# On Getting Criticism



## Philip Overby (Dec 4, 2013)

So a lot of us have critique partners or others that read our work. I've been happy with my regular critique partners, so I have no complaints. However, I've recently been engaged in a discussion of what equals "too harsh" when it comes to critiques. We all have different thresholds, I suppose, but I've always been of the opinion if you're asking for critiques, then you're asking to be criticism. That said, someone posted this article to a game designer I really liked:

Raph's Website Ã‚Â» On getting criticism

The short points from Raph Koster are this (if you want his explanations, check out the article):

1. Everyone who dislikes your work is right.

My thoughts: If you read his thoughts, this is technically correct. You can't force someone to like what you've written since each person has a different experience. I thought this was one of the most interesting points he has because I think a lot of writers who may get bad critiques or reviews wonder what they did wrong. Well, sometimes you did nothing wrong. Something just didn't work for that particular reader. 

2. The criticism that is useful is that which helps you do it better.

Yes, this is another good point. Of course those asking for crits want them to be helpful and useful, not just tearing down work for the sake of doing it.

3. Nothing's perfect.

No matter how long you work on something, it will never be perfect. Sorry. But, it can get as near perfect as you can get it.

4. You have to choose between your ideals and your message.

It's too late for me to think about this too much, but yeah, I'd aiming somewhere in the middle might work best.

5. You have to dig to get the gold.

I take this to mean, you have to work hard to get something as polished and coherent as possible. I'd say polished and coherent is much more important than completely original.

6. Good feedback is detailed.

Agreed. Moving on.

7. People who tell you you’re awesome are useless. No, _dangerous._

It's OK to have friends that tell you that you're really good or that your story engaged them. But yeah, people who just praise ever single thing you do aren't really helping you get better. Some praise now and again is great, but I'd beware too much of a good thing.

8. Someone asked for feedback will always find something wrong.

Very interesting. I find that this has been my overall experience. If you ask someone to look at something, they'll most likely find something wrong with it. Just to feel like they helped. However, you have to decide if whatever they said was wrong works for you or not.

9. Good work may not have an audience.

Another point that is somewhat true and also depressing. There are loads and loads of awesome books out there. However, due to some quirk or subject matter, they may never find an audience. So even if your book is the most awesome thing ever written, if you plan to sell it to the public, you may want to find something that can connect to a wider base. That is unless you're a genius. In that case, carry on.

10. Any feedback that comes with suggestions for improvement is awesome.

Totally agree.

11. If you agree with the criticism, say “thank you.” If you disagree, say “fair enough,” and “thank you.”

My same philosophy. It's never a good idea to argue with someone who spent the time to help you. They found things that didn't work for them. Say thank you and move on. You can chose to improve it or decide that it's already good the way it is. It's your book, do what you want with it.

12. You are not your work.

Always a hard one to accept. Especially if a review or critique feels unnecessarily harsh for you. But at the end of the day, I always detach myself from my projects now. Nothing is sacred. There may be things I feel are really good, but others may disagree. This doesn't mean I'm a horrible writer, it just means I have more work to do. 

That's it!

Anyway, if you like to read his points, check out the article. I don't currently have anything being critiqued, but I plan to keep these points in mind for the future.


----------



## Svrtnsse (Dec 4, 2013)

I'd like to add something to point 11: If you don't understand, ask.
The critique is meant to help you improve and if you don't understand the points brought up (this has happened to me a few times), you're really just shooting yourself in the foot if you don't ask for clarification.
It may also be nice for the person who did the crit to know you're taking on their feedback and learning from it.

Edit: Raph Koster is awesome.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Dec 4, 2013)

I agree with this article. However, one thing I've learned (and it took me awhile to get there) is that writers (and probably any creative artist) need to mature to a point of being able to accept criticism well.

That doesn't mean I'm ever going to coddle or glad-hand someone with a gentle critique of false praise. I won't. I'm just not wired that way. Instead, if I don't believe they're ready to receive brutally honest critique, and view it as a resource to better their work, then I will just politely decline the critique request.

I used to do a lot of critiques in the Showcase forum. Part of that was me trying to provide a service to the community, but part of that effort was to help reinforce the fundamentals within myself because critiquing another's work helped me to grow. Anymore, I've simply decided that most Showcase posters aren't looking for that level of honesty and prefer someone to give applause, even if it isn't wholly merited. 

In light of that, I've developed a few people that I can share work with that I know will give me the straight dope. I'm always open to critiquing with new people but I just won't volunteer crit work if it isn't specifically asked for anymore. Also, I like to know a bit about the person (personality, experience, goals, etc.) before accepting them as a partner. Giving good critique, and establishing good critique partners is a learning process. Doing a thorough critique of even 1000 words takes a lot of time and effort. Additionally, you have to discover what the other person needs, and that takes time. It's exceedingly difficult to give an accurate critique of a single excerpt on the Showcase.

Points that really resonate:

1. Everyone who dislikes your work is right.

6. Good feedback is detailed.

7. People who tell you you’re awesome are useless. No, _dangerous._


----------



## Stare At Shadows (Dec 4, 2013)

Interesting article, though there are some points I find fault with:



Phil the Drill said:


> 1. Everyone who dislikes your work is right.


Um, it's right for them depending on their own personal taste. Opinions are, as we all know, like certain parts of the anatomy: everybody's got one. Writers shouldn't be too precious about their work, but they certainly shouldn't judge its worth based on the opinion of others. If it were up to me the Da Vinci Code would never have been published, but millions love it and who am I to say they're wrong? A certain degree of self-belief is essential for what is (mostly) a solitary craft.



Phil the Drill said:


> 2. The criticism that is useful is that which helps you do it better.


Yup.



Phil the Drill said:


> 3. Nothing's perfect.


Goes without saying, unless one has a serious ego problem.



Phil the Drill said:


> 4. You have to choose between your ideals and your message.


Nope, I disagree with that strongly. All the books that have ever stuck in my head have been ones in which the author's personal world view permeates each page. All fiction is an exercise in communicating with other human beings, and if an author is deliberately disguising a part of him/herself whilst writing it just becomes a soulless exercise. 



Phil the Drill said:


> 5. You have to dig to get the gold.


