# How do you deal with criticism?



## Chessie (May 7, 2013)

I was inspired to post this question after a piece of mine was critiqued last night in comparison to GOT...which I thought was ridiculous. My writing could never compare to someone as experienced as George RR Martin! Which got me to thinking: as an aspiring published author, I would say I'm still sensitive to the comments of others when it comes to my work. I pour my heart and soul into my stories, yet always remembering to put the reader's needs first (while honoring the characters, etc). I love to write and it pleases me greatly to have others read my stuff.

But, I'm such a baby when it comes to criticism. I want this to change. I'm starting a new writing group in a few weeks and although I appreciate the suggestions of others (which have been helpful even at their most brutal moments), I still want thick skin because I know that its even tougher out there in the big bad world of publishing. 

How do you folks do it? What's your trick to taking the crits of others...not so much to heart?


----------



## Steerpike (May 7, 2013)

I don't know that there's a trick to it. I want criticism. The negative feedback will do you a lot more good in the long run than the positive feedback. You have to be able to separate reasonable criticism from useless criticism, but that's true whether someone is being overly negative or not. When you get criticism, take what you can use and leave the rest, and don't interpret the criticism as being some kind of statement about you personally.

Also, if you're an aspiring published author, then holding up comparisons to Game of Thrones is not out of bounds. That's your competition. You're better off holding yourself and your work to the highest standard you can think of that discounting your own work as being unable of reaching those heights. If you don't have faith in yourself in comparison to the likes of GRRM, why should an potential reader who is trying to decide what book to buy have faith in you?

One thing that I think is good with respect to criticism is to refuse to let yourself argue with it. Whether you agree with a critique or not, whether you think it is too hard or too soft, just say thank you and go on your way. Take what you can from the critique, and if that's nothing, then so be it. One of the worst things you can do is get into debates with a critiquer over their critique of your work. So if you're ever tempted to go that route, avoid it


----------



## Chessie (May 7, 2013)

Steerpike said:


> Also, if you're an aspiring published author, then holding up comparisons to Game of Thrones is not out of bounds. That's your competition. You're better off holding yourself and your work to the highest standard you can think of that discounting your own work as being unable of reaching those heights. If you don't have faith in yourself in comparison to the likes of GRRM, why should an potential reader who is trying to decide what book to buy have faith in you?



I didn't even think of it that way, thank you! Very clarifying. I do like crits, I want them, yes. Your post is very helpful, Steerpike, thank you for reminding me that really, its up to us what we choose to take from anything anyone says. I have this nasty habit of getting butthurt at the harshest comments...but then I turn around and put some to good use.


----------



## Steerpike (May 7, 2013)

Chesterama said:


> I didn't even think of it that way, thank you! Very clarifying. I do like crits, I want them, yes. Your post is very helpful, Steerpike, thank you for reminding me that really, its up to us what we choose to take from anything anyone says. I have this nasty habit of getting butthurt at the harshest comments...but then I turn around and put some to good use.



I think that happens to everyone, at least early on. I know when I started writing I was reluctant to show people my writing, because it bothered me to get criticism. Now, it just doesn't bother me anymore. It took time, but now whether someone loves m y work or rips it to shreds, I'm fine with it. Hopefully, they'll thrown in some useful observations in the process. If not, I still thank them and disregard everything they've said


----------



## AnnaBlixt (May 7, 2013)

Hey, don't worry about being compared to GRRM. ;-) 
While he does have a lot of brilliance, his last two volumes in ASOIAF sucked balls, to put it bluntly. He got a lot of bad critique for book 4, but did he learn from it before publishing book 5? Noooooo... and he would have been a better writer if he had. 

For pity's sake, man, stop adding new perspectives, stop dillying around with storylines that lead nowhere, stop having your characters go around contemplating the texture of their pubic hair, and get on with the fricking story! 

No one is above critique. A good writer learns from his, and if you take the critique that others give you and learn from it, you will be a better writer than Martin.


----------



## Sheilawisz (May 7, 2013)

Accepting that you have to face criticism is a realistic part of being a Writer.

