• Welcome to the Fantasy Writing Forums. Register Now to join us!

Learning Through Critiques

C

Chessie

Guest
Hi, ya'll! Just leaving this little one here. I'm really loving his and Kris's blogs lately, and have come to a new realization in my writing journey/endeavor. Perhaps I'm biased because critiques have harmed my own work and progress on past novels, so I stopped doing them all together long ago. I've never really learned anything from them, and in fact, what he talks about in the article of stopping cold has happened to me before.

I know that here at Mythic Scribes, folks do their best to help others out and be respectful. But anyhoo, I'm curious to see what others think and get a productive discussion going. Cheers. :)
 

Svrtnsse

Staff
Article Team
This guy sounds like he has a point.

I've never been to any of these critique workshops he mentions, but I've posted a fair bit of stuff here on the showcase for feedback. I believe it's been helpful for me, but I think that's mainly because I've tried to make a point of understanding the comments I've received.

Like this guy mentions, just having your story pounded by people pointing out what's wrong with it probably isn't very good. Understanding the reasoning behind the feedback is something I think is important though. If you understand the feedback you're getting, you can make your own decisions about whether it's appropriate for your story and for what you're trying to do.

I'd like to think getting feedback has been valuable to me, and that it's helped me improve as a writer. However, I also like to think that I'm not just following the "rules" that are set up, but that I take them on board and make them my own.
 

Russ

Istar
Just when I want to get a bunch of work done someone posts a really interesting topic.

Critique groups have many supporters and detractors. Despite the fact that one of the writing instructors I admire the most speaks strongly against them I have come to believe that a good critique group can add value for most writers. But there are a lot of factors involved and a number of caveats.

Firstly, it needs to be a good critique group. You need positive people dedicated to improving their skills who are willing to do the work and really want to help you improve.

I have been in a number of critique groups and have never been in one as bleak as the article describes. Every one I have been in has indeed offered a great deal of positive praise as well as constructive criticism. I cannot imagine I would stay in the kind of toxic environment that the article describes, but my experience has simply been better than that. You can set rules for your critique group that help promote that good dynamic but that is a much longer discussion. Suffice to say I don't think one should make up their mind on the process based on a few horror stories they have heard.

I think holding a group once a week is too much.

Critique groups can add value because you can learn from other perspective than your own. Writing is a solitary endevour and there is a significant risk of getting trapped in a self referential bubble that really leads no where. You are best off being in a group with writers whose skills and knowledge are better than your own, but any outside opinions are valuable. You don't have to adapt them all, but hearing them is good for you, unless of course you have mastered the "one true way of writing" then of course you don't need any help at all.

By the by, if there are things wrong with your story you may as well hear about it instead of ignoring it.

Most importantly I think you need to know yourself as a writer before deciding if and how to engage with a critique group. If you are a sensitive artistic soul and you believe your motivation could get derailed by criticism then it might not be right for you. If you are more robust in your writing drive and you genuinely want to get better and think other people's opinions could have value for you, it will likely be a good fit for you.

So I think you have to take some solid self knowledge, combine that with knowledge of your goals and then try to find a critique group with good people in it to work with and you make it a very positive experience.
 

Demesnedenoir

Myth Weaver
I agree and disagree, as is usual with such things. Not that I've ever been in a critique group outside of a university course which kinda-sorta maybe qualifies, which was an incredible waste of money. A critique group I would likely consider mostly-worthless because most oft I suspect you find struggling writers better at tearing apart sentences than building them. But it could also be great, completely depends.

On the one hand, critiques can stop a writer in their tracks, on the other, going without critiques may mean the writer never improves. Sometimes a person needs a punch to the ego to point out a weakness in their story. Writers can be blind to problems in their own writing, I'm so guilty of that, and the quickest if not only answer can be using other people's eyes to see with. Now weekly groups? Ugh. Sounds like ritualized torture, but different strokes.

I've got rhino skin, with a few soft spots, now that I've a little age. And I prefer internet to find a few eyeballs I respect, who also respect my eyes, and go from there.
 

