- Joined
- Dec 9, 2011
- Messages
- 6,543
- Reaction score
- 511
The thread on the WD Critique service was recently resurrected from zombie state, and I saw an old post that I thought deserved more exploration. But it's general, not specific to that critique service, so I'm splitting it here:
As a general point, I disagree. I mean, whether you pay for the critiquing or not, and you blindly accept what people tell you, then that's true. But does anyone operate that blindly on the advice they receive? My WIP's plotlines have altered a few times based on feedback, but I didn't do simply because someone fed that back.
It's still *your* choice to take or not take what you get in feedback.
I think this is more in line with what I believe, except that I'm not so ready to reject outside feedback as I read the above to say. "When someone else tells you how to fix your story, they're almost always wrong." That's dismissive, and I think it risks missing opportunities.
I don't think Roger meant to dismiss. I think we actually agree that no one can tell you how your story *should* go. Only you know that.
But if a critique (paid or not) tells me, "the story makes more sense to me if you..." That's constructive feedback. And it's worthy of consideration.
We the writer should not simply accept that critique and change what we've written. Maybe that confusion is actually what was intended. Maybe the critique is flatly wrong about the meaning of a word. Maybe the reader missed something.
There's all kinds of reasons to reject a critique. But there's all kinds of reasons to accept it, also. We should not blindly do one or the other.
An additional thought, not about 2nd Draft in particular, but about critique services in general:
While a paid critique may in some cases be useful, in many others (perhaps a majority) of cases, it's used as a method of short-circuiting the process that makes someone a writer.
If someone else tells you how to "fix" your manuscript, then at some level the writing is no longer yours. At least part of it is theirs. There is value to struggling with your writing because when you solve a problem, it's really you doing it.
As a general point, I disagree. I mean, whether you pay for the critiquing or not, and you blindly accept what people tell you, then that's true. But does anyone operate that blindly on the advice they receive? My WIP's plotlines have altered a few times based on feedback, but I didn't do simply because someone fed that back.
It's still *your* choice to take or not take what you get in feedback.
I think there is value in having someone tell you what they think is wrong with a story. Telling you how to fix a story is less useful, imo. When someone tells you there's something wrong with your story, they're almost always right. When someone tells you how to fix your story, they're almost always wrong. Because they're telling you how they would fix your story, not how you would fix your story. Finding your own solutions is what makes you a writer.
The above is not true, however, if the person giving the critique is an aquiring editor. If an editor says "fix it this way and I'll buy it", that's how I'd fix it.
I think this is more in line with what I believe, except that I'm not so ready to reject outside feedback as I read the above to say. "When someone else tells you how to fix your story, they're almost always wrong." That's dismissive, and I think it risks missing opportunities.
I don't think Roger meant to dismiss. I think we actually agree that no one can tell you how your story *should* go. Only you know that.
But if a critique (paid or not) tells me, "the story makes more sense to me if you..." That's constructive feedback. And it's worthy of consideration.
We the writer should not simply accept that critique and change what we've written. Maybe that confusion is actually what was intended. Maybe the critique is flatly wrong about the meaning of a word. Maybe the reader missed something.
There's all kinds of reasons to reject a critique. But there's all kinds of reasons to accept it, also. We should not blindly do one or the other.