Growth- the reality

[Nateskate]

I'm definitely much easier on novices than some. And I'm a novice by other's definitions. I look at some contributions here, and generally, I feel sad if I see someone who is overly critical.

Yes, I believe that nature and nurture are both a part of successful writing. But it isn't all one over the other. Every year I've been at this, I feel I've gotten better to the point where I could go back and revise everything.

However, the point is getting something that is publishable published. And one you get that far, there are diminishing returns to perpetually fixing.

I decided after many years, in my old age, to read "Chronicles of Narnia". And I'm going to make an observation about Tolkien and C.S.Lewis. If you read the first book C.S.Lewis wrote, it was awkward, and rough, and honestly, I was mentally making corrections in it, though it was somewhat clever. However, as you go on in the series, his writing takes a dramatic turn for the better, so that by the time you get to "A horse and his boy", you'd have thought it was written by a different author.

Likewise, if you look at Tolkien's early works, which you can find in "Lost Tales", you realize why they were lost. He was pandantic, and overwrote to a fault. Now, if you look at it different than a novel, it is fascinating. Likewise, the Silmarillion would not be considered a "Balanced" work by todays publishing. Some places are simply page upon page of historical (myth history) narrative. Today you couldn't even get away with that. He'd have had the Silmarillion shoved back in his face. However, for those who loved LOTR, the Silmarillion is priceless, because it is the Pre-history, and a work of genius.

So, word to the wise. Don't be so hard on yourself, or anyone else for that matter. Sometimes a rough and ragged writer will simply grow into their trade. And some will write books talked about for generations. Of course, I hope to join that list someday, and hope you do to.

[sunandshadow]

But what is 'overly critical'? My personal theory is that writers can only learn what they are ready to learn; I have no idea what they're ready to learn, so if I point out all the things I know how to critique about their piece, maybe they will be ready to learn one or two of them. As a writer myself, I find that the more critique comments I have to work with, the more likely I am to get some useful insight out of them.

Also, it's totally different critiquing a piece intended for publication than a piece written for some other reason. Any writer's first novel is going to need ripped to shreds and sewn back together again before it's publication-quality, so you're doing the writer a disservice if you don't critique it at thoroughly as you can.

This is why it's a writer's responsibility to decide what to submit for critique and give good instructions to their critiquers - if you are only working on characterization this week, tell them so they don't wast their time finding grammatical errors. If you have a fragile ego, are you sure you want to submit your piece for critique at all? There are writers' groups where people encourage each other to write without critiquing anything, maybe you should look for one of those instead. If you have a big ego and think your piece is perfect and are going to argue with anyone who tries to critique it, again, what are you doing submitting it for critique?

[Nicholas S.H.J.M Woodhouse]

I personally don't mind how much criticism I get. To be honest, I never think what I do is enough, so I don't mind others saying it is not. I am fine with it not being enough, because that is what makes me so hungry. The more criticism the merrier. Wow, I just set myself up there.......

In truth, I desire criticism, and as strong as people can make it. If you want to be good, you have to have been bad.

Excellent point on nature and nurture and the partnership between them, Nate.

[Jamesaritchie]

I guess you'd have to define "overly critical." You either tell someone what's wrong or you don't. If you don't, you aren't helping them at all.

I'm not hugely fond of Silmarillion, though I liked it, but I don't think it, or any other Tolkien book would get kicked back in his face today.

As for Lewis, "Out of the Silent Planet" was written in 1938, and was, I think, his first novel. It's one of his most celebrated works. I don't think his early writing was bad in any sense of the word.

He also wrote a lot of extremely good nonfiction before this, of course, and I think his style was long since smoothed out by the time he started writing fiction.

It's true that writers grow, or those with talent grow, but they seldom grow in a vacuum. Those who grow are, in my opinion, very critical of themselves, and should be.

We learn and grow by having faults point out. You can't fix something uinless you first know something is wrong. I suppose there are nice ways and nasty ways of pointing out faults, but they have to be pointed out.

Honestly, I can't think of too many good writers who mind criticism.

And, really, some new writers have a much higher mountain to climb than others, and the quality of the writing will often determine just how critical people are. Just because good writers grow doesn't mean criticism, both internal and external, doesn't help in the process.

I'm not sure nature vs. nurture is really apt, though talent versus learnning is. It isn't all one or the other, and that's the point. If it were all talent, criticism wouldn't matter. The more natural talent a writer has, the easier it will be to succeed, but we all have a learning stage, and part learning always entails criticism. Honest criticism. People learn because they see the faults and correct them. To see the faults, they often must be pointed out.

And whatever you can say about Tolkein's early work, or Lewis' early work, both of them wrote one heck of a lot better at this stage than most new writers do. The quality of the early work by these two writers was at least three quarters of the way up the mountain, but many new writers are starting out at the bottom of the valley below.

I think the level of criticism has to match the level of the writing. There's no need to be nasty about it, but it's pointless, and possibly even harmful, not to be honest about it.

As for mentally correctly and revising Lewis, shoot, I do that with Shakespeare, and with most writers I read. Doesn't mean I'm right and they're wrong, it just means our styles are dissimilar. I rewrite it as I would have done, which likely means worse than it was done, even though it seems better to me.

[Tiaga]

pandantic
or
pedantic? Just curious.

[scribbler1382]

pandantic
or
pedantic? Just curious.

I think that's kind of the thing he's (she's?) talking about.

For the most part, writers can seem like a bunch of smartasses. And, despite most thinking their work is a pile of do-do, they're typically a fairly egotistical bunch. Hell, you have to be to think that anyone anywhere would give one wit about anything you had to say. Most are aware of what they're like and figure any other writer they communicate with will be similar in sensibilities, even if different in skill level, genre, talent, etc.

Writing is a solitary pursuit, and its really amazing to me when writers can be civil at all, never mind supportive. And yet, most are. You'll never find a group of professionals more willing to pay forward. It's when the payment is refused that they pull out the idioms, put on their fedoras and use the secret handshake. :)

[Tiaga]

AH no... no smart *** intent. I know what pedantic is and can't find pandantic. As a writer I always look up words I am unfamilar with. No error no foul.

[Euan H.]

For the most part, writers can seem like a bunch of smartasses.

Whaddya mean seem?

:)

[hpoppink]

This ought to be a question of method rather than existence, I think. How to give critique, not whether to give critique.

If the writer is so jarred by how criticism was offered, they won't be able to "hear" the actual suggestions the critique provides. So the whole exchange becomes meaningless, or even destructive. The writer will not be able to improve.

It's also a colossal waste of time for the critiquer. Their words aren't heard, their time and effort was not helpful. They could have spent that time on something much more productive, like BIC.

If I'm going to spend my time reading other people's manuscripts, I want to make darned sure I'm communicating my feedback well enough for it to have been worth that time.

[Mistook]

I just don't know how a person thinks they'll survive the rejection letters if they claim to be too fragile to hear some honest criticizm by peers. Imagine sending a cover letter with a manuscript that said, "Please go easy on me. A gentle evaluation would be appreciated as this is only my first novel and..."


I wouldn't say I'm "easy" on novices. I give more exhaustive crits novices, because I think some writers don't really "get" things that are discussed in theory until their own work can be used for examples.

If a writer seems to have only a tenuous grasp of POV, I'll highlight questionable passages and say, "Jane wouldn't know if John was afraid to speak until now. You have to show us that, through some action of john. Don't worry that the readers won't get it. Most of them will, and it's not that important right now anyway."

Four pages of that kind of crit, might look like a veritable brow-beating, but I can't think of a writer who hasn't thanked me.

