Bad Writing Advice

[Mythopoet]

It's much better to just publish what you write and get feedback from readers rather than editors or critiquers who are always looking at your writing with their critical brain rather than their creative brain. (Which is bad.)

But honestly, you don't NEED feedback to improve as a writer. That's a myth. If you keep writing, the more you write the better a writer you will become (continuing to immerse yourself in story through reading is also essential, of course). All writers improve over time. You don't need critique to do that. Critique is often detrimental to the development of a writer (though critiquers will usually tell you otherwise). Writing and reading are the only essential things for becoming a better writer.

 

[Scribble]

It's much better to just publish what you write and get feedback from readers rather than editors or critiquers who are always looking at your writing with their critical brain rather than their creative brain. (Which is bad.)

But honestly, you don't NEED feedback to improve as a writer. That's a myth. If you keep writing, the more you write the better a writer you will become (continuing to immerse yourself in story through reading is also essential, of course). All writers improve over time. You don't need critique to do that. Critique is often detrimental to the development of a writer (though critiquers will usually tell you otherwise). Writing and reading are the only essential things for becoming a better writer.

I think this is a way, but I am highly skeptical that it is the way. I do think there is merit in what you are saying. Some bad advice can send you off into the weeds. You need to be intelligent about what advice you take.

I think that good advice can turn bad writing into good writing, bad advice can turn bad writing into another kind of bad writing, and only vision and experience can turn good writing into great writing.

 

[Devor]

It's much better to just publish what you write and get feedback from readers rather than editors or critiquers who are always looking at your writing with their critical brain rather than their creative brain. (Which is bad.)

I think that's a good way to wreck your reputation. Plus you actually need to have readers before you can listen to them.

Also, where are readers talking to you if not in the reviews they're writing . . . ?

But honestly, you don't NEED feedback to improve as a writer. That's a myth. If you keep writing, the more you write the better a writer you will become (continuing to immerse yourself in story through reading is also essential, of course). All writers improve over time. You don't need critique to do that. Critique is often detrimental to the development of a writer (though critiquers will usually tell you otherwise). Writing and reading are the only essential things for becoming a better writer.

I don't understand how you can expect to learn anything in a bubble.

Also, practice only makes perfect if you're practicing in a way that encourages you to improve. It's very easy to be focused on trying to waste your time improving the wrong things.

Rather than just giving up on critiques, and ignoring other smart people with a bit of experience, isn't it better to work on learning how to give better critiques and to ask for better critiques?

Why just dismiss people who are trying to help you?

 

[Butterfly]

It's much better to just publish what you write and get feedback from readers rather than editors or critiquers who are always looking at your writing with their critical brain rather than their creative brain. (Which is bad.)

But honestly, you don't NEED feedback to improve as a writer. That's a myth. If you keep writing, the more you write the better a writer you will become (continuing to immerse yourself in story through reading is also essential, of course). All writers improve over time. You don't need critique to do that. Critique is often detrimental to the development of a writer (though critiquers will usually tell you otherwise). Writing and reading are the only essential things for becoming a better writer.

I agree that reading and writing will help you improve. But, the publishing and asking for feedback from your readers bit is very bad advice. I think it's fair to say that anything you publish you will be asking money for. Therefore you owe it those who are paying good money for your work for it to reach them in some sort of readable standard. Otherwise, you are just cheating your readers, and also reducing the reputation and value of your brand and your name (pen name if you choose to have one). In effect, poor work, reflects badly on yourself and your position in that market.

Imagine if you bought a computer and it didn't come up to standard, or there were things wrong with it. It's the same thing, your product has got to be ready for the market, and it really can't be of a substandard quality.

At least getting feedback from editors and critiquers and beta readers before it's published, you can catch those issues that readers are seriously unforgiving on.

 

[Steerpike]

I don't think any advice or comment is wasted in and of itself, it is only what the author does with it that makes it so. Even if someone gives you generic "show don't tell" comments, or much of the other advice listed in this thread, it can still be useful. Even if I think the advice is bad, I can look at the story and try to decide if there is some underlying issue that the reviewer didn't express properly, or whether I just disagree with their comments and should ignore them. Either way, it gets me thinking about things even if the reviewer didn't think about it. The advice only becomes harmful when it is implemented by the author without critical analysis.

 

[Mythopoet]

All right guys, you go ahead and keep believing those myths. Career authors know better.

 

[Chessie]

I think Mythopoet has a point, but like with all things balance is key here. I think critiques help and we alone can decipher what advice feels right to us. Some of the stupidest comments about my writing have changed things in it, while positive comments have helped me flesh out my strong points. I think it is important to have your writing out there, and sure, reputation is important, but really when it comes to self-publishing the idea here is that we only have ourselves to trust. I'm strongly considering self-publishing because its what fits for me, but I'm having the story critiqued and will hire an editor, go through several drafts, etc until I feel it is ready to charge money for. Nothing is perfect, but I want a professional and polished product which yes, can be achieved with self publishing.

But I digress back to the topic: I think overall, the worst writing advice is the one that we let bring us down. And it has nothing to do with what someone else says, but rather how we as authors use that advice. Ultimately, following our intuition pays off more.

 

[Steerpike]

All right guys, you go ahead and keep believing those myths. Career authors know better.

Assuming that all writers work the same way doesn't make much sense to me. Brandon Sanderson, for example, says he uses beta readers, and their feedback impacts the work. Certainly a career author. From comments I've read by Patrick Rothfuss, I think he uses them as well. I suspect quite a lot of career authors do so.

 

[Chessie]

Beta readers are great. I have a little group of non-writers for beta readers, but I also use a critique group. It works well for me this way, to have one group writers one group not. In a way, using crits is also getting your writing out there.

 

[Devor]

Assuming that all writers work the same way doesn't make much sense to me. Brandon Sanderson, for example, says he uses beta readers, and their feedback impacts the work. Certainly a career author. From comments I've read by Patrick Rothfuss, I think he uses them as well. I suspect quite a lot of career authors do so.

I remember the episode of Writing Excuses which touched upon it, and all of the hosts had beta readers, and none of them used their beta readers in the same way. And that was on top of their editors.

 

[Steerpike]

I remember the episode of Writing Excuses which touched upon it, and all of the hosts had beta readers, and none of them used their beta readers in the same way. And that was on top of their editors.

Yeah. The published books you see on the shelves often undergo changes based on feedback from beta readers, agents, and editors before they finally hit the shelves. Not every writer is going to go through all of that, I suppose, but the idea that career writers produce work in a vacuum and don't let commentary from others influence what they're doing doesn't seem to be borne out by the evidence.

 

[Scribble]

their editors.

What is an editor, but someone who is paid to give writing critiques to a writer?

Fix this, change that, this is dull, your dialogue stinks here, the motivation is fuzzy there, show don't tell here, etc...

 

[Steerpike]

What is an editor, but someone who is paid to give writing critiques to a writer?

Fix this, change that, this is dull, your dialogue stinks here, the motivation is fuzzy there, show don't tell here, etc...

I think most professional writers would agree, too, that their editors improved the work.

That said, if an author wants to stick to their original vision, they should. Even if 50 beta readers all say the same thing. It's your book, do what you want with it. But the idea that no one can help you with feedback seems strange. As long as the author applies some reason to things, the feedback isn't going to hurt.

 

[PaulineMRoss]

But the idea that no one can help you with feedback seems strange. As long as the author applies some reason to things, the feedback isn't going to hurt.

To be fair to Mythopoet, what s/he said was that a writer doesn't *need* feedback to improve, not that it doesn't help at all. There are plenty of other ways to learn, after all. When I was a beginner programmer, nobody went through my code and said tighten up this part and add a couple more subroutines there. I improved by finding out for myself what worked and what didn't, by reading manuals and magazines, and by seeing other people's code (which taught me both what to do, and what NOT to do). And for anyone who thinks programming is a craft not an art, you're obviously not a programmer - an elegant sort routine is a thing of great beauty.

 

[C Hollis]

After following this thread and seeing the various people respond and discuss, from all rungs of the ladder, I have witnessed the one piece of bad advice no one has mentioned:

What you are doing is wrong. My way is the only correct way.

 

[Steerpike]

To be fair to Mythopoet, what s/he said was that a writer doesn't *need* feedback to improve, not that it doesn't help at all.

A fair point.

I don't think there is any one way to go about it, and what works for one author may not necessarily work for another. People have to find their own approach, and also be secure enough in it that they don't feel the need to criticize those who choose a different path.

 

[Steerpike]

What you are doing is wrong. My way is the only correct way.

Yes, good point. It's a implied statement in a lot of critique and commentary, where people say things like "you need