Advice on advice

[Steerpike]

Although I understand the sentiment, there's a big distinction between critiques from agents or editors, in the form of a rejection letter, and critiques given by peers.

I agree. It is nice to receive the positive in a rejection letter, letting you know (if true) that the story was good but just not the right fit. There is no value in getting that letter back if it isn't true, however. Personally, I've only ever gotten anything of use to me from negative critiques. The ones that are full of praise are nice, I suppose (if they're true), but they're not much use.

 

[Caged Maiden]

Perhaps one thing you might think about is encouraging them to try a challenge one time. Like everyone write a short story and focus on one element. The challenges we play here have helped me focus in on specific things while I learn in general.

If you find yourself saying the same things repeatedly (This POV switching is jarring, The MC doesn't seem to have a motivation, Who is the antagonist?, or This feels like a bunch of random events rather than a linear story), you might consider trying to expound on one of those first to the benefit of all.

WHen I work woth writers with less experience, I often find some of the same things plaguing every one of them's manuscripts. Sometimes it's the total lack of senses except sight. Other times, it's that they show an event and right after, tell how the character feels. WHatever problems your group of young writers suffer from, honing in on a couple things to make a point of and letting the majority of trouble spots pass under the radar might be the best solution.

I know other people have said that, i merely wanted to encourage you to pick a couple of the things you felt most problematic and use them as examples for the whole group. Each of us have strengths and weaknesses, but most new writers have many of the same flaws in their written work. You might consider doing a workshop once a month to focus on specific elements of writing (since they see you as a sort of mentor). Honestly, whether you feel like an appropriate mentor or not, these young people have chosen you to be theirs at least in some part. Do your best to encourage them and be honest without being harsh... but do your best to teach a few good solid lessons they can remember and use int he future.

I have a few bits of advice I give to everyone. One is my editing process, "Target Editing". Another is that writing a story is like maintaining a bank account (I'm sure I've put it up here multiple times). Find your own way to make a lesson really easy to remember and build off it. If your group is having really noob problems like head-hopping in third limited, focus in on that. Explain how to stay in a POV and the benefits of doing so. With a few sound lessons under their belts and a bit of time to apply them... people grow very quickly.

Best wishes, MENTOR

 

[Caged Maiden]

ooh, one more thing. If you want to teach a harder lesson... use your own work. For example, I feel bad publicly picking someone else's work apart, but I'm fine doing it with my own. I recently posted a thread Editing: or why we leave this for last (or something like that) and I picked my own work apart and showed my edit. Perhaps give everyone a section of your work and teach them how to crit it. That way, soon they'll be able to see their mistakes and weaknesses in their own work.

 

[BWFoster78]

I agree. It is nice to receive the positive in a rejection letter, letting you know (if true) that the story was good but just not the right fit. There is no value in getting that letter back if it isn't true, however. Personally, I've only ever gotten anything of use to me from negative critiques. The ones that are full of praise are nice, I suppose (if they're true), but they're not much use.

I could not agree more with this.

People say, "Knowing what I did right is important so that I can do more of it."

I guess that's true, but, if I'm showing it to you, it means it's as right as I can get it. I need help figuring out what I did wrong so that I can correct it.

 

[BWFoster78]

This thread and a couple of recent experiences inspired me to do a blog post today:

The Most Important Fact to Convey to New Writers | Brian W. Foster

Bottom line: I think that the best thing I can do for a new writer is tell them that their writing sucks.

 

[Devor]

This really is one of those questions that requires a lot of consideration. For example, it would be a bad idea to suggest that everyone here flock to the showcase to tell people their writing sucks. But too much "tact" can do more harm than good if it buries the message and gives people the wrong impression.

In my opinion the only thing you can do is recognize that everyone - everyone - has room to improve, and all you can do is drop the bush-beating and the condescension and be straight forward about that fact. "You can do a little better improving on these two or three things. And once you've fixed those there will always be two or three more things, they'll just get a little more subtle each time, until I'm no longer good enough to see them. But keep working and improving and somewhere in there you'll get to be publishable. Maybe I can take you that far, and maybe I can't."

