as a member of a few different writing sites, i interact often with other writers through critique. since one of the goals of critique is to offer suggestions for improvement, i think the natural tendency is to look for those spots, sometimes even at the expense of perspective. if we can't find something to fault, we feel we haven't done a thorough job of it.
that's a shame.
because critiques aren't just about what's wrong with a work, but what's right, also. how the elements fit together to tell the story as a whole is what we're all looking for, i wager--chances are, we understand better than anyone else our shortcomings as writers. feedback on the work's effectiveness all-around is most helpful, for me.
this approach to offering feedback requires mindful reading, of course. we have to read on a few different levels, and i usually need to read a piece at least three times before i feel familiar enough to offer an in-depth critique.
we read at line level:
surface SPaG issues
varied sentence lengths for rhythm and flow
appropriate word choices
at story level:
metaphor and symbolism
character
setting
description
voice
dialogue
and at message level:
theme
what is this story really about?
what is the writer's message?
if i receive a critique addressing my story purely on line level, i'm disappointed. but, sometimes a critiquer only has time to offer off-the-cuff suggestions, and i don't fault someone for trying to help. i'm ecstatic to have a reader!
if i receive an earnest critique from someone investing time and thought into their feedback, i feel honored. if i don't communicate some of my intended theme, or one of my metaphors is offputting, i take the opinion seriously because that person has given my story respect enough to pay attention, to take it in by its parts and as a whole. those critiques are invaluable.
here's what gets me, though. the critique offered in slapdash style, without consideration but with plenty of ego. this person is certain they understand exactly what i tried to accomplish, and will let me know exactly where and how i failed. on top of that, they rewrite sections of the story for my edification, to show me how i should have written a particular line, or scene.
this level of disrespect deserves a variety of responses, but in the name of professionalism and in the virtual world of internet community, how to let this person know your feelings without overstepping?
i always thank someone for reading my work. regardless of their reaction to the story, they've taken time from their day to visit my story, and i appreciate that.
i always thank someone for offering their feedback. in addition to reading, they've also made the effort to give me their opinion--without hearing from a range of readers, we don't know how our writing comes across. if we want to build a wide audience, our writing must be accessible. motivating readers to write in is wonderful, no matter their opinion. we've instigated a strong reaction--hopefully on the power of our writing and not the cannibal baby character sporting a swastika tattoo on his forehead. (that's a topic for another post.)
if a reader expresses confusion about a specific aspect of the story, i'll offer a quick explanation, and polite regret i didn't properly deliver in the story. as long as the tone of the critique is respectful, i'm happy to reciprocate.
when i receive the rare but memorable SOB critique adopting a bastard tone and useless, sometimes abusive opinions, i ignore it. this person has an agenda, and getting a rise is first priority. at most, i acknowledge receiving the "critique" and leave it there. getting into a back-and-forth with this kind of person never goes anywhere good, and honestly, some people are just nuts. better to let some other shiny object attract their attention--and it will, sooner than later.
no, for me, the worst kind of critique to receive is the well-intentioned but woefully misguided or clueless opinion. this person also feels certain, but isn't overtly rude about it. they're not stupid, but they're lazy. they miss basic plot points, or which character says or does what. and then they tell you how to fix your story, how to spell out every character's motivation, how to describe in painful detail each bit of setting, how to change your conclusion so everyone's happy in the end. this person wants to help, but they just don't get it. and if you tell them so, you're colored the defensive, angry writer who can't take honest criticism. so, what to do?
i still struggle with this. one one hand, writers have a shared responsibility to help other writers--almost a calling. we want as many well-crafted and meaningful stories out there as possible. not only do we gain from a higher standard as consumers of stories, we raise the overall bar. that's a good thing. along that line, i should do my best to help this misguided critiquer understand what i'm trying to do in this story, and how. that the doll's eye is a metaphor for how the little girl sees herself reflected in her mother's gaze, and is not just a piece of pretty plastic.