Nimue

Auror
This kind of advice really worries me, because I try my best to critique pieces that I read in the Showcase, under the impression that this is helpful to people. While I'm always mindful include positive feedback and recognition of what's been done well, this is usually outnumbered in words by notes on possible issues. It's just what comes to mind as I read peer writing, and I believed it to be more useful. Reading something online or in a word doc, instead of in a book or ebook, switches on my inner editor. But if my critical and assuredly amateur opinion is literally harming the writer, should I change this style to be more positive and content-focused? The sad thing is that I won't have half as much to say without critique--often seems to be literally the only thing I've got to offer.
 

T.Allen.Smith

Staff
Moderator
I've been in a lot of critique groups, both live and online. From my personal experience, I'll say there are some decent points here, but I think they underestimate the potential value of these groups.

The article's author stated:
In all those workshop years, I never once turned in a story to a workshop that wasn’t already in the mail to an editor. I turned in a story for audience reaction, not to fix something.
I've done this too, and in this respect there really isn't much to gain from critique. The writer is already convinced the piece is ready for more than critique. They simply want to know a reader's reaction or they're looking for applause. If that is the case, the should say so, up front, to anyone who takes the time to read for them.

As I see it, the main problem with critique groups comes when an author isn't getting what they want or need from their colleagues. Submitting an excerpt and giving the reviewers carte blanche can work for a writer of minimal experience only if they understand already how much they don't know about craft & they are willing to experiment with different techniques as they hone in on their chosen style. Conversely, if they don't understand they're in a maturing process, then yes, critiques can be harmful as they can shatter self-confidence. Still, if someone truly wants to be a writer, nothing will deter them.

For the reasons above, I started a live critique group that focuses solely on what the author thinks they need. I call this method the "Writer Directed Critique". The idea behind this group is that reviewers are directed to focus their reading on what the author asks for up front in the excerpt through a series of questions. The reviewer reads through a short list of questions before reading the excerpt. While reading their efforts should be aimed at answering those questions, with examples taken from that submission. The exceptions to this reviewer focus are general fundamental principles like grammar and clarity. For example, if a sentence doesn't make sense, the reviewer should point this out regardless. Generally speaking, this directed approach seems to generate more thoughtful critiques and less, "you should write like this..." offerings.

The structure above came from a few sources of inspiration:
1) My belief that writers, if they want to get the most from partners, must take charge of their work.
2) My own failings as a reviewer too focused on what I considered good writing (a bias most of us have, by the way).
3) My current belief that, beyond seminal craft values like the necessity of clarity, there are many ways to skin a cat.
4) A belief that critique partners are relationships like any other, and that they develop over time.

That last point about developing critique partner relationships is an important one. This live group has been together for roughly 1/2 a year now. A few members came from another group and we've been working as partners for a year longer. It has taken time to learn what these other writers are trying to achieve. However, in the asking of questions at the beginning of the excerpt (before any story reading), we've all noticed that we each ask some questions repeatedly.

For example, I always ask, "At the end of this month's submission, please tell me what you think will happen next". Typically that request is pointed specifically to a character or potential event. My partners have come to understand that I need to know what they believe will happen next because I'm trying to subvert expectations and surprise readers. Since I certainly know what's coming as I write, I can only be successful if I understand the expectations of people not in the know. That is important to me, the writer, so that's where they focus their efforts.

In closing, to be a good critique partner, I've had to learn to set some of my firmly held opinions aside. The vast majority of those are important and valuable only to me. It's taken a considerable amount of time and effort to mature to this point personally, and to be honest, that development is relatively recent in the grand scheme of my writing career. The creation of this group has aided in that discovery though, mainly because it forces me to focus on what the writer believes they need from the get-go, not what I believe their writing should be.
 

Mythopoet

Auror
Critique groups are like everything else in this world: they can be used for good or used for evil. If you want to get any value out of critique you have to be very careful how you go about getting it.

First, you have to be in the right frame of mind yourself. Most important of all is that you need to have a strong vision for your writing and the stories you want to tell. If you don't have a strong foundation for your goals as a storyteller you're likely to end up getting critiqued right out of your work. A clear vision for what you want to write will help you to discern when a certain critique will be good for your work (this is when the critique helps you to better achieve your vision) and when a critique is harmful (writers who basically are just telling you what they would do with your story or writers who critique based on every single "rule" they've ever heard no matter how superficial, etc).