It really is that simple. To be blunt, the more important question is whether you can competently identify two or three things to improve, or whether you're talking out of your . . . . . . own inexperience.

 

[Philip Overby]

Bottom line: I think that the best thing I can do for a new writer is tell them that their writing sucks.

I'm honestly curious how often that actually works. You just tell someone their writing sucks and they say, "Oh, OK. Thanks, you helped me so much?"

I guess I get the overall point of what you mean by this, but again, I think there is a strong difference between being honest and being unnecessarily blunt. You can give a tough critique without resorting to insulting someone's work.

However, to some degree I agree with you that if you're going to get in the business of writing (meaning trying to sell your work) you may need a crash course in brutality if people have held your hand and told you how great you are every step of the way. Part of me feels there is a need to be broken of this idea that everyone is going to love your work, because they won't. Even if you're Tolkien, Martin, or Rowling, you'll have your share of "haters."

It's hard to determine what side of the fence I'm on, because I do think tough critiques are more helpful, but at the same time there are ways to do that and still be tactful is all.

For example, here are two tough critiques:

1. I found your character Jan lacked depth.

vs.

2. Jan is boring and incredibly stupid.

or...

1. Your plot was rather confusing. I wasn't exactly sure what they were supposed to be doing or where they were going.

vs.

2. Your plot is an incomprehensible mess. Did you even have any idea what you were doing here?

The number 2 examples just come off as condescending to me. Maybe they're more straight to the point, I guess. When people get this tone from a critique, the "honesty" gets drowned out to a certain degree. They may feel attacked. Sure, maybe it's "their fault" for being too sensitive, I don't know. I just feel it's better for a critique relationship if it doesn't always feel like one person is the wise master dispensing advice from a mountain and the other is the lowly student that must be brow-beaten into submission.

I don't know if this makes sense, but I just find the best partnerships work on mutual respect. If you're telling people they suck, that respect may not last.

For the OP, I highly recommend you don't tell all these other writers in your group that they suck. Be tough if that's what they want and they ask for it, but I get the sense these are hobbyists at the moment. There's a way to prepare people for the "real world" without throwing them in the pool and dunking their heads.

 

[BWFoster78]

It really is that simple. To be blunt, the more important question is whether you can competently identify two or three things to improve, or whether you're talking out of your . . . . . . own inexperience.

I disagree with your basic premise.

Limiting the discussion to how to best help new writers:

All I can really do for another author is tell him how I would handle a situation and what has helped me. That may or may not help him.

No two authors are alike. (We're like snowflakes ) My style is not your style. T.Allen and I seem to agree on a lot of subjects, but there are problably more differences than similarities. For any critiquer to think that anyone should take all their advice is silly. For anyone being beta read to take anyone's advice as gospel is likewise just as silly.

The important thing to convey is to a new writer is:

1. Writing fiction is harder than you think it is.
2. We're all just struggling to figure it out.
3. These are the biggest issues I had with your work. Perhaps researching them will lead you to a breakthrough.

 

[BWFoster78]

I'm honestly curious how often that actually works. You just tell someone their writing sucks and they say, "Oh, OK. Thanks, you helped me so much?"

Phil, I'm being completely honest here: more often than you think. I've had some great results.

The upside to me is that, when someone reacts poorly, I don't waste my time unnecessarily.

Trying to help a newb can be a huge timesink, and that's fine if it's going to do any good. I guess my main reason for being blunt is that I'd rather find out from the start if it's going to be a waste of my time.

For example, here are two tough critiques:

1. I found your character Jan lacked a depth.

vs.

2. Jan is boring and incredibly stupid.

or...

1. Your plot was rather confusing. I wasn't exactly sure what they were supposed to be doing or where they were going.

vs.

2. Your plot is an incomprehensible mess. Did you even have any idea what you were doing here?

Again to be honest, I find myself thinking that the second option is the better bet in most cases. Even knowing that, I most often end up going with the first option. It's hard to be blunt. I'd much rather tell someone, "Hey, that was awesome. I loved it!" than it is to say, "Look dude, you suck. Go find a book on writing or something."

