How do you develop a "thick skin"?

In the end if it's a bad review you still have their cash

Lycoplax said:

Practitioners of Muay Thai have very strong, very tough legs. How do they achieve this? By rigorous training, and kicking trees. You can bet that hurts the first time. And the second. And the third. But over time, the skin toughens up.

Click to expand...

Just to offer a slightly different complexion on this.

Guitarists (and other string players) get thick calluses on their fingertips from playing a lot. Going off and hacking at your fingers with cheesegraters is neither necessary, nor sensible - you just have to play a lot.

And you have to keep at it, because if you don't play for a while the skin will go soft again, and you'll end up with blisters and pain and ouch. And even if you play all the time, you might find yourself getting blisters in places you never expected (left hand side of my right ring finger and on the side of my palm at the base of my little finger, since you're asking).

To take something from this horribly extended metaphor, please replace "guitar" with "your writing" and "playing" with "letting other people read it".

Lexxie said:

I have been thinking a lot of this thread, and I think that in some ways, writers shouldn't have too thick skin, the emotions that come through in a book are a very important part of reading experience, at least for me. And I think that sometimes, those emotions can get lost a little bit if the writer has very thick skin.

At the same time, it is needed, because there will always be people who won't like what they're reading, whether they are beta-readers, critique partners or 'just' readers.

I think a certain balance is important to find.

Click to expand...

Sorry I completely disagree with you.

I don't understand how you think that being able to take critique makes a writer's words less emotive?

If anything, a writer who is able to receive and use critique effectively is more likely to produce emotive fiction than someone who runs crying from the room at the suggestion that their prose is imperfect.

stray said:

One well constructed harsh critique is usually worth more than ten 'so called' kind appraisals. We only learn by where we have stumbled, where we went wrong. The realization of our mistakes are what make us better. I thank the critics that have pointed out my weaknesses. They were in fact kinder than the ones that took the easy route and patted me on the back when the work was weak. Over time its the harsh critics that sit in the back of my mind while editing a book. A good fair harsh critic is essential.

Click to expand...

When you say "harsh critique" are you talking about someone giving you thoughtful, constructive suggestions, or, are you talking about someone saying, "Damn, you suck. Give up?"

There is a difference between the two.

Generally speaking . . .

Nobody wants sunshine blown up their bums. Who can improve if it's all kittens and rainbows? That's what frustrates me to all hell about these conversations . . . people assume that because a writer doesn't want to be told, "You suck, assface," they must want to be coddled. (insert 10000 eyerolls here, please.)

Good, honest, constructive critique can be tactful. Period. If you can't get your message across w/o resorting to being a douche-canoe, then try harder.

I think I give awesome critique. Very honest. Very insightful. Never have I done it in such a way that I resort to personal jabs and jerkish delivery. I've worked with inmates, some of who write like 4th-graders and think "Roses are red, violets are blue" type rhyme schemes are THE SHIT! And you learn how to get the point across without being a dick and without breaking their will to write.

Did I cover my responses in rainbows and sunshine? Nope. When you focus on the work and figuring out the best way to present your suggestions (in a way that will HELP the writer, not beat your critique into them), then you're winning.

On the other end, if you say "harsh critique" about every constructive thing someone says to you and you think that being in a workshop where people give their tactful opinions is "being ripped apart," then yeah . . . I'm inclined to think that you're taking things too personally.

Also, I think it's great if people love being whipped and tortured by shitty comments about their writing. Don't assume everyone else does.

VanessaNorth said:

Sorry I completely disagree with you.

I don't understand how you think that being able to take critique makes a writer's words less emotive?

If anything, a writer who is able to receive and use critique effectively is more likely to produce emotive fiction than someone who runs crying from the room at the suggestion that their prose is imperfect.

Click to expand...

I was thinking more about the 'thick skin' than actually being able to take critique. Thick skin can mean a lot of different things, and I don't mean that critique is bad at all, just that 'thick skin' can become a little too thick, maybe?

And I wasn't sure from the OP if he meant all kinds of comments on work or only critique from work groups etc. Which is why I tried to see it from a different point of view.

It seems to me that we actually agree; critique is good. Constructive critique is excellent, and sometimes harsh critique is necessary.

CrastersBabies: Nobody wants sunshine blown up their bums.

Click to expand...

Never assume. One man's meat is another man's poison. Put another way:
+ =

Seriously though, I had a beta reader who told me point blank he was only interested in my work. I could be a raving lunatic, didn't matter. And he didn't want to like me. He said (paraphrasing now): You don't want me to like you, because then my crit might be compromised. You want me to be honest, it's easier to do that if we keep emotion out of it.

He told me a little story about an agent who read his work then told him to cut a shitload. He was really upset. For three days he bitched and moaned in the privacy of his own home then he sat down and thought, Okay, if I do this, there's a good chance that agent's gonna pick it up. That's what I want, so I'll do it.

I think it's okay to give yourself time to process crits, especially the harshest ones, get it out of your system but eventually you have to step back and remind yourself of your goals. You always have a choice, it's up to you if you're gonna hang onto your sorry ass ms, weeping and lamenting, or if you're gonna fix the thing, give yourself the best shot at success that you can.

