Are authors way too critical of other authors?

Nateskate · Feb 25, 2010

I'm a guitarist. As a guitarist, I hated the band "K.I.S.S", though I love the show about Gene Simons family. The world made them billionaires, but from a technical standpoint it all sounded badadada boring to me. So I could never see them the way a fan would. And yet, I might love an obscure guitarist that played nothing popular.

Somehow, I think this principle applies to writing. I think that really creative writers will be much harder on other writers, and therefore they are not great at being Beta Readers. They will nitpick and hack and hew without mercy, because they see through the lens of a very critical eye.

I'm wondering if any of you agree? I'm not saying authors can't offer great ideas, because they can. But I think they would take the equivalent of a beloved "guitar-lick" and because they can do it better, look at it with disdain. In a sense, Tolkien picked apart some of his friend, C.S. Lewis's writings which were beloved by his fans.

Do you think this is true? Do you ever find yourself ripping apart beloved novels? Has another writer given you advice that you thought was overly harsh or even grandiose or self-indulgent as Simon says on American Idol?

Maxinquaye · Feb 25, 2010

I don't think so. Then, I don't think it's respectful to say that someone can't write, if they really can't write. *shrug*

If I picked up a guitar and expected to be entitled to Jean Simmon's success because of that, without ever having played a guitar before but because society should respect musicians, I would hope someone said as bluntly as possible that "since you can't play a pure note on that thing, you should do something else before you make a fool of yourself."

It's the same with writing. It's the same with novels.

There will be different genres that are more or less interesting, but across all genres and writing styles, there is craft and talent, and it is obvious who has it and who does not. But for some reason, since most people in - at least - the west can read and write there is this notion that most everyone can write creatively.

I don't think it's disrespectful to take craft and talent seriously and laud those who possess it, and take the ones that don't aside and tell them to do something else.

sunandshadow · Feb 25, 2010

I've encountered so many intelligent readers who like totally opposite writing techniques and styles than I do, and the same for visual arts, that I don't think there's any such thing as "good technique". But I think writers make better beta readers than non-writers because a fellow writer can imagine how they would do it differently, while a non-writer can only tell you if they don't like something, they can't usually imagine what they would like better.

seun · Feb 25, 2010

I read as a reader. I can take my writer hat off enough to appreciate a well-written, interesting book. Saying that, I have no problem with calling a book crap if it is.

Sevvy · Feb 25, 2010

I think it depends on the writer. Some writers can be nice to each other, and other writers need to bash to elevate their own writing self-esteem.

As to the critique thing, I think the reason that writer's can seem harsher critics is because they see more things that other people might. For instance, I can't critique visual art very well, because I know very little about it. I wouldn't focus on things like brush strokes, how the lighting is being portrayed, color schemes, subject, negative space, etc. I'd just go "I do/don't like it."

However, if I'm looking at someone else's writing, well, I can spot all sorts of things that a non-writer might not see at all. So, I don't think we mean to be harsh or nitpick, but we know what it takes to make a great piece of writing, and this person asked us to help them create a great piece of writing.

ajkjd01 · Feb 25, 2010

Have I had critiques from published authors that I thought they were hacking for the fun of hacking my work? Yup.

Have I had graceful and thoughtful critiques, even if they were painful, from published authors and unpublished authors who really added to my work by their suggestions? Yup.

I think that critiquing is a skill, just like writing is a skill and storytelling is a skill. Someone might be a great storyteller, but suck at grammar. A grammar Nazi might have to really work at the pieces of their story. And just because you can do both of those things does not necessarily mean that you are good at showing others where they've gone wrong.

Of course, if you can't write at all, it's hard to tell people where they've gone wrong in writing...

I think that I've found it easier to pick out things in popular novels that don't work for me as a reader now that I've critiqued for friends and written and edited my own fiction. I might be a more demanding reader now, of anything I write, because I do so much of that (I belong to two critique groups, and go to multiple conferences every year).

That's why I think it's good to have at least one critique partner or beta reader who is a writer, published or not, and at least one that is just a reader. You'll get different perspectives that way.