The positive feedback feels great, and even though the negative criticism can hurt, it's necessary so we can learn how to improve our craft and be better writers in the future. We have to keep cool heads and cold hearts as writers, so my best advice in case that you find trouble with this, is that you have to toughen up.

Also, remember that some readers might give you negative feedback simply because they don't like or understand the type of stories that you are writing. My sister loves reading my Fantasy stories, but my parents have read virtually nothing of my stuff and they would say it's bad anyway, just because they are not Fantasy people.

I also pour my heart and my soul into my stories, so I know how you feel =)


----------



## Butterfly (May 7, 2013)

I had this same comment over at YWO several months ago. I haven't been there since I started redrafting. Now I'm close to the end, I might put up the next drafted opening shortly. What this person said... 'It reads too much like a Game of thrones...'

And I'm like... no it doesn't. It's nothing like GOT.

I put it down to two things...

1. The way I've set it out is one POV per chapter, and a different POV to the previous chapter. That's the only possible similarity they could have noticed. (Actually I'm assuming this structure is pretty widespread)

2. GOT is quite popular at the moment with the HBO series. Inexperienced reviewers will try to make comparisons to other work out there to have something to say. Yours, vs whatever is currently being hyped / raged about.


----------



## Chessie (May 7, 2013)

The comment made to me was that it didn't read enough like it. Totally irritated me...why would I try and make my work out to be like someone else's? 

Thank you for the advice, its definitely helpful. I do need to toughen up. :/


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (May 7, 2013)

Some great advice above. 

In my opinion, learning to deal with critiques is merely a matter of perspective. It's easy to listen to praise & early on that's what everyone desires when they put their work out there for the first time. Those "this is awesome" comments just feel good. They reinforce our own belief in the work & ourselves as writers. 

However, we learn more from constructive criticism. Constructive criticism is that which is given in the spirit of helping...partnering with the author to improve the piece. Also, it is criticism designed to assist the author with THEIR vision of style & story. Honestly, delivering a good critique is not easy. It's work. Understand this & learn to appreciate another's work geared towards helping your story. From the authors side, we need to learn to assess which critiques are constructive versus those which are not helpful. 

Regardless though, when someone critiques your work & shows you something that didn't work for them, you should pay attention to those comments. Just don't listen to them when it comes to their opinions on how it SHOULD be rewritten... That's your job. 


> "Remember: when people tell you something's wrong or doesn't work for them, they are almost always right. When they tell you exactly what they think is wrong and how to fix it, they are almost always wrong."
> - Neil Gaiman


A thick skin towards critique is something that's grown. You're not born with it. Everyone wants praise for work they pour their heart into. That's normal & perfectly understandable. You should feel some sense of accomplishment from just putting your work out there for the world to see. That, in and of itself, is not an easy task. It takes bravery, confidence, & a sincere desire to improve. Now, you need to take the next mental step...develop that perspective where you seek critique, and partners, that point out every potential flaw. As writers, we are often blind to those imperfections. They only become visible and clear when seen through the eyes of others. How can we fix errors we cannot see?


----------



## Penpilot (May 7, 2013)

Yeah... pretty much what Steerpike said.

I stress the part where comments about the work are not comments about you as a person. If someone says your story sucks, they are not saying YOU suck. I think some writers have trouble differentiating that.

Also I like to be a realist. Have you ever watched American Idol auditions? Have you seen those people who's family and friends told them they're great singers but when they step on stage realize they're great singers... but only in the shower. When compared to professional singers, there's no comparison? I never want to ever be that deluded.

Remember critiquers are not always right. Part of your job is to absorb what they're saying in silence and judge after the fact whether what they said is valid or not. This judgement is important because it tests your decisions as a writer and your ability to justify your decisions and be confident about them in the face of someone telling you it's wrong.