You have to work to produce anything of merit, but some people are talented enough to set out with a trowel rather than with a spade. I actually need a JCB, but I don't begrudge those who find writing perfect prose a simple prospect, nor do I think their work has less merit because they haven't 'suffered for their art'. Different strokes for different folks and all that.



Phil the Drill said:


> 6. Good feedback is detailed.


No argument here.



Phil the Drill said:


> 7. People who tell you you’re awesome are useless. No, _dangerous._


Depends on the people. If it's someone whose opinion I really respect and I know they aren't an easy sell then I'll take it. If it's friends or family, well, I never ask their opinion about my fiction anyway.



Phil the Drill said:


> 8. Someone asked for feedback will always find something wrong.


In other words, everyone's a critic. As in writing, so in life.



Phil the Drill said:


> 9. Good work may not have an audience.


The masses are asses. Sometimes a good novel hits the sweet spot in the public consciousness, sometimes it doesn't. I tend to think that all good books find their niche eventually, even if it is after the author has died.



Phil the Drill said:


> 10. Any feedback that comes with suggestions for improvement is awesome.


I strongly disagree. Nah, I don't really.:tongue:



Phil the Drill said:


> 11. If you agree with the criticism, say “thank you.” If you disagree, say “fair enough,” and “thank you.”


Any author who allows their work to be critiqued should have a thick skin. Easily offended? Keep your manuscript to yourself.



Phil the Drill said:


> 12. You are not your work.


Yes, I am. My fiction encompasses my philosophy, my politics, everything that makes me human. Not everyone's the same, of course, which brings me back to Point 11. Deal with it or don't play at all.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Dec 4, 2013)

> 1. Everyone who dislikes your work is right.





Stare At Shadows said:


> Um, it's right for them depending on their own personal taste.


That's actually what this article is saying....


----------



## GeekDavid (Dec 4, 2013)

Stare At Shadows said:


> Um, it's right for them depending on their own personal taste. Opinions are, as we all know, like certain parts of the anatomy: everybody's got one. Writers shouldn't be too precious about their work, but they certainly shouldn't judge its worth based on the opinion of others. If it were up to me the Da Vinci Code would never have been published, but millions love it and who am I to say they're wrong? A certain degree of self-belief is essential for what is (mostly) a solitary craft.



Same goes for Twilight. Some people just don't like some literature. I know people who think that all fantasy is ungodly and everything from LotR to Harry Potter should be kept out of the hands of kids. Are those people right?

As far as the rest of the points, they can be summed up by this quote from Dean Wesley Smith (emphasis his):



> Repeat after me….*There is no perfect book.*
> 
> Never has been, never will be. _And you certainly won’t write the first one._ Sorry.


----------



## Stare At Shadows (Dec 4, 2013)

T.Allen.Smith said:


> That's actually what this article is saying....


I know. I was simply expanding on the bullet point for those who didn't click on the article.



GeekDavid said:


> Same goes for Twilight. Some people just don't like some literature. I know people who think that all fantasy is ungodly and everything from LotR to Harry Potter should be kept out of the hands of kids. Are those people right?


Not according to me, but who am I to say they're wrong?



GeekDavid said:


> As far as the rest of the points, they can be summed up by this quote from Dean Wesley Smith:


He's wrong. (I'm just being mischievous, btw).


----------



## AnneL (Dec 4, 2013)

The most useful criticism is often the most infuriating (even when delivered in a kindly fashion) at the time you get it. Look back later on what really riles you up and you may find it right on target.


----------



## Feo Takahari (Dec 4, 2013)

I've noticed that all the advice on how to deal with criticism assumes an initially skeptical response--"the critic is wrong" or "the critic is stupid" or "the critic isn't my target audience." The advice is therefore geared towards getting authors to take criticism seriously and really analyze it. Does anyone have the opposite problem? 

I have a history of hearing someone list reasons why a story is horrible, and believing that those reasons are correct and the story is horrible. At best, I don't feel content until the story has been revised and the flaws have been removed. At worst, I feel powerless to write something that doesn't have those flaws, and I sink into a depression in which I can't write anything. (The latter is particularly common when I'm accused of misogyny--attacking misogyny directly and indirectly has been one of my goals for five years, and yet I'm still not at a point where I can avoid the accusation that I'm part of the problem.) I moped for months after one of my stories got taken apart and mocked line-by-line on Something Awful, and I haven't written in the past two weeks after a misogyny accusation on what I'd intended to be a cute, fluffy romance.

Is there any writing advice at all for the writer who takes criticism to heart?


----------



## Svrtnsse (Dec 4, 2013)

Feo Takahari said:


> Is there any writing advice at all for the writer who takes criticism to heart?



Spontaneously, I'd say "analyze the critic".
To benefit from feedback you need to understand it - I don't think anyone would argue that, right?
A part of this is probably understanding who the feedback is coming from. If a person doesn't understand the point you are trying to make, is it because you're not making it clearly enough, or is it because their frames of reference are hanging on a wall in another room.

I'm not sure this is really helpful advice, and it's probably hard to follow, but maybe it has a point at least?


----------



## GeekDavid (Dec 4, 2013)

Svrtnsse said:


> A part of this is probably understanding who the feedback is coming from. If a person doesn't understand the point you are trying to make, is it because you're not making it clearly enough, or is it because their frames of reference are hanging on a wall in another room.



Or perhaps they just plain don't like the genre... though why they'd be giving feedback on a genre they don't like is an open question.


----------



## Darkfantasy (Dec 4, 2013)

I've always felt that if you're posting your work you need to be able to take it like a man!

I believe in honest crit and would always want people to be honest with me and if that means you HAVE to hurt my feelings then okay. It's okay to tell people the truth "your grammar sucks"

But you must give them something back.

"here's how you can improve it ... Also, I really liked your use of description, it was just right."

See I'm being honest, but I'm not just hammering them with the bad stuff. Hit them with the negative stuff, then hit them with the positive stuff you liked. So they don't feel terrible.

I really can't help me if someone has asked me to crit their work, then throw a temper because I don't say "It's amazing!" I always day the bad then the good. I made one comment once on someone's misuse of a word. Praised the things they did right and this person turned into Medusa. Over one negative little comment. I have no time for those people. I won't stroke anyone's ego, and I won't give anyone false dreams.