I remember when I was new to SYW, Preyer (whatever happened to him) really used to ream my work. I used pronouns too often. I used the word "She" all over the place, and he just harped and harped about it. He pointed out cliche's and purple passages. He was never afraid to give it to me straight, and I could kiss him for it.

Not that I'm anywhere near perfect, even now, but I know I'm much better than I was at that time, thanks mostly to critiques. And there have been many I balked at or argued about, but still... in the end I see they were right.

Ultimately, you face the harshest critic (no not yourself) the publisher!

[BenMears]

This is from Lillian Hellman, who was discovered to have invented large parts of her biography, but the story sounds authentic.

Hellman shared an ocean liner with Ernest Hemingway. During the passage he gave her a new story to read. She didn't like it and told him so. He replied, "You know, I was planning to sleep with you, but now I don't think I will."

[Old Hack]

I don't see any point at all in being soft when critiqueing. Either something works or it doesn't, and if you are not clear in your comments then you are not offering all the help you could. Ultimately you give false hope by being "kind", and as the Real World of Writing is harsh then a writer who can't take criticism when meant well is going to shrivel and die when faced with an acerbic editor.

Seems to me that writers need to understand that criticism is of the work, not of the writer. Criticism is not a personal attack, it's a way to make the work better. I know it's hard (I remember hiding in the cupboard under the stairs once, after a particularly difficult rejection) but it's the only way to go.

[Nicholas S.H.J.M Woodhouse]

Criticism is not a personal attack, it's a way to make the work better.

'The best critic is your best friend'.

Its important to keep the focus of the criticism on the work. The trouble is that when people write personal experiences, the writer as a person and their work fuse, and it can be hard to seperate.
Some say that they put so much into their work, that when it is attacked, the writer is too.
However, if one does not want to improve as a writer than they are betraying themselves and can be their own worst enemy.

[A.REX]

Well said Nateskate. I've noticed similar observations myself in many pre1970's books. I've often wondered if all you had to do to get published in 1925 was simply to turn in a finished manuscript... :) I think more is expected from today's author. The high jump pole keeps getting set a little higher each time. One latest marker was nobody accepting unsolicited manuscripts.

I've also seen some real artists in writing classes with extremely fragile egos to the point where anything critical said and they thought they weren't good enough to be writers... yet, these introverted, bizarre individuals could sometimes produce works of genius that left other class writer's samples lacking. Vs. the people who no matter how many different ways you tell them they suck tell you they're the next Anne Rice and John Grisham

[Nateskate]

But what is 'overly critical'? My personal theory is that writers can only learn what they are ready to learn; I have no idea what they're ready to learn, so if I point out all the things I know how to critique about their piece, maybe they will be ready to learn one or two of them. As a writer myself, I find that the more critique comments I have to work with, the more likely I am to get some useful insight out of them.

Also, it's totally different critiquing a piece intended for publication than a piece written for some other reason. Any writer's first novel is going to need ripped to shreds and sewn back together again before it's publication-quality, so you're doing the writer a disservice if you don't critique it at thoroughly as you can.

This is why it's a writer's responsibility to decide what to submit for critique and give good instructions to their critiquers - if you are only working on characterization this week, tell them so they don't wast their time finding grammatical errors. If you have a fragile ego, are you sure you want to submit your piece for critique at all? There are writers' groups where people encourage each other to write without critiquing anything, maybe you should look for one of those instead. If you have a big ego and think your piece is perfect and are going to argue with anyone who tries to critique it, again, what are you doing submitting it for critique?

Great question. You are right, if I wanted someone to critique my work, which is happening, I want honesty, brutal if necessary, because that helps me acheive my goal. And it depends on your relationship to people.

I guess its a matter of knowing your audience and where they are at. If you have someone who thinks they are ready to publish, but they are not, then telling them what you see, is really doing them a favor. If the tone of their posts is, "I'm new at this and I need your help..." Then, generally, I think it's best to take the novice approach, which is always to "See the good before the bad."

We're talking about apples and oranges if we are talking about someone who thinks they are ready to publish, rather than someone who is trying to hone the skills to publish. Even if they have an idea for the book they want to publish, and it is writen out, I'd say well over half the people here are just trying to work on writing skills to get them to the point where that will be a reality.

This approach is kind of like what I would take with a son who is showing me an art project, which happens all the time. In a sense, that requires looking for what you might appreciate, like use of colors, or content. So, you preface a negative with a positive. And sometimes you just don't even add the negative. "I like your use of colors...keep working at it."

My oldest son published an artistic magazine this past year which was wonderful. But many times over the years, I was honestly thinking, "Well, if this is the best you can do, think hobby, not professional career."

Cultivating talent takes being more positive than negative. Critics tend to be overly negative, (I'm saving you from making a fool of yourself by pointing out what a fool you really are) and needlessly being negative in some cases.

The exception- A professional working with professionals- then you are working and speaking from a different set of standards.

Here's how I see it. If someone is really a novice, they are trying to build confidence and figure things out. They may have one positive, and that may be a creative idea. But they haven't articulated it as well as they could. Well, if someone only mentions, "Sentence one, four, and seven are awkward," but say nothing about, "I really like your idea...and if you work on perfecting your prose, I think it will come through even better..." they will walk away with their tails between their legs. And if I took that approach with my sons, they'd both doubt their abilities. But I've worked with other people, and had even better results with than with my sons.

In a sense, these boards have become a teaching and coaching setting for the "masters" For those who would become masters, there is a way to squash a latent ability, or nurture it. It's all in the approach.

The people who really feel their works are good, who are really serious about publishing, either have what it takes, or they are delusional, and will wake up to that fact. But in general, it's better to err on the side of encouragement than discouragement, because publishing a novel will be a very difficult process as it is.

Much of writing is subjective. Some people will read a verse and hate it, and others may love it equally.

[Nateskate]

I guess you'd have to define "overly critical." You either tell someone what's wrong or you don't. If you don't, you aren't helping them at all.
And whatever you can say about Tolkein's early work, or Lewis' early work, both of them wrote one heck of a lot better at this stage than most new writers do. The quality of the early work by these two writers was at least three quarters of the way up the mountain, but many new writers are starting out at the bottom of the valley below.

As for mentally correctly and revising Lewis, shoot, I do that with Shakespeare, and with most writers I read. Doesn't mean I'm right and they're wrong, it just means our styles are dissimilar. I rewrite it as I would have done, which likely means worse than it was done, even though it seems better to me.

As far as Tolkien's early works. There are so many variations of his early works. These are contained in a number of the Christopher Tolkien compilations. So, there were multiple versions of every part of the Silmarillion. Lost Tales has some of these versions, and they are not smooth reading. Interacting with a number of Tolkien fans, there are a lot who give up on Lost Tales and can't read it through. But us die harders tend to read even the hardcore Tolkien stuff we don't want like we were reading the Book of Chronicles, including "so and so begat so and so, who begat so and so", just so we could comment on it.

[Nateskate]

pandantic
or
pedantic? Just curious.

I had a dream about this. No kidding, I was away from a computer when I realized I had done that.

[Nateskate]

I think that's kind of the thing he's (she's?) talking about.

For the most part, writers can seem like a bunch of smartasses. And, despite most thinking their work is a pile of do-do, they're typically a fairly egotistical bunch. Hell, you have to be to think that anyone anywhere would give one wit about anything you had to say. Most are aware of what they're like and figure any other writer they communicate with will be similar in sensibilities, even if different in skill level, genre, talent, etc.

Writing is a solitary pursuit, and its really amazing to me when writers can be civil at all, never mind supportive. And yet, most are. You'll never find a group of professionals more willing to pay forward. It's when the payment is refused that they pull out the idioms, put on their fedoras and use the secret handshake. :)

Pure genius. You've said it better than I ever could. And I think if you go through many posts, you'll see advice that is subjective. The objective stuff is generally benign- spacing, spelling, grammar. I think in my mind, I've pictured the ones who make nine comments without saying one positive thing.