I remember there used to be a guy in my writing group that would constantly say that they didn't get this or that about my stories and any time I used an idiom they'd say they didn't understand it and had to look it up. I had to make a judgement on if I wasn't giving enough info for the story to make sense and if I was using obscure idioms. After a few critiques from him, I came to the conclusion he was dead wrong and was pretty much full of it. Why? My firsts suspicion was he couldn't understand common idioms like "Let the cat out of the bag" and "Don't look a gift horse in the mouth." I believed these were things that I could reasonably expect the reader to understand, and then he let it slip that he was only skimming stories, not really reading them. As soon as I knew that I took his critiques with a mountain sized grain of salt.

Again, as said above, take what you need from a critique, throw away the rest.


----------



## Alexandra (May 7, 2013)

Criticism is a virtually unavoidable aspect of art and being an artist. Consumers of art have the right to criticize that which they consume. Creators of art are obliged to weather the storms of criticism they may receive. The only way to avoid this is to create, but never show, your work; you avoid all criticism but you also avoid all acclaim—the choice is yours. How to deal with the critics?... tomorrow's another day.


----------



## brokethepoint (May 7, 2013)

I would ignore the comparison unless if there are distinct similarities.  Would I compare Rothfuss and GRRM, nope.  

I would rather be compared to Rothfuss 

I would look at what they are saying about your writing, are they giving you good info?  Remember don't just change things because they say to, look at it analyze it and see how it will work.  Not everything they say may be right.


----------



## Alexandra (May 7, 2013)

Don't go onto twitter or search for yourself online, that's where self-esteem goes to die.


----------



## wordwalker (May 7, 2013)

My rule for criticism is to take it like a poll.

That is, nobody's going to give you an opinion that's "right," or one that's simply "wrong" either. Instead you get different views, that are samples (ok, maybe skewed samples) of the readers you'll eventually have; someone would like more of one thing, someone else is from the small minority who managed to completely misread X, and so on.

Then, the writer's job is to take those views and decide how important each is, and how much different ways to satisfy each would hurt what the writing's really about. If someone always wants more description/action/whatever, maybe there's room for more-- or you might think you've done enough there and you take it in stride. When someone has even the pettiest problem, look around for an easy way to cover it for him and the other readers that will have the same quirk, but don't twist the story very far if it's a small thing.

You don't have to act on or trust any of these people; they're all human enough to be flat-out clueless sometimes, though again they're still worth cluing in. But all the same, they do represent some share of your readership and a priceless opportunity to get out of your own head, so they're never something to ignore either.

The rest is just practice. The story is what it is because it's personal, so of course getting other opinions are going to be painful; sometimes the only cure is just thickening the skin.


----------



## Jabrosky (May 7, 2013)

For me, the problem is knowing what to do if you disagree with a particular critique. Disregarding them outright seems rude, but then so does debating their points with them. It's especially bad if the reviewer states their opinion as if it were objective fact, as if the changes they suggest _must _be made.


----------



## Feo Takahari (May 7, 2013)

I think it's better to ignore them than to argue with them. You don't want to be known as the author who accuses readers of interrogating the text from the wrong perspective.


----------



## Steerpike (May 7, 2013)

Jabrosky said:


> For me, the problem is knowing what to do if you disagree with a particular critique. Disregarding them outright seems rude, but then so does debating their points with them. It's especially bad if the reviewer states their opinion as if it were objective fact, as if the changes they suggest _must _be made.



I agree with Feo. Just say thanks and then ignore the critique. Debating with the person just makes the author look bad most of the time. Sometimes someone else besides the author will step in and say something. I know I don't have a problem pointing out things I see wrong when I read a critique of someone else's work. But when someone critiques my work, unless I have some follow up questions for them, I usually just say thanks and leave it at that. If they screwed up a critique so badly that I can't find any value in it, then it's hardly worth the effort to try to set them straight.


----------



## Wanara009 (May 7, 2013)

Well, I actually like it when I receive negative criticism. After all, the only way we learn from our mistake is to be aware of it in the first place. However, pleasing everyone is impossible so I found the best way to deal with criticism is to have many critics/beta-reader/etc. Find the common patterns amongst them all and focus your attention on that.