My sister used to handle disappointment by giving herself x amount of time to lament, like, Okay, I'm giving myself 15 minutes to cry. Then I'm gonna deal with this. (She's a shrimp but she's tougher than me. I'd need like a day week. )

RobertEvert said:

But I'm curious as to how some of you developed thick skins. How does somebody who is highly emotional, hyper-sensitive deal with being in the public eye? Or can you? Can you develop the thick skin you need to be successful in today's writer's market?

Any thoughts would be greatly appreciated.

Click to expand...

We are all individuals. Many in this thread explained what worked for them. Nothing has worked for me. A rejection today is just as painful an experience as it was when I received my first on at 15.

But I can't become published if I don't submit and rejections, as painful as they are, come with the territory. So I cry. Curl up into a fetal position and feel sorry for myself. Have a few beers. Then turn around and send the story off to someone else.

Lexxie said:

I was thinking more about the 'thick skin' than actually being able to take critique. Thick skin can mean a lot of different things, and I don't mean that critique is bad at all, just that 'thick skin' can become a little too thick, maybe?

And I wasn't sure from the OP if he meant all kinds of comments on work or only critique from work groups etc. Which is why I tried to see it from a different point of view.

It seems to me that we actually agree; critique is good. Constructive critique is excellent, and sometimes harsh critique is necessary.

Click to expand...

I think maybe we do agree then. I think "thick skin" means simply being able to take critique without taking insult, but I never really dig any deeper into that metaphor.

Right after receiving a brutal critique, I usually bitch and moan to my closest friends and eat a crapload of chocolate before standing under a hot shower and singing "Jar of Hearts" until my neighbor bangs on the wall.

Leave for a couple of days and then write a sweet, sincere "Thank you" note to the person who gave me the crit (assuming it's a good crit and not "This sucks so bad, you should die, stupid hippo. Die hippo die!").

Then sit down and list out in bullet points what the crit pointed out. Cross out the ones I don't agree with and work on the ones I do.

Generally, after editing according to other people's comments, I find that my MS is much better and I forget the sting of the critique and am grateful for their input. I think I've been pretty lucky so far. I honestly can't remember a cruel crit. Brutally honest, yes, but cruel, never.

(Of course, having said that, my betas are probably going to hand it to me once I send them my Nano book...)

Putputt said:

Then sit down and list out in bullet points what the crit pointed out. Cross out the ones I don't agree with and work on the ones I do.

Click to expand...

I like this suggestion. I will use this suggestion. This suggestion is my new best friend.

CrastersBabies said:

When you say "harsh critique" are you talking about someone giving you thoughtful, constructive suggestions, or, are you talking about someone saying, "Damn, you suck. Give up?"

... . . people assume that because a writer doesn't want to be told, "You suck, assface," they must want to be coddled. (insert 10000 eyerolls here, please.)

Good, honest, constructive critique can be tactful. Period. If you can't get your message across w/o resorting to being a douche-canoe, then try harder.

Did I cover my responses in rainbows and sunshine? Nope. ...


Also, I think it's great if people love being whipped and tortured by shitty comments about their writing. Don't assume everyone else does.

Click to expand...

crasters, you seem to have an axe to grind; other than you trying to peg it into the strawman/false dichotomy argument, I haven't really seen anyone here suggesting they wanted a verbal beating, or that "damn you suck" was ever constructive.

again, the intent on making this a "you're nice or you eat babies" argument sort of suggests, to me, you're working an agenda of your own.

When I first started experiencing rejections, it was really difficult to not be sensitive about it. What helped me the most was time and being in writing communities like this one. In searching these boards and talking with others, I'm realizing that my experience is fairly normal and it's not me...that this process is truly subjective and I just have to keep on going until I get that "Yes"!

I don't have any answers, but I've been wondering the same thing since I joined AW, and I've bookmarked this thread.

A friend and I have gone back and forth with a few short-stories, but we always err on the side of being supportive as opposed to giving in-depth critiques. That said, a brief description of the MC from my WIP prompted her to say flat out "I don't like that character" -- an idle comment that had me tearing my hair out for days.

I've decided that once the first-draft of my WIP is finished, I'm going to learn how to do critiques before I ask for any. I'm hoping it'll not only help me edit my own work, but help me recognize a good critique when I see one.

CrastersBabies said:

Something I'd like to nip in the bud, if I may. Whenever these threads come up, I always cringe when people start in with the, "Toughen up, or get lost," mentality, or, they assume that all writers are super fragile and must be handled with kid-gloves. Some? Sure! But, for the most part, no.

Sometimes, there are assholes who act like assholes when they critique. Let's not forget that.

Teaching writing is advocacy in a sense and I find that I have to help a student repair damage to the inner writer in 8 out of 10 cases. Not because they are quivering masses of emotion, ready to jump off a cliff, but because they've had people with no tact tell them to give up along the way. Glad that many of them did not because they ended up being pretty dang amazing writers.

Whenever I hear generalizations that because someone is asking how to thicken their skin, they must be mentally ill and unprepared to face the world outside, I think of people who either have no tact (and need to blame someone else for it), or, I think if someone who just doesn't understand that there's a lot more to it than that.