All the Best


----------



## GeekDavid (Dec 4, 2013)

Darkfantasy said:


> I've always felt that if you're posting your work you need to be able to take it like a man!



Reminds me of something someone I know well said once.


----------



## AnneL (Dec 4, 2013)

Feo Takahari said:


> I have a history of hearing someone list reasons why a story is horrible, and believing that those reasons are correct and the story is horrible. At best, I don't feel content until the story has been revised and the flaws have been removed. At worst, I feel powerless to write something that doesn't have those flaws, and I sink into a depression in which I can't write anything. (The latter is particularly common when I'm accused of misogyny--attacking misogyny directly and indirectly has been one of my goals for five years, and yet I'm still not at a point where I can avoid the accusation that I'm part of the problem.)



Hi Feo Takahari, below are my thoughts on your questions. Please take what's useful and leave the rest, I think it may come off as more imperious than it is meant to.

So there's a lot to unpack here, because you're talking about craft and about authorial worldview. Re craft, everyone writes crap at times and sometimes if you think it's horrible, it is.  You may have sent it out into the world before it was ready. If you want something productive to come from criticism, give a piece to several people to read and then when you do revisions work on the two or three things that they all seemed to identify as a problem. And (here's the tricky part) remember what they are so you can catch yourself and avoid it when you slide into them on the next story.

Re worldview, specifically misogyny, one way to check yourself is to ask if what is happening to the woman would be acceptable if it happened to a man. Swap the characters' names in the scene and see how it feels. If you haven't read Joanna Russ's "How to Suppress Women's Writing," do -- it's an older book written before there were many established women SF/F writers, and it's really excellent re gender and spec fic.

Good luck, and hang in there.


----------



## Penpilot (Dec 5, 2013)

Feo Takahari said:


> Is there any writing advice at all for the writer who takes criticism to heart?



I agree with Svrtnsse. Part of your development as a writer is to learn how to judge the critique given to you. I used to have this odd guy in my critique group. They couldn't understand a common idiom like "Can't beat a dead horse", so they told me to not use it. Another time they said they couldn't understand a lot of a chapter, and criticised a lot of things, but then later mention as an aside that they only skim-read it. So I didn't put a whole lot of weight to their comments in general. I took what was useful and tossed the rest.

Also, writers have to learn is to trust themselves and their instincts in the face of criticism. A lot of times critiques are just reaffirming what I already suspect. Sometimes they point out the cause. Other times, they're pointing out symptoms. But if you're unsure if something is right or not, go with what you think. Better to make a mistake on your own terms than to succeed and not know how you did it. You'll remember the mistake and not make it again.

Always keep in mind that even though the story you're working on now may not be that great, the next one will be at least a little better, and the same with the next and so on. Believe and know that. With each story you write, embrace the mistakes and the successes, learn from them, and move on. Every successful writer has a pile of really-really bad stories that won't see the light of day. And each of those stories was a small step on their way up to bigger and better. If you're not falling on your face once in a while, you're not trying hard enough.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Dec 5, 2013)

> I've simply decided that most Showcase posters aren't looking for that level of honesty



T.Allen,

I understand exactly where you're coming from.  A detailed critique of even a tiny sample takes quite a bit of time.  What I started doing is giving the poster comments on a few sentences only.  Depending on how that sample is received, I decide if it's worth my time proceeding.

I will say that, though there are some who meet your description, I've found a lot of posters who are the opposite.  They really are seeking meaningful critique in order to improve.


----------



## Mythopoet (Dec 5, 2013)

I find that the real trouble with criticism is that most critics seem to think that what they really are is judges. Most of the criticism I've seen around the internet approaches a manuscript as if the critic is in a seat of judgement over it. They tend to tell the author what things are "wrong" and then they tell they author how to do it "right". 

Well, sorry to tell you Mr./Ms. Critic, but there is no such thing as "right" or "wrong" in storytelling. It's all subjective. What you perceive as "wrong" or "right" is really only your personal opinion. 

If a critic really wants to be helpful to an author they need to stop talking in absolutes. They need to keep in mind that their perspective is just that: their perspective. Don't point out errors as if your word is final. Say things like "this part didn't work for me because..." or "this sentence felt off to me for this reason..." and don't give solutions. It's the writer's job to find the solution if they do agree that there is a problem.


----------



## Jabrosky (Dec 5, 2013)

Feo Takahari said:


> I moped for months after one of my stories got taken apart and mocked line-by-line on Something Awful, and I haven't written in the past two weeks after a misogyny accusation on what I'd intended to be a cute, fluffy romance.


I know those SA creeps. They threw a hissy fit over one of my vignettes too, and that fit largely consisted of reading mean-spirited messages into my writing that I had no intention of conveying. Honestly, I believe their peculiar vendetta against anyone who ever posted on TV Tropes is the only reason they would treat us the way they did. Their existence is why I don't wholeheartedly agree with the first item that says "everyone who dislikes your work is right". Some people are simply not objective reviewers.


----------



## GeekDavid (Dec 5, 2013)

Mythopoet said:


> I find that the real trouble with criticism is that most critics seem to think that what they really are is judges. Most of the criticism I've seen around the internet approaches a manuscript as if the critic is in a seat of judgement over it. They tend to tell the author what things are "wrong" and then they tell they author how to do it "right".
> 
> Well, sorry to tell you Mr./Ms. Critic, but there is no such thing as "right" or "wrong" in storytelling. It's all subjective. What you perceive as "wrong" or "right" is really only your personal opinion.
> 
> If a critic really wants to be helpful to an author they need to stop talking in absolutes. They need to keep in mind that their perspective is just that: their perspective. Don't point out errors as if your word is final. Say things like "this part didn't work for me because..." or "this sentence felt off to me for this reason..." and don't give solutions. It's the writer's job to find the solution if they do agree that there is a problem.



Speaking as a reviewer, I have done that, but only when it comes to repeated and blatant violations of the rules of grammar and/or punctuation. If a writer doesn't know those rules (which are different from the "rules" of creative writing), it's perfectly acceptable to call them out on it.


