Growth- the reality

I'm definitely much easier on novices than some. And I'm a novice by other's definitions. I look at some contributions here, and generally, I feel sad if I see someone who is overly critical.

Yes, I believe that nature and nurture are both a part of successful writing. But it isn't all one over the other. Every year I've been at this, I feel I've gotten better to the point where I could go back and revise everything.

However, the point is getting something that is publishable published. And one you get that far, there are diminishing returns to perpetually fixing.

I decided after many years, in my old age, to read "Chronicles of Narnia". And I'm going to make an observation about Tolkien and C.S.Lewis. If you read the first book C.S.Lewis wrote, it was awkward, and rough, and honestly, I was mentally making corrections in it, though it was somewhat clever. However, as you go on in the series, his writing takes a dramatic turn for the better, so that by the time you get to "A horse and his boy", you'd have thought it was written by a different author.

Likewise, if you look at Tolkien's early works, which you can find in "Lost Tales", you realize why they were lost. He was pandantic, and overwrote to a fault. Now, if you look at it different than a novel, it is fascinating. Likewise, the Silmarillion would not be considered a "Balanced" work by todays publishing. Some places are simply page upon page of historical (myth history) narrative. Today you couldn't even get away with that. He'd have had the Silmarillion shoved back in his face. However, for those who loved LOTR, the Silmarillion is priceless, because it is the Pre-history, and a work of genius.

So, word to the wise. Don't be so hard on yourself, or anyone else for that matter. Sometimes a rough and ragged writer will simply grow into their trade. And some will write books talked about for generations. Of course, I hope to join that list someday, and hope you do to.

sunandshadow said:

But what is 'overly critical'? My personal theory is that writers can only learn what they are ready to learn; I have no idea what they're ready to learn, so if I point out all the things I know how to critique about their piece, maybe they will be ready to learn one or two of them. As a writer myself, I find that the more critique comments I have to work with, the more likely I am to get some useful insight out of them.

Also, it's totally different critiquing a piece intended for publication than a piece written for some other reason. Any writer's first novel is going to need ripped to shreds and sewn back together again before it's publication-quality, so you're doing the writer a disservice if you don't critique it at thoroughly as you can.

This is why it's a writer's responsibility to decide what to submit for critique and give good instructions to their critiquers - if you are only working on characterization this week, tell them so they don't wast their time finding grammatical errors. If you have a fragile ego, are you sure you want to submit your piece for critique at all? There are writers' groups where people encourage each other to write without critiquing anything, maybe you should look for one of those instead. If you have a big ego and think your piece is perfect and are going to argue with anyone who tries to critique it, again, what are you doing submitting it for critique?

Click to expand...

Great question. You are right, if I wanted someone to critique my work, which is happening, I want honesty, brutal if necessary, because that helps me acheive my goal. And it depends on your relationship to people.

I guess its a matter of knowing your audience and where they are at. If you have someone who thinks they are ready to publish, but they are not, then telling them what you see, is really doing them a favor. If the tone of their posts is, "I'm new at this and I need your help..." Then, generally, I think it's best to take the novice approach, which is always to "See the good before the bad."

We're talking about apples and oranges if we are talking about someone who thinks they are ready to publish, rather than someone who is trying to hone the skills to publish. Even if they have an idea for the book they want to publish, and it is writen out, I'd say well over half the people here are just trying to work on writing skills to get them to the point where that will be a reality.

This approach is kind of like what I would take with a son who is showing me an art project, which happens all the time. In a sense, that requires looking for what you might appreciate, like use of colors, or content. So, you preface a negative with a positive. And sometimes you just don't even add the negative. "I like your use of colors...keep working at it."

My oldest son published an artistic magazine this past year which was wonderful. But many times over the years, I was honestly thinking, "Well, if this is the best you can do, think hobby, not professional career."

Cultivating talent takes being more positive than negative. Critics tend to be overly negative, (I'm saving you from making a fool of yourself by pointing out what a fool you really are) and needlessly being negative in some cases.

The exception- A professional working with professionals- then you are working and speaking from a different set of standards.