Click to expand...

I think you've described exactly why a thick skin is necessary. Many do use no tact when giving a critique, and I don't think there's anything wrong with this.

Some people who really do know what they're talking about, people you can trust to tell you exactly what's wrong with your writing may well have no time for tact, and no patience for those who demand it.

These comments will come, and they will often come from people you need to believe. If they make the writer a quivering mess, the writer is probably doomed.

I remember Isaac Asimov talking about his early days of writing. He took a trip to John Campbell's office to check on a manuscript. Campbell retrieved the manuscript, held it over a trash can and said, "You don't really want this back, do you?"

That's harsh, but it worked. And if a writer can't deal with someone telling them to give up, they have a problem that has nothing to do with the teller's lack of tact. Sometimes telling a writer to give up and find something else to do is the only honest answer. Tact only goes so far before it becomes lying.

Asimov also said, "Rejection slips, or form letters, however tactfully phrased, are lacerations of the soul, if not quite inventions of the devil -- but there is no way around them."

As most have said already, you mostly build it up.

I come from a television directing background where a producer "had" to give 7 pages of notes for an 11 minute animated show. I thought the shows were great until I got the notes back. Then I thought the show sucked.

It took some time but you realize that critiques are all part of the game. Nothing, I mean NOTHING you write, direct, produce, paint or scribble will make 100% of the people happy. I'm just ecstatic these days when SOMETHING works...

Believe me, there is nothing worse than crafting a joke that you think kills only to have it bomb with an audience...but you have to pick yourself up, learn from it, and do it again.

Toothpaste said:

I don't have a thick skin. At all. But I do have a short grieving period.

Click to expand...

This is a thing of beauty!

I think I'm in the "Fake it till you make it" school. I try never to show that I'm upset over a critique. I promise myself that I can rant and wallow and sulk when I'm alone. But, with the critiquer, It's really important to me to be professional and grateful for the time they spent. It's taught me to get over it faster. And I usually do have to "get over it". A cooling off period, before I can go back and re-read the comments and find the pieces of advice that are useful.

Even if I wildly disagree with most of a crit, I've always found at least one thing of value, once I review it with a calm outlook.

It helps to shift into a logical mind-set. They think it sucks? Ok. What would they have liked to see instead? Where was the point it went bad? Was it the character they hated or the plot? What story did they really like, that they hoped mine would have been more like?

When you become the investigator, it's harder to take it personally.

(Sorry if this is a jumble. I'm muddled in the head with flu.)

... ultimately, it doesn't matter if you're sensitive. A number of writers I know are. What does matter is that you carry on no matter how you're feeling after receiving a critique or rejection from an ed or agent: sad, depressed, happy, passive, whatever. That's all that matters. And for those who are sensitive, don't feel bad about that at all. Sensitivity is a fine thing. Many who are happen to be very nice people as I've found in everyday life. Not to say that those who aren't swayed emotionally when receiving critiques of one sort or another aren't too. A mix of personalities is a fine thing. Keeps things interesting and lively

I've been reading a book called Quiet: The Power of Introverts in a World That Won't Shut up. (In it, the author says there are studies suggesting that introverts actually have thinner skin than extroverts.)

Doing critiques and reading for other people really helped me feel better about putting my work out for scrutiny. One, because I learn so much every time I critique someone else's writing, which means I improve my own. Two, because I figure that most people truly want to help.

Another thing that might help is to put away your work long enough for it to lose its newborn smell. It might feel better to have others look at it once the new has worn off and you're deep inside another story.

You can also ask for gentle critiques on the SYW board. Read the critiques others have done to see what they have to say and how the OP responds. That also might help ease some anxiety.

I think crits are fine. As a designer and artist, I got used to them. As a writer, I'm still tender. A lot of personality, time and beliefs go into my writing and it's hard when tough crits come along. Writing is my mirror.

But...crits without clear 'how to improve' advice are a waste of time. A lot of people don't know what they are talking about. Crits are like advice, only take them from people you trust and you feel understand you.

skunkmelon said:

I've been reading a book called Quiet: The Power of Introverts in a World That Won't Shut up. (In it, the author says there are studies suggesting that introverts actually have thinner skin than extroverts.)

Click to expand...

Why is that surprising?

caw

Undercover said:

I think I developed "thick skin" as far as critiques go from getting them over the years. I think the more I've gotten, the better I could wager which ones to listen to and which ones to blow off.

Anne Rice said it best, you listen and revise to the editors and agents that are interested, not the ones that are declining you. You can take that same advice with critters in general. You can almost tell the ones that were interested in reading it and the ones that didn't connect.

Click to expand...

Can't really add much to this.

You get a thick skin the same way as erosion works on a beach. Constant exposure to criticism over a long time.

Well, when I crit things I don't do it to shatter other people's works: when I do it is because I liked but think needs improvement, so I just assume other people are like that i.e.: they aren't critting out of ill-intent.

Although some critters are harsh and go past to critique the autor and not the writing, like using personal insults and such, so the better thing to do is ignore 'em.