Why do you say so? Isnt that the whole point of the SYW forum?
Yes, that's the point. Doesn't mean it's a good point. For one thing, if you're writing as much and as often as you should, and submitting as often as you should, there isn't time to have every story critiqued, or even a small percentage of them. Saroyan and Caldwell were bot writing a story per day. Most successful writers I know got where they are by writing at least a story per week.
You can't write a story, send it to a critique group, make revisions, ask them if the revisions are right, make more revisions when they say this or that still needs changed, and get anywhere.
And what makes you think someone else who isn't an editor, or a professional write
in your genre, has the first clue abut what makes a story publishable? They know what they like, and what they don't like. This matters not in the least.
Worse, just abut all the advice you receive will be fourth hand advice garnered from all the advice about what to do, and what not to do, that they've
read, and most how-to advice you read online is bad. At best, most of the advice you receive won't be from an editorial point of view, but from a "this is how
I would do it" point of view. It's the blind leading the blind.
I've sold a lot of stories, and I've been an editor, but outside of basic mechanics, I still can't tell any writer that a story is or isn't publishable for another editor. I can tell you whether or not
I would buy a story, but I can't begin to tell you whether or not any other editor out there would buy it or reject it.
Feedback is good, if it's the right feedback from the right person, but I've seen ten writers harmed by critique groups for every writer I've seen helped. I've seen many, many, many good stories ruined because of "You're supposed to do it this way", or "This is how so and so does it", or "This is how I would do it". I've seen promising writers with good stories stopped dead by listening to critique groups.
Sadly, it's usually the writers who are harmed the most that swear they've been helped.
If you can find that one person who knows what makes a story publishable (And publishable is not the same thing as good or bad, he does it this way, or I'd do it that way.), a person who really knows what it means to write a publishable story, who doesn't try to change your style, and who can, themselves, write publishable stories in your genre, then by all means, latch on, if you feel the need.
But, look, if all this amateur critiquing really helped, why are slush piles filled to overflowing with completely unpublishable short stories, almost all of which have been run trough a critique group? Critique groups turn everything into same old, same old, produce story after story that all follow the same bad advice, and that all stink up slush piles.
You don't create new, original, unlike anything else stories by listen to critique groups.
Worse, new writers are told to listen to the majority. If nine people in a group say to change this, and one says leave it alone, new writers are told to make the change. The trouble with this is that odds are extremely high that nine out of ten in a critique group simply have no clue about what makes a story publishable. That one, lone voice just might.
New writers simply don't know good advice from bad, anymore than the critique group does.
If you feel you must have feedback other than what you get form editors at magazines, then
pay for it, and get good advice. Go to a workshop or a seminar run by professional writers and editors in your genre.
Otherwise. write and submit, write and submit, write and submit. If your stories are anywhere near publishing standards, you will get feedback that matters. If they aren't anywhere near publishable standards, no critique group can make them so.
That one, remarkable, tough to find, critiquer who actually knows your genre, who can actually write well in your genre, can usually give you meaningful advice. Groups simply can't.
