Why do we torture ourselves? [thread from 2010]

Probably because they bring out our worst fears, and echo the dark side of our inner selves that believe we're just fooling ourselves by doing this, that we're posers and frauds.

The good news is we will all eventually move past the point where the few negative comments bother us. Sure, these types of comments sting. But eventually we get to a place where we look at the differently. We grow hardened by mining such comments for value (because sometimes, there is a valid point there--something we haven't considered). Negative comments challenge us to PROVE our meaning and goals for the writing. We put ourselves in their shoes. But after careful consideration, if we don't agree with the critter, we let go of it.

It will happen.

JudScotKev said:

Why is that those few comments are the ones that echo in the brain? Why do they have the power to make us believe that they, the not-very-courteous minority, might be the ones who are right?

Click to expand...

Don't take this as a judgment--I don't know you and would not presume to judge you.

But one reason that constructive criticism (as opposed to malicious criticism) hurts is that the writer isn't being honest with him- or herself.

No writer is perfect. You don't spring fully-formed into the writing world, excelling at everything in every way. Even the most esteemed writers in the history of literature leave room for criticism. Nobody has perfected the art. We all just practice it to our own degree of competence.

If you ignore criticism and focus only on praise, you'll find encouragement, sure, but your work won't improve. There are definitely areas where you can improve. We all can. So it's vital to differentiate between useless and useful criticism.

Why do the negative comments echo in the brain? Probably because the writer isn't being honest with her- or himself. They know their work has weaknesses and can be improved, but they're not confronting those issues yet. So when someone attacks the work, all those repressed worries and doubts ignite and consume. The fear of the unknown is a powerful thing. If you don't know your own weak points, you'll believe anything any critic says, and take every arrow straight to the heart.

When you honestly examine your work and embrace your weaknesses with resolution to improve, criticism won't sting so much. You'll begin to pick out the useful parts without being overwhelmed by emotion.

And sometimes there are just jerks who criticize things out of hate, rather than a desire to improve them. Those, you can safely ignore as the spiteful little mosquitoes they are.

I think that applies to anything in life. The criticisms are always the things that we dwell on, that stick with us. Sometimes they are easier to believe than the compliments we may get. For the most part I think it is just human nature. We constantly strive to better ourselves.

Everybody gets criticized, no matter how talented they are. Some people hate a writer just because everyone else loves him/her. I think that's what may have happened with your piece. You got a ton of great responses, more than anyone else, and some people may have felt they needed to take you down a peg. I mean, "Adjusting to younger siblings could make a great story, but I don't think this works for MG" - really? Hmm. I beg to differ. There's no bigger conflict for children, I think.

You really have to detach yourself emotionally, but you know that. I know it's hard not to second guess oneself when this process of finding an agent is so hard on the ego. Good criticism will resonate with you. It will make you say, "I see your point, and I can fix it."

Leah Raeder said:

Don't take this as a judgment--I don't know you and would not presume to judge you.

But one reason that constructive criticism (as opposed to malicious criticism) hurts is that the writer isn't being honest with him- or herself.

No writer is perfect. You don't spring fully-formed into the writing world, excelling at everything in every way. Even the most esteemed writers in the history of literature leave room for criticism. Nobody has perfected the art. We all just practice it to our own degree of competence.

If you ignore criticism and focus only on praise, you'll find encouragement, sure, but your work won't improve. There are definitely areas where you can improve. We all can. So it's vital to differentiate between useless and useful criticism.

Why do the negative comments echo in the brain? Probably because the writer isn't being honest with her- or himself. They know their work has weaknesses and can be improved, but they're not confronting those issues yet. So when someone attacks the work, all those repressed worries and doubts ignite and consume. The fear of the unknown is a powerful thing. If you don't know your own weak points, you'll believe anything any critic says, and take every arrow straight to the heart.

When you honestly examine your work and embrace your weaknesses with resolution to improve, criticism won't sting so much. You'll begin to pick out the useful parts without being overwhelmed by emotion.

And sometimes there are just jerks who criticize things out of hate, rather than a desire to improve them. Those, you can safely ignore as the spiteful little mosquitoes they are.

Click to expand...

Errr, that's lovely, but I'm not at all buying it.

Sure, knowing your weaknesses is important. But even the most experienced writers feel the sting of criticism. It's human nature.

Yes, the more experienced you are, the tougher your skin becomes. But criticism still ain't easy.

Judy, the truth is all of them are right. The three negative comments and the twenty positive ones. Because reading is subjective. Not everyone is going to like any given story.

The important thing is that you remember that those three people don't change the fact that you're a good writer. You read, you study, you write. And lots and lots of people love your writing (me! me! me!).

I know that doesn't change much right now, though. I've been in a funk for awhile myself, so I understand. Keep your chin up, though. We'll get through it.

Because we have that little voice telling us the others might just be nice and the few who are negative truthful. But I wouldn't worry at all with a score of 17 out of 20 or more giving thumbs up. Someone told me recently that if only 50% likes your work, it's still a huge readership/market The glass truly is half full.

Because people will always look for the negative.

What we, as creative people. need to understand is that not everyone will like our work. And that's FINE.

Accept their views and move on. Don't dwell on opiniosn you can't change.

That said, if their post had actual crit in it, then look at the post, listen to what they say, and then pick the pieces of advice that make the most sense to you.

shaldna said:

Because people will always look for the negative.

What we, as creative people. need to understand is that not everyone will like our work. And that's FINE.

Accept their views and move on. Don't dwell on opiniosn you can't change.

That said, if their post had actual crit in it, then look at the post, listen to what they say, and then pick the pieces of advice that make the most sense to you.

Click to expand...

I agree and will add that creative people also tend to be a bit emotional and sensitive. We want everyone to like our stuff, and when someone doesn't, even one person, a part of us takes it personally. But not everyone is going to like what we're doing. And as Shaldna points out, that's fine. If the negative criticism is isolated, I wouldn't worry about it at all. That's simply one or two person's opinion, and there's nothing to worry about unless you're hearing this consistently from a larger group. And for what it's worth, I read the excerpt and loved it. That last line really cracked me up. Best of luck with it.

Ton Lew Lepsnaci said:

Because we have that little voice telling us the others might just be nice and the few who are negative truthful.

Click to expand...

I used to assume that all positive comments were made up (so as not to upset me, or to make the negative comments go down smoother) while all negative ones were true. That was not a fun time.

The hardest thing is be objective about your own work. It's been a constant struggle for me. Once, in a writing group at a conference, my pb was read aloud and everyone seemed to think it was wonderful. But I knew it wasn't all that great because it had already made the rounds of New York editors and no one had picked it up.

One of other members of the group turned to the leader (an experienced pb writer) and said, "Now that's a publishable manuscript, isn't it?" Well what was she going to say? She sort of agreed and then mentioned a few problems with the manuscript--and I really appreciated the feedback. As it turned out, the ms. was actually mediocre and it never did sell.

I've come to really value negative criticism--if it's given gently. And if it's specific. Sometimes people just want to criticize, and I don't appreciate that. But believe me, you want to correct all the flaws before your book is published and reviewers tear it apart in front of the whole world.

Speaking of mosquitoes, here's one of my favorite quotes:

"The feeling that the work is magnificent, and the feeling that it is abominable, are both mosquitoes to be repelled, ignored, or killed, but not indulged."
Annie Dillard

Ellen Jackson
www.ellenjackson.net

That's a great quote, BetsyJ!

It's always easier to believe the bad stuff because most people have insecurities. And bad stuff preys on those insecurities.

The trick is recognizing when a negative comment is something that's really an issue or just someone's taste. You can't please everyone, and even the best books have folks who think they're crap. It's easier to dismiss the bad stuff when it's just a reader who didn't like your stuff due to their own tastes.

In my case, I think it's because I believe that people have to think more about something to find fault in it, whereas it's easier to give approval without a second thought. So I take the criticism more to heart. When praise is linked to a specific element of the work in question, it's a lot easier to take it seriously!

Something interesting I learned during the editorial process was to weigh the value of one part against another. For example, if my editor gave me four bits that she insisted needed to be cut, I knew I could probably only manage to hang onto one of the four, even though I thought they were all important. It became like triage, picking the one that was most vital. That helps you see if it really is vital after all.

Look, we didn't part company on the best terms, and that was my fault, I made a fool of myself, and I am sorry, I still don't have thick skin, but I haven't given up either.

I never forgot the "nudges" you gave me to stay the course, and while the path to zen-level patience has been humbling and an even slower than agent and editor wait times on query letters, I'm still on it.

That said, in my humble take of your inquiry, on the points of what isn't working and why it stays with us more than the positive-

It's true that writers (including ME) have to face their weaknesses in the not-so-joyous feedback, and that's why we recoil. But when you consider how bar of excellence leaps higher and competition is fierce for attracting potential agents or editors in our work, the valid nitpicks feel like they're outshining whatever we did right. If they didn't, we might at least get more than ONE non-form rejection once in three years.

I don't have any advice, except that as hokey this might sound to more pragmatic writers, reminding myself that as important as writing query letters, synopses, and everything that requires you to think like an "ad agency" is, it's still NOT the only thing that defines you as a writer. I try to keep that in mind before I get too depressed, sometimes anger wins, but eventually I begin again.

my query letter may "suck" but that doesn't mean the actual book does.


"Writing about a book is just not the same as writing the actual book." That's my personal motto now.

I still take my query letters seriously, but it's OKAY to also tell myself, "Query Letters are important, but they alone don't define all I am as a writer." But when that's all agents or editors see first off, it's hard not to be anal about them, they do matter.

But they still don't define all you are, and just as important, when your query letters or parts of your actual story are critiqued as "less than engaging", if you can honestly say, "This was the best I could do/improve from whatever beta-reader feedback I got" you shouldn't feel shame.

Disappointment? Sure, that's unavoidable, but never shame, but you're tougher than I am in this respect, or you just don't show your scars as transparently as I do.

MsJudy said:

Let's pretend that one of us has shared a little bit of her work. At a conference, say, or on a blog such as Miss Snark's First Victim. And let's pretend that the responses to that piece of work were, for the most part, very positive. Maybe even quite encouraging. But let's suppose that a few of those comments, maybe 3 out of more than 20, were negative. Harsh and discouraging, even. As in, This won't work.

Why is that those few comments are the ones that echo in the brain? Why do they have the power to make us believe that they, the not-very-courteous minority, might be the ones who are right?

Click to expand...

I don't know about anyone else (and I didn't read the replies yet), but for me, it's because they echo of what could be in the mind of any given agent /editor who reads my manuscript. Like land mines set to blow at any moment.

At least, that's how I feel.