What would be more helpful is if someone (or a few someones) could point out specific areas that could use some improvement.
The problem of attachment
- Thread starter kaylim
- Start date
What would be more helpful is if someone (or a few someones) could point out specific areas that could use some improvement.
kaylim has had multiple PMs about how to respond to crit.
Not liking the responses is not a reason to start a new thread to complain about the crits kaylim received.
Not liking the responses is not a reason to start a new thread to complain about the crits kaylim received.
And for anyone who's just reading along without comment, the only appropriate response to critique, whether it fills you with joy and quiet confidence or leaves you bleeding and gasping, is, "Thank you." Or maybe, "I'm not sure I understand what you mean by X. Could you elaborate?"
"Here's where you're wrong" is never appropriate.
Maryn, sure on this
"Here's where you're wrong" is never appropriate.
Maryn, sure on this
For me, the idea resonating most is 'love the story, not the writing' and 'both of them can almost always be improved'. Critiques help me drill down to find the weak spots.
I finished the first draft of my first novel in spring of 1988. It's not a horrible book, but for many reasons it will never be published. My debut novel in 2012 was (I think) the 6th book I'd written, and even it needed large revisions with better editors when I republished it this summer. I'm a capable writer, but I need honest and sometimes brutal beta readers, structural editors, and copy editors.
I do love my writing...as much as I love my art...and because I want both to be as strong as possible out in the world, I'm not afraid to rip into and rebuild them. The more I adore a concept early on, the harder I have to work to surmount my ego. The more I hate a project at midpoint, the harder I work to make it shine.
Constructive critiques help me achieve that faster than cheerleading or vicious negative attacks. I'm egotistical enough that I do treasure my cheerleading fans (all, what, 5 of them?) I analyze negative crits and reviews for elements that are actually useful to me. If there aren't any, I disregard them as noise.
I finished the first draft of my first novel in spring of 1988. It's not a horrible book, but for many reasons it will never be published. My debut novel in 2012 was (I think) the 6th book I'd written, and even it needed large revisions with better editors when I republished it this summer. I'm a capable writer, but I need honest and sometimes brutal beta readers, structural editors, and copy editors.
I do love my writing...as much as I love my art...and because I want both to be as strong as possible out in the world, I'm not afraid to rip into and rebuild them. The more I adore a concept early on, the harder I have to work to surmount my ego. The more I hate a project at midpoint, the harder I work to make it shine.
Constructive critiques help me achieve that faster than cheerleading or vicious negative attacks. I'm egotistical enough that I do treasure my cheerleading fans (all, what, 5 of them?) I analyze negative crits and reviews for elements that are actually useful to me. If there aren't any, I disregard them as noise.
Some people will never be prepared for criticism. It will come to them as a personal attack and they will unhear it the moment it hits their ears. Having said that, all writing is subject to it. We just have to learn how not to be precious and know when advice is helpful and on point. Take away the precious, grow.
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2007
- Messages
- 1,461
- Reaction score
- 443
Yes, this. Even when crit is completely off the mark, someone is still volunteering their valuable time in order to comment, and that itself is worthy of thanks.
Exactly, Otter. There's this one woman in my longtime critique group who often just doesn't get it. A twist at the end, the time travel paradox, anything non linear like a length flashback, and she's just flummoxed. Nevertheless, she did take her time to read the work and offer feedback on it as she interpreted it, so even when she's completely off kilter, the writers thank her. And I for one look to see if there are places or ways to add clarity.
Maryn, kind of hazy
Maryn, kind of hazy
I’m very new at writing but it amazes me how different the writer’s perception is to everyone else’s. Dozens of people can get the same idea from 200 words that the writer did not want to convey, and that the author did not see.
It’s so hard to be objective about your own work because your brain has shaped it to your norms and methods of expression.
Negative grit is awesome. It bares the inadequacy of my writing like nothing else.
It’s so hard to be objective about your own work because your brain has shaped it to your norms and methods of expression.