Personally, I treat criticism as 'advice' rather than 'fact'. It's my choice to agree with them or not but I appreciate all of it nonetheless. And if I don't agree, I will tell them my reasoning why and listen to the critic point of view with an open mind since they might turn me around with their argument.


----------



## Devor (May 8, 2013)

I try to ignore it until I stop sobbing.

. . . . . .

Yeah, don't do that.  You just have to focus on the work.  I know your writing is personal, and oftentimes critiquers are jerks about it, but even if they say "You're awful, go back to grammar school!" they're only talking about the work.  So put a filter on them:  _Can this comment help me make the work better?  No?  Ignore._

It's not always easy, but it helps to remember that it's not worth the emotional baggage of carrying the hostility of needing to process a bad review.  Be humble enough to always consider yourself a person with lots to learn, and with a bit of experience you'll learn to nix the tough comments.

As for thinking you're not good enough to be compared to GRRM, well, lots of competent people think they're no good at what they do.  Just fake it 'til you make it.


----------



## Jamber (May 8, 2013)

There's negative, and then there's scathing... As long as the critiquer isn't trying to stop you from trying harder, they're giving you the most valuable gift of all: honesty.
Having said that, everyone needs to be told they're doing something right, even if it's only 'nice spelling'. It takes a long time to learn faith in one's own work. I really believe in not just picking the faults but saying what did work (if a writer seems fairly new to the job).
I agree with all the responses here, though -- don't be tempted to defend your work, and thank the critiquer. Pain is a necessary part of the process (just not _only_ pain).
cheers
Jennie


----------



## Feo Takahari (May 8, 2013)

Thought of mentioning this earlier, but it took me a while to work up the guts.

I've been sporked on Something Awful, so I've been directly targeted by people who not only tore my work apart, but called me a horrible person for writing it. I obsessively read every comment, which was probably the worst possible thing to do--it took me quite a while after that to muster up any self-confidence or self-esteem. I guess I should have just pretended never to have heard about it.


----------



## Chessie (May 8, 2013)

I'm glad to read all these great responses. I will say this: a most brutal critique was what led me to reevaluate the story I wrote at the time and now its turned into something stronger. Yes, critiques are helpful I just wish some people were more...human...about it. My skill has improved greatly because of the feedback I get from others which is valuable to me. Like I said in my opening post, I'm still sensitive about it and I wish I wasn't, but perhaps that comes with time. 

Its the ability to take what is helpful and ignore what isn't. The comment I received last night irritated me because I couldn't believe someone actually said that my writing didn't resemble another's work enough. Although with GOT being huge right now it shouldn't surprise me. My work is more fantasy drama than action drama.


----------



## Devor (May 8, 2013)

Chesterama said:


> The comment I received last night irritated me because I couldn't believe someone actually said that my writing didn't resemble another's work enough. Although with GOT being huge right now it shouldn't surprise me. My work is more fantasy drama than action drama.



The question is whether GRRM is the right author to be compared to.  Every author has a unique style, but that style probably crisscrosses the style of a few other authors.  If you're writing in a style close to GRRM's, then absolutely you should be compared to him as appropriate.  If you're nothing like GRRM, than the commentor needs to stop imposing their own favorite style onto your writing.  The goal is for you to improve your own style - which isn't to say that just anything you do is yours and works, but that you should develop techniques that bring out your own strengths.

Also, there are loads of faults in GRRM's work.  His strengths carry readers through them.  But some people who emulate GRRM emulate the wrong things.


----------



## Chessie (May 8, 2013)

Lets just say that I've not made it past page 89 in his first book. I write nothing like him, although the simplicity of his writing is refreshing. Although his successes are awesome and I'm sure he worked hard to get where he is. I'm still working on refining my voice but I don't even know GRRM's voice...so yeah.


----------



## kayd_mon (May 8, 2013)

I've just begun sharing my work with a few critique partners, and I'm getting used to hearing all the negative critiques. After one person, who absolutely hated my story, sent a lot of negative feedback, I almost quit the WIP entirely. Well I haven't quit yet, and the critiques are causing me to he much more critical about my work. Hang in there. 