It just seems to me that most people are so in the dark about the actual state of their ability that they need to be told forcefully or they just won't get the point.

I don't know if this makes sense, but I just find the best partnerships work on mutual respect. If you're telling people they suck, that respect may not last.

I think of a partnership as a relationship between peers. My advice was directed to more experienced authors who are dealing with newbs.

For the OP, I highly recommend you don't tell all these other writers in your group that they suck. Be tough if that's what they want and they ask for it, but I get the sense these are hobbyists at the moment. There's a way to prepare people for the "real world" without throwing them in the pool and dunking their heads.

I should have clarified that my advice was not really directed at the OP.

 

[Svrtnsse]

I got a bit of the "your writing sucks" when I first posted in the showcase - at least that's what it felt like. It wasn't fun.

However, when I asked why it sucked I got a good explanation, with examples on how to make improvements. When I asked for clarifications on concepts I wasn't familiar with I got them. That was very valuable to me and I learned and improved a lot from it (at least I like to think so).

I could have received this advice without first being told my writing wasn't up to scratch, but I'm not sure if I'd been as receptive to it without first taking a bit of a beating to my ego. I might have, but I don't know and I'm not so sure.

The thing here is I couldn't do that myself. I'm too nervous about hurting someone's feelings to tell them their work is shit, especially if it's someone I don't know. I'm not comfortable doing it - regardless of whether they say they can take it or not. It's just not in me.
I still like to give feedback though as it really is a great way of improving on my own understanding of the concepts I'm commenting on. I go about it my way, because it's the best way I know to do it. I guess it's like a lot of others have already said, these things vary from person to person.

 

[Devor]

I disagree with your basic premise.

I'm not sure you're talking about the basic premise. The basic premise is that everyone needs to improve, both the critiquer and the critiquee, so stop pretending like saying so is some kind of big insult that needs to be delivered with a slew of niceties, or that you need to fix everything you're reading all at once because it's oh so awful. Just pick a few things and talk about them. And as things improve you move on to a few more things. There's always more.

No two authors are alike. (We're like snowflakes ) My style is not your style. T.Allen and I seem to agree on a lot of subjects, but there are problably more differences than similarities.

How many different writing styles are you capable of writing in? I'm serious, here. Can you take a paragraph of text, and write the next paragraph in a style that looks like it's by the same author? Can you read something, and think, "I see what you're shooting for, let me adjust my advice to your style?" Because that's the skill required to give a good critique, and some people can do it. It's something you can work on and learn just like anything else.

For any critiquer to think that anyone should take all their advice is silly. For anyone being beta read to take anyone's advice as gospel is likewise just as silly.

In all seriousness, how does that characterization remotely resemble anything that I said?

The important thing to convey is to a new writer is:

1. Writing fiction is harder than you think it is.
2. We're all just struggling to figure it out.
3. These are the biggest issues I had with your work. Perhaps researching them will lead you to a breakthrough.

I think I've said this to you before, but if you treat everyone as though they're perpetual newbs, then they will be. "New" is a status that shouldn't last very long. Treat people like professionals, and they'll start to become professionals.

 

[Philip Overby]

BW: Yeah, I realize your heart is the right place and all. If your approach works more often than not for you, then great. But I agree with Svrt, I can't just straight up say, "you suck" and then go into all the reasons. I think the best thing a more experienced writer can do with a newer writer is to mentor them, explain what you did wrong and how others pointed it out. I'm pretty sure you do that. The thing to be careful of I think is imposing your will on other writers by telling them "this is simply wrong."

I feel like I could rant on and on about this, but there so many different styles of writing out there it's really mind-boggling. What you may find dry and boring, others may find engaging and interesting. Hell, I've seen some of the most divisive opinions on published work I've seen in quite a while in the Reading Group we're doing. While some of us loved Mark Lawrence's style, others hated it. Same with Naomi Novik. Is that because they're newbs or they don't know what they're doing? Obviously not. Success is success. Both of these authors have been successful with their own approaches. It's just a matter of taste. That's why it's sometimes hard to say, "You're doing this wrong." That's subjective. You can say, "Well, this is my opinion, but this scene doesn't do anything for me. Here's why."