I saw this in the song writing thread, where people were talking about song lyrics. If people look at some of the best songs written, they were poorly written sentences. But the singer had a way of saying it so that you could read between the lines.

[Nateskate]

Well said Nateskate. I've noticed similar observations myself in many pre1970's books. I've often wondered if all you had to do to get published in 1925 was simply to turn in a finished manuscript... :) I think more is expected from today's author. The high jump pole keeps getting set a little higher each time. One latest marker was nobody accepting unsolicited manuscripts.

I've also seen some real artists in writing classes with extremely fragile egos to the point where anything critical said and they thought they weren't good enough to be writers... yet, these introverted, bizarre individuals could sometimes produce works of genius that left other class writer's samples lacking. Vs. the people who no matter how many different ways you tell them they suck tell you they're the next Anne Rice and John Grisham

Very insightful. There are wilted-flowers looking for a little water. And there are rock-headed egotists demanding praise. The ones who need the water are easy to crush, but the ones who need a good dose of reality can't hear it anyway.

[Nateskate]

'The best critic is your best friend'.

Its important to keep the focus of the criticism on the work. The trouble is that when people write personal experiences, the writer as a person and their work fuse, and it can be hard to seperate.
Some say that they put so much into their work, that when it is attacked, the writer is too.
However, if one does not want to improve as a writer than they are betraying themselves and can be their own worst enemy.

Well, I've often called myself a Solomon fan.

"Faithful are the wounds of a friend..."

"If you rebuke a fool, he will hate you..."

"If you rebuke a wise man, he will love you..."

Some people will value the corrections given by others, and these will learn from them. Some will never learn.

A friend will risk hurting us, but only for "our" sakes, and never needlessly. So, having the honesty of faithful friends is something we can't do without. And frankly, I have put myself in the place for my friends to wound me, (especially concerning writing) because my friends will only do that for my good. -It's the difference between falling from a curb rather than a cliff.

Still, the more you grow, the more you are doing things out of conviction (It's right to do) rather than for the praise of others, because the praise of others is fickle.

[Nateskate]

I don't see any point at all in being soft when critiqueing. Either something works or it doesn't, and if you are not clear in your comments then you are not offering all the help you could. Ultimately you give false hope by being "kind", and as the Real World of Writing is harsh then a writer who can't take criticism when meant well is going to shrivel and die when faced with an acerbic editor.

Seems to me that writers need to understand that criticism is of the work, not of the writer. Criticism is not a personal attack, it's a way to make the work better. I know it's hard (I remember hiding in the cupboard under the stairs once, after a particularly difficult rejection) but it's the only way to go.

Sure, the higher a person shoots, the farther they may fall. And if someone is out of their league, they will find out. I'm contextually talking about novices, and these boards. If someone sends a work to an agent or publishing company, they will get feedback. That feedback may be acerbic, although the general rejection responce seems to be a bit more civil.

Still, I don't see a need to be acerbic, though that will certainly happen in this business. But that has to be put into perspective. There are some publishers who would have told Stephen King that he sucks, and shouldn't even write a greeting card let alone a novel. That is because some critics generally have such a standard that popular writers wouldn't ever come up to snuff. The onus is on the student to learn. If someone is a bad student, "Can't figure things out," that doesn't excuse me being a bad teacher, "needlessly ripping them apart." Life will teach them.

If I think they stink and they "Accidentally" got published, then I was wrong anyway.

[Nateskate]

I just don't know how a person thinks they'll survive the rejection letters if they claim to be too fragile to hear some honest criticizm by peers. Imagine sending a cover letter with a manuscript that said, "Please go easy on me. A gentle evaluation would be appreciated as this is only my first novel and..."


I wouldn't say I'm "easy" on novices. I give more exhaustive crits novices, because I think some writers don't really "get" things that are discussed in theory until their own work can be used for examples.

If a writer seems to have only a tenuous grasp of POV, I'll highlight questionable passages and say, "Jane wouldn't know if John was afraid to speak until now. You have to show us that, through some action of john. Don't worry that the readers won't get it. Most of them will, and it's not that important right now anyway."

Four pages of that kind of crit, might look like a veritable brow-beating, but I can't think of a writer who hasn't thanked me.

I remember when I was new to SYW, Preyer (whatever happened to him) really used to ream my work. I used pronouns too often. I used the word "She" all over the place, and he just harped and harped about it. He pointed out cliche's and purple passages. He was never afraid to give it to me straight, and I could kiss him for it.

Not that I'm anywhere near perfect, even now, but I know I'm much better than I was at that time, thanks mostly to critiques. And there have been many I balked at or argued about, but still... in the end I see they were right.

Ultimately, you face the harshest critic (no not yourself) the publisher!

I know you have a good heart and a good head. I've seen enough of your posts to realize that. So, I think if you are offering your services, someone should be honored to recieve them. In fact, I'm impressed with the way your mind works, and think you'd be a good editor.

[Jamesaritchie]

I suppose we all have our own critiquing methods and standards, but I think who you critique is as important as how. A writer without a tough skin is going to have a very hardtime in this business unless, of course, that writer has so much talent that everything he writes is good.

But I think there are writers at a low enough level that a real critique is impossible. Everything they do is just wrong and/or bad. The basic grammar and punctuation are very poor, and sentence structure is no better. Story, characterizaion, dialogue, you name it, and it's bad.

I'm not sure crtiquing a writer at this stage, other than in a very general way, is at all helpful. Being brutally honest to a writer at this stage probably would send that writer away with his tail between his legs. It might even make him quit.

The thing is, I believe you can be honest with such writers, but it's probably best to leave it at something like, "You really need to work on grammar and punctuation a bit. If you do this, and write several more stories, I think you'll improve greatly."

But in general, I think it's best not to critique writers unless you can really help them. Critiquers should be as picky in who they critique as writers should be in who they let critique them.

Writers do need thick skins. Sooner or later, if you ask for critiques enough, you will get blasted. Your manuscript will be ripped to shreds, and that's just how it is. If you friends won't do so, then an agent or editor probably will.
If there are problems with your writing, such critiques will happen.

It does no good to say they shouldn't happen. It does no good to say critiquers should go easy. They will happen, and the writer had better have a thick enough skin to stand it.

It makes more sense to me if the problem is worked on from the other end. Writers simply need to learn that a critique isn't personal, that it's about the writing, not the writer. If a writer is getting a critique because he wants to be told he's good, then his mother should do the critique. If a writer wants a critique because he honestly wants to know what he's doing wrong, then he shouldn't be hurt when he's told. He should fix the problems.

There are kinder or nastier ways of putting things. But in the end, whether you tell someone they have bad breath, or simply suggest they use a little Scope, it means the same thing, and the person will probably take it the same way.

The question is, when someone tells you your breath stinks, do you say, "Fine, I won't breathe on you again" or do you go use some mouthwash?

[Diviner]

Some hard truths about growth: you have to work and your readiness for it is based on that work. You have to be aware and to understand the nature of a criticism.

I take it as a given that anyone who takes the time to critique is trying to be helpful. Whether they succeed in helping depends almost as much as the readiness of the novice to learn as it does the way the critique is given.

Personally, I prefer a bit of praise mixed in with the more devastating comments, but I infinitely prefer a critique that points out issues or concepts beyond my own awareness to one that is all approval. One thing I look for is whether the critiquer is bothered by the same sorts of things that might be troubling me, If that happens, it answers serious questions. When the critique raises issues beyond my own awareness, I know that dealing with them will be another period of growth.