Also, on a semi-related note, I am more of a musician than a writer, and I've been in bands for a long time. Sometimes people would give me feedback on my playing, comparing me to some band or player I know that I don't resemble at all. They do it because that's what they know - if they like another band, and my music makes them feel the same way, they draw the comparison. Sometimes it's good, other times it's bad. I was once told I sounded like Eddie Van Halen, which is nowhere near the truth, but the guy meant it as a complement. Another time, I was collaborating on a project, and wrote a portion of a song, which was quickly compared to Alanis Morriset. I abandoned that song idea immediately. 

I guess what I'm saying is to learn to interpret criticism, and use it for your benefit. Don't let it get you down!


----------



## The Unseemly (May 8, 2013)

I remember Steerpike having a nice little comment about criticism in his signature, going along the lines of "When stripped down to the bones, criticism is a form of oppression..."

I quite liked that.



Jamber said:


> There's negative, and then there's scathing... As long as the critiquer isn't trying to stop you from trying harder, they're giving you the most valuable gift of all: honesty.



I'd be careful with that one, Jamber. I will not deny that there are many people who speak their opinions honestly, who, despite making you feel like you've been thwumped in the face, try to help you achieve as a writer. But there are others who simply wish you to get thwumped in the face, and nothing more, because some people are just like that. There _are_ people who simply don't like feeling lower than another. In this case, think this: you're doing really good. If you can ever find someone who is deep down feeling below you and wishes to make up ground through harsh criticism, you've done pretty well.

And if you ever feel down (and this is probably not the most appropriate thing to think, but ego's are always nice to keep in the backdrop), always remember: many of those nasty critics who wish to do nothing but scrutinise you probably have never been critiqued before. Nasty criticisms intent on putting down = good, because they've got nothing negative to say, only wish to stroke their own egos.

EDIT: Adamn. Ninja'd. :/


----------



## psychotick (May 8, 2013)

Hi,

How do I deal with it - time. Yeah it's painful to be given a dressing down, and like all writers and I suspect creatives, my work is my baby. Imagine going down the street and having someone come up to you and say 'what an ugly baby!' That's sort of the feeling you get. 

But time as they say heals all wounds. As an author I publish, and as someone who publishes I have to expect criticism. Some is good, some is bad. And like I suspect many people I remember the bad and shy away from the good. But time lets me adjust to things. It gives me practice in dealing with the shite - and yes some negative criticism is pure shite, and trying to rise above it. Some negative criticism is actually useful. And all of it, - remember this until you're old and grey - is opinion. Other people's opinion. It's not necessarily wrong, it's not necessarily right. Everyone has opinions and often they won't agree with yours. Not about what you write and not about what you think about what others write.

There's also one more thing to remember. Criticism has to be a part of an author's life. The only authors who don't get criticism are those who don't publish, and in my view they aren't authors. They're just writers enjoying a hobby. In order to be an author you have to publish. You have to put your work out there and let it be judged for good or ill. Even if you get nothing but god aweful feedback back for your work, by publishing you have in my view taken an enormous step. Going from hobby writer to author, and its one to be proud of.

Cheers, Greg.


----------



## wordwalker (May 8, 2013)

One thing I've found is key for criticism: be careful replying to any comments you get. That opens the door to complaints, defensiveness, and many more things-- on both sides. Plus, *all* the successful writers' groups I've been in had one rule that authors didn't talk until each person finished his turn (unless asked a question), or else nobody would get done.

When there's time, sometimes you can have a really illuminating discussion about what someone sees; sometimes you grit your teeth and ask "Just why didn't this work for you?" until you see if there's one key thing you could have made clearer, or not. Often it's better to smile, nod, and make your own decisions about how much room your work has for their view.

But keep one thing in mind: this isn't the time to explain (or defend) your work, because it's already written. The question now is how the next revision can make the next batch of readers happier.

And, whatever doesn't kill you...


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (May 8, 2013)

Another point to consider is the author's responsibility toward directing the critique. 

