- Joined
- Jun 2, 2010
- Messages
- 6,219
- Reaction score
- 379
- Location
- somewhere between hell and back
- Website
- www.augustkert.blogspot.com
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.
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.
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.
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.
Never assume. One man's meat is another man's poison. Put another way:CrastersBabies: Nobody wants sunshine blown up their bums.
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'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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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."
I don't have a thick skin. At all. But I do have a short grieving period.
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.)
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.