Our minds work differently. I can't expect everyone to like what I write or even the way I write it, but I can learn from their different sensibilities, whether their points are relevant to my goals or not. Every little bit of considered honesty helps, the more specific the better. If I am not ready to understand something, that does not mean it should not be pointed out. If I am aware, it means that I am ready to deal with it.

Writing is a series of decisions based on intuition, information, and analysis. None of us can do much about intuition, but the other two can be worked on. Even at the edit stage, we are limited by where we are as writers, how much we understand about what we have done and whether there is any way to improve it.

[oswann]

I think I'm fantastic and I'm pretty sure everyone else thinks so too.


Os.

[Lenora Rose]

There are kinder or nastier ways of putting things. But in the end, whether you tell someone they have bad breath, or simply suggest they use a little Scope, it means the same thing, and the person will probably take it the same way.

I respectfully disagree. I've seen far too many people use "It means the same thing as your words, I'm just less wishy-washy", or similar phrases, to attempt to excuse what was, in fact, flat out plain and simple rudeness. I've also seen people who are "tone-deaf", and have no clue why their words are more offensive than someone else's. "I said her music stinks. You said you didn't like the song. What's the difference?"

I just ran into this in real life. I just lost a friend, because he couldn't see how what he was saying was below and beyond what was right for the situation.

We're writers. if we're qualified at all to judge another person's work, then we should be able to find the phrase that tells it like it is without ripping them apart.

[Jamesaritchie]

I respectfully disagree. I've seen far too many people use "It means the same thing as your words, I'm just less wishy-washy", or similar phrases, to attempt to excuse what was, in fact, flat out plain and simple rudeness. I've also seen people who are "tone-deaf", and have no clue why their words are more offensive than someone else's. "I said her music stinks. You said you didn't like the song. What's the difference?"

I just ran into this in real life. I just lost a friend, because he couldn't see how what he was saying was below and beyond what was right for the situation.

We're writers. if we're qualified at all to judge another person's work, then we should be able to find the phrase that tells it like it is without ripping them apart.

It does mean the same thing, and in truth, it's all up to the attitude of teh person being told.

The difference between "her music stinks" is that it says teh music has someting wrong with it, while "I didn;t like it" is only an opinion which says "maybe there isn't anything wrong with it, and it's just me."

The fair comparison is "Her music stinks" and "there are serious things wrong with the way she writes music."

Before we critique anyone, we need to be able to tell whether or not a perceived flaw is merely our oinion, or is, in fact, a real flaw. "I don't like it" is a horrible way to critique by anyone's standards. So is "I like it."

However you critique, "I like it" or I don't like it" should never be part of the process.

There's no need to be nasty, but if you're leaving things as opinion, if you aren't saying "this is wrong," or "your grammar needs serious work," or "your dialogue is stilted/wooden/unrealistic," you aren't helping that person at all.

And if you do tell them these things, many will simply hear "You breathe stinks."

The way a person takes a critique is always more important than the way it's given.

[Nateskate]

"Fine, I won't breathe on you again" or do you go use some mouthwash?

I think you were correct in most everything you said. I guess in my mind it's the application. And we'd have to look at a case by case basis to see if we were even talking about the same kind of thing.

My point was never "Don't be realistic," because that is intellectually dishonest. But some people feel it's their duty to separate the wheat from the chaff, so when they comment, they tend to lean toward's flaying someone alive. The reverse, "Oh, you are such a good writer, what a good boy you are..." doesn't really serve a purpose.

I was a way above average skills coach in basketball, because I could break down body mechanics and explain things in ways people understood. And since I worked with younger kids, you get what comes through the door. The key wasn't telling someone what they couldn't do, but what they could do. Of course you have to be realistic. However, when I've seen some people's writing being critiqued, I saw potential.

Some people would say, "He sucks, why even work with the kid." Funny thing is every kid I worked with long enough stopped sucking. I once worked with only the third and fourth string of a team, and the next year, they were all starters.

I think writing is harder to break down, but I do see the difference between bad ideas and sloppy execution. I think some people can't differentiate between the two. Yet, my point is not "feeding a delusion", but "not snuffing out potential," and knowing the difference.

[scribbler1382]

If we're writers, then we should be able to discern the difference between perception and intent.

[Nateskate]

Some hard truths about growth: you have to work and your readiness for it is based on that work. You have to be aware and to understand the nature of a criticism.

I take it as a given that anyone who takes the time to critique is trying to be helpful. Whether they succeed in helping depends almost as much as the readiness of the novice to learn as it does the way the critique is given.

Personally, I prefer a bit of praise mixed in with the more devastating comments, but I infinitely prefer a critique that points out issues or concepts beyond my own awareness to one that is all approval. One thing I look for is whether the critiquer is bothered by the same sorts of things that might be troubling me, If that happens, it answers serious questions. When the critique raises issues beyond my own awareness, I know that dealing with them will be another period of growth.

Our minds work differently. I can't expect everyone to like what I write or even the way I write it, but I can learn from their different sensibilities, whether their points are relevant to my goals or not. Every little bit of considered honesty helps, the more specific the better. If I am not ready to understand something, that does not mean it should not be pointed out. If I am aware, it means that I am ready to deal with it.

Writing is a series of decisions based on intuition, information, and analysis. None of us can do much about intuition, but the other two can be worked on. Even at the edit stage, we are limited by where we are as writers, how much we understand about what we have done and whether there is any way to improve it.

I agree so much with this. A good critic does look for problems, and isolates them. With a novice, a good critic (in my mind) may see 15 things wrong. But, in reality people can't recieve fifteen corrections at once (most people) and retain the point.

I used basketball coaching in the previous answer, and mentioned how I was particularly good at breaking down body mechanics. I could look at someone and see if they were placing their weight in the wrong place, how they held the ball, why things weren't working. And one by one I could teach them to do what they thought was impossible to do.

However, I was not a particularly good coach of my son, because for one he was extremely ADHD. He couldn't focus long on anything. But also, being a dad, I wanted to teach him fast, and that simply discouraged him.

In life, the body takes time to heal. So, if someone physically lifts weights all the time, they break down muscle without giving it time to heal. So, after awhile, lifting as much weight as you can possible lift every day will wear the body out instead of building it up. Emotionally that's true also. Things can only be broken down in incrementally (Sp?) or bit by bit, allowing healing to take place.

So, if I'm telling my son ten things he did wrong every time he plays, he will hate playing. Emotionally its more than he can bear. In fact, you can't correct something everytime they play, even if its one thing. Rather, you have to praise someone who is actually making mistakes and is ineffective. Otherwise you discourage them. The net effect is that over time they improve.

In writing, telling someone who is really "That bad", they are "That bad," serves no purpose. If you tell them one thing they can change, that's great, and even better if you demonstrate it. (Obviously doing this wouldn't work with a professional, but here with people who are asking for a volunteer appraisal)

But if I see something, I might say, honestly, "That's a really good thought, and then tell them what might improve it." In fact, I used C.S.Lewis, and I'm trying to think of the book before The Lion, Witch and Wardrobe. It's the story with the magic rings. I'll ruin it now for everyone. See how many times he needlessly uses "That", in a sentence. Now, fast forward three books, and he is doing "That" at all. Well, if C.S.Lewis had a chink in his armor, so would any novice.

But again, in a professional situation where someone is jumping the gun and sending in a poorly written M.S, that is another issue. Pros generally do what they do for money, and don't have time to fix problems, and may simply resort to brutal honesty.

