editor suggested something along those lines?
I'm not arguing about whether the method works (it clearly does for some people - there's no debate about that fact) but that: a) it's wrong to tell other people how to write; b) it's rude to insult other writers; c) an author's story is their story no matter where they get their ideas from; and d) what works for one doesn't work for all, and we do writers--especially new ones--a big disservice by saying it does. I'm going to continue to challenge any posts that go against those four points, because I think writers should see both viewpoints. Whether you make any further posts is up to you!
But we are having a discussion. I'm just trying to give my honest opinion, as calmly as possible. I don't know how else to put it. I think if you look over what I said in entirety, you'll realise that I was not being 'shitty' at all. We simply don't agree on this process, and I was trying to explain why.
I think it's obvious. In the fist case, you're putting someone else's ideas into your work. And in the second, you're putting your own ideas. In the end that's what writing is. Ideas. It's a transferring of knowledge. FYI, the authenticity of the experience says nothing good or bad about the hypothetical writers, nor does this argument say anything good or bad about anyone here- I've decided long ago which members on this thread are good writers ~_~
No. A critique is the part of the story-writing process where you find out whether or not your readers get what you were trying to say. They're not helping to create your story. They're reacting to what you've already created. But hey....
Funnily enough I shared my latest book idea with my agent yesterday, and she just replied: Pretty motivating for me at this early stage in the creative process. Not motivating enough to get off the internet and actually write but... not sure a gun to my head would be sufficient for that right now.
I wouldn't be able to make the distinction in a room full of Shakespeares. Here it's pretty scientific, because a lot of us still write with cliche/bland expressions and descriptions. I can tell you more about it in private if you're interested.
I don't agree, though that's partly because I don't accept the premise. Writers absorb input from everywhere, and they digest it and stir it around and use it as raw material and then send it to the page. I could just as easily say that the writer seeing something is just imitating what he saw, reproducing it by rote, and therefore is being in-authentic. While the writer who gets the idea is working with a thought, not a scene that he can imitate, and that therefore being more authentic. I wouldn't say that; I'm just saying that that it seems to me to be an equally valid argument. The fact that one piece of input came from seeing a scene in the world world, and another came in the form of a spoken idea, doesn't really make a difference to me. I don't see either one as being more or less authentic. Oh. Unless you're saying that "authentic" is not about the writer's originality or personal vision, but about the way that the writer duplicates reality in exact detail? But in that case, wouldn't security camera footage be the ultimate in authenticity? What is your definition of "authentic" here?
Nope, that one's finished. I wrote about 14k of this one before my batteries ran out, and I'm in a recharging cycle now. I'm reading my critique partner's manuscript now though, which is set in Scotland. She's got a lot of interest from US agents because of the "exotic" location.
@123456789 I watched a science video a few months back that talked about the most horrifying chemicals know to man: Spoiler: Urban Fantasy idea that I got from this video Two of the villain protagonists for my series are going to be fire mages; the third is not, but she is a chemist at "heart." After watching this video, I got the idea to have my chemistry nerd tell her fire mage friends about Chlorine Triflouride - the oxidation agent capable of setting concrete on fire - and that her friends would love this and, since magic in my universe is based as much on the personal touch as it is on the technical precision, they would start making drinks of pool water and toothpaste as part of the rituals for giving themselves fire magic. Is this not "my story" anymore because I was inspired by the way the guy on YouTube talked about how Cl F3 can set concrete on fire?
Guys, I'm rethinking the argument. If there are valid distinctions to be made between both approaches, they're likely subtle. That means it's going to be a long argument, maybe even @Oscar Leigh long.
Ain't even much of an argument. It's like debating whether chocolate or vanilla ice cream tastes better. There's about as much quantifiable or qualitative evidence for either discussion.