----------



## Twook00 (Dec 5, 2013)

These are great.  Now, what happens if you share something and get no response at all?  That's always the worst IMO.  Much rather have a harsh critique than no critique at all.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Dec 5, 2013)

BWFoster78 said:


> I will say that, though there are some who meet your description, I've found a lot of posters who are the opposite.  They really are seeking meaningful critique in order to improve.


I'm sure that's true. I suppose I've grown tired of defending advice, over and over, when the critique was given freely, took a lot of effort & time, and is always intended to be helpful. I see a lot of people rail against advice regardless of how it is delivered, even in the Showcase forum, where the poster placed an excerpt there to be read and reviewed. This has lead me to believe that many who say they want critique, really don't. Instead, they're looking more for support & encouragement, which is fine on its own. There are always exceptions of course.



Mythopoet said:


> Well, sorry to tell you Mr./Ms. Critic, but there is no such thing as "right" or "wrong" in storytelling. It's all subjective. What you perceive as "wrong" or "right" is really only your personal opinion.


I've always felt this should be something inherently understood by both the writer & the critic. Writers, are by and large, intelligent and thoughtful people. It baffles my mind to think that an intelligent person cannot discern that a critic is not the "be all, end all" authority, and that they can offer nothing more than their own opinion.



Jabrosky said:


> Their existence is why I don't wholeheartedly agree with the first item that says "everyone who dislikes your work is right". Some people are simply not objective reviewers.


I think the article writer is stating this under the assumption that it is a genuine dislike and not someone reading with some preconceived discontent or opposition.


----------



## Twook00 (Dec 5, 2013)

T.Allen.Smith said:


> This has lead me to believe that many who say they want critique, really don't. Instead, they're looking more for support & encouragement, which is fine on its own. There are always exceptions of course.



Guilty.  I've certainly posted my work in hopes of receiving validation.  If I say, "would you read more?" I usually mean, "should I keep writing this?"


----------



## Philip Overby (Dec 5, 2013)

To address T. Allen, I think a lot of people _do_ want encouragement and validation. That is one reason I've started several groups on the forum to encourage people to share what they're working on and talk about progress. However, I simply don't have time to critique every single person's work. I will do so if asked, but they should be prepared for what I give them. 

Sometimes I may disagree with a critique, but I'm not going to argue with someone over it. They took the time to read something, (which is already time consuming)comment on it (even more time consuming) and give analytical thoughts (again...time) before coming to some kind of overall view on a piece or chapter. If you, as a writer, are asking someone to put that much time into your work, you should be extremely grateful and take what you're given. If you don't like what you're given, just say thanks and don't ask that person for a critique again. No need to waste his or her time.

Sometimes getting a bad critique can be disheartening, I get that. But I'd say 9 times out 10, the person giving the critique is trying to help hone what you already have. That's what good critics do anyway. They don't try to make you write the way they write, they try to focus in on your strengths to bolster them and to highlight some of your weaknesses. Hell, you don't have to be good at every single thing to be a great writer. But it's great to have someone point out your weaknesses so you're at least aware of them.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Dec 5, 2013)

Twook00 said:


> Guilty.  I've certainly posted my work in hopes of receiving validation.  If I say, "would you read more?" I usually mean, "should I keep writing this?"



And there's nothing wrong with that. Validation & encouragement can be powerful motivators, especially for beginners.  

I think it's helpful though, for the writer to be clear about what they are looking for in a review. Do you simply want to know if people would keep reading? Or, do you want it ripped to shreds so you can really make it shine, or learn a new technique? There's a lot of ground in between those points too. State what you need.  

Writers are partially responsible for the type, and content, of the critiques they receive. We should be able to set expectations.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Dec 5, 2013)

> I find that the real trouble with criticism is that most critics seem to think that what they really are is judges. Most of the criticism I've seen around the internet approaches a manuscript as if the critic is in a seat of judgement over it. They tend to tell the author what things are "wrong" and then they tell they author how to do it "right".



For a decade, my writing completely sucked.  I never got feedback on it and kept reproducing the same crap over and over.

When I went to my first writer's group meeting, my eyes got opened.  Big time.  The writers there told me exactly, in excruciatingly painful detail, what I was doing wrong.

I am so glad they did.  My writing is so, so, so much better now.  Still not where I want it to be, but so much better.



> Well, sorry to tell you Mr./Ms. Critic, but there is no such thing as "right" or "wrong" in storytelling. It's all subjective. What you perceive as "wrong" or "right" is really only your personal opinion.



What else would it be but an opinion?  Why would anyone take it as anything else?



> If a critic really wants to be helpful to an author they need to stop talking in absolutes. They need to keep in mind that their perspective is just that: their perspective. Don't point out errors as if your word is final. Say things like "this part didn't work for me because..." or "this sentence felt off to me for this reason..." and don't give solutions. It's the writer's job to find the solution if they do agree that there is a problem.



This is probably the single worst statement I've ever read on this forum.

You know what, the critiquer just spent a lot of time and effort trying to help the writer.  The critiquer isn't getting paid for his comments; he's offering help freely.  In my experience, most critiquers do what they do out of a sincere desire to give back to a community that has helped them.

If someone spends an hour helping me, I don't then sit around complaining that they didn't help me in exactly the way I wanted.  Instead, I say, "Thank you very much for taking the time and effort to do this for me."

If I had your attitude about learning from others, my writing would be no better today than it was a few years ago.


----------



## Steerpike (Dec 5, 2013)

BWFoster78 said:


> This is probably the single worst statement I've ever read on this forum.



This isn't really conducive to friendly forums interactions, though. The same points can be made without this statement. Let's try to keep things from getting personal, and keep the focus solely on the issue at hand.


----------



## Mythopoet (Dec 5, 2013)

T.Allen.Smith said:


> I've always felt this should be something inherently understood by both the writer & the critic. Writers, are by and large, intelligent and thoughtful people. It baffles my mind to think that an intelligent person cannot discern that a critic is not the "be all, end all" authority, and that they can offer nothing more than their own opinion.



Unfortunately, it isn't inherently understood. Mostly because the publishing industry has been spending decades convincing writers that they are nothing and that everyone knows better than them. Writers had to do what their editors told them, then they had to start doing what their agents told them, now the common advice on the internet is to do what your critique group and/or betas tell you. Writers have had it beaten into their brains for years that everyone knows how to write a story better than they do and that they are just one widget in a multitude of widgets. 