Mr Flibble · Feb 25, 2010

I think that really creative writers will be much harder on other writers, and therefore they are not great at being Beta Readers. They will nitpick and hack and hew without mercy, because they see through the lens of a very critical eye.

They tend to be, but the questions they raise need asking - even if they answer is, actually I don't need/ want to change that bit. Just because a beta hacks hell out of a certain something doesn't mean I have to delete it. It may mean that I have to alter it, or I may think 'No, that works just as I wanted it to - as evidenced by their reaction

' or I might think 'Yes, but that's just overthinking it' and do nothing.

But they make way better critters because of this very thing. I have a non writer friend who I show everything to first. He never offers very much insight apart from a bit of 'dragged a bit here' or whathaveyou. But if he does notice a problem he often doesn't know why it's a problem. Mainly I use him to convince myself it doesn't suck huge big donkey balls before I give it to someone else for a more incisive critique.

Writers - or rather good critters, regardless of whether they write or not, and some writers are better than others at critting - - will rip it apart, and then help you see how to put it back together again afterwards.

gothicangel · Feb 25, 2010

I can't help it. I'm a Scottish Literature academic in-training and a writer of fiction.

Claudia Gray · Feb 25, 2010

Overall, I would say no, though I think writers sometimes fall into the trap of looking at books as writers, not as readers -- and those are sometimes two very different things. This board fills up, time and time again, with threads picking apart a bestseller for overusing adjectives or similar faults, as if readers gave a damn about that stuff.

Don Allen · Feb 25, 2010

I think the main difference in your scenario might be the physical talent it takes to play an instrument as opposed to the determination and dedication it takes to produce a book.
...And before somebody goes off about the time it takes to be a great musician, stop yourself, Stop... What I'm saying is that assuming a musician can play and a writer can write, it becomes easier to fault a musician for playing poorly than a writer for producing a bad book, because anyone who has attempted to create a novel or non-fiction piece has to put an enormous amount of time into that ONE piece of work where as a musician (other than a complicated classical piece) generally can produce a piece of good work in far less the time. Hence, I may not like the subject material of an author, and I certainly don't like authors that write standard formatted material based on their previous success, but I do respect any author who has managed to get a work published.

Don Allen · Feb 25, 2010

LuckyH · Feb 25, 2010

I think that a writer and a critic are two entirely different animals, with totally different roles in life. I’m a writer and shy away from any situation where I am asked to judge a fellow writer, because I’m not qualified to fulfil that role.

I feel qualified to pass an occasional comment on a writing forum, but always make it clear that I’m posting as part of an interesting discussion, not with any ability as a literary critic.

Who am I to judge fellow writers? I can be pig-headed and ignorant, enthralled by my own perceived wisdom, and just because I wrote a few well-received essays in my younger days and have had some books published, don’t feel that my experience qualifies me to pass judgment on a young writer who writes of vampires falling in love with humans, or horrific aliens eating babies for breakfast.

Having said that, I like nothing better than a literary discussion.

Z0Marley · Feb 25, 2010

Yes. Sometimes I hate it, especially if you see trends or any situation you can predict. Back in the day I would've been shocked at a certain event, but now it seems lame, dried up, and over-used.

It has its good points though. I really, really enjoy a well-written novel.

Namatu · Feb 25, 2010

ClaudiaGray said:
Overall, I would say no, though I think writers sometimes fall into the trap of looking at books as writers, not as readers -- and those are sometimes two very different things.

When beta'ing, this can be helpful because you can - in theory - give the author constructive feedback on why such-and-such isn't working.

This board fills up, time and time again, with threads picking apart a bestseller for overusing adjectives or similar faults, as if readers gave a damn about that stuff.

I do agree with this. There are times, as a reader, that I'm distracted by something in the text that turns on my internal writer or editor. Once on, it doesn't go back off. While this has made me more picky of what I choose as a reader, when I do just sit and read, I don't care so much about the adverbs so long as the story pulls me along. That's not to say I don't pay attention to adverbs in my own writing - which is to say that writers are more attuned to these sorts of things when taking a critical look at something, and this feed back into point number one.