You should only seek critique from people who are likely to provide useful critique. This is why writing groups are so questionable. So often they are put together of people who are in no position to help you. (Non-published authors acting like they know everything about writing, writers from genres that are too different from yours to get your writing, writers who don't care about your writing they only critique to look smart, writers who think everyone should write like them, etc.) It's nice if you can put together a handpicked group of people who are all on the same page, but it's highly unlikely for most people. And in my experience, most writers are not capable of thinking like both writers and readers and what you really want from helpful critique is a reader's pov, not a writer's. Preferably you want the feedback of a reader of your particular kind of story, who is familiar with the genre and understands what you're trying to accomplish. You're much more likely to get this kind of feedback from seeking out quality beta readers than from a writing group of any kind.

I'll never forget a particular blog post I read by a developer of the MMORPG LOTRO. He was talking about getting useful feedback from players. And he said that feedback that tells them what kind of problems the player is experiencing or describing things the players finds unpleasant/problematic is very helpful. BUT feedback that then goes on to tell the developers what they should do to solve the problem is NOT (almost ever) helpful. Because it's the developers who understand best 1. how the game works and 2. what the developers are trying to accomplish with the game. Players can identify problem areas, but it's the developers themselves who are best able to find solutions.

I think this is also true of getting feedback on a story. A reader may be able to tell you that a certain area drags, or a certain character is flat, or a point out a plot hole. But it's the author who is best able to figure out how to fix the problem without compromising the story because the author best understands the story they are trying to tell.

There are always exceptions. You may find a beta reader who is so tuned in to your writing that they really understand your vision and can offer all the best critique. If you find such a person, treasure them. But for the most part other people (and particularly other writers whose heads are full of their own visions) are never going to be able to fix your story or your writing for you.
 
I'll never forget a particular blog post I read by a developer of the MMORPG LOTRO. He was talking about getting useful feedback from players. And he said that feedback that tells them what kind of problems the player is experiencing or describing things the players finds unpleasant/problematic is very helpful. BUT feedback that then goes on to tell the developers what they should do to solve the problem is NOT (almost ever) helpful. Because it's the developers who understand best 1. how the game works and 2. what the developers are trying to accomplish with the game. Players can identify problem areas, but it's the developers themselves who are best able to find solutions.

I think this is also true of getting feedback on a story. A reader may be able to tell you that a certain area drags, or a certain character is flat, or a point out a plot hole. But it's the author who is best able to figure out how to fix the problem without compromising the story because the author best understands the story they are trying to tell.

This has come up on the Writing Excuses podcast also. It's a helpful guideline. Writing Excuses Season 2 Episode 5: Writing Groups | Writing Excuses

[Brandon] I'm going to say that you want to when you're workshopping someone's piece -- we often say this in my writing group -- it's prescriptive versus descriptive -- the more descriptive you can be, the better. Meaning say this is how I felt, this is how I reacted, rather than saying you should do this. Stephen King says he hates writing groups. I may be quoting this wrong -- he says it's because people tend to ruin his work. I think it's because Stephen King is a discovery writer. He sits down, puts people in situations, and starts writing, and if he shows chapters while he's writing it they'll give him all kinds of suggestions which will completely derail the book. You don't want to be giving too many suggestions. You want to be saying I was confused by this, I like this character, I don't like this character, rather than saying you should do this with this character, they should go to this place. If you can phrase it as I'm curious about this, that's better than saying do this.

[Dan] you have to realize that the author is the expert in their own work. So you just tell them your reactions to it -- this is what I thought at this point, this is how I reacted -- they can then decide how best to use that information.​

I think the very next point they brought up was the idea of start with the positive, "because writers -- interestingly enough for a group of people who create things and put them out to the mass market -- they have very, very fragile egos," and we need to hear that, to know we are on the right track (at least) and not totally wasting our time.

I think these two points address the largest part of the criticism at the linked blog post. Another piece of advice in the podcast is to identify different levels of problems (with individual projects) — so people don't get stuck on harping over comma use, etc., and can address the more serious issues.