Maybe I don't hang out in the right places, but the majority of writers I see on the internet seeking criticism take it like a browbeaten slave, furiously rewriting to please everyone and believing every "rule" they've ever had shoved down their throats. I feel sorry for them.



BWFoster78 said:


> If I had your attitude about learning from others, my writing would be no better today than it was a few years ago.



Don't assume you know anything about my attitude about learning from others. My post did not touch on that at all.


----------



## Twook00 (Dec 5, 2013)

I think motivations are important here.

As a writer, what do you want out of this critique?  Communication is key (after all, you are trying to be a writer).  Be honest and share your wishes and concerns.  That said, you can't expect another human being to respect those wishes.  Be prepared for that.

Likewise, those doing critiques have their own motivations.  They may be trying to help you grow as a writer but they may also be trying to learn from your mistakes.  After all, they are writers too.  By pointing out issues with your story, they are identifying these items not just for you but for themselves.

Art is subjective, but there is definitely craft involved as well.  A person's writing can be objectively bad due to flaws in grammar or poor execution of certain techniques.  It can be very hard to distinguish between what a person thinks is poor writing and what a person dislikes, especially for those who are new to it.

I believe a good critique takes just as much skill as good writing.  Some are more experienced than others.  Some are better at communicating or identifying issues.  I always try to keep that in mind when I'm receiving or giving a critique.


----------



## Steerpike (Dec 5, 2013)

Mythopoet said:


> Unfortunately, it isn't inherently understood. Mostly because the publishing industry has been spending decades convincing writers that they are nothing and that everyone knows better than them. Writers had to do what their editors told them, then they had to start doing what their agents told them, now the common advice on the internet is to do what your critique group and/or betas tell you. Writers have had it beaten into their brains for years that everyone knows how to write a story better than they do and that they are just one widget in a multitude of widgets.



By the time you've reached the point where you've got a decent handle on the mechanics of writing, I think you'll see any and all critique or commentary as opinion, and you have the skills to evaluate for yourself whether you agree with any given comment. 

New writers (and particularly young ones, though not limited to that) do not often make that connection. You can see by the number of "Is it OK to do this" posts in writing forums that new writers are unsure, often insecure, and don't yet have the confidence or grasp on the art to recognize that writing is open-ended. They're more likely to take opinion as fact, and to some extent there is reassurance in believing, however erroneously, that there is one right way to do things and all they have to do is adopt that approach to be successful.

It's with respect to those writers that absolutism in critique does the most harm. For those who have already been around the block a few times, it's a non-issue.


----------



## AnneL (Dec 5, 2013)

Mythopoet said:


> If a critic really wants to be helpful to an author they need to stop talking in absolutes. They need to keep in mind that their perspective is just that: their perspective. Don't point out errors as if your word is final. Say things like "this part didn't work for me because..." or "this sentence felt off to me for this reason..." and don't give solutions. It's the writer's job to find the solution if they do agree that there is a problem.



As a concrete example, I find "This scene didn't work for me because X's motivation to do it came from out of the blue" is much more helpful than "Your characters are inconsistent."

That said, there is an art to learning how to give criticism, in part because not everyone benefits from the same kinds of criticism. People aren't born knowing how to be good readers anymore than they are born knowing how to be good writers.


----------



## Philip Overby (Dec 5, 2013)

Mythopoet said:


> Unfortunately, it isn't inherently understood. Mostly because the publishing industry has been spending decades convincing writers that they are nothing and that everyone knows better than them. Writers had to do what their editors told them, then they had to start doing what their agents told them, now the common advice on the internet is to do what your critique group and/or betas tell you. Writers have had it beaten into their brains for years that everyone knows how to write a story better than they do and that they are just one widget in a multitude of widgets.
> 
> Maybe I don't hang out in the right places, but the majority of writers I see on the internet seeking criticism take it like a browbeaten slave, furiously rewriting to please everyone and believing every "rule" they've ever had shoved down their throats. I feel sorry for them.



I'd like to think there are thousands and thousands of good books created because an editor pushed for changes that made the book so much better. Oftentimes I feel sad when I read a review for a book and it says, "This is an excellent concept and is a great story overall. But it was in desperate need of an editor." This could mean grammar, spelling, etc. or just content. Writers tend to think that every single thing they put in a book is needed. I'm the same way. However, if you have someone to say "You have like five parts where your character is kidnapped" then maybe it would be good to pare it down.

I don't believe any one person should dictate how a writer does rewrites. I think a good aggregate would be three or more critique partners. If you see the same things crop up in their comments, then maybe something you're doing really doesn't work. However, if you're seeing one person rail on about the characters and the other two people have more moderate views on them, then perhaps it's best to consider the majority's opinion.

Critiques are nothing but suggestions. They're well-meant, thoughtful suggestions though. I don't think any writer should ever sacrifice their vision to please critique partners, but they should take these things into consideration. 

At the end of the day, only change what you want to change, but realize there may be the chance you're depriving the world of a great book in favor of simply a decent one.


----------



## Mythopoet (Dec 5, 2013)

Steerpike said:


> It's with respect to those writers that absolutism in critique does the most harm. For those who have already been around the block a few times, it's a non-issue.



This is probably generally true. But it bothers me that I see the message "writers need to learn how to take criticism" all over the place and never "critics need to learn how to give criticism". 

Yes, I get it that a lot of people do critique for free out of the desire to help. And if your desire is to help then you should be interested in making sure you are actually acting in helpful ways and not in harmful ways. Someone who thinks they are being helpful no matter what they do just because they intend to be helpful is not someone I would want to deal with.


----------



## Steerpike (Dec 5, 2013)

Mythopoet said:


> This is probably generally true. But it bothers me that I see the message "writers need to learn how to take criticism" all over the place and never "critics need to learn how to give criticism".



Sure. If you want to be an effective critiquer, it pays to learn how to give the critique in a way that is going to be most beneficial, and also most likely to be received by the writer. If you don't, you're just wasting the time you put into the critique if the writers ignores it.


