on critiques
This is vaguely prompted by this excellent post at Holly Lisle’s, concerning people giving and receiving advice on her site.
Now, first, it figures very much; I’d be pissed too if somebody went over to this blog and critiqued (especially if badly) somebody else under “as Ieva would say” premise. My house, my rules and all that.
However I found that there’s a very clear dissonance with how I approach critiques (or try to; I’m actually very bad at receiving crits, this is why I try to do that online as much as possible, to have a time to vent before replying). (Disclaimer: here goes my usual self-berating style involving lots of you‘s.)
As the imaginary Goal Of All Crits, go over at amazon.com and browse through the reviews. 1-starred for your favorite book, for example. Now if you write a book that good, you’ll receive this many “oh my gawd how could anything this crappy ever be written, much less published! My eyes are bleeding!” reviews. You’ll have to know how to deal with them.
Also, go over and see the positive crits. Preferably those of a book that got your eyes bleeding. You’ll receive these as well, praise and glazing over stuff that simply does not work. You’ll have to know how to deal with them too.
This is why critters workshop is good for me. Sure, most of the crits do not give me a clear and fitting guidance what to do with the thing (well, almost none of them do). However, when most people point out something as a flaw, and I know this was not intended, there is a flaw. There is a big chance that I screwed up in another way than they thought I did. There is also a big chance that the same flaw will be seen as something good by others. Et cetera; it’s all a part of what I will have to deal with sometime, and I will have to deal with them in a way that doesn’t screw me and my writing up.
And there are the two extremes, The Trusted Reader and The Killer Crit.
My Trusted Readers (there are two of them and I am blessed to have them) can point out things that don’t work and things that work; they know how I tick and they know which parts of my writing are unchangeable and which parts can be replaced, and (most of the time) I can trust their advice and make necessary corrections. It’s not a magic pill. I still am the one who has to do the work and even more than I’d have to with usual crits because they notice the little things that other people skip over.
And there’s the Killer Crit. I don’t know whether I’ll ever be able to get accustomed to these “your writing sucks not because your story is flawed, it sucks because you suck as a writer, and you suck big time” crits. I got it once, and I walked away for a long time. (Well, I slumped away whimpering and licking blood and dirt from my wounds but that’s beside the point.) I will get it again. It’s cool while the people that critique me don’t know me personally, but at some point somebody who knows me and isn’t my Trusted Reader will have a say too.
And OMG OMG how I fear that day.
“your writing sucks not because your story is flawed, it sucks because you suck as a writer, and you suck big time”
If some say that you suck and others say that you don’t, it can mean two things:
1) You suck, and those who tell you that you don’t suck are lying, because they need something from you.
2) You are making something that is niche product and it just can not be liked by everyone – you can safely ignore the ones that don’t like you, because they are not in your audience and you don’t write for them. That’s like the newspaper editors can safely ignore my rants that sports pages are worthless and just take up space – those pages are not there for me but for all the other guys, and it’s better for editors to scare off me than the numerous other guys. Another example – I can safely ignore you if you don’t like my new song, because I didn’t write it for you, but just to amuse myself – it would be pointless to feel bad if you don’t like it, because I didn’t even try to make it to your taste.
So, the problem is, how do you know whether this crit is not in your audience and can be ignored, or he could have been in your audience if you just have made some small adjustments? It shouldn’t be hard – if the crit likes at least something, listen and think what’s relevant, if the crit tells you to jump off the cliff, you shouldn’t be wasting your time, there’s nothing you can do, except, maybe if you like to fight just for the sake of fight, not to win. It’s like atheist trolling in christian forums – good bloody fight, but nobody switches sides.
Now, one point still stands – why are you afraid of crits that know you personally? Really, what’s the difference? Because, if you know a person, it doesn’t mean that you must have identical taste in writing. Is it that they can tell you something bad face-to-face, where you don’t have time to think and react decently?
Have to differ here. There is NO value whatsoever in a “you suck” critique. None.
Your writing sucks? Sure. If the crit is objective, can point out flaws in your plotting or characterization, and can offer clear reasons why these are flaws, then you can benefit from a “your writing sucks” critique.
But there’s nothing objective in a “you suck, my eyes are bleeding” crit. People think because they like something it’s good, or because they hate something it’s bad. Ain’t so. People love a lot of things that are objectively horrible—that is, someone who knows how to tell stories can go in and point out hideous flaws in the work—and they hate work that is tight, compelling, brilliantly plotted, beautifully written…and about some subject they just don’t like.