I might add that I personally think there is a difference between a) using writing groups to "learn how to write" and b) using writing groups to gain insight into how to improve a particular piece of writing. Perhaps over time, and with a really great writing group, the more abstract and long term goal of "learning how to write" will naturally occur as individual projects are fine tuned. But focusing on a specific project will also remove much of the spotlight from the author (who might be the focus of attention if learning how to write is everyone's focus) by placing that light on the project in question.
 
Last edited:

Devor

Fiery Keeper of the Hat
Moderator
I will try and give a more thoughtful answer when I get the chance.

But I sometimes try to look at things from outside the perspective of a writer first, and then bring them in to writing. Outside of writing, people sometimes talk about the importance of having a "Mastermind" group. The mastermind group is about more than having someone tell you where you are and are not doing a good job. It's about finding professional people who "get" you, at a professional level, and can help open up your perspective and help you see opportunities that you might not otherwise see for yourself.

When I think about that approach, and then hear writers talk about critique groups, I somehow think we've got it wrong. Critique Groups, or posts in the Showcase (or Critters, or Critique Circle, or Scribophile....). These don't strike me as a Mastermind Group. They strike me more as a substitute for a writing class.

And that's fine, if that's what it is. But I think it's better to see that, to acknowledge that, and to embrace that, if that's what you need. Read up on writing techniques, do some exercises, focus on improving the basics, and ask people if you're getting it right, like you would in a class.

If your critique group isn't even doing that much, then is it doing much of anything?

But the thing is, that's a level you don't want to get stuck in. That's a level you want to move out of as quickly as possible. If that's what your critique group is doing, then your time with it should peak, and you should eventually move on.

A Mastermind Group has to go beyond sitting around and commenting on your stories. It's got to have a real professional relationship. (If anybody has a minute, look up the techniques that Tolkein, Lewis and the Inklings used.)

I was reading recently that Joss Whedon, when he was working with actors on Firefly and Buffy and Angel, would invite the actors over to sit around and read Shakespeare. While they read the lines, he noticed that some of them had a much wider acting range than anything they were doing in the show, and he would then write his scripts to get them to perform what he saw them do in their Shakespeare readings.

That's a mastermind group.

But how do you get there? What's the equivalent with writing?
 

Jim Aikin

Scribe
The thing I found most useful in critique groups (I've been in a couple, years ago) was reading manuscripts by others and watching them do it wrong! Seeing someone else fumble and grope with viewpoint, motivation, or description is far more useful than reading the work of a polished professional.

Also, for the record, the first critique group that I belonged to insisted that I turn a novella into a complete novel. "It's not finished," cried Kevin O'Donnell. "You have to finish it!" It became The Wall at the Edge of the World, which was bought and published by Ace.

That said, Kevin had an allergy to the verb "to be" in all its forms. He would contort a paragraph of description mercilessly in order to put an active verb in every sentence. I quickly learned that sometimes the best thing to do was to ignore him.
 
C

Chessie

Guest
On the one hand, critiques can stop a writer in their tracks, on the other, going without critiques may mean the writer never improves. Sometimes a person needs a punch to the ego to point out a weakness in their story. Writers can be blind to problems in their own writing,
Not to single you out, but this caught my eye. I believe this is precisely the type of sentiment that DWS is targeting in his post.

Punching someone in the ego is painful. I don't know about anyone else here, but I've received plenty of these sorts of critiques and have come away crying. I'm not just some softy either. I'm a tough woman that's been through a lot in life so I've adapted to not being very sensitive. And this still...still...kills me. I've probably only had less than a handful of critiques that were actually positive while also telling me what the readers found wrong in the manuscript. There's no need to hurt someone's feelings, no need to kick them down when they're attempting to get so much better at their writing. If someone is in a critique group or workshop, that means they're serious about getting better. So to be cruel in order to get them to learn seems so wrong and inhumane.