----------



## Chessie (Dec 5, 2013)

Steerpike said:


> New writers (and particularly young ones, though not limited to that) do not often make that connection. You can see by the number of "Is it OK to do this" posts in writing forums that new writers are unsure, often insecure, and don't yet have the confidence or grasp on the art to recognize that writing is open-ended. They're more likely to take opinion as fact, and to some extent there is reassurance in believing, however erroneously, that there is one right way to do things and all they have to do is adopt that approach to be successful.


This is totally me today haha. But the reason why I post these questions from time to time is to play with everyone's suggestions in my head. Like playing dodgeball.  I like delicious brainstorms. I definitely have had my fair share of tears and emotions over critiques before. Every experience made me grow stronger as a writer and now it doesn't even bother me anymore. 

I went to one critique group where most of the writers wrote romance. That didn't work out so well for me. Most of their complaints were centered around the fantasy elements...which they didn't like. So I have learned to find critique partners or beta readers that understand fantasy, or at least what you're trying to do with it. 

I love getting feedback from my beta readers and they aren't soft about it either. Their suggestions are useful and sometimes I rewrite, and other times I don't. I think growing thick skin is the other part of the equation to being a writer. If its not critique groups then its amazon readers, or whatever. Someone out there is always going to think you could have done something different in the story. 

Who cares? I say. Have faith in yourself and the story. It will all work out. I've been working on trusting my internal artist lately and I think its paying off. Confidence as a writer takes time to build but that's why we have sites such as this to support us in our creative endeavors. 

I also think its a good idea to remember that those offering their critiques are doing us a service. Its not easy to read someone's work in progress and provide feedback that may/may not be helpful...plus you never know how someone is going to take it. The perfect relationship of the two would be a feel good communication where writer points out what he is looking for and critique person states their suggestions in a respectful manner.


----------



## Jabrosky (Dec 5, 2013)

Mythopoet said:


> I find that the real trouble with criticism is that most critics seem to think that what they really are is judges. Most of the criticism I've seen around the internet approaches a manuscript as if the critic is in a seat of judgement over it. They tend to tell the author what things are "wrong" and then they tell they author how to do it "right".
> 
> Well, sorry to tell you Mr./Ms. Critic, but there is no such thing as "right" or "wrong" in storytelling. It's all subjective. What you perceive as "wrong" or "right" is really only your personal opinion.
> 
> If a critic really wants to be helpful to an author they need to stop talking in absolutes. They need to keep in mind that their perspective is just that: their perspective. Don't point out errors as if your word is final. Say things like "this part didn't work for me because..." or "this sentence felt off to me for this reason..." and don't give solutions. It's the writer's job to find the solution if they do agree that there is a problem.


For me the most painful judgements that reviewers can make are the moralistic ones, especially when they take on the absolutist tone of voice you describe.

Recently I reviewed a beautifully written story about jazz musicians on another message board. The lead female character's skin color was described as "cafe au lait". Personally I felt it was a fitting metaphor for a woman portrayed as beautiful, and so did everyone else in the thread, but I know certain people who would shriek like harpies at the very prospect of likening non-European skin tones to flavorful foods. Apparently such compliments are taboo in politically correct circles nowadays.

If someone were to point out perceived stylistic problems with my writing, I can thank them for their opinion even if I don't agree with it. It would be another matter entirely if said reviewer were to accuse me of propagating this or that immoral ideology even when I had the opposite intention. Such statements go beyond literary criticism and effectually amount to personal attacks on a writer's character.

I suppose if a reviewer adopted the "personal opinion" disclaimer when pointing out potential unfortunate implications in my writing and simply asked if I really wanted to convey those messages, it wouldn't seem so bad. Alas, outraged moralizers generally gravitate towards the absolutist stance.


----------



## GeekDavid (Dec 5, 2013)

Jabrosky said:


> If someone were to point out perceived stylistic problems with my writing, I can thank them for their opinion even if I don't agree with it. It would be another matter entirely if said reviewer were to accuse me of propagating this or that immoral ideology even when I had the opposite intention. Such statements go beyond literary criticism and effectually amount to personal attacks on a writer's character.



In many cases (note, I didn't say all), the reviewer in question hasn't even read the whole work. It's happened that a reviewer posted a review based on what X said about the book, or what Y said Z said about it.

This generally happens with highly controversial works, but in these hypersensitive times when "cafe au lait" can get people up in arms -- I happen to like that descriptive term, by the way -- just about anything can become controversial.


----------



## Philip Overby (Dec 5, 2013)

I find that the vast majority of time something comes up here, the phrase "it depends" comes up a lot. That goes to show that most people that have seen many, many kinds of writing will unmistakably say that anything goes. However, a certain degree of awareness can help temper writing. For example, if someone says your dialogue is stilted, sure, that's their opinion, but if someone says that to you, maybe it's a good idea to analyze examples of stilted dialogue and see why someone might think that.

So for example, if someone questions your choice of description of skin color, look at it from their perspective. Why would they be bothered by this or think it's a problem? If you come to conclusion that the reasoning isn't good enough for you, then carry on.


----------



## Jabrosky (Dec 5, 2013)

Phil the Drill said:


> So for example, if someone questions your choice of description of skin color, look at it from their perspective. Why would they be bothered by this or think it's a problem? If you come to conclusion that the reasoning isn't good enough for you, then carry on.


If the objecting reviewer did happen to come from the racial or ethnic group purportedly slighted by the choice of descriptor, their personal offense might be worth considering. However, it so happens that non-European people, being human beings with diverse perspectives and all, don't all agree on what's personally offensive to them. I've seen African and Afro-Diasporan women proudly label themselves "mocha", "chocolate", "ebony" or other adjectives that PC types denounce as inherently fetishistic or whatever. I've even seen them call interracial dating "swirling" in reference to chocolate/vanilla-swirled ice cream. Sure, there may also exist non-European women who take offense to such metaphors, but that only makes the decision all the messier.


----------



## Penpilot (Dec 5, 2013)

T.Allen.Smith said:


> I think it's helpful though, for the writer to be clear about what they are looking for in a review. Do you simply want to know if people would keep reading? Or, do you want it ripped to shreds so you can really make it shine, or learn a new technique? There's a lot of ground in between those points too. State what you need.
> 
> Writers are partially responsible for the type, and content, of the critiques they receive. We should be able to set expectations.