Here's how I see it. If someone is really a novice, they are trying to build confidence and figure things out. They may have one positive, and that may be a creative idea. But they haven't articulated it as well as they could. Well, if someone only mentions, "Sentence one, four, and seven are awkward," but say nothing about, "I really like your idea...and if you work on perfecting your prose, I think it will come through even better..." they will walk away with their tails between their legs. And if I took that approach with my sons, they'd both doubt their abilities. But I've worked with other people, and had even better results with than with my sons.

In a sense, these boards have become a teaching and coaching setting for the "masters" For those who would become masters, there is a way to squash a latent ability, or nurture it. It's all in the approach.

The people who really feel their works are good, who are really serious about publishing, either have what it takes, or they are delusional, and will wake up to that fact. But in general, it's better to err on the side of encouragement than discouragement, because publishing a novel will be a very difficult process as it is.

Much of writing is subjective. Some people will read a verse and hate it, and others may love it equally.

Jamesaritchie said:

I guess you'd have to define "overly critical." You either tell someone what's wrong or you don't. If you don't, you aren't helping them at all.
And whatever you can say about Tolkein's early work, or Lewis' early work, both of them wrote one heck of a lot better at this stage than most new writers do. The quality of the early work by these two writers was at least three quarters of the way up the mountain, but many new writers are starting out at the bottom of the valley below.

As for mentally correctly and revising Lewis, shoot, I do that with Shakespeare, and with most writers I read. Doesn't mean I'm right and they're wrong, it just means our styles are dissimilar. I rewrite it as I would have done, which likely means worse than it was done, even though it seems better to me.

Click to expand...

As far as Tolkien's early works. There are so many variations of his early works. These are contained in a number of the Christopher Tolkien compilations. So, there were multiple versions of every part of the Silmarillion. Lost Tales has some of these versions, and they are not smooth reading. Interacting with a number of Tolkien fans, there are a lot who give up on Lost Tales and can't read it through. But us die harders tend to read even the hardcore Tolkien stuff we don't want like we were reading the Book of Chronicles, including "so and so begat so and so, who begat so and so", just so we could comment on it.

Tiaga said:

pandantic
or
pedantic? Just curious.

Click to expand...

I had a dream about this. No kidding, I was away from a computer when I realized I had done that.

scribbler1382 said:

I think that's kind of the thing he's (she's?) talking about.

For the most part, writers can seem like a bunch of smartasses. And, despite most thinking their work is a pile of do-do, they're typically a fairly egotistical bunch. Hell, you have to be to think that anyone anywhere would give one wit about anything you had to say. Most are aware of what they're like and figure any other writer they communicate with will be similar in sensibilities, even if different in skill level, genre, talent, etc.

Writing is a solitary pursuit, and its really amazing to me when writers can be civil at all, never mind supportive. And yet, most are. You'll never find a group of professionals more willing to pay forward. It's when the payment is refused that they pull out the idioms, put on their fedoras and use the secret handshake.

Click to expand...

Pure genius. You've said it better than I ever could. And I think if you go through many posts, you'll see advice that is subjective. The objective stuff is generally benign- spacing, spelling, grammar. I think in my mind, I've pictured the ones who make nine comments without saying one positive thing.

I saw this in the song writing thread, where people were talking about song lyrics. If people look at some of the best songs written, they were poorly written sentences. But the singer had a way of saying it so that you could read between the lines.

A.REX said:

Well said Nateskate. I've noticed similar observations myself in many pre1970's books. I've often wondered if all you had to do to get published in 1925 was simply to turn in a finished manuscript... I think more is expected from today's author. The high jump pole keeps getting set a little higher each time. One latest marker was nobody accepting unsolicited manuscripts.

I've also seen some real artists in writing classes with extremely fragile egos to the point where anything critical said and they thought they weren't good enough to be writers... yet, these introverted, bizarre individuals could sometimes produce works of genius that left other class writer's samples lacking. Vs. the people who no matter how many different ways you tell them they suck tell you they're the next Anne Rice and John Grisham

Click to expand...