Now, about writers not knowing what's wrong in their writing...I also disagree. I think many writers do know what's wrong because often times whenever I give someone feedback on their work, they always agree about the parts I said didn't work for me. Probably 100% of the time. The problem often lies in the writer not knowing how to "fix" it, which is not what critique groups are for anyway. That's up to the writer to figure out. Learning how to write is like flailing in the ocean with no land in sight. There's this vast sea of who-the-eff-knows and you're supposed to figure out how to get to land.

We learn through reading in our genre, applying what we learn to new stories (which is why it's so important to finish our work), and by learning from professionals. Practice is really the only thing that can get us there, to the point where we finally understand all of the baking elements that go into story. It's not just grammar, it's pacing, characters, hitting the right tropes, world building, etc until infinity. :)

Also, damn, understanding the genre is so so important. My fantasy stories have been set aflame by romance writers. They don't get it. They're not supposed to either. When choosing someone to view your script, go with someone who reads in that genre so they're already in that target audience, which are the only ones that can truly tell you if it sucks or not.

Finally, I want to say that all of the responses here have been super deep (sorry Russ, I couldn't help myself lol) and productive. I agree with Mytho in that critique groups often get gritty with the script. They look to the way the writer structures the sentences. They tell you how to fix it, how to rewrite it, when really, they're probably not the reader who would pick up your book anyway.

For example, I had a partner once who was sweet but always tried to change my story. "You need more violence. You need more sex. Your heroine is stupid, why is she doing that? Your villain is amazing but your heroine is a whiny baby. Why can't she just hit back? Your descriptions are beautiful but your plot needs more excitement. Why isn't there more magic?"

Because it's only freaking chapter 1 yo. That's the type of feedback that does more harm than good and imo, those people shouldn't be critiquing. Run far away if that's your next partner.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

skip.knox

toujours gai, archie
Moderator
>By the 1980s, this form of critique by peer groups had become standard. And since then it has stopped more thousands of great writers than I care to think about.

This is flat wrong. It is valid to say that it has stopped many people from completing a work, or even caused people to give up writing altogether. It is patently and demonstrably wrong to say that it has stopped even one great writer. Because, if they stopped, they weren't a writer at all, much less a great one.

Here's a True Myth for you: anyone who can be made to stop writing is not a writer. Period. They are just someone who thought they wanted to be a writer. Writers write. Doesn't mean they write well, but they don't ever stop and they certainly don't stop because someone criticized them.
 

skip.knox

toujours gai, archie
Moderator
>I have been in a number of critique groups and have never been in one as bleak as the article describes.

It's a straw man argument. He sets up an extreme example, condemns that as bad, then mostly by implication says all crit groups are like that, therefore all crit groups are poison. It's a non-argument, coming from someone who admits he doesn't go to them. *shrug*

There's another fallacy in play here, which is that all writers are the same. All of them want the same thing, work the same way, and will react to criticism the same way. This is also demonstrably false.

I don't mind if someone has had bad experiences. But, as the saying goes, anecdote is not evidence. I'm willing to believe this author means well and is not merely promoting his own books and filling a blog vacuum. But there's nothing here to take seriously.
 

skip.knox

toujours gai, archie
Moderator
Geez, I'm on a roll here.

>So to be cruel in order to get them to learn seems so wrong and inhumane.

They may not be cruel, they may merely be clumsy. Critiquing is a non-trivial skill, one that few of us ever have occasion to develop. One great benefit of a career in academia, and specifically in the humanities, is that we really do develop that skill (I say that without any pretensions as to my own level). The critique groups in which I participate rarely have anything more than novices in the art of critiquing.

But that's okay. Because one of the hugely important reasons why I remain in the groups is because critiquing the work of others is good for me. It's easy--easy to the point of lazy--to react to a work and say it sucks. Identifying precisely why I don't like something requires thoughtful work. Most useful of all, though, has been trying to find something good in an otherwise mediocre or poor work. It can be disheartening. But it's good for me. It forces me to read closely, think deeply, and to speak kindly. These are not irrelevant skills for the writer. They do seem to have been quite overlooked by Mr Smith.
 
C

Chessie

Guest
Skip, I do believe some people are cruel in their intentions when critiquing. It sounds like that hasn't been your experience and good for you. But I've seen it happen to other people well as myself. You're right though: not every crit group is the same. You've had good experience, some of us haven't. But to try and invalidate/dismiss the experiences of others doesn't seem fair either. And as far as DWS goes, he's published 100 books+ so I'd say he definitely has a lot to bring to the table.
 

