<There seems to be a plethora of defensive, thin-skinned writers in fandom. I used to be one of that breed, so I recognize the warning signs. And hooooo boy, are these writers self-righteous and indignant when their stories are publicly reviewed. I've been thinking about some things I see popping up over...and over...and over where public critique is concerned, and so I'm just going to lay it out as I see it. Venting, y'know. Gettin' it off my chest. Walk on by; thar be ranting ahead.
I will henceforth use the generic 'you'. I'm not really talking to 'you'. No, really.
1. It doesn't matter at all what you intended to convey with your story, or how well you think you wrote it, because in the end you cannot control the interpretation each individual reader will make of your efforts. A writer's perception of her own story is not objective; you may think you've done a bang-up job, but in reality, many readers may think your story sucks. It's also possible you have written a particular story to the best of your ability, but your abilities may still be catching up with your imagination. Trying to defend a story on the basis of 'but you've missed the point!' only tells the world that you are most likely a writer in search of a clue. It's also possible the reader really did miss the point. It's not the first time; it won't be the last.
2. No one has to ask your permission to review, critique, or discuss your story. Not even to be polite. When you post your work to any public forum, crit happens. That's the nature of the beast, and you can't control it.
3. No one has to ask your permission to quote your story for the purposes of critique or review, either, as long as they adhere to certain guidelines. If the NY Times doesn't have to ask Stephen King, then Mary Sue Fan doesn't have to ask you. For more information to assist you in getting over yourself, read this:
4. Reviews and critique are not about the writer. They are not for the writer. They are not feedback. They are not designed to praise the writer, or encourage her, or make her a better writer. They serve many other purposes - entertainment, advertisement, education - none of which have anything to do with the writer.
5. Stop personalizing. People are talking about your story, whether you want them to or not. They do it in email, on lists, on message boards, on LJ, and on websites. Somewhere, someone really hates your beautiful creation. I guarantee it. They probably won't tell you, because they are kind and polite. The only thing that distinguishes public critique from private dissection of your work is the forum. Public, private, it's all the same. It's simply easier to pretend everyone likes your work when you don't actually hear criticism of it. And a merciless critique isn't the final word on your story, either. Sometimes, the reviewer has his or her head up their ass. It's all very subjective.
6. When your work is publicly critiqued, do not quote your feedback letters as 'evidence' that your story doesn't suck. Individual tastes vary. We all have our own particular point of view; someone else's love for your story isn't going to convert the reviewer into your biggest fan. If you heard from every person who was evil enough to really want to tell you how much your story sucks--either because they dislike you personally, or because they dislike your story--you would crawl under a rock and never come out. Try to keep in mind that people are quicker to write with praise than with criticism, largely because experience teaches that many writers are indeed thin-skinned, defensive people who don't want to hear constructive crit.
7. Your interpretation of the characters is not the Ultimate Understanding. People will read your story; some of them will not like your interpretation. That doesn't mean they read it 'wrong'.
8. If your sole objection to public critique is that it's 'mean' or doesn't provide you with an egoboo, you are crying into the wilderness. No one is listening. Lalalalala. Can't hear you.
9. Silence is golden. The louder you protest, the deeper you dig your hole. The more mature thing to do when your story is publicly discussed is to shut up. Really. See No. 1. It doesn't matter what you intended. Unless you're asked for your explanation/opinion, most people aren't interested.
10. What you consider to be 'constructive crit' may in fact be glowing praise disguised as crit. What someone else considers 'contructive crit' may be a 20-page critical essay dismantling your story and explaining why it doesn't work, why the foundations are rotten, and giving you literary perspective. Roll with it. Don't try to tell people their way of doing it is 'wrong'.
11. Many grammar rules are not really flexible. Nope. Not really. You can break them, but first you need to understand them, and you need to break them in a way that makes *sense*. Especially the rules about punctuation. Don't wade into the deep water of 'this isn't really a rule' or 'but XYZ does this in her stories all the time' unless you know what you're talking about.
12. If you're going to trot out your betas as evidence that other people agreed with you about the wonderfulness of your story, make sure you're flinging around the names of people who are credible in this regard. Your loyalty to your bud, and the fact that she sees eye to eye with you on the quality of your story, doesn't necessarily make her a competent beta, and doesn't make her opinion 'evidence' on your behalf.
13. An honest critique is worth its weight in gold to someone who actually wants to improve her writing. However, for you to reach a point where you can see the value of said critique, you will have to do all of the following things:
- Learn to recognize an agenda when you see one. Reviewers do have them. And sometimes, reviewers are Evil and Bad. This, however, doesn't mean their point of view is entirely wrong.
- Learn the difference between a blunt, tactless comment and a flame (personal attack).
- Stop conflating yourself with your story; a shredding of your story is not a personal attack upon you.
- Pick through the rubble of your ego and salvage the part of you that wants to continue writing, then dust it off. The bruises will fade. It won't take as long as you think. Your new, thicker skin will help prevent future bruises.
- Sift through comments in a critique and take away the things that are of value, and discard the rest.