Negative grit is awesome. It bares the inadequacy of my writing like nothing else.
Just wanted to mention, a way to find flaws/areas for improvement in your work without putting it out for criticism is to read and apply solid books on craft. Some authors I've learned a lot from are Donald Maass, Larry Brooks, and James Scott Bell.
IMO: I think there can be issues both giving critique and receiving it. But one must learn to simply politely say, thank you, if you get a crit you don't believe is valid.
I'm absolutely in love with my story. I can relate to that much in the OP. But I knew from the start I didn't know how to write. It's important to sort that out.
I want to do the best job I can writing said story. I had the fortunate luck to find an excellent critique group, mostly because the group leader knows his stuff. I've watched him critique inexperienced writers (I was one when I joined the group) and experienced writers (I believe I am one now, six years and a lot of hard work later). He doesn't approach them the same, he addresses writers where they're at and explains what the issues are in a way that makes perfect (most of the time) sense.
There is little to nothing to be gained trying to convince a critic why their critique is wrong. It's so much more productive to instead try to pull useful threads out of the critique you don't agree with and see where that might take you.
I doubt many of even the best writers here think they don't have room for improvement. Anything new you can learn is something that might make you a better writer than yesterday.
Boy do I know the feeling of attachment. I've recently written the following on a small piece of paper: "Do not trust your instincts immediately after writing!"
Especially if my instincts say that what I wrote is the best work I've ever done. Sadly I have the tendency to conflate what felt good in the moment of writing with what is good after some time has passed and I can look at it more objectively.
When I recently received criticism on something I wrote, I actually had to take a walk and force myself to sleep afterwards. It had been close to a year since I last got serious feedback, and that sting felt like a brick to the face. It was good criticism, too. Made me feel alive in a lot of ways. But damn if it didn't upset me majorly. I'm getting used to it again now, but since I know myself, I also know that before I can consider feedback seriously I need some distance, at least a day or thereabout after the first read.
Especially if my instincts say that what I wrote is the best work I've ever done. Sadly I have the tendency to conflate what felt good in the moment of writing with what is good after some time has passed and I can look at it more objectively.
When I recently received criticism on something I wrote, I actually had to take a walk and force myself to sleep afterwards. It had been close to a year since I last got serious feedback, and that sting felt like a brick to the face. It was good criticism, too. Made me feel alive in a lot of ways. But damn if it didn't upset me majorly. I'm getting used to it again now, but since I know myself, I also know that before I can consider feedback seriously I need some distance, at least a day or thereabout after the first read.
With regards to writers' ability to take criticism (or lack thereof), I don't think attachment to their story is the only factor or even the most important factor for many as to why criticism is hard to take. Someone's own beliefs about themselves, their ability and how skills develops makes a big difference, and leads to writers putting themselves under a lot of pressure (usually subconsciously) and that makes it very hard to cope with criticism.
For example, if someone believes that writing ability is mostly down to inborn talent that you've either got or you haven't got, and that writers who have that inborn talent produce first drafts that are scintillating and everyone immediately recognises their talent from them, when their writing is criticised, it's going to be interpreted (probably at a subconscious level) as "you're not good enough" and "you don't have what it takes" and "you have no talent". This then leads to massive loss of confidence and/or rejecting the critiques completely wrong, rather than taking the criticism on board and using it to improve your writing.
Similarly, the believe that anything less than perfection is not good enough is not conducive to taking criticism well. And there are probably various other thoughts/beliefs that cause writers to put themselves under way too much pressure and therefore react badly to critique.
Just as learning to drive a car becomes automatic after a while (i.e. you can drive without thinking about driving), learned patterns of thinking and beliefs like this end up being processed automatically (generally they're learned in childhood and are processed entirely automatically in adulthood) and you're not conscious of them. So just because the negative thinking patterns aren't present in your conscious thoughts, it doesn't mean they're not there and affecting how you feel and react when your writing gets critiqued.
