Pitfalls for being too nice?

The only pitfall I've experienced so far is that I'll promise to do something, and then the manunscript will be so sucky that I don't know how to begin. I can imagine other pitfalls though...like, say, you work really hard on something for someone and by the time you finally give it back to them they've happened to change the whole plot and you wasted your time.

I don't know. Can't think of anything else

-Feathers

Related pitfall: you work for three days on a manuscript that has serious issues, pouring your heart and soul into wording everything as technically and kindly as possible, and the author gloms onto the 'but what about my pov? Should I change it to first?' or some other single, relatively issue that's often a non-issue. One author swore she got 'ten pages of formatting instructions and nothing on content.' Um, I kept a copy of the critique. There was one paragraph of formatting issues with a link reference for guidelines, and about eight pages of content review. Maybe it's a defense mechanism. I dunno. But over the years I've learned to avoid this pitfall by critiquing according to writing experience. If there's a lot of experience, I let 'em have it all (but still nicely.) If it's a newbie, I'll focus on no more than three issues and spend no more than a half hour on the critique (excluding reading time) and end with "if you'd like more comments just let me know." It's not worth the aggravation and I'm not convinced that the newbie can understand more unless they're really astute, in which case they'll ask me for more info and I'll gladly then spend the three days or three months or whatever it takes to help them.

I want to add that there's nothing in the slightest bit wrong with a newbie that can't understand more (or is simply overwhelmed). We've all been there. It can be destructive if you try to fix a gizillion things at once regardless of your writing experience unless you decide to rewrite it from scratch.

Another few of pitfalls:

The writer trusts you more than themselves and makes a mess of the manuscript based on what they think will please you.

The writer decides the manuscript is worthless because you didn't love it and dumps it in the trash, never to work on it again.

You make them cry. BTW, sometimes someone just has to let it all out. Try not to feel bad, and try not to make them feel self-conscious. Assure them that this is a normal response and then take a few minutes break. Bring them water and kleenex, and then start again. This is one of those getting back on the horse things again so really encourage them to listen to the rest of the critique even if it's hard. It'll be worth it in the long run. Exception--the reason they're crying is because they're being subjected to a cruel and personal attack, at which point the critiquer needs to be uninvited to the critique session and asked not to return until they've found their inner professional human being.

Don't be either the critiquer or the writer in this bad situation--you critique and then you expect that the writer will change everything according to what you say. Worse, you become attached to the manuscript and want to see 'your work put to use' as soon as the writer is done rewriting it so that you can help with the final polish. After the critique, hands off! It's even worse if the writer enjoys this interplay. You create a reward/dependency that's destructive for both of you. This is different than feeling satisfaction that your comments were helpful and curiosity about what was employed and where. It's the difference between having your mom help spiff up your apartment vs. your mom 'helping' redecorate your apartment with stuff she got for you.

There's others but I can't think of them right now. Maybe I'll come up with more later.

KZ - I had the fortunate experience to share my work for the first time with someone as sensitive as yourself. Because I can only write part-time, it's taken me three years to get to the point where three agents requested the full. One has declined and I expect the other two to do the same, not because I'm pessimistic, but because I now know that it isn't the best I can do. At the time, it was. But, I have since read two more books on writing and have gained valuable info here at AW. Revision #27 is going to be the winner. It's been a long, difficult, and exciting journey that would have been cut short had the person with whom I first shared my work been less than encouraging.

So, a big thanks to you and all of the beta readers that do a great job encouraging newbies like me.

The only pitfall I know is for Australian writers. There's a tax decision that says any money received in royalties, even if the writer doesn't intent writing to be a money stream and even though he/she was writing as a hobby (a train buff writes an article about the Manx railway system and is paid?) it is still taxable!

of course the income is taxable...lottery winnings are taxed...As a writer I became a sole proprietor...I have to pay state AND federal taxes.
The original question though seems like it relates more to the issue if you read someone's work will you be accused of plagerism later on if you write a book that's similar...this is interesting as I am not sure you can plagiarize something that isn't published... I will say my agent does NOT like me to read unagented material...

If there's a lot of experience, I let 'em have it all (but still nicely.) If it's a newbie, I'll focus on no more than three issues .

Click to expand...

That's the way I work - I used to just fix everything I found until I realized I was basically rewriting manunscripts. After that, I chilled out a little.

-Feathers

I am one of those who will tell you exactly what I think about it. Now depending on the work I will offer some sugestions to help them if I was writing the story, but remind them that this is their story and to write it how they want it.

Like the saying goes opinions are like a$$holes, everyone has one and they all stink from time to time.

If the story is to bad or hard to read I will nicely return it to them saying I'm too swamped right now to do the work justice.

kzmiller said:

But over the years I've learned to avoid this pitfall by critiquing according to writing experience. If there's a lot of experience, I let 'em have it all (but still nicely.) If it's a newbie, I'll focus on no more than three issues and spend no more than a half hour on the critique (excluding reading time) and end with "if you'd like more comments just let me know."

Click to expand...

I got this far into your post and said out loud, "Wow! That's the smartest thing I've read in months!"

As soon as I read it, I thought, of course! A real newbie hasn't learned enough yet to appreciate much of what you're trying to say, because a lot of writing knowledge (real understanding of what works and what doesn't) comes only from doing it, struggling with it, and beating your brains out till you figure out what's wrong. And it takes a fair amount of writing before you're even ready to invest that much time and effort.

(And lest I be scaring anyone off, I should add that as time goes by, you do learn, and you struggle less with each succeeding manuscript, thanks to the struggles you went through with the last one.)