Is it possible to have a critter who patronizes new writers?

BlueLucario · Jan 16, 2008

No, I don't have any problem with critiques. I came across a critique site, telling us to keep in mind that all critiques are opinions. No one is right or wrong. I know that but what I also saw that the administrators will not tolerate such obnoxious critiques, with an attitude of "I'm always right. You Listen to me." or critique in such a way that it patronizes other authors, most likely the newbies. To put them down and tell them how horrible they are and rewrite they way it should be written in. This type of critiques can lead to a flame war(according to them of course.)

I came across critiques like that, but I don't see why admninistrators do not allow them when it is the authors job to keep his cool and get a thick skin.

I don't have a problem with them, I just don't get why they tell critters how they are supposed to crit.

Thoughts?

mscelina · Jan 16, 2008

well mostly because the purpose of a crit on a new author is to encourage honestly instead of shattering every little last vestige of hope a noob has of writing well. Although a crit can be negative, there is no excuse to make it cruel. "This sucks" is not a critique. Therefore, most critique boards establish guidelines for critiques so that a new writer won't get his or her ego singed by an idiot who can't nit grammar but is all too eager to stamp other people's work with a the boot-bottom of death just to make himself feel better about his own work.

That's why.

megan_d · Jan 16, 2008

They tell critters how to crit because its their board and they can do what they like.

WendyNYC · Jan 16, 2008

I once saw Joyce Carol Oates speak, and she talked a little about critiquing and how she goes about is with her classes (she teaches at Princeton). She tells the students to pretend that the work has already been accepted at a prestigious magazine -- say, The New Yorker -- and that you are merely editing it to make it stronger. You can make negative comments, but only to be productive. I know that sounds warm and fuzzy, but it's certainly in my mind when I critique.

Strong criticism is just fine, but if all you have to say is "It sucks!" then perhaps you shouldn't crit the piece.

dpaterso · Jan 16, 2008

In setting guidelines, the critique site owners make it clear that blunt, harsh, rude, unhelpful feedback isn't wanted. I should imagine it saves time if nothing else.

I've seen a few critiques like this here too, from time to time. In most cases the critters were advised to ease up and adjust their attitudes.

But even feedback that's meant to be helpful can cause a writer to have an emotional reaction. That's when the writer has to be cool, step back and assess the feedback analytically.

-Derek

maestrowork · Jan 16, 2008

There's a difference between an honest, constructive crit (even if it's harsh) on the work, and a personal attack on the person. Telling someone "you're a horrible writer and you should quit now" crosses the line to being disrespectful and insulting.

As the forum mod of SYW, I don't tolerate anyone insulting other people. If you see anyone insult others, please report them (obviously I can't read every thread and every post).

HeronW · Jan 16, 2008

I've been part of a fantasy/horror/scifi critiquing gourp for many years. Most if not all crits I've gotten are helpful and make me rethink what I've written.

My rough spots are show up with tact and with alternatives.

Get a thick skin if you want to fend off insults and personal attacks.

Conversely, if it makes you feel good to tell someone their work is sh*t, why are you critiqing?

Looks like dealing with self-esteem issues and taking anger management courses would be more to the critiquer's benefit.

dolores haze · Jan 16, 2008

The first crit I ever recieved as a young writer was so brutal I didn't write again for many years. Good critting guidelines exist to prevent that sort of thing.

It's also possible, IMO, to have too thick of a skin. Helpful suggestions will just bounce right off.

BlueLucario · Jan 16, 2008

HeronW said:
I've been part of a fantasy/horror/scifi critiquing gourp for many years. Most if not all crits I've gotten are helpful and make me rethink what I've written.

My rough spots are show up with tact and with alternatives.

Get a thick skin if you want to fend off insults and personal attacks.

Conversely, if it makes you feel good to tell someone their work is sh*t, why are you critiqing?

Looks like dealing with self-esteem issues and taking anger management courses would be more to the critiquer's benefit.

Great point. But I found a reason why critter crit like this. Not only because of low self-esteem. Maybe because they were critiqued that way, and they don't realize that their being cruel

Stew21 · Jan 16, 2008

some people just don't have a brain-to-fingers filter and therefore shouldn't crit others' work.

DonnaDuck · Jan 16, 2008

Having crit many works, I've certainly come across a few that I thought to myself, 'oh god, this is atrocious' but as a critter we have a responsibility to the crittee to give them constructive criticism in order to help them improve their writing. "This sucks' only makes you look like an ass and makes the crittee feel like crap. It helps no one.