Mythopoet

Auror
>By the 1980s, this form of critique by peer groups had become standard. And since then it has stopped more thousands of great writers than I care to think about.

This is flat wrong. It is valid to say that it has stopped many people from completing a work, or even caused people to give up writing altogether. It is patently and demonstrably wrong to say that it has stopped even one great writer. Because, if they stopped, they weren't a writer at all, much less a great one.

Here's a True Myth for you: anyone who can be made to stop writing is not a writer. Period. They are just someone who thought they wanted to be a writer. Writers write. Doesn't mean they write well, but they don't ever stop and they certainly don't stop because someone criticized them.

This is more than a little elitist. You don't get to decide what makes a writer. And you don't get to say that those who give up due to outside pressures and problems is not a writer.
 

Penpilot

Staff
Article Team
I've participated in many critique groups, and I believe they're tools like anything else. And just like any tool, it can build you a house or cut off your thumbs.

When I go into a critique session, there's a certain things I keep in mind.

1 - Someone may not like my story and may pretty much say it sucks, but it doesn't mean they're right.

2 - Before the group says word one about my story, I already know/suspect for the most part where the issues lie. I just need confirmation.

3 - If someone starts telling me in depth how to 'fix' my story unprompted, I smile, nod, then disregard everything they said, because 99.9% of the time they're wrong. This is because I find that a lot of critiques point to symptoms not actual causes.

4 - Someone pointing out mistakes in grammar, can be helpful, but if they begin grammar nazi-ing, once again, disregard.

5 - Listen to your gut. If there's a choice between your gut feeling and a critiquer's opinion, always listen to your gut. Your gut may turn out to be wrong, but IMHO you learn more from thinking your way into a mistake, than blindly following.

In addition, when someone is critiquing one of my pieces, I'm critiquing their critique as well. I just don't tell them that. Because there are a lot of people who flap their lips and talk a good game, but when you really listen, you can catch the heavy scent of BS.

One time, I actually had someone say they didn't have time so they only skimmed my story, and then proceeded to tear my story to shreds. Let's say I flushed that critique quite fast. And I never took another word they said seriously again.

As a writer, one of the most important skills to develop is the ability to differentiate between a bad critique and a good one. Not all opinions are created equal.
 
Last edited:

Mythopoet

Auror
>I have been in a number of critique groups and have never been in one as bleak as the article describes.

It's a straw man argument. He sets up an extreme example, condemns that as bad, then mostly by implication says all crit groups are like that, therefore all crit groups are poison. It's a non-argument, coming from someone who admits he doesn't go to them. *shrug*

There's another fallacy in play here, which is that all writers are the same. All of them want the same thing, work the same way, and will react to criticism the same way. This is also demonstrably false.

I don't mind if someone has had bad experiences. But, as the saying goes, anecdote is not evidence. I'm willing to believe this author means well and is not merely promoting his own books and filling a blog vacuum. But there's nothing here to take seriously.

And I've watched writing bloggers compete for critiques from each other and then proceed to gleefully tear apart each other's work line by line under the mistaken impression that they know what they are doing and are being helpful. It was one of my wake up calls. But quite honestly the personal experience of any of us here amounts to nothing.

Whether you like what DWS has to say or not you cannot deny that he has been in the publishing business, as author, editor and also publisher, for decades. Dean's experience over the years is probably way more than even the combines experience of every single person on this website. He and his wife personally know and hear from hundreds of authors all the time. So maybe you should think twice before you shrug off his observations. If you don't at least try to learn from the advice of someone like Dean who has real in-the-trenches experience as a career midlist author then you should probably reexamine yourself.
 

Nimue

Auror
Jesus... It's also kind of hard to hear that the opinions of peer amateur authors are so universally reviled. I've learned a lot from the issues pointed out to me in critique, and I've spend hours reading and critting other people's work... Yeah, I thought I was being helpful, but apparently not. I'll swear off it for now, I guess.
 
Top