And one last thought: it's possible for a reviewer to be a terrific analyst and yet not be a terrific writer. Analysis and creative writing use different skill sets. If you're tempted to say something like 'well, your work isn't all that, either' - don't do it. Totally not the point.> FROM L_J
-
-
23.12.2006 в 12:35I will henceforth use the generic 'you'. I'm not really talking to 'you'. No, really.
1. It doesn't matter at all what you intended to convey with your story, or how well you think you wrote it, because in the end you cannot control the interpretation each individual reader will make of your efforts. A writer's perception of her own story is not objective; you may think you've done a bang-up job, but in reality, many readers may think your story sucks. It's also possible you have written a particular story to the best of your ability, but your abilities may still be catching up with your imagination. Trying to defend a story on the basis of 'but you've missed the point!' only tells the world that you are most likely a writer in search of a clue. It's also possible the reader really did miss the point. It's not the first time; it won't be the last.
2. No one has to ask your permission to review, critique, or discuss your story. Not even to be polite. When you post your work to any public forum, crit happens. That's the nature of the beast, and you can't control it.
3. No one has to ask your permission to quote your story for the purposes of critique or review, either, as long as they adhere to certain guidelines. If the NY Times doesn't have to ask Stephen King, then Mary Sue Fan doesn't have to ask you. For more information to assist you in getting over yourself, read this:
http://www.lmu.ac.uk/teaching/webct...pyrightfaqs.htm
or this:
http://www.hypervision.com.au/level-03/copyright.htm
4. Reviews and critique are not about the writer. They are not for the writer. They are not feedback. They are not designed to praise the writer, or encourage her, or make her a better writer. They serve many other purposes - entertainment, advertisement, education - none of which have anything to do with the writer.
5. Stop personalizing. People are talking about your story, whether you want them to or not. They do it in email, on lists, on message boards, on LJ, and on websites. Somewhere, someone really hates your beautiful creation. I guarantee it. They probably won't tell you, because they are kind and polite. The only thing that distinguishes public critique from private dissection of your work is the forum. Public, private, it's all the same. It's simply easier to pretend everyone likes your work when you don't actually hear criticism of it. And a merciless critique isn't the final word on your story, either. Sometimes, the reviewer has his or her head up their ass. It's all very subjective.
6. When your work is publicly critiqued, do not quote your feedback letters as 'evidence' that your story doesn't suck. Individual tastes vary. We all have our own particular point of view; someone else's love for your story isn't going to convert the reviewer into your biggest fan. If you heard from every person who was evil enough to really want to tell you how much your story sucks--either because they dislike you personally, or because they dislike your story--you would crawl under a rock and never come out. Try to keep in mind that people are quicker to write with praise than with criticism, largely because experience teaches that many writers are indeed thin-skinned, defensive people who don't want to hear constructive crit.
7. Your interpretation of the characters is not the Ultimate Understanding. People will read your story; some of them will not like your interpretation. That doesn't mean they read it 'wrong'.
8. If your sole objection to public critique is that it's 'mean' or doesn't provide you with an egoboo, you are crying into the wilderness. No one is listening. Lalalalala. Can't hear you.
9. Silence is golden. The louder you protest, the deeper you dig your hole. The more mature thing to do when your story is publicly discussed is to shut up. Really. See No. 1. It doesn't matter what you intended. Unless you're asked for your explanation/opinion, most people aren't interested.
10. What you consider to be 'constructive crit' may in fact be glowing praise disguised as crit. What someone else considers 'contructive crit' may be a 20-page critical essay dismantling your story and explaining why it doesn't work, why the foundations are rotten, and giving you literary perspective. Roll with it. Don't try to tell people their way of doing it is 'wrong'.
11. Many grammar rules are not really flexible. Nope. Not really. You can break them, but first you need to understand them, and you need to break them in a way that makes *sense*. Especially the rules about punctuation. Don't wade into the deep water of 'this isn't really a rule' or 'but XYZ does this in her stories all the time' unless you know what you're talking about.
12. If you're going to trot out your betas as evidence that other people agreed with you about the wonderfulness of your story, make sure you're flinging around the names of people who are credible in this regard. Your loyalty to your bud, and the fact that she sees eye to eye with you on the quality of your story, doesn't necessarily make her a competent beta, and doesn't make her opinion 'evidence' on your behalf.
13. An honest critique is worth its weight in gold to someone who actually wants to improve her writing. However, for you to reach a point where you can see the value of said critique, you will have to do all of the following things:
- Learn to recognize an agenda when you see one. Reviewers do have them. And sometimes, reviewers are Evil and Bad. This, however, doesn't mean their point of view is entirely wrong.
- Learn the difference between a blunt, tactless comment and a flame (personal attack).
- Stop conflating yourself with your story; a shredding of your story is not a personal attack upon you.
- Pick through the rubble of your ego and salvage the part of you that wants to continue writing, then dust it off. The bruises will fade. It won't take as long as you think. Your new, thicker skin will help prevent future bruises.
- Sift through comments in a critique and take away the things that are of value, and discard the rest.
And one last thought: it's possible for a reviewer to be a terrific analyst and yet not be a terrific writer. Analysis and creative writing use different skill sets. If you're tempted to say something like 'well, your work isn't all that, either' - don't do it. Totally not the point.> FROM L_J