On the opposite side, though, the crittees have a responsibility to differentiate between a personal attack and constructive criticism. I've seen many valuable pieces of information be read as an attack on a person because the crittee was way too sensitive about their work. I don't think, though, a thick skin equates to becoming impervious to peoples' critiques. That's just arrogance. You can have a thick skin and still know how to handle constructive criticism without being arrogant to the point that you ignore all advice given and think your work is gold.

My writing professor told me a great story about one of his friends that was accepted to Iowa Writer's Conference when he was about 20 (unheard of, really). He had this guy in his workshop that was the son of some big name editor and thought his poo didn't stink and all he did was bash everyone's work and I mean bash. One day this other kid in the class got so fed up with him that he attacked him and literally tried to stuff him out of the window. Funny thing was, no one else in the class, including the professor, liked him so they let it go for a minute or two. The kid halfway succeeded too (it was only the second storey) before the rest of the class decided that it wasn't such a good idea to push someone out the window . . . in theory.

And I really don't think those bastard critters aren't aware that they're being nasty. I think they're fully aware of it and think that telling someone they suck is a valid critique.

Red-Green · Jan 16, 2008

The other reason to be sensitive to new writers is to help them develop a thicker skin by listening to honest criticism. Being flayed by a bossy, condescending critique just damages trust. I went through an old-school MA program in writing in which terribly harsh things were said and the writer was never allowed to "answer" critiques. Let's just say--that sort of environment can permanently damage a person's confidence in his or her writing.

Conversely, when a critter is allowed to be bossy and condescending, they're not learning anything from the critique process. One of my profs was an "I'm always right" guy and frankly, it wasn't doing his writing any favors.

DonnaDuck · Jan 16, 2008

Redzilla said:
I went through an old-school MA program in writing in which terribly harsh things were said and the writer was never allowed to "answer" critiques.

My writing professor did somethign similar to this except without the purposely, blatantly harsh criticisms. When your work was critiqued, you didn't "exist" until the critique was over, then you could add your two cents in. What kind of professor, especially in a Master's program, would actually allow insults to a person's writing and think it helpful? My teacher, in the first class of the semester, would always say that critiques like that weren't warranted, weren't welcome and were just plain unhelpful. He did, though, say that you can say that someone's work sucks BUT you HAVE to give critical evidence of why (poor plot, terrible characterization, etc.) and then give tips on how to improve it. No one ever did (in any of the classes I was in, anyway) but the option was there. Same goes the other way too. Saying something is good doesn't help the writer. If you say it's good, backing it up with why it's good is extremely helpful. Actually, he did tell me once that he didn't like my story but at the same time he wasn't a pure genre fan (it was a horror story) and gave tips on how to improve it to make it less lame (really, it was lame) to something tingling. I combined his tips with the classes, rewrote my story and it was heads and tails better for it.

I find it disgusting that a college professor would actually allow outright abuse of his students as what you went through, Red. You'd think they'd be smarter than that.

geardrops · Jan 16, 2008

As someone who can be kind of blunt and mean about critiques, I'll say this: sometimes I just don't bother. If I find I can't say anything nice about the work, I'll tend to just walk away. Even if every single one of my crits would be valid (let's just say). If I have zero praise to give, I will usually say nothing.

Is this a "if you can't say something nice..." rule? No. It's a "save my own ass" rule. I don't have much in the way of tact, so I just avoid situations where I could be tactless and get in trouble for it. Better safe than sorry.

mscelina said:
"This sucks" is not a critique.

QFT

DonnaDuck said:
... the rest of the class decided that it wasn't such a good idea to push someone out the window . . . in theory.

Clearly they've never been to Prague.

DeleyanLee · Jan 16, 2008

Warning: Critiquing is a hot button topic for me, so I'll try to be good.

1. Writers should realize that (either giving or receiving) critiquing is not an often-taught skill set like grammar, etc. is. Thus, people who create critique groups and sites feel obligated to set down "the rules" as they've come to understand it to stay within their ability to manage things. Even if those "rules" are totally jimmywhackered, it's still good that they're out there and people agree to play by them because that keeps the problems down. However, that doesn't necessarily mean that the critiques offered are worth the phosphor they're written in.

2. Every critiquer has their own agenda for critiquing.

Many have altrusitic and helpful motives, but, with the lack of training mentioned above, they might not have the skills sets or understanding of the process needed to do what they intend to do.