on the other hand, where do i draw the line between artistic cameraderie and suffering foolishness? do i risk the defensive rejoinder, the "i know you are but what am i" retort? indeed. who am i to educate someone not outright asking for it? that's disrespectful, no matter how politely i couch it.
so i thank them for reading and sending me their critique. i note what points i agree with (if any), and what points i respectfully disagree with, and i leave it there. if this person responds asking why i disagree, then that's an opening to enter into a conversation--one both parties are open to. i've had some great discussions beginning just this way. whatever comes of the exchange, i've shown this person the respect they deserve, and hopefully, i come away with another positive--a longtime reader.
in case you're interested in developing online partnerships with other writers, here are the writing sites i belong to:
www.scribophile.com -- free basic membership, site focus on writing and critique, "karma"-based system, vibrant and outspoken community. i've met some amazing writers and editors here. forums range from entertaining to exasperating, and can suck major time away from your day. forewarned. best overall writing site, in my opinion.
www.critiquecircle.com -- free basic membership, not as attractive or interactive as scribophile, but in my (so far) limited experience a solid site for obtaining feedback on writing. another point-based system to guarantee fairness in posting frequency versus offered critiques.
www.writing.com -- basic membership free, established a decade ago and bragging a HUGE member population, this site is a monster. not as focused on developing writing skills as socializing and participation in various themed groups, this site is easy to slip between the cracks unless you're comfortable with constant and widespread political massage. unlimited activities, including writing contests and workshops--and some are serious-minded. i've found a few stellar writers here amidst the confetti, and value them as much as i've met anywhere.
Saturday, February 27, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I'm so glad to know of your blog site, Laurie! I agree with everything you say here about critiques and the various types of reviewers we encounter in the writing world. I find even the harshest reviews, including those whose feedback I don't agree with, offer me the benefit of seeing work in a new light. It usually takes a few days for the sting to subside and I'm able to appreciate it, though!
ReplyDeleteThe worse part of a negative review is the disrespect some critiquers have for the writer and her craft. Each writer's voice is unique. Telling me I should have written something this way implies the reviewer can write my work better than me. Even when that's true, I think it's disrespectful to imply it.
I'll have to check out scribophile. I never ventured further into cyberspace than Writing.com. ...Although, I really shouldn't indulge in any new distractions until I get my WIP to final draft! LOL
I look forward to following you!
((hugs)) Nicki
hi, nicki--
ReplyDeleteso glad you stopped by!
and yes--harsh critiques take me a few days to accept, also.
one of my favorite people, an amazing editor, will deconstruct my stories in such a way i'm left a weeping pile on the floor. a few consolatory brownies later, i'm forced to admit he's right and right about everything. he's taught me more about story structure than 40+ years of reading.
of course, people often misconstrue his critiques as attacks on their abilities; but he's a purist. he lives for good writing, and while he feels sorry for bruising a few egos, it's worth it to him to clarify for the poor wretch where he strays from the Path.
if you visit scribophile, please say hello--i'm there every day. (should i be embarrassed about that?)
Am I wrong in thinking that most of the reviews I see are of 2 types: 1.) I don't get it, therefore you haven't written well, so do it this way. Or, 2.) It doesn't work because you are not following the writing coventions, that MUST be adhered to, as outlined on page (whatever) of Strunk & White, or the APA Style guide?
ReplyDeleteI've seen the reviews of the editor you speak of and I agree he has a big picture outlook and open minded view of what one is writing and his critiques are...wait for it....helpful! Is not the point of these reviews, and online writing communities, to help the writers? This seems better done by expanding the possiblities and avenues and chances that writers take. Can we not enjoy Kelly Link and W. Somerset Maugham equally, without the picayune judgement of the incorrect use of syntax or whether the narrative is first person omniscient or unreliable? Tell me an interesting story that makes me want to continue reading, I could give a crap about how many comma's you did/didn't use, and you'll have me at 'Once upon a time..'