[Nateskate]

I respectfully disagree. I've seen far too many people use "It means the same thing as your words, I'm just less wishy-washy", or similar phrases, to attempt to excuse what was, in fact, flat out plain and simple rudeness. I've also seen people who are "tone-deaf", and have no clue why their words are more offensive than someone else's. "I said her music stinks. You said you didn't like the song. What's the difference?"

I just ran into this in real life. I just lost a friend, because he couldn't see how what he was saying was below and beyond what was right for the situation.

We're writers. if we're qualified at all to judge another person's work, then we should be able to find the phrase that tells it like it is without ripping them apart.

Amen, well said. Yikes, I'm impressed.

[Christine N.]

I'm enjoying this thread. Critiquers have to be constructive, not destructive. That doesn't mean to not give honesty, it means to do it with tact, like Lenora said. Don't say "this sucks, burn it please while I wash my eyeballs", instead you say "This doesn't work for me because... and you might try it like this..."

Do we all see the distinction? Conversely, critequees (is that a word) must learn to develop a thick skin and a willingness to listen and let their words go.

I recently exchanged a few chapters with a fellow children's writer. He gave me some harsh crit, but I needed to hear it. I completely restructured the first three chapters, and it is so much better. Likewise, I gave him some constructive, but vaild crit. His story was good, most of my comments were style and editing based.

I also recommended a book to him. I wasn't trying to be nasty, but the book helped me and I was passing the information along. I haven't heard from him since. I don't know if he's just busy, or thought I was too hard on him, or snotty. I hope he didn't think I was being a *****.

[Mistook]

Has anybody taken a peek at the "Relationship Novel" thread? Considering this conversation is that coincidental or what?

[sunandshadow]

Here's something nobody has mentioned yet - critters who are not in the piece's target audience. I've had a lot of problems with this - critters who give bad advice simply because they don't like the kind of thing you're trying to write and can't help trying to steer it in some direction they like better.

[scribbler1382]

Here's something nobody has mentioned yet - critters who are not in the piece's target audience. I've had a lot of problems with this - critters who give bad advice simply because they don't like the kind of thing you're trying to write and can't help trying to steer it in some direction they like better.

I've had that, but is it really a problem with the audience/critic or a problem with the writer's ability to choose one? I always felt it was the latter, and tried to learn from it. Not from what they were saying, but who they were.

[sunandshadow]

Some writers actually have enough volunteer critiquers that they can pick and choose among them? :Jaw:

[scribbler1382]

LOL!

[azbikergirl]

I've been in crit groups in which members had never read (or actively disliked) the genre I was writing in, and some of them reminded me of that every time I posted. :rolleyes: But once they got that off their chest and addressed what was on the page, some of them were able to give good, constructive criticism that was not based on their dislike of the genre, but what I was trying to do. (And some of them came to actually enjoy the story!)

Then there are the people who cannot get past the fact that they hate F&SF. Their critiques were worded more as underhanded attacks on my choice of genre, and had little to do with what was on the page. Now I lean toward finding critiquers who are more closely matched to my intended audience -- readers of F&SF.

[hpoppink]

Critiquers have to be constructive, not destructive. That doesn't mean to not give honesty, it means to do it with tact, like Lenora said. Don't say "this sucks, burn it please while I wash my eyeballs", instead you say "This doesn't work for me because... and you might try it like this..."

Do we all see the distinction? Conversely, critequees (is that a word) must learn to develop a thick skin and a willingness to listen and let their words go.

I agree. Both sides have to be professional.

I think the contention is what behavior is more important to adjust: the manner in which a critique is given, or the manner in which it is received. Or perhaps both are equally important.

If we assume "both equally", this may be the most practical approach. To my knowledge, there has been no definitive study on the subject to tell us who is actually more to blame. Assuming "both/and" is certain to address the error, regardless of where it may lie.

In other words, if both the reviewer and the writer go into critique focused on communicating better and listening better, the probability of conducting a helpful critique is likely to increase.

(It's not guaranteed, of course, as the bad breath example makes clear. There are some people who just plain refuse to use the mouthwash, and others who just can't help themselves from adding personal insults to every bit of feedback.)

[Jamesaritchie]

When the writing really is bad, I have no idea how you can avoid saying things that most will find insulting. The only solution to this is, I think, to simply say nothing, which many also take as an insult. But "I'm sorry, I really can't critique this story" is often the best answer.

When a story is critiqued, what it boils down to for me is pretty simple. The critiquer should critique the writing, not the writer, and the writer has no business being personally insulted if the critiquer says bad things about the writing.

I don't care what language the critiquer uses concerning the writing, if it is about the writing, the writer should swallow hard and take it. If you don't agree with the critique, then hush up and move on. No one will twist your arm and make you agree with a critique in any way. Don't ask that person for another critique, but getting mad and insulted is neither wise nor helpful.

You aren't going to change that person's opinion by argueing, by getting insulted, or by anything else you do. And even if you do, your writing will still have the same problems, only now you probably won't fix them.

Isaac Asimov used to tell a story about teh best "critique he evr received. He went to John Campbell's office to check on a story he submitted. Campbell pulled teh story from a stack, held it over a trash can and said, "You don't really want this back, do you?"

Asimov swallowed hard and said "No."

Campbell dropped the story in the trash can.

Now, many writers would have been completely insulted by this. Asimov wasn't. He learned from it, and didn't make the same mistakes again.

You can find story after story along these same lines, all told by professional writers who, instead of being insulted, swallowed hard, took the lesson to heart, and used the "insults" to become better writers.

A story isn't your baby. A story is not your heart and soul. A story is an inantimate oject. It's a product. It's a birdhouse that may be well-built, or may have crooked sides, a leaky roof, a hole that's too small. It's the bird house being criticized, not teh writer.

A professional writer/critiquer's job is not to find words that are soft and comforting, but to find words that best express the truth as he sees it.

The role of the writer being critiqued is to decide whether or not the critiquer is right. If he thinks the critiquer is right, he takes it to heart and tries to get rid of the flaws. If he thinks the critiquer is wrong, he ignores it.

And I'll add this, when you point out too many things a writer is doing well, and soft soap the things a writer is doing really wrong, there's an excellent chance the writer will hear only the good and ignore the bad.

As the old saying goes, "You can either tell me what to do, or you can tell me how to do it, but not both."

If you want a critique, then you don't get to tell them how to go about it. If you don't like the way they go about it, if you find it too insulting, then don't ask that person for another critique. But it's getting mad and insulted that's unprofessional. The professional attitude is to either say, "Thank you" and then move on to another critiquer, or to say, "Thank you" and take the advice.

Sometimes the writing does stink on ice. Sometimes there isn't a single aspect of a story you can say something nice about without lying. I think it's best to simply not critique such writing, but when such writing is critiqued, the writer has no business being insulted when the critiquer says it stinks on ice.

Anyone can look around and find a critiquer of three who will say nice things about their writing. Anyone can find critiquers who mask the bad and put so much sugar on the good that it would kill a diabetic. If you get insulted easily, do just this.

But if you really want to learn how to write well, then don't take things personally, even if the critiquer says the story stinks, and so do you. Use your intellect, not your emotion. Evaluate what the critiquer said, and then if you wish, get a second opinion, preferably from someone equally truthful and not worried about hurting your feelings.

Then agree and disagree, and either way, say "Thank you" and move on.

A critiquer should be honest. A critiquer who's worried about hurting your feelings is going to do a poor job, and if you connect your feelings to the story, even a good critque won't help.

[hpoppink]

A critiquer should be honest. A critiquer who's worried about hurting your feelings is going to do a poor job, and if you connect your feelings to the story, even a good critque won't help.
James,

Thanks for the excellent points you make in your post. I would simply note that tact and honesty are not mutually exclusive.

