- Joined
- Apr 7, 2007
- Messages
- 144
- Reaction score
- 9
- Age
- 61
- Location
- The Great State of Mississippi
- Website
- www.edward-gordon.com
I read a post by a girl who wants to give up because she's been critiqued pretty hard.
I'm sorry, but that's just wrong.
1st: Nothing should be given to someone else to read until you think it's right. Giving someone a rough draft to critique is just silly.
2nd: Not everyone is capable of critiquing work. You might get someone who is all proud of themselves because they've finally learned that adverbs in dialogue tags should be avoided, so they hammer on them. Forget that. If the only problem with a story is simple style stuff like that, it can all be corrected by editing. Remember, some people suck so bad at writing that the only way they can be fulfilled is to put themselves out as "beta-readers" editors, or critiquers. Most of them don't have a clue. The ones who do have a clue are probably agents and editors at publishing houses. So, be careful whose opinion you accept.
3rd. Anyone who critiques must be able to say how it should be done to be correct. If they say something is not right, then they must say how it should be, otherwise they're just noise.
4th. No one should critique a work that is so bad it requires a longer critique than the actual work itself. They should just hand it back and say they can't do it. It's not the job of a critiquer to teach creative writing.
5th. My wife is my editor. We have been editing each other's work so long that we can bleed all over a page with red ink, hand it back, and it means nothing to us personally. I get back red ink and all I think is thank god I didn't have to pay for this. An editor is a tool a writer uses. Until a person can separate their self-worth from their writing mistakes, they can never be a writer. The writing process is like this for every single writer: Rough draft, revision, proofreading. Revision and proofing hurt--for every single writer.
Most people only have enough self-esteem for the rough draft, so they can never succeed as writers.
I'm revising my novel now. When I read a chapter and I'm x'ing out paragraphs and bleeding red ink all over it, and then have to update on the computer and reprint it because there's too much red ink to make sense of it: that sucks. That's all negative. But it's the writing process. I either accept it, do the work, and carry-on, or I become a lawyer or a teacher or some other profession. Anyone who thinks they're better than me, given what I've just described, I gaurantee you, they're not--they're worse.
So, remember what every writing teacher who's ever spent a day in their life will tell you: first you get it written, then you get it right.
I think that girl was sending out her manuscripts before she did the work of revision and proofing.
All I know is that what I'm going through now with revision is hard, and I have written a lot, and this is enough to sap anyone's self-confidence. I'm about as self-confident as a person can be outside a psychiatric facility, and it's taking a toll. I have a feeling that most writers, who I know damn well don't think as highly of themselves as I do of myself, don't really have the stomach for revision. Every coma splice to them is a personal insult. Every passive sentence is a pimple with puss. Every wordy paragraph is a shit stain on their underwear in the junior high locker room. (Sorry. I've been indulging a bit too much tonight in the blood of Christ.).
Tell me I'm wrong. Go ahead. I dare you.
Jesus, I need some Aqua fria.
Sincerely,
Ed (I think)
Ed
I'm sorry, but that's just wrong.
1st: Nothing should be given to someone else to read until you think it's right. Giving someone a rough draft to critique is just silly.
2nd: Not everyone is capable of critiquing work. You might get someone who is all proud of themselves because they've finally learned that adverbs in dialogue tags should be avoided, so they hammer on them. Forget that. If the only problem with a story is simple style stuff like that, it can all be corrected by editing. Remember, some people suck so bad at writing that the only way they can be fulfilled is to put themselves out as "beta-readers" editors, or critiquers. Most of them don't have a clue. The ones who do have a clue are probably agents and editors at publishing houses. So, be careful whose opinion you accept.
3rd. Anyone who critiques must be able to say how it should be done to be correct. If they say something is not right, then they must say how it should be, otherwise they're just noise.
4th. No one should critique a work that is so bad it requires a longer critique than the actual work itself. They should just hand it back and say they can't do it. It's not the job of a critiquer to teach creative writing.
5th. My wife is my editor. We have been editing each other's work so long that we can bleed all over a page with red ink, hand it back, and it means nothing to us personally. I get back red ink and all I think is thank god I didn't have to pay for this. An editor is a tool a writer uses. Until a person can separate their self-worth from their writing mistakes, they can never be a writer. The writing process is like this for every single writer: Rough draft, revision, proofreading. Revision and proofing hurt--for every single writer.
Most people only have enough self-esteem for the rough draft, so they can never succeed as writers.
I'm revising my novel now. When I read a chapter and I'm x'ing out paragraphs and bleeding red ink all over it, and then have to update on the computer and reprint it because there's too much red ink to make sense of it: that sucks. That's all negative. But it's the writing process. I either accept it, do the work, and carry-on, or I become a lawyer or a teacher or some other profession. Anyone who thinks they're better than me, given what I've just described, I gaurantee you, they're not--they're worse.
So, remember what every writing teacher who's ever spent a day in their life will tell you: first you get it written, then you get it right.
I think that girl was sending out her manuscripts before she did the work of revision and proofing.
All I know is that what I'm going through now with revision is hard, and I have written a lot, and this is enough to sap anyone's self-confidence. I'm about as self-confident as a person can be outside a psychiatric facility, and it's taking a toll. I have a feeling that most writers, who I know damn well don't think as highly of themselves as I do of myself, don't really have the stomach for revision. Every coma splice to them is a personal insult. Every passive sentence is a pimple with puss. Every wordy paragraph is a shit stain on their underwear in the junior high locker room. (Sorry. I've been indulging a bit too much tonight in the blood of Christ.).
Tell me I'm wrong. Go ahead. I dare you.
Jesus, I need some Aqua fria.
Sincerely,
Ed (I think)
Ed
Last edited:
