long resurrected thread evokes long reply (film at 11)
Reading this thread put me in mind of my own pet peeves about those who don't seem to have even the simplest understanding of manuscript critique etiquette. The funny thing is, pretty much all of them showed up in a single writer.
The writer I'm thinking about, we were both part of the same class/critique circle. The group met twice monthly, usually to critique a member's manuscript.
Here are the things that convinced me to just not attend the meeting when his manuscript was up:
Me: "[some specific critique or other]"
Him: "Oh, I've already fixed that."
Which is to say: He would perform a manuscript revision after sending the manuscript out for critique. Please don't do that. It is immensely frustrating to find out that I've wasted my time closely critiquing an outdated version.
Me: "That doesn't seem like an internally consistent thing for this character to do."
Him: "Oh, but you don't know the person I've based that character on!"
Which is to say: He would argue with critiques based on special knowledge he had that his readers couldn't possibly have. Don't do that. Your work has to stand on its own. It doesn't come with a teeny tiny version of you to stand on readers' shoulders and tour guide them through the story.
Which is also to say: He would argue with critiques, full stop. Don't do that, ever. You're not here to defend your thesis; you're here to accept feedback. Emphasis on accept. You don't have to accept that the critique is right; you have to accept that the critique represents a reader's current reaction to the current version of your manuscript. You can't argue a reader out of their opinion. Either change the story based on that feedback or don't, but you can't argue me out of my reaction to the words on the page. It is not pleasant for me when you try.
Me: "This female character strikes me as a bit two-dimensional for [specific reason]."
Him: "You know, you say something like this every time. OK, I know you have a problem with my female characters. I get it. You can stop saying it now."
Which is to say: He had no intention of doing anything about this recurring problem. And that's absolutely his right. His stories -- his decision. I get that. But if I keep critiquing his stories, I'm going to keep pointing out what I think are serious problems. Telling me he doesn't want to hear it anymore is a clear signal that this will be a waste of time for both of us.
Which is also to say: In his stories, female characters weren't people; they were the vector by which he rewarded his male protagonists or affirmed the rightness of the male protagonists' viewpoints/feelings/reactions. This was consistent from story to story, as was his dismissal of my pointing out that it was a problem. Being a woman myself, I began to wonder to what extent he maybe didn't see me as a person. *shudder*
It's the last point that killed the critique relationship for me.