There are some who go into critiquing with massive insecurities and will, consciously or unconsciously, set out to destroy a talent they feel is more than their own. (Think: the movie Amadeus--it's real)

There are some who do it to kiss up to you for whatever reason and cheer you on.

I'm sure there's thousands of more agendas that I'm not thinking of too.

The challenge with getting a critique from people you do not know is that you cannot know their agenda in wanting to critique your story. You don't know what their skill levels are (a good writer is not necessarily a good critiquer or a good editor--all different skill sets). You don't know what they think a critique means (the amount of people I've met who thinks a line edit is a critique is staggering). And you don't know their personal biases so you can filter their comments to understand what they're really saying.

No set of rules anywhere is going to screen the critiquers for you, really, especially on an open site. But, still, it's good to have rules of conduct at least, which is what I see what you mentioned is, so everyone knows what kind of sandbox they're playing in.

Maryn · Jan 16, 2008

One of the most valuable lessons in my first writing class was how to critique. There's a huge difference between This seems pointless and doesn't go anywhere to It's not clear to me what the purpose of this section is. Or I can't believe you think this is good enough to share vs. I'm finding the many mistakes in writing mechanics distracting me from your story.

Tell the writer the truth. Use tact, kindness, and examples, as if you were noting the flaws in their child. Instruct if you're able. Find things to praise, even if it's just a phrase here and there or their effort. Include encouragement to try again, especially if your critique was largely negative.

This is not hard.

My long-time critique group also mostly sticks to the rule set in that class (which we all took, at different times). The author is silent during any oral critique. She owes thanks, whether she agrees or not. She may not defend or explain the work unless a discussion session is planned. Hostility is tolerated once and only once, and a second instance means you get your critiques elsewhere. (We've only issued one warning.)

It's not hard to deliver a critique noting a bazillion things wrong without hurting the author who is open to actual criticism. The author who's open only to praise will be wounded by anything less.

Maryn, critique veteran

BlueLucario · Jan 16, 2008

DonnaDuck said:
Having crit many works, I've certainly come across a few that I thought to myself, 'oh god, this is atrocious' but as a critter we have a responsibility to the crittee to give them constructive criticism in order to help them improve their writing. "This sucks' only makes you look like an ass and makes the crittee feel like crap. It helps no one.

On the opposite side, though, the crittees have a responsibility to differentiate between a personal attack and constructive criticism. I've seen many valuable pieces of information be read as an attack on a person because the crittee was way too sensitive about their work. I don't think, though, a thick skin equates to becoming impervious to peoples' critiques. That's just arrogance. You can have a thick skin and still know how to handle constructive criticism without being arrogant to the point that you ignore all advice given and think your work is gold.

.

I thought about the arrogance part. But if he's asking for criticism, but thinks his work is gold and perfect, why is he asking for crits in the first place? That makes no sense at all and it's not very nice either. That critter puts all that time, at least around half an hour to try and help someone and he thinks his work is so great, look what he did.

I disagree: Some people tend to be itchy(add the b) when they critique and not realized that they hurt someone's feelings. I'm not sure but I honestly think that he's been critiqued the same way and he thinks it's normal. I was critting someone's stuff a while ago, using everything I learned here, not realizing that I was harsh and mean. When I found out that I made her cry, I was devastated. I cried also because of it.

Question: How do you guys know that this writer is a beginner? Is it obvious?

But when a new writer gets defensive about his work, would you crit him again? Even if you weren't aware that he's never been critiqued before.

DonnaDuck · Jan 16, 2008

BlueLucario said:
I thought about the arrogance part. But if he's asking for criticism, but thinks his work is gold and perfect, why is he asking for crits in the first place?

Nine times out of ten because he's looking for someone to float his boat. He think his work is fantabulous, thinks others will feel the same and lavish praise upon him, feeding his need for it. When he gets a real critique when he wasn't expecting it, the backlash can be ugly. There was a thread here not too long ago that was just about this, started by a guy that felt his work was amazing and one bad critique launched him to damn the man and question the existence of critters (this ringing any bells for anyone???). He wasn't nasty about it but god . . . that thread . . .

Question: How do you guys know that this writer is a beginner? Is it obvious?

Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. Sometimes you think they're a beginner and they're not and go eek! Othertimes they might not look it from their work but they really are. You can't tell unless they expressly say how long they've been writing.

But when a new writer gets defensive about his work, would you crit him again? Even if you weren't aware that he's never been critiqued before.

