(i should probably post more often. will have to work on that.)
i've been a member of a few writing/critiquing sites, off and on, since 2006. i've explored a handful more, and feel comfortable i've chosen well. the range of writing and storytelling ability is wide, just like in the real world. i've found valuable writing friends, and have improved my own skill at writing and critiquing.
my beef is this: too many people--talented and otherwise, serious and otherwise--do not read with intention. reading is not a passive activity, just as any artistic dialogue between artist and audience requires both are present and conscious; conscious, sure, as in "awake" in a literal sense, but also conscious as in aware of what's around them.
assuming without conscious thought we understand completely what the person expressing their art is trying to communicate is arrogant. assuming the artist themself doesn't understand their work as well as the casual reader is insulting.
now, see, this is beginning to sound like i believe i'm an artist whose work is beyond understanding; that readers are incapable of taking in the glory of what flows from my fingers as gold from a smelter. heh. not true. i'm not perfect. i'm not even particularly accomplished as a writer. i want to develop the ability to write more complex, layered tales; i can see where i want to be, and sometimes even how to get there, but right now? nothing shines out of my arse, i promise you.
but the principle is the thing. when i read others' work, i enter into the effort with an unspoken contract between us. i assume every word they've chosen is intentional, designed to convey exactly what they wish to move the story toward its conclusion. if a spot confuses me, my first assumption isn't that the writer is lazy and didn't properly express themselves (even if that might be the case as it turns out;) i assume i don't understand, and i read the passage again. i look for connections, for symbolic significance, for subtext i may have missed the first time through. i show respect to the writer by taking their work seriously. my critiques reflect that attitude, never rewriting their work for them, or dismissing elements as unimportant for their story. i ask questions, i offer suggestions, i give them my impression of their work with the intention of helping them improve on it.
i've met some people who approach critique the same way. but most, it seems, approach story critique as if they're watching a football game: yay! boo! you suck! personal foul! personal foul!
i can't tell you how tired i am of this.
options:
*stop posting my work for critique--well, the drawbacks here are obvious. not only is receiving feedback close to an illicit drug experience, but i have gained valuable perspective from hearing what others get or don't get from a story.
*post and ask particular people to tell me what they think--a likelier idea, but again, i'd be limiting feedback to those who i know and trust, whose reactions are familiar to me. i want to know how my stuff hits people of all backgrounds.
*stop writing--yeah. tried that. am unhappy when i don't write for long periods of time. :(
*??
so, i'm just going to have to stop worrying about those people who expect a story to be handed to them, explained and illustrated for easy consumption. nod and thank them for reading, and let them go on their way. or, do i?
a fellow site member started a conversation with her critiquer, requesting clarification on points, offering rationale for certain elements of the story. and the the critiquer answered, continuing the conversation. a revelation for me, i tell you.
i've rarely attempted a discussion with a critiquer. the few times i remember trying, the result was awkward and tense, and i felt silly and self-absorbed for wanting to discuss my work with an innocent hit-&-run critiquer. but maybe our expectations as writer and critiquers should change. we should expect that offering a critique is offering more than an off-the-cuff opinion, but is entering into a dialogue about the work with the intention of true communication. how rare and surprising is that? and how wonderful?
how much would you like to talk to your favorite author, ask them what they meant by this line, or how they conceived of that plot twist? how magical would climbing inside their heads like that be?
from this moment, i'm changing my approach. when i commit to critiquing a work, i'm there for the writer until they feel satisfied with my feedback. and when i receive a critique and begin to stop myself from responding with questions or points of clarification, i'm gonna let myself send that message. see what happens. all of a sudden, writing feels more to me like a community effort than a monologue in the dark.
Posts