This is one reason I think it's important to have critique partners that at least understand your style in some way. I've had partners with widely divergent styles, but we still understood each other and what we were trying to attempt. That's critical. I don't think that can be developed with one critique.

Edit: Ninja'd.

I think I've said this to you before, but if you treat everyone as though they're perpetual newbs, then they will be. "New" is a status that shouldn't last very long. Treat people like professionals, and they'll start to become professionals.

Devor makes an excellent point here. I guess that goes to my point of respecting partners and treating them how you think you should be treated.

 

[Steerpike]

Speaking only for myself:

If something I write sucks, I want someone to tell me it sucks.

 

[BWFoster78]

I got a bit of the "your writing sucks" when I first posted in the showcase - at least that's what it felt like. It wasn't fun.

However, when I asked why it sucked I got a good explanation, with examples on how to make improvements. When I asked for clarifications on concepts I wasn't familiar with I got them. That was very valuable to me and I learned and improved a lot from it (at least I like to think so).

I could have received this advice without first being told my writing wasn't up to scratch, but I'm not sure if I'd been as receptive to it without first taking a bit of a beating to my ego. I might have, but I don't know and I'm not so sure.

Svrtnsse,

You're a great example. I think you have grown greatly since joining this site. You take advice well but still keep true to what you want to accomplish.

To the extent that I helped you along your path, I'm gratified that you found my advice useful. It's people like you that make me feel like I'm not totally wasting my time.

The thing here is I couldn't do that myself. I'm too nervous about hurting someone's feelings to tell them their work is shit, especially if it's someone I don't know. I'm not comfortable doing it - regardless of whether they say they can take it or not. It's just not in me.

Understood. As I said to Phil, it's not easy being blunt. Believe it or not, I often water down what I think I should say.

 

[BWFoster78]

Devor,

I'm not sure you're talking about the basic premise.

I think I may have misinterpreted what you said. I thought, in your last paragraph, you meant that the question was whether the critiquer actually has the ability to discern areas of improvement or not. I was disputing whether that is important or not. As has been stated many times, the greatest benefit a beta reader can provide is to point out if something works or not, not necessarily how to fix it.

How many different writing styles are you capable of writing in?

No two writers will write anything exactly the same. They employ different techniques and go about achieving engagement differently. Personally, I think tension is the most important element in making my work interesting. Robert Bevan would probably say it's humor. It would be stupid of me to presume he needed more tension when he really needed to make a scene funnier.

I think I've said this to you before, but if you treat everyone as though they're perpetual newbs, then they will be. "New" is a status that shouldn't last very long. Treat people like professionals, and they'll start to become professionals.

I think that, as you progress, it's like you said. Once you fix these three things, there are three more.

 

[Philip Overby]

Speaking only for myself:

If something I write sucks, I want someone to tell me it sucks.

I get the sentiment, but if someone you've only been critiqued by once said, "Steerpike, this sucks" and then carries on to tell you things that you maybe fundamentally disagree with, that's OK? Is it possible that someone thinks something you wrote sucks, but they're in fact, just not getting it? Or is it the case of the "critique partner is always right?"

So is the only way to tell if something sucks is that if you already feel that it sucks and then people tell you it indeed sucks? What if you feel great about it, it's polished, lots of people have said it's awesome, you agree it's awesome, and then someone says, "Oh, that story sucks"?

That's why it's hard to figure out if it's the story that sucks or the advice that sucks (or is possibly off-base). It's up to the writer to decide ultimately.

 

[BWFoster78]

BW: Yeah, I realize your heart is the right place and all. If your approach works more often than not for you, then great. But I agree with Svrt, I can't just straight up say, "you suck" and then go into all the reasons. I think the best thing a more experienced writer can do with a newer writer is to mentor them, explain what you did wrong and how others pointed it out. I'm pretty sure you do that. The thing to be careful of I think is imposing your will on other writers by telling them "this is simply wrong."