[Mistook]

Just wanted to say, I e-mailed the first three chapters of my WIP to my brother in law. I very much respect his opinion. His book collection probably accounts for the dissapearance of half a rain-forest, and he's a very intelligent guy.

Here are his two most stinging appraisals:

"Right now, the story has no focus, and no spark. "

and

"...my mental image of the first chapter (all 3 chapters, really) is 2 sock puppets suspended in air reading from a script they can’t quite read clearly..."

Now I could fly off the handle and scold him, saying :mad: You don't know my talent! But the truth is obvious. I didn't bother to include much scenery description because I was too preoccupied with the plot. Likewise, I failed to flesh out my characters in the rush to get the storyline going.

Lack of focus and spark is an even more serious issue. It pains me to realize I couldn't get things right even on that level, but better to hear it from him now than from an editor next year. He confirms what I knew in the back of my mind, but couldn't admit - I haven't given these critical opening chapters the treatment they require. All the punch and personality still reside in my head. I haven't put it into terms readers can understand.

But knowing this, I can go back and revise. I'm glad he didn't water down the truth for me. We'll see if I'm a good enough writer to bring this thing up to snuff, but if I'm not, Justin isn't to blame.

[scribbler1382]

Exactly, Mistook. (And good on you for sharing this personal tidbit.)

For me, there's only one response to a critique, whether it says you're brilliant or a buffoon:

"Thank you."

[Nateskate]

Just wanted to say, I e-mailed the first three chapters of my WIP to my brother in law. I very much respect his opinion. His book collection probably accounts for the dissapearance of half a rain-forest, and he's a very intelligent guy.

Here are his two most stinging appraisals:

"Right now, the story has no focus, and no spark. "

and

"...my mental image of the first chapter (all 3 chapters, really) is 2 sock puppets suspended in air reading from a script they can’t quite read clearly..."

Now I could fly off the handle and scold him, saying :mad: You don't know my talent! But the truth is obvious. I didn't bother to include much scenery description because I was too preoccupied with the plot. Likewise, I failed to flesh out my characters in the rush to get the storyline going.

Lack of focus and spark is an even more serious issue. It pains me to realize I couldn't get things right even on that level, but better to hear it from him now than from an editor next year. He confirms what I knew in the back of my mind, but couldn't admit - I haven't given these critical opening chapters the treatment they require. All the punch and personality still reside in my head. I haven't put it into terms readers can understand.

But knowing this, I can go back and revise. I'm glad he didn't water down the truth for me. We'll see if I'm a good enough writer to bring this thing up to snuff, but if I'm not, Justin isn't to blame.




It could be he's wrong. Did you ever hear the saying, "A prophet is never accepted in his own home?" I've seen this happen, especially in critical families. You have someone who can't imagine someone they know having talent. That is multiplied if they are keen of your faults, flaws, and anything they percieve to be less than perfection.

My youngest son is like that with me. He's won some writing awards, and was a fantasy lover. So, I let him read a part of my story, and he pretty much went into a sigh fest before he got to page twenty.

I asked what's wrong, expecting some kind of reasonable correction. "You ripped this off from Tolkien." "You ripped this off from..." And then we got into it. Tolkien loved mythology and fairy tales. So do I. It never dawned on him that we could both be drawing on the same sorts of material. There are no Dwarves, Elves, or Orcs in my story. There are no magic rings. I didn't even want to use the convenient term "ages" in the story.

Now, you have to understand his personality. He was PISSED off at the movie Return of the King, because there was no "Scouring of the Shire". He was angry that Peter Jackson included things that weren't in the book, or excluded things that were.

I tried explaining, "See it for what it is. A Billion dollars can't be that wrong. A movie has to consider pacing. And they have to consider time, and make compromises. Well, nothing mattered. He didn't enjoy it at all, because he couldn't see it for what it was. I paid for movie and the dinner, and you'd we came from a funeral, and Peter Jackson killed his dog.

None of my Beta Readers are relatives. Let me say this. "Lack of focus and spark" are very subjective phrases. One person's "spark" is another's wet noodle, and vice versa. It would probably be best to have someone who can say as much about what you can do to improve it rather than those who throw subjective phrases at you.

[Ronda]

I think criticism is useful. So far I haven't seen anyone call someone names or suggest they're an awful writer or anything like that. I write because I love it and I want to improve. If I don't get at least a couple of rejections a week, I'm not working hard enough! :D
Warmly,
Ronda

[Mistook]

It could be he's wrong. Did you ever hear the saying, "A prophet is never accepted in his own home?" I've seen this happen, especially in critical families. You have someone who can't imagine someone they know having talent. That is multiplied if they are keen of your faults, flaws, and anything they percieve to be less than perfection.

My youngest son is like that with me. He's won some writing awards, and was a fantasy lover. So, I let him read a part of my story, and he pretty much went into a sigh fest before he got to page twenty.

I asked what's wrong, expecting some kind of reasonable correction. "You ripped this off from Tolkien." "You ripped this off from..." And then we got into it. Tolkien loved mythology and fairy tales. So do I. It never dawned on him that we could both be drawing on the same sorts of material. There are no Dwarves, Elves, or Orcs in my story. There are no magic rings. I didn't even want to use the convenient term "ages" in the story.

Now, you have to understand his personality. He was PISSED off at the movie Return of the King, because there was no "Scouring of the Shire". He was angry that Peter Jackson included things that weren't in the book, or excluded things that were.

I tried explaining, "See it for what it is. A Billion dollars can't be that wrong. A movie has to consider pacing. And they have to consider time, and make compromises. Well, nothing mattered. He didn't enjoy it at all, because he couldn't see it for what it was. I paid for movie and the dinner, and you'd we came from a funeral, and Peter Jackson killed his dog.

None of my Beta Readers are relatives. Let me say this. "Lack of focus and spark" are very subjective phrases. One person's "spark" is another's wet noodle, and vice versa. It would probably be best to have someone who can say as much about what you can do to improve it rather than those who throw subjective phrases at you.


Charges of "rip off" from a kid can be scary. It takes me back to my early childhood growing up around my older brother and his friends, who were all hardcore comic book fans. They all tried to draw their own stories with original heroes and villains, and of course I tried to do the same.

I'm nearly traumatized by memories of the two cardinal sins - "Thou shalt not rip-off from Marvel" and "Thou shalt not draw people out of proportion!"

But obviously, your son's indictments don't hold water. He's pointing out minute details and saying that several of them are ripped from several different sources. That's like faulting a musician for using the key of G, and also "ripping off" the idea of using a 4/4 beat. Obviously all grand fantasies are the same on some level. There will be magic, and fairies, etc, etc.

As for the unrecognized hometown prophet, I've seen myself as being in that predicament before. But Justin's not the type to feel threatened by the greatness of others. I mean, I know people who are so insecure, or competitive that if you give them the chance to kick you in the teeth they'll gladly do it, but Justin's a pretty well adjusted guy.

He does give very cogent explanations for the opinions. I just gave you the highlights to demonstrate the kind of remarks that can stick in your craw, even from very well meaning critics.

I agree he's right that I didn't give nearly enough attention to describing the scenes - description is nearly nonexistant in the current draft of those particular chapters. I can handle that part, because I know I've done better in other chapters.

He's also right that the intro, as it stands, is an info-dump. I attempted to disguise it as a TV interview, but if it doesn't fool him, it's not likely to fool an editor. That's more of a problem for me.

Lack of focus and spark - to me that's a loud claxon to take seriously. I could argue all day about what he wasn't seeing, but whose fault is that? I do think it's my failure, in this case, to make my "vision" of these chapters truly visible.