Reviews are, for the most part, either worthless or downright destructive because of this one fact. Just because someone likes something doesn’t mean it’s good, just because he hates it doesn’t mean it’s bad. It just means his bias doesn’t have anything to do with the work in question.
@Holly Lisle
*ponders*
OK, I made myself not clear. (I guess there’s a better way to express it but I like this sentence as it came out.) There is no value in “you suck” critique (because the quality of the work doesn’t depend on the personality of the writer… at least I hope so, or there’s no use in taking courses). There is also little value in “my eyes are bleeding because I hate/don’t get your genre/subject/voice/values” critiques.
But I do believe that there is value in crits that come from people who have chosen your work for reading for some valid reason (genre, cover, blurb, subject, first lines, a paragraph from the middle, gutter margins..no, not gutter margins) and were disappointed. I think that the most advice on how to write well is basically “how to write in a continuous manner”. To simplify, how to start with a thriller and end with a thriller, not with a (however beautifully written) magical realism, or other way around.
I think that mostly people are irked (even if they can’t put their finger on it) if they are set in a world with the inner rules and values (applying both to the world described and in the style/genre/voice/POV) and end up deceived. It takes a Trusted Reader to tell *why* that particular thing doesn’t work, but most of the readers will pick on these things without really knowing why (and perhaps will offer a fix that makes me go in “what the heck?!” mode).
So in the end, IMO, the question is two-fold:
1) how to learn to not mind crits that are destructive, because there will be crits (provided I’m not willing to close my ears and sing “nanananananaaaa, I don’t hear you” every time somebody says “I read your story and…”),
2) how to learn to squeeze valuable things out of all crits (actually, the worst plot holes in my stories are usually picked up by people who didn’t like them by definition, because the ones who like these stories just jump over the holes without bothering to notice).
@Barvins
“So, the problem is, how do you know whether this crit is not in your audience and can be ignored, or he could have been in your audience if you just have made some small adjustments?”
Well, I guess that’s pretty much solved once my stories get published, since I’ll be sending them to niche magazines. A SF magazine editor wouldn’t publish something that isn’t SF (even if she likes the piece), and a (sensible) publisher would have my novel marketed for a specific audience. The blurb and the writing would help to skim down to more precise audience. (Theoretically, of course.) So if a dedicated SF reader says my SF sucks because [insert rant here], I think I should be able to read it without hanging myself in between sentences and figure out whether he is right or not.
@Barvins
“Now, one point still stands – why are you afraid of crits that know you personally? Really, what’s the difference?”
Hmm. I guess it’s because I’m taking reviews on my work personally. I know it’s not cool and I’m trying to fix it but still, every time I receive a bad crit I think whether the reviewer likes me or not. With random people, I couldn’t care less. With people I know, I do care, and I can hurt a lot, especially if I think I have proved myself to be a loser to somebody who takes pleasure in that. Or, even worse, to somebody who, up to this point, believed I’m mighty cool.
This appeared, it seems, at a time when I wasn’t following your blog faithfully. A couple of days ago I saw a reference to dealing with critiques from people you know. I had to look this up because of a question that’s been on my mind along those lines for a long time. I could just email you my question, but, frankly, I’m embarrassed to. But given this opening…
My critiques for your last few stories through critters were extreme detailed (another way of saying very picky). To my mind I was being helpful, yet I’ve come to realize I might be crushed to receive such a “helpful” critique, especially if it had come from you. I’m wondering how much injury to your spirit I might have done.
There is a big difference for me in critiques from people I know and from people I know only as names on critiques. A critique from someone who I know is fair in comments that point out major flaws in a story I thought was good is painful, embarrassing, and (if on target about something important to me to get right) humiliating. I’ve always found your critiques and comments to be couched in very considerate language. Still, if you were to point out I’ve written ineptly, not just carelessly, that has the power to sting because I have no doubt that your comment is fair and perceptive. I feel that I have let you down.
It someone else points out the same thing, it matters much less. I’m not seeking their approval in the same way that I would be seeking yours.
So, if any of my critiques drew blood, it just means I did those critiques thoughtlessly, and I apologize.
Sorry, I don’t think I have anything theoretical to add to the discussion.
Well, being picky is a very different thing from being nasty. I think so. Mostly, if the crit has 100+ points then, well, most of them are skimmed, and only the useful ones are kept. And, no, I wasn’t offended in any way, you still know how I tick.
Besides, it’s fairly impossible to make a dozen points about the *story*, no matter how picky you are. Most of the comments are about language and style, and that’s fine.