I feel like I could rant on and on about this, but there so many different styles of writing out there it's really mind-boggling. What you may find dry and boring, others may find engaging and interesting. Hell, I've seen some of the most divisive opinions on published work I've seen in quite a while in the Reading Group we're doing. While some of us loved Mark Lawrence's style, others hated it. Same with Naomi Novik. Is that because they're newbs or they don't know what they're doing? Obviously not. Success is success. Both of these authors have been successful with their own approaches. It's just a matter of taste. That's why it's sometimes hard to say, "You're doing this wrong." That's subjective. You can say, "Well, this is my opinion, but this scene doesn't do anything for me. Here's why."

This is one reason I think it's important to have critique partners that at least understand your style in some way. I've had partners with widely divergent styles, but we still understood each other and what we were trying to attempt. That's critical. I don't think that can be developed with one critique.

Edit: Ninja'd.



Devor makes an excellent point here. I guess that goes to my point of respecting partners and treating them how you think you should be treated.

Phil,

No desire at all to open the can of worms about judging quality again, but I have to say that there's a huge, huge difference between these two statements:

1. I don't enjoy reading this professional author's work because of the style and/or content of his work.
2. I don't think that this writer has any clue how to write fiction.

The two are completely different statements. I don't understand your comparison of my discussion of the second with some people not liking Lawrence's work.

 

[BWFoster78]

I get the sentiment, but if someone you've only been critiqued by once said, "Steerpike, this sucks" and then carries on to tell you things that you maybe fundamentally disagree with, that's OK? Is it possible that someone thinks something you wrote sucks, but they're in fact, just not getting it? Or is it the case of the "critique partner is always right?"

So is the only way to tell if something sucks is that if you already feel that it sucks and then people tell you it indeed sucks? What if you feel great about it, it's polished, lots of people have said it's awesome, you agree it's awesome, and then someone says, "Oh, that story sucks"?

That's why it's hard to figure out if it's the story that sucks or the advice that sucks (or is possibly off-base). It's up to the writer to decide ultimately.

The author needs some degree of discernment.

For example: I'm working on a story for Ankari's Iron Pen Anthology. I had him and two other participants beta read it. In one particular section, I got lots of comments and advice. The advice and comments didn't necessarily agree with each other.

My main takeaway isn't - Hey, I need to do what Ankari said here.

It's - Hey, this section Does Not Work.

I think, though, that you and Steerpike aren't newbs. You are at a point where you may need to refine certain scenes to make them better, not where you need to learn the basics of fiction. Were I critiquing either of you, my comments would reflect that and not be, "your writing sucks."

(Actually, it would probably be, "This sentence/paragraph sucks!" )

 

[Philip Overby]

1. I don't enjoy reading this professional author's work because of the style and/or content of his work.
2. I don't think that this writer has any clue how to write fiction.

So you're telling me you haven't critiqued work and given it "poor marks" because you disliked the style or content? There are professional authors that some may think "suck" so that's not really a valid argument.

Edit: I guess the main point I want to make is to be respectful to other people and they'll be respectful to you. I've gotten great advice from a lot of people from MS. The common thread? They were tactful. They may say "this sucks" in a roundabout way, but they've been helpful and respectful and I value that. Those are the kind of partnerships that thrive.

 

[BWFoster78]

So you're telling me you haven't critiqued work and given it "poor marks" because you disliked the style or content? There are professional authors that some may think "suck" so that's not really a valid argument.

Have I ever done that? Probably.

Would I do that now or have I done it in the recent past? No.

Regardless, saying "I hate that style and content" is not the same as saying that the person doesn't know how to write.

Edit: I guess the main point I want to make is to be respectful to other people and they'll be respectful to you. I've gotten great advice from a lot of people from MS. The common thread? They were tactful. They may say "this sucks" in a roundabout way, but they've been helpful and respectful and I value that. Those are the kind of partnerships that thrive.

I would say, however, that you're not at a point in your writing career where you have no idea what you're doing. Were I critiquing you, I'd reserve the "this sucks" comments for extreme emphasis when I want to point out something I feel is really important but that you may disagree with. Mostly, my comments are along the lines of, "You may want to consider..." Sometimes, though, there's something I feel is a fundamental problem that needs to be addressed. For those, I say, "I cannot emphasize enough how bad I think this is. It would be so, so much better if you..."