As writers, we are studying a craft. We'll look at bestsellers and notice all the ways in which the author violated the "rules", and where the story doesn't work. But as a general reader who may be looking for a story to carry him along without much thought required on his part, these things are far less important.

Phaeal · Feb 25, 2010

ClaudiaGray said:
This board fills up, time and time again, with threads picking apart a bestseller for overusing adjectives or similar faults, as if readers gave a damn about that stuff.

Like a certain current Brownfest.

Also quite true, what ajkjd01 said: Critiquing is a skill. A good writer does not automatically make a good beta. After acquiring the craft of "first responder" editing, a good beta goes into each job with one motive: to help. Any other motive is likely to be self-serving or destructive or both.

If you want to show off or put others down, don't beta. Become a critic! :e2teeth:

Another thing: writers in general and beta-writers in particular DO need to recognize that not all writing needs to shine -- the bestseller list proves that again and again. A lot of writing just gets the story told, and that satisfies most readers.

But reckon not only the need. Writers don't have to LIKE inferior or mediocre writing. They shouldn't settle for mediocrity themselves or, if doing a beta, settle for mediocrity in the MS under their care. A commercial book that is also written well can only gain readers it would otherwise miss.

I don't know. I often wonder about successful books that I find poorly written. Were the author and editors too cynical to care? Did they not see the problems? Would they have welcomed an incisive beta-reading or discounted it? Is "good enough" really good enough? If sufficient readers actually are happy with hamburger, should we try to serve them filet mignon?

Excuse me. I need to surface for air after all those deep musings.

Suzan · Feb 25, 2010

Nateskate said:
Do you ever find yourself ripping apart beloved novels? Has another writer given you advice that you thought was overly harsh or even grandiose or self-indulgent as Simon says on American Idol?

I like your analogy. In fact, I was watching American Idol last night, and still moping over the rejection I'd gotten on a full earlier that day. It was one of those, "you are a beautiful and compelling writer, but..." sort of things, when I heard one of the judges on Idol say to the contestant who'd just finished singing, "Dawg, you have a GREAT voice, but that song choice, man–it was all wrong." Personally, I had loved the song choice.

Just because you have a great voice doesn't mean everyone's going to love your song. Same goes for novels. I think as writer's we strive to connect with our readers (or that agent we're trying to get) but no matter how amazing the author's writing, the beauty of the book will alway be in the eye of the beholder : )

aadams73 · Feb 25, 2010

Phaeal said:
Like a certain current Brownfest.

If you're talking about my thread, my intent isn't to pick on the guy or his writing--it's to look at openings that sell, and to see what about them works.

I used Dan Brown because we often give him a really bad rap around here, when the truth is that the guy shifts a bunch of books, so he must be doing something right. So I wanted to put a positive spin on his work.

To answer the OP: Yes, we're too critical, and no we're not. Too often around here we pick on the author, throw around statements about how their writing sucks or they personally suck, without backing it up with anything substantial beyond, "He uses too many dialogue tags," or something similar.

At the same time, it's natural for anyone to take a good hard look at what's going on in their own industry and to form some kind of opinion about the work that's going on out there.

I'm guilty of being too critical in the wrong ways myself. I'm trying not to be. (Says the woman who picks on Dan Brown's hair.)

It's ok not to like someone's writing, but it would be cool to back it up with something more than "so-and-so sucks!"

At the end of the day, if someone who's having a big whine about Patterson/Brown/King/Meyers/Rowling and their writing skills, or lack thereof, thinks they can do better, well, prove it. Because I'm a reader first and foremost, and I like a good book. If your book is better, I'll buy it.

Bubastes · Feb 25, 2010

I think that the more you learn about a particular subject, the more critical you're going to be simply because you notice things that other people don't. For me, I tend to be critical when it comes to writing, music, and food. Noticing technical flaws doesn't take away from my overall enjoyment of the story/concert/meal/whatever, though. In the end, I'm pretty easy to please.

Danthia · Feb 25, 2010

I think so, at least I am. Since I know what goes on "under the hood" so to speak, I pick up on technical stuff your average reader won't. A lot of times I can just ignore it, but sometimes I can't get past something and it ruins the book for me.