The fact of the matter is that no-one but no-one gives a flying fuck how good someone's first draft is or how much time or how many revisions it took to get from that shaky first draft to the finished product. And no-one gives a damn if you thought you'd got a finished, polished, story then you submitted it for critique and people found stuff wrong with it that took you ages to fix. They don't care if you submitted it for critique twenty times and people still found stuff you could improve on. What matters is the finished product, and a finished product that's been through the critique process is going to be miles better and have a lot more chance of being saleable than one that never went through the critique process.
If any of the above rings true, you can reprogram your subconscious beliefs, though it takes time, by repeating the new beliefs on a regular basis (many times a day) - having them written where you can read them several times a day also helps - and practicing being critiqued. It might hurt a lot the first time you do it but it gets better after a while and in the end you should get to where critique is (on the whole) a very positive, motivating experience that leaves you eager to put useful feedback into your story to make it even better.
For example, if someone believes that writing ability is mostly down to inborn talent that you've either got or you haven't got, and that writers who have that inborn talent produce first drafts that are scintillating and everyone immediately recognises their talent from them, when their writing is criticised, it's going to be interpreted (probably at a subconscious level) as "you're not good enough" and "you don't have what it takes" and "you have no talent". This then leads to massive loss of confidence and/or rejecting the critiques completely wrong, rather than taking the criticism on board and using it to improve your writing.
Similarly, the believe that anything less than perfection is not good enough is not conducive to taking criticism well. And there are probably various other thoughts/beliefs that cause writers to put themselves under way too much pressure and therefore react badly to critique.
Just as learning to drive a car becomes automatic after a while (i.e. you can drive without thinking about driving), learned patterns of thinking and beliefs like this end up being processed automatically (generally they're learned in childhood and are processed entirely automatically in adulthood) and you're not conscious of them. So just because the negative thinking patterns aren't present in your conscious thoughts, it doesn't mean they're not there and affecting how you feel and react when your writing gets critiqued.
The fact of the matter is that no-one but no-one gives a flying fuck how good someone's first draft is or how much time or how many revisions it took to get from that shaky first draft to the finished product. And no-one gives a damn if you thought you'd got a finished, polished, story then you submitted it for critique and people found stuff wrong with it that took you ages to fix. They don't care if you submitted it for critique twenty times and people still found stuff you could improve on. What matters is the finished product, and a finished product that's been through the critique process is going to be miles better and have a lot more chance of being saleable than one that never went through the critique process.
If any of the above rings true, you can reprogram your subconscious beliefs, though it takes time, by repeating the new beliefs on a regular basis (many times a day) - having them written where you can read them several times a day also helps - and practicing being critiqued. It might hurt a lot the first time you do it but it gets better after a while and in the end you should get to where critique is (on the whole) a very positive, motivating experience that leaves you eager to put useful feedback into your story to make it even better.
Last edited:
I remember being annoyed with comments from editors who don't know anything about the subject matter; they can quite innane. But, consider that readers form a spectrum in how well they understand the material, what they know to begin with, and how well they follow the ideas presented. Something simple like a pronoun “it” can be hard to follow if you aren't quite getting it yet, while naming the thing explicitly might have the opposite effect of making this sentence be the fact that helps it to crystallize in the reader’s mind.
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2009
- Messages
- 4,776
- Reaction score
- 417
If somebody gives you a thorough critique, that shows that they think there's some potential. If people read your story and go 'That's great- I love it!', chances are that they're being polite and might not have loved it as much as their enthusiasm says. After all, we tend to be nice to people.
If the story is very personal to you and you really don't want anyone to see it (kind of like a diary), you don't have to publish it. If you want to publish it, you have to accept criticism. Not necessarily agree with all the criticism but register it, and note where there are recurrent criticisms across a variety of critics.
If the story is very personal to you and you really don't want anyone to see it (kind of like a diary), you don't have to publish it. If you want to publish it, you have to accept criticism. Not necessarily agree with all the criticism but register it, and note where there are recurrent criticisms across a variety of critics.