If you simply hand out an excerpt without giving some guidance concerning what you're looking for, you'll likely get critiques focused on differing aspects of the work as well as those critiques that try to tear away at the style you've chosen to write in. If you're looking for blind critique (they can be valuable) then you should be willing to accept those critiques will be a spattering of ideas. Some will be focused on details or style choices you may not find useful. 

There are great critique partners and there are those that have no gift or eye for constructive criticism. Still, even the best benefit from some level of direction from the author. Every critique partner I've ever worked with, even the best, have certain elements of writing they tend to focus on. Im certainly guilty of that one. This too can be of great value, especially when the author is trying to improve on writing fundamentals. I've found though, with a little guidance, the crits I receive are often more useful than those given without my authorial input.

For example, I might offer forth an excerpt of a fight scene that, for whatever reason, doesn't work. Instead of letting critiques run rampant and look for any minute error, I ask the reviewers to focus on the combat. Does it flow? Are the concepts easy to understand? Does the fighting evoke emotion? Is there anything that they find boring or confusing? In this way I'm maximizing the value of the reviewer's time and increasing the usefulness for me. Now, I place those expectations up front. At the end there's always a line like, "...and anything else you may notice." This focuses the critique while also allowing some freedom to notice and comment on other aspects (grammar, tenses, pov breaks, etc).



Jamber said:


> There's negative, and then there's scathing... As long as the critiquer isn't trying to stop you from trying harder, they're giving you the most valuable gift of all: honesty.


I agree with Jamber here. Honesty is a gift. It is also quite rare. Yes, there are those who hide behind a false image of honesty and truly get off on damaging the feelings of others. However, we need to allow ourselves the vulnerability to be injured if we ever hope to discover valuable honesty. Sometimes honesty can sound and feel harsh in its delivery. Yet, it's all a matter of perspective. Do you, as the author, believe this person is genuinely attempting to help your progress? If so, treasure them for their frank honesty. If not, cut them loose.


----------



## Penpilot (May 8, 2013)

Jamber said:


> There's negative, and then there's scathing... As long as the critiquer isn't trying to stop you from trying harder, they're giving you the most valuable gift of all: honesty.



Yeah, to me part of it is delivery. There's a way to tell someone their story isn't working and at the same time get them pumped up that they can fix it. People should leave critique sessions feeling yes there may be problems with this story, but hell, I got tons feedback and now I got options bouncing around in my head. The story will get better.

I remember one time in a writing class an obviously new writer put something up, and it was rough and confusing, but when you looked at what they were trying to do, there was definitely a purpose. They just didn't figure out how to get it on the page. Most critiques were honest but gentle and sparked small discussions on what the guy was trying to achieve etc. When I looked at the guy, he was red faced and fidgety and it was obvious they'd never been critiqued before. Things were going pretty good until this pretentious douche's turn comes up. And this douche hammers the new writer mercilessly. It wasn't exactly what the guy said but how he said it. It turned a constructive atmosphere into a destructive one. And at the end of it the new writer's eyes were glassy. I never ever want to be in the presence of something like that again. It's like watching one person crush another person's dreams.


----------



## Steerpike (May 8, 2013)

I think it is important as well not to read too much into the intent of the critiquer. People have different styles. One person might couch their critique in soft language, whereas another person might come right out and say "no, I didn't like this because of X, Y, and Z." Don't assume the more straightforward person has it out to hurt your feelings or discourage you. It's just a difference in communications style.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (May 8, 2013)

That also brings us to online critiques. It's very easy in these situations to misconstrue a reviewer's comments or intentions because we are reading only text. We miss out on voice inflections & body language...as PenPilot said, the delivery. When reading online crits, like on our showcase forum here, we need to be mindful that the mere fact someone is taking the time to critique your work, likely means that their intentions toward helping the author are genuine. In a normal critique group there is an even trade-off. You crit mine, I crit yours. Here, on this forum, that help is given without expectation. 

Also, it isn't as easy as it may sound. Delivering a frank & honest critique, not glad-handing but providing true value, in a manner that is sure not to offend or dissuade the author is a delicate balance. I've done a good number of crits over the years, both live & online, and I still struggle with "gentle honesty".


----------