I think this is probably true for just about every profession. We're more critical of the stuff we know and do, because we know more about it and can spot things others can't.

Great example, my niece is a figure skater. We watch the Olympics, and she spots mistakes I have a hard time seeing even in the replays. And it's the same stuff the judges are marking off for.

lucidzfl · Feb 25, 2010

I think that as people begin to gain knowledge, they begin to gain snobbery.

When they begin to gain experience, they begin to gain tolerance.

Claudia Gray · Feb 25, 2010

Namatu said:
When beta'ing, this can be helpful because you can - in theory - give the author constructive feedback on why such-and-such isn't working.

When betaing, sure. But betaing is a context in which a writer has been asked to be critical. I think this thread is talking about whether writers are too critical in other contexts, just as readers.

For myself, I definitely notice what's done badly in a book. But I also notice what's done well, and I can think of exactly two books I've read in my whole life that I thought had no redeeming characteristics whatsoever. Even if a particular book's not to my taste, or objectively not very good, it may have something to teach me about what it does do well. Often, saying this on this board elicits a lot of "but we have the RIGHT to point out bad literature," which of course people do. But if I understand AW's primary mission, it's to help each other toward successful publishing, not to define the new Western canon. I think discussion gets "too critical" when it stops being about helping people toward success in their own writing -- when it's so focused on the flaws that it ignores the strengths. Good writing is never going to be as simple as eliminating mistakes.

Lordofthehunt · Feb 25, 2010

ClaudiaGray said:
Overall, I would say no, though I think writers sometimes fall into the trap of looking at books as writers, not as readers -- and those are sometimes two very different things. This board fills up, time and time again, with threads picking apart a bestseller for overusing adjectives or similar faults, as if readers gave a damn about that stuff.

That's exactly it. I fall into edit mode whenever I read so it makes it hard to look beyond what I would have done, how I would have written the book. As such, I am often too critical, my mind nitpicking plot and prose rather than shutting up and enjoying the story.

Fortunately, I know I'm doing it (and have no room to question the skills of other writers as I'm just a baby myself), so I keep my mouth shut and realize it's my issue and not theirs.

Ms Hollands · Feb 25, 2010

How can you not love Kiss? Great entertainers. I think I prefer their music to half the supposedly 'talented' bands out there. :O)

I'm tough on books that I read but I think that's because I studied English Lit at Uni, rather than because I'm a writer. I didn't think I was tough on books until I joined a book club and compared my thoughts with those of others.

Namatu · Feb 25, 2010

Phaeal said:
I often wonder about successful books that I find poorly written. Were the author and editors too cynical to care? Did they not see the problems? Would they have welcomed an incisive beta-reading or discounted it? Is "good enough" really good enough? If sufficient readers actually are happy with hamburger, should we try to serve them filet mignon?

These sorts of thoughts drive me crazy because I don't want it to be true. It's entirely possible the author's on a deadline and doesn't have time to make it any better than what ends up on the shelves. I would hate to be that author though. I want to believe that every author wants his or her best work out there. The publishing houses I can more easily believe will settle for "will generate revenue, good enough."

aadams73 said:
IAt the end of the day, if someone who's having a big whine about Patterson/Brown/King/Meyers/Rowling and their writing skills or lack thereof, thinks they can do better, well, prove it. Because I'm a reader first and foremost, and I like a good book. And if your book is better, I'll buy it.

Yep.

Phaeal · Feb 25, 2010

aadams73 said:
I'm guilty of being too critical in the wrong ways myself. I'm trying not to be. (Says the woman who picks on Dan Brown's hair.)

Who has time to pick on Brown's hair while Donald Trump still lives?

Are authors way too critical of other authors?

That cheeky buggerer

Impractical Fantasy Animal

Horror Man

Spec Fic Writer

I just have to be faster.

They've been very bad, Mr Flibble

Toughen up.

Seeking a Sanctuary of Intelligence

Seeking a Sanctuary of Intelligence

Oh, really?

Lost in mental space.

Whatever I did, I didn't do it.

Living the Dream...

A Work in Progress

bananaed

Danthia

Back from the dead

Cow lover

Lost in mental space.

Whatever I did, I didn't do it.