Very insightful. There are wilted-flowers looking for a little water. And there are rock-headed egotists demanding praise. The ones who need the water are easy to crush, but the ones who need a good dose of reality can't hear it anyway.

Nique Zoolio said:

'The best critic is your best friend'.

Its important to keep the focus of the criticism on the work. The trouble is that when people write personal experiences, the writer as a person and their work fuse, and it can be hard to seperate.
Some say that they put so much into their work, that when it is attacked, the writer is too.
However, if one does not want to improve as a writer than they are betraying themselves and can be their own worst enemy.

Click to expand...

Well, I've often called myself a Solomon fan.

"Faithful are the wounds of a friend..."

"If you rebuke a fool, he will hate you..."

"If you rebuke a wise man, he will love you..."

Some people will value the corrections given by others, and these will learn from them. Some will never learn.

A friend will risk hurting us, but only for "our" sakes, and never needlessly. So, having the honesty of faithful friends is something we can't do without. And frankly, I have put myself in the place for my friends to wound me, (especially concerning writing) because my friends will only do that for my good. -It's the difference between falling from a curb rather than a cliff.

Still, the more you grow, the more you are doing things out of conviction (It's right to do) rather than for the praise of others, because the praise of others is fickle.

Old Hack said:

I don't see any point at all in being soft when critiqueing. Either something works or it doesn't, and if you are not clear in your comments then you are not offering all the help you could. Ultimately you give false hope by being "kind", and as the Real World of Writing is harsh then a writer who can't take criticism when meant well is going to shrivel and die when faced with an acerbic editor.

Seems to me that writers need to understand that criticism is of the work, not of the writer. Criticism is not a personal attack, it's a way to make the work better. I know it's hard (I remember hiding in the cupboard under the stairs once, after a particularly difficult rejection) but it's the only way to go.

Click to expand...

Sure, the higher a person shoots, the farther they may fall. And if someone is out of their league, they will find out. I'm contextually talking about novices, and these boards. If someone sends a work to an agent or publishing company, they will get feedback. That feedback may be acerbic, although the general rejection responce seems to be a bit more civil.

Still, I don't see a need to be acerbic, though that will certainly happen in this business. But that has to be put into perspective. There are some publishers who would have told Stephen King that he sucks, and shouldn't even write a greeting card let alone a novel. That is because some critics generally have such a standard that popular writers wouldn't ever come up to snuff. The onus is on the student to learn. If someone is a bad student, "Can't figure things out," that doesn't excuse me being a bad teacher, "needlessly ripping them apart." Life will teach them.

If I think they stink and they "Accidentally" got published, then I was wrong anyway.

Mistook said:

I just don't know how a person thinks they'll survive the rejection letters if they claim to be too fragile to hear some honest criticizm by peers. Imagine sending a cover letter with a manuscript that said, "Please go easy on me. A gentle evaluation would be appreciated as this is only my first novel and..."


I wouldn't say I'm "easy" on novices. I give more exhaustive crits novices, because I think some writers don't really "get" things that are discussed in theory until their own work can be used for examples.

If a writer seems to have only a tenuous grasp of POV, I'll highlight questionable passages and say, "Jane wouldn't know if John was afraid to speak until now. You have to show us that, through some action of john. Don't worry that the readers won't get it. Most of them will, and it's not that important right now anyway."

Four pages of that kind of crit, might look like a veritable brow-beating, but I can't think of a writer who hasn't thanked me.

I remember when I was new to SYW, Preyer (whatever happened to him) really used to ream my work. I used pronouns too often. I used the word "She" all over the place, and he just harped and harped about it. He pointed out cliche's and purple passages. He was never afraid to give it to me straight, and I could kiss him for it.

Not that I'm anywhere near perfect, even now, but I know I'm much better than I was at that time, thanks mostly to critiques. And there have been many I balked at or argued about, but still... in the end I see they were right.

Ultimately, you face the harshest critic (no not yourself) the publisher!

Click to expand...

I know you have a good heart and a good head. I've seen enough of your posts to realize that. So, I think if you are offering your services, someone should be honored to recieve them. In fact, I'm impressed with the way your mind works, and think you'd be a good editor.