I mean, it would be one thing if I were just having characters wander around aimlessly doing nothing much, but in my head there's very disturbing issues on the table from word one. There's a cover-up happening concerning the possible molestation and/or brainwashing of young women and it all points in a very definite direction. In my head everything leads fairly quickly to scenes where the truth of the matter is revealed, and by the middle of chapter two, there's an unexpected plot twist meant to shock.

So if none of that is coming through, it can only be because I lost him or bored him to death on the way.

[Nateskate]

Charges of "rip off" from a kid can be scary. It takes me back to my early childhood growing up around my older brother and his friends, who were all hardcore comic book fans. They all tried to draw their own stories with original heroes and villains, and of course I tried to do the same.

I'm nearly traumatized by memories of the two cardinal sins - "Thou shalt not rip-off from Marvel" and "Thou shalt not draw people out of proportion!"

But obviously, your son's indictments don't hold water. He's pointing out minute details and saying that several of them are ripped from several different sources. That's like faulting a musician for using the key of G, and also "ripping off" the idea of using a 4/4 beat. Obviously all grand fantasies are the same on some level. There will be magic, and fairies, etc, etc.

As for the unrecognized hometown prophet, I've seen myself as being in that predicament before. But Justin's not the type to feel threatened by the greatness of others. I mean, I know people who are so insecure, or competitive that if you give them the chance to kick you in the teeth they'll gladly do it, but Justin's a pretty well adjusted guy.

He does give very cogent explanations for the opinions. I just gave you the highlights to demonstrate the kind of remarks that can stick in your craw, even from very well meaning critics.

So if none of that is coming through, it can only be because I lost him or bored him to death on the way.

Obviously I can't tell you one way or the other. The idea sounds interesting to me.

But as far as being subjective, I dislike the writing of eighty percent of the books I pick up in Barnes and Nobles. I'm saying that because I can give a just criticism of a perfectly good book, and it doesn't mean the writer can't get his book published.

And that's the light in which I'm saying this here. His appraisal may be honest, but still, a second opinion can't hurt. In some Genres Info Dumps are necessary and expected. So, it's not necessarily a bad approach, or a sign that the book is bad. The difference is ultimately separating the baby from the bathwater.

I spread an info dump over two chapters in book two. The only other way, was to write a very complex forward. I figured in the end, the reader would prefer to have it written into the body of the story.

Chapter one begins with a proclamation of the fall of a kingdom and an evil tyrant. It re-introduces characters from book one, at least the immortal characters on the "good side", who want to save the world. It re-establishes that the bad side is still working, and the desperation to find someone to stand up against this evil.

More on the fall of that kingdom, and its relevence, comes into play later. But for all intents and purposes, here-it serves the purpose of reminding us the enemy are capable of destroying this world, and intent on it.

Chapter two re-establishes the means/methods/modes of the battle. I don't have "Demons" in my story, but for the sake of discussion lets call them demon-like creatures. In chapter two, these creatures are called to a meeting.

Zoom in on one central figure. He's is very much like a demon with Attention Deficit Disorder. He's lost the directions. He knows he's going to be beaten. And he's like a kid who knows he better get to the principal's office fast, but in reality, he doesn't want to get there at all. He's not very happy, because this meeting is held in a place he hates, deadlands with spewing molten geysers, and volcanic ash.

Some of the info dump takes place with him bitching and moaning the entire way as he's sifting his way through smoke and ash.

Then I add his counterpart, a different species of creature fighting on the same side. These two are competative and trying to make each other look bad. All their whining and complaining is just an attempt to make an info dump sound tollerable. They both wind up getting beatings for being late.

I want people who jump in at book two, who didn't read book one, to get the gist. And so, you jump from this very maccabre meeting of hiddeous demon-like creatures, and their evil masters, who are darkly beautiful and extremely powerful, to a peasant woman fretting over her fifteen year old son who is late for his birthday.

But all in all, I couldn't see a way around an info dump, so I tried to make it as amusing and other worldly as possible. Some of of the scene is priceless and funny. But all in all, I'd be more than willing to cut parts if an editor says, "You are repeating too much information...you can cut here..."

Heck, if they say, "Take out the chapter." I won't throw it out. If the story is popular, then I'll just save it for a future archive, or I'll add it to a future "Tell all book"

[Mistook]

Obviously I can't tell you one way or the other. The idea sounds interesting to me.

But as far as being subjective, I dislike the writing of eighty percent of the books I pick up in Barnes and Nobles. I'm saying that because I can give a just criticism of a perfectly good book, and it doesn't mean the writer can't get his book published.

And that's the light in which I'm saying this here. His appraisal may be honest, but still, a second opinion can't hurt. In some Genres Info Dumps are necessary and expected. So, it's not necessarily a bad approach, or a sign that the book is bad. The difference is ultimately separating the baby from the bathwater.

I spread an info dump over two chapters in book two. The only other way, was to write a very complex forward. I figured in the end, the reader would prefer to have it written into the body of the story.

Chapter one begins with a proclamation of the fall of a kingdom and an evil tyrant. It re-introduces characters from book one, at least the immortal characters on the "good side", who want to save the world. It re-establishes that the bad side is still working, and the desperation to find someone to stand up against this evil.

More on the fall of that kingdom, and its relevence, comes into play later. But for all intents and purposes, here-it serves the purpose of reminding us the enemy are capable of destroying this world, and intent on it.

Chapter two re-establishes the means/methods/modes of the battle. I don't have "Demons" in my story, but for the sake of discussion lets call them demon-like creatures. In chapter two, these creatures are called to a meeting.

Zoom in on one central figure. He's is very much like a demon with Attention Deficit Disorder. He's lost the directions. He knows he's going to be beaten. And he's like a kid who knows he better get to the principal's office fast, but in reality, he doesn't want to get there at all. He's not very happy, because this meeting is held in a place he hates, deadlands with spewing molten geysers, and volcanic ash.

Some of the info dump takes place with him bitching and moaning the entire way as he's sifting his way through smoke and ash.

Then I add his counterpart, a different species of creature fighting on the same side. These two are competative and trying to make each other look bad. All their whining and complaining is just an attempt to make an info dump sound tollerable. They both wind up getting beatings for being late.

I want people who jump in at book two, who didn't read book one, to get the gist. And so, you jump from this very maccabre meeting of hiddeous demon-like creatures, and their evil masters, who are darkly beautiful and extremely powerful, to a peasant woman fretting over her fifteen year old son who is late for his birthday.

But all in all, I couldn't see a way around an info dump, so I tried to make it as amusing and other worldly as possible. Some of of the scene is priceless and funny. But all in all, I'd be more than willing to cut parts if an editor says, "You are repeating too much information...you can cut here..."

Heck, if they say, "Take out the chapter." I won't throw it out. If the story is popular, then I'll just save it for a future archive, or I'll add it to a future "Tell all book"


I do think this specific data-dump of mine is important, but unfortunately it comes at the beginning of chapter one. I figured that if I presented it as a TV interview, it might fly, since TV interviews are essentially info-dumps.

If it were the opening of a movie, having this interview play on a TV screen as the opening credits blinked past, I think that would be fairly standard procedure. I've seen many movies use this ploy, but then again - movies probably do this because of limited time, and because it's easier to make a dump digestible with cinematic eye-candy going on, and when the audience is still munching on their popcorn.

I'm still working on a strategy to get this info across without breaking the rules of novel writing.

----

In your case, with it being a grand Fantasy and all, I think you have more leeway. I've never written Fantasy, but it seems you almost have to have more latitude for exposition because of all the world-building that the genre requires.