Past critiques, or lack thereof, mean nothing to me. If someone posts their work for the purpose of being critted, then that's what it's there for. if the writer gets defensive then they'll a) get over it, realize they were overreacting to actual advice and work to improve themselves or b) throw feces and find another board that will lavish affection on them like they initially wanted. I think many writers, especially those that aren't well-informed in the field don't know the purpose of a crit and think that the unwarranted praise they get on fanfiction.net (for example) is indictative of how the writing world works. When they get here and realize that it's harsh, they don't like that and many times will take offense to negative attitudes about their work.

BlueLucario · Jan 16, 2008

DonnaDuck said:
Nine times out of ten because he's looking for someone to float his boat. He think his work is fantabulous, thinks others will feel the same and lavish praise upon him, feeding his need for it. When he gets a real critique when he wasn't expecting it, the backlash can be ugly. There was a thread here not too long ago that was just about this, started by a guy that felt his work was amazing and one bad critique launched him to damn the man and question the existence of critters (this ringing any bells for anyone???). He wasn't nasty about it but god . . . that thread . . .

I must be the only one here who hasn't heard of it. Please give me a title of the thread or something like that so I can take a look.

geardrops · Jan 16, 2008

BlueLucario said:
But when a new writer gets defensive about his work, would you crit him again?

Nope. If my efforts get spat on, screw 'em. I'm done.

DonnaDuck said:
There was a thread here not too long ago that was just about this, started by a guy that felt his work was amazing and one bad critique launched him to damn the man and question the existence of critters (this ringing any bells for anyone???). He wasn't nasty about it but god . . . that thread . . .

I maintain my response to that thread: :popcorn:

Seriously. It was delicious. Five stars. Would read again.

BlueLucario · Jan 16, 2008

Am I the only one who is clueless?

Bubastes · Jan 16, 2008

http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=87722

BlueLucario · Jan 16, 2008

Thank you Meow Girl!

SageFury · Jan 16, 2008

mscelina said:
well mostly because the purpose of a crit on a new author is to encourage honestly instead of shattering every little last vestige of hope a noob has of writing well. Although a crit can be negative, there is no excuse to make it cruel. "This sucks" is not a critique. Therefore, most critique boards establish guidelines for critiques so that a new writer won't get his or her ego singed by an idiot who can't nit grammar but is all too eager to stamp other people's work with a the boot-bottom of death just to make himself feel better about his own work.

That's why.

Yea i would agree with this.

Writing is scary enough the first time let alone someone telling you that your writing sucks and you will never make it... If they did not hold back there would probably be 5% writers in the world =)

kuwisdelu · Jan 16, 2008

As maestro said, there's a difference between an honest, constructive crit v. a personal attack. They can both be honest, actually, but one is useful and the other isn't. IMO, if someone--especially a new writer--asks for constructive criticism on a work and they're only given an attack on their writing, there's something wrong with that.

Sometimes I read things and my first thought really is "Oh my god--you need to stop writing now. This is literally torture. I can't believe you even tried. Give up!" But do I ever, ever say that? No! Because that's not my business, and I realize I could be wrong. For all I know, he or she may practice and practice and eventually become a great literary master. My attack--even if it's my honest opinion and I'm trying to save the literary world--is simply malicious. I should either come up with something constructive to say, like explain why starting with dream sequence and then the MC waking up to inspect himself in a mirror with lots and lots of adjectives is a bad idea, or I should not say anything and let someone more tactful than I answer.

I have no problem saying such mean things about a published author who's supposed to already have a thick skin...where they're at in their career, they must expect such things...but to say something like that to a beginner? That's bad karma and just plain mean.

Especially when we're talking about new writers: there's no place for malicious critiques--even if they are honest. It doesn't matter if you say something nice, really, but it should be constructive not destructive. We can't expect beginners to have a thick skin built-in. It's hard enough getting harsh, constructive critiques--but those are helpful--so let's stick to those as far as harsh goes, especially if it's for a new writer.

Is it possible to have a critter who patronizes new writers?

Blood Elves FTW

Teh doommobile, drivin' rite by you

Falling in the milk

fiddle-dee-dee

Also in our Discord and IRC chat channels

Fear the Death Ray

Down Under Fan

international guttersnipe

Blood Elves FTW

My Worlds Are Building

KoalaKoalaKoala!

My Worlds Are Building

Good thing I like my day job

Writing Anarchist

At Sea

Blood Elves FTW

My Worlds Are Building

Blood Elves FTW

Good thing I like my day job

Blood Elves FTW

bananaed

Blood Elves FTW

Overcoming the Darkness

Revolutionize the World