I think this is a very good point. In my critique group, we state if it's the first draft, the fourth, etc. If it's a first draft, I'll circle grammar mistakes on a printed copy if I notice them, but otherwise I focus in on story, structure, etc. If it's a fourth draft, I'll spend a little more time on the mechanics of things because it's supposed to be more polished.

A lot of times when a new member comes into the group, before I comment on anything they've written, I ask "Are you looking for anything specific in the critique?" and "What draft is this?"


----------



## psychotick (Dec 6, 2013)

Hi,

Just a quick point about the comment that people who hate your work are right - I recently received this review on one of my books and have to say it floored me:

_"This book is so contrive, that if it would have been a paperback instead of on my kindle I would have thrown it across the room. Also if this woman could see that the main character killed, why could she not see why? I hate books where the character shows an unreasonable amount of guilt for either protecting themselves or other by killing their attacker. This shows poor writing skills to us such a contrived emotion to drive the story line. People who survive an attack feels relief not guilt."_

Now not to belabour the point but to set the scene - my Mc initiated the attack (for noble reasons thankfully) peppered the guy with arrows and then watched him fall into a fire and burn to death screaming - in a manner reminiscent of his childhood memories. Since he's a normal enough guy morally speaking, I would expect him to feel guilt and shame for that. I don't think I went overboard in portraying that since it's only a small part of the book. But hey maybe for some people any form of guilt or remorse is too much.

My point is that if this guy is right - and in my view he's not - then I really want to be wrong! I don't want my MC to be some sort of sociopath.

And that's actually the hardest part about accepting criticism, judging when to listen to advice and think well maybe they have a point, and when to think - well they're just plain wrong. 

In this case I read the review, I consider it a genuine view, I weighed it up, and I considered that I don't want to change my books in any way to reflect his point of view. It's my book and my vision and ultimately I have to be able to write what I believe in, and not simply bend to the whim of every critic and assume they are the best judges of what my books should be. A few years ago I might not have been so sanguine about this and would have been riddled with self doubt after reading his review.

Cheers, Greg.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Dec 6, 2013)

psychotick said:


> Hi,
> 
> Just a quick point about the comment that people who hate your work are right - I recently received this review on one of my books and have to say it floored me:
> 
> ...



We have to be able to apply judgment on critiques, and it appears you're very capable of doing so. I don't believe this article suggests that you must accept the opinion as truth. Rather, the article's author is suggesting that if a reader had a particular reaction to your work then, assuming it is genuine, that reaction is real and valid...for them. I think that's hard to argue against since we're discussing opinions and likes/dislikes which are widely subjective.

Still, even with critiques like these, it may be wise to consider the comments. I'm not trying to say you should accept them and make changes off of such harsh comments. However, there may be issues underneath the acid tongue we could focus on which could better our writing. 

Now, that being said, I don't know this person & I haven't read your book, but the first thing that popped to mind when I read the review and your comments was "Is there a clarity issue?". There may well not be, but it seems like the portrayal you were trying to impart, and the emotion you were trying to invoke failed...for this reader. 

Would I let one review like this alter my process or thinking? Probably not. However, if I got a few like this, it's time for some serious thought and introspection. This is why we should look at reviews as a whole and not single out hurtful comments. If I have ten readers and seven like it, two thought it was pedestrian, and one couldn't even finish, I may make a few changes but I'd be pretty content with 70% of the people enjoying the story. What I'm trying to say is.... Don't let one-off reviews impact too deeply. Consider one review as a facet of a greater whole.


----------



## Philip Overby (Dec 6, 2013)

I'll just leave here what Raph said about people disliking your work for those who may have not read the OP:



> Everyone who dislikes your work is right.
> 
> This is the hardest pill to swallow. I’ve never gotten a piece of feedback that was wrong. You see, you can’t deny a player their unique experience. Whatever they felt, was true. For them. And something in your work triggered it.
> 
> ...



@psychotick: To me the review you posted sounds more like someone's personal dislike for a way of portraying emotions. However, this person obviously has "some experience" with these kind of books since he/she mentions "I hate these kind of books." So one person's not a fan. It happens. It's good for you to recognize what you published was the vision you wanted and decided not to change it. 

One thing to note though: reviews are not always analytical. In this case, it sounds like the reader had a raw emotional reaction to something. A pet peeve or some such. Sometimes I see reviews that say "This was boring. I wouldn't recommend it" and that's it. These reviews are about as useful to potential readers as "This was awesome! Must buy!!!!"

For me, if I was planning to pick up your book and saw this particular review, I may wonder what this reviewer is talking about. However, I'd make my own judgment if I felt like the key elements (good blurb, nice cover art, interesting sample) worked for me in order to begin reading it.

I've read people say "I can't stand Game of Thrones for the way it portrays the world as grim and full of death." Well, that's your personal choice. And if you don't like it, fine. The internet has definitely cracked open a whole new realm of opinions. And I think that's great. Sometimes if someone hates something you do it can be just as good as them loving it. I bet for every review like this, there are others that liked the scene you described. It's good to get a wide spectrum of responses to your work. It's when they don't care or feel indifferent is when it's time to worry.


----------



## psychotick (Dec 6, 2013)

Hi,

Yeah I agree. I believe this review is genuine. I've had drive by's before and they are usually quite different. But my point isn't whether the review is genuine. It's weather the review is right. And that's something completely different.

In the end as a writer you have a vision and you write to it. And a huge part of maturing as a writer is learning to trust yourself. To trust in your vision. That's not to say that what you write will appeal to everyone. Most works may not appeal to loads of people. And people can honestly say they would prefer this or that, or they found some things within the book to be unacceptable etc. But in the end you have to balance what they say against your vision. 

If they say they didn't understand part of the work, or a character was unconvincing etc, listen. It may be as you say a clarity issue. If there's a factual matter brought up as in my example then check it. (And in this case the reviewer got the facts wrong.) But if they are saying that they don't like your vision then you have to be able to stand back and say "that's wrong". Because in essence it is. The moment you start altering your work in such a basic way because you place another person's vision in higher regard than your own, you're lost as a writer.

Imagine if Tolkein had got a review saying something along the lines of "I hate the whole idea of two friends risking life and limb to support each other to complete a mission", and had listened to it.

Or take Twilight (please!). I hate it. Passionately. But I would never write a review saying that the fundamental premise of the book - vampires really just wanting to be loved by teenage girls, is wrong. It's not. (Well sort of not?) In the end that may be a genuine gut reaction of mine to the work, but to critique the book on this basis would be completely wrong. That is the core of the author's vision, and she did not write it for me as a reader.

There are parts of a writer's work that are simply too central to the work, too much the core of the vision, that as a writer you simply have to accept that the critique is wrong. It may be genuine, but in the end you simply have to reject it as wrong. Because to accept it in any way as being right is to basically deep six your entire book and maybe a lot more besides.

Cheers, Greg.


----------



## Feo Takahari (Dec 6, 2013)

psychotick said:


> Or take Twilight (please!). I hate it. Passionately. But I would never write a review saying that the fundamental premise of the book - vampires really just wanting to be loved by teenage girls, is wrong. It's not. (Well sort of not?) In the end that may be a genuine gut reaction of mine to the work, but to critique the book on this basis would be completely wrong. That is the core of the author's vision, and she did not write it for me as a reader.



I don't know if you'd agree or disagree with this, but I think it's a valid review to say that Meyer's conception of love is wrong--that she promotes as tender and romantic a controlling, unhealthy relationship. It's not saying the author shouldn't have written about love, but saying that there are better ways to write about love.


----------



## psychotick (Dec 6, 2013)

Hi Feo,

My thought is that I'd disagree. I think what you've said about the work is completely correct, I just don't think it's a legitimate thing to raise in a critique. It basically says to the author throw it out and start again, and this time do it according to my design of what a healthy romantic relationship should be.

If I was going to make that sort of comment it might be as a sort of aside in a review as a sort of guide / warning to other readers, but even that would be a stretch since I don't know what other readers might think of such romantic relationships. Most likely I would put that in a completely separate opinion piece since that's essentially what it is.

So if we're going to unhealthy romantic relationships etc, why not go to the font and the writings of the Marquis De Sade, say Justine. Now I could write a critique saying something like - this book is perverted. But I wouldn't.

In the end this comes back to the purpose of the critique. Is it to help the writer? In which case the comment is useless to him. He presumably knew from his prison sentences that his work was perverted. What the writer needs to know is opinion as to how to make his book better. (I personally dread to think what sort of advice that might entail for our ancient noble.) If I'm writing a review for other readers, then yes I could make that comment as a warning to them, assuming by some chance they didn't realise what they were planning on reading. But really the only place the opinion would have true merit is in an opinion piece essentially decrying his work.

As an aside I am toying with the idea of writing such a piece about some of the writings of Nietzsche. (Polemics in my view though even that may be too generous to the man. Hate speech is more accurate.) But I wouldn't be writing a critique to help improve Freddy's writing assuming he was still alive, nor a review for other readers of his work - they surely know what they're getting into. It would be about giving my opinion on his work, not for its literary merit or story telling, but to disagree with his philosophy.

Cheers, Greg.


----------



## Steerpike (Dec 6, 2013)

Feo Takahari said:


> I don't know if you'd agree or disagree with this, but I think it's a valid review to say that Meyer's conception of love is wrong--that she promotes as tender and romantic a controlling, unhealthy relationship. It's not saying the author shouldn't have written about love, but saying that there are better ways to write about love.


 
Is a fiction writer necessarily 'promoting' every behavior they write about? Also, lets not assume readers are stupid, whether adult or teen. This is an odd criticism of the book, in my opinion. I think it is an overstatement of the issue, makes assumptions that aren't necessarily justified, and ignores parallels in other works (usually because the reviewer likes those other ones, like Buffy). 

So I suppose its a valid review in that the reviewer provides his true opinion, but it supports the point made in this thread that you shouldn't always listen to a person providing a critique. Unlike a review of the work, this would seem to me to be beyond what is desirable in a critique, because the person providing the critique isn't writing the story and deciding the character relationships. That's the author's job.


----------



## GeekDavid (Dec 6, 2013)

psychotick said:


> Just a quick point about the comment that people who hate your work are right - I recently received this review on one of my books and have to say it floored me:
> 
> _"This book is so contrive, that if it would have been a paperback instead of on my kindle I would have thrown it across the room. Also if this woman could see that the main character killed, why could she not see why? I hate books where the character shows an unreasonable amount of guilt for either protecting themselves or other by killing their attacker. This shows poor writing skills to us such a contrived emotion to drive the story line. People who survive an attack feels relief not guilt."_



Obviously, this person is not a fan of your style of literature. Therefore, I'd take those comments with a very large grain of salt.

It is hard enough to write a book that will please those that are already fans of your style (or maybe the word is sub-genre) without trying to please those that aren't fans. I'm not a fan of the vampire-werewolf-zombie style of fantasy, so it makes no sense for an author to try to craft a story in that style that will appeal to me. I'm not that author's audience. Not to mention that in trying to tweak the story to appeal to me, said author would probably change it in such a way that he'd lose his appeal to his real fans.

No book will be loved by everyone. Even _The Hobbit_ and LotR have their detractors among fantasy fans. The key is to accept it and move on.

On a related note: It's perfectly OK for people, even fellow fans of the huge and diverse genre we call "fantasy," to like and dislike different things. If someone doesn't like the kinds of books I like (i.e. David Eddings, L.E. Modesitt, Brock Deskins), that's no skin off my nose. I like what I like, they like what they like, and I'm perfectly fine with that.


----------



## Feo Takahari (Dec 6, 2013)

@Psychotick: It's not like I haven't rewritten from the ground up when folks told me I was being creepy. If they hadn't told me, I would have kept being creepy in the same way in later stories. (Besides, have you seen what happens when authors decide they no longer care if they alienate their readers? That way lies Orson Scott Card.)

P.S. As for the question of advocacy, I thought Twilight was supposed to be about a mutually unhealthy relationship. Then I read that interview in which Meyer called Edward the perfect boyfriend. Yeurgh.


----------