[alanna]

Alright, I admit to not having read this entire thread, so if this is redundant please excuse me. However, when it comes to criticism, I myself prefer to know if something bites. I may not like it, but if it's true then I need to know. I would like to know what I need to work on, and how I can work on it. If the only way that the person knows is to deliver the advice brutally- then I'll still take it. Brutal feedback is much better than no feedback, and if I didn't have a thick skin I wouldn't be asking for a critique. The one response I will never trust is "this is perfect!" because even if it was just one annoying adverb, there's always SOMETHING that is out of whack. Maybe it's just me, but if a critiquer isn't going to give me honest feedback, then I don't want any from them at all.::cough:: on re-read, that sounds like I'm lecturing. Sorry. I'm to lazy to go back and edit it, but it's not a lecture. Just my opinion. :)

[Cheryll]

It's true that writers grow, or those with talent grow, but they seldom grow in a vacuum. Those who grow are, in my opinion, very critical of themselves, and should be.

We learn and grow by having faults point out. You can't fix something uinless you first know something is wrong. I suppose there are nice ways and nasty ways of pointing out faults, but they have to be pointed out.

Honestly, I can't think of too many good writers who mind criticism.

Well said, James.

When I first started taking my writing seriously, I was absolutely crushed when anyone criticized my work, even when it was constructive. Now, I see it as a challenge to improve, and I roll up my sleeves and dig in to make the needed changes. But that doesn't mean all criticism just rolls right off of me... I still take it personally sometimes, but I try to view it differently now.

Cheryll

[Ace]

Here's something nobody has mentioned yet - critters who are not in the piece's target audience. I've had a lot of problems with this - critters who give bad advice simply because they don't like the kind of thing you're trying to write and can't help trying to steer it in some direction they like better.

This brings up a philosophical question: Couldn't you say that if somebody writes poorly that their target audience is people who don't catch poor writing?

The whole area is too subjective to make sense of. I am relatively young, and as such, I doubt myself. Recently, I was almost convinced that I had completely incorrect knowledge of the rules of grammar. I started looking to see if people put the commas after the introductory parts of their sentences after I read an entire novel full of the error. I noticed plaques and newspaper articles without the comma. I asked my mother, who is an English major from University of Chicago, about one instance that I found on something. She told me that she wouldn't have put the comma there. Just recently, I decided to do some research. It turns out that I was correct. To me, that proves that many writers don't have basic knowledge of grammar. If one cannot master such a simple aspect of the language they are writing in, how can they be trusted to perfect the other bits?

This is just to show the error of judging people on what we understand about writing. I'm not going to judge the worth of literature based on grammar.

I consider fantasy books to be an imaginative void, but there are loads of people who would disagree with me. I bet I could see a chapter that I thought was constructed terribly and everyone else would say that Dostoevsky was a great writer. Seriously, though, if you find someone who sees similar to the way you do, then that person might be able to assist you by criticism.

[pepperlandgirl]

Every time somebody sends me crits, they always couch it with apologies and disclaimers. It makes me wonder what kind of nutjobs they've dealt with in the past. One of my betas "tore up" a chapter of mine and her email said, "remember, i still love you." Another sent me an email full of profuse apologies and assurances I didn't have to listen to her.

WTF?

I think writers ought to be thick skinned. I do all my crits with the expectation that the writers are serious about their craft and want help, not with the expectation that I've got to protect their feelings and cater to their emotions and insecurities. And I expect the same courtesy.

[hpoppink]

To me, that proves that many writers don't have basic knowledge of grammar. If one cannot master such a simple aspect of the language they are writing in, how can they be trusted to perfect the other bits?
Is it possible that the writer(s) did put the commas in, but somebody else took them out?

Is it wrong of me to think that the editor is responsible for those choices?

[Nateskate]

This brings up a philosophical question: Couldn't you say that if somebody writes poorly that their target audience is people who don't catch poor writing?

The whole area is too subjective to make sense of. I am relatively young, and as such, I doubt myself. Recently, I was almost convinced that I had completely incorrect knowledge of the rules of grammar. I started looking to see if people put the commas after the introductory parts of their sentences after I read an entire novel full of the error. I noticed plaques and newspaper articles without the comma. I asked my mother, who is an English major from University of Chicago, about one instance that I found on something. She told me that she wouldn't have put the comma there. Just recently, I decided to do some research. It turns out that I was correct. To me, that proves that many writers don't have basic knowledge of grammar. If one cannot master such a simple aspect of the language they are writing in, how can they be trusted to perfect the other bits?

This is just to show the error of judging people on what we understand about writing. I'm not going to judge the worth of literature based on grammar.

I consider fantasy books to be an imaginative void, but there are loads of people who would disagree with me. I bet I could see a chapter that I thought was constructed terribly and everyone else would say that Dostoevsky was a great writer. Seriously, though, if you find someone who sees similar to the way you do, then that person might be able to assist you by criticism.

What you say is insightful. One of the hardest things to fathom is that we are wired so differently. Just look at a highway. Those who feel bound and gagged if they can't do twenty mph over the speed limit, can't comprehend those who always go ten miles under. Those who constantly go ten miles under can't comprehend those who are always in such a hurry.

Even in writers, you have some who appreciate and understand order and construction more than others. Some have creative juices flowing twenty-four seven, and never have writers blocks. In fact, they could write simultaneous books, and their only limitations are time and energy. But not everyone has both. And I'll bet those who are better at one tend to wish they had a little bit of the other.

I feel weak in the construction area, so I have to work on that. I don't have any trouble with ideas. Most people admire what they can't do. And in fact, they can't comprehend someone struggling with what they can do. "Grammar is easy". Well, I hear some of the voices here, and I realize it is easy for some. I do realize that some things I can do are a gift. And the only way I know that is when I get feedback from others that they can't.

I used to write songs, and could bang out a song a day, or more. I taught someone to write, "Oh, it's easy." Well, it was easy because my mind worked that way. The way I taught him to write was undoing what he knew and teaching him to think outside of the box. So, it is possible to develop a weakness and become good at something that isn't natural. However, for those who come to it naturally, it just seems to flow without a struggle. I struggle with the grammar end. I'll get better, but it may never ever be as natural for me as for you, and perhaps the majority of people here.

[aruna]

Well, I hear some of the voices here, and I realize it is easy for some. I do realize that some things I can do are a gift. And the only way I know that is when I get feedback from others that they can't.

.

You are so right -and it's true in al areas! I had a friend (she died) who was good at baking. I used to tel her I can't bake a cake - and it's true! Every cake I ever bakes turned out horrible, and with her, they just flew out of her fingers. She used to tel me, "You can, you can, it's so easy, really it is." Finallym though, I caughter her: when she said she caouldn't write a book. I said, "You can, it's so easy! As easy as you make pies!" She looked at me, understood, and we both laughed.

[Nateskate]

You are so right -and it's true in al areas! I had a friend (she died) who was good at baking. I used to tel her I can't bake a cake - and it's true! Every cake I ever bakes turned out horrible, and with her, they just flew out of her fingers. She used to tel me, "You can, you can, it's so easy, really it is." Finallym though, I caughter her: when she said she caouldn't write a book. I said, "You can, it's so easy! As easy as you make pies!" She looked at me, understood, and we both laughed.

I'm horrible at organizing and administration. I'll give it ago in certain circumstances where it's me or no one. I once tried to organize a home extreme-makeover for someone who was crippled.- way before the show that made such things popular.

I got the right people interested. I had all of the parts, some who would donate money, some labor, but the poor guy died before we changed his living conditions. Actually he developed bedsores and was in a nursing home for a long time first.

I'm good with ideas if someone else will implement them. My wife, however is generally good with implementing anything she sets her mind to. But frankly, as much as that sounds like a perfect combination, we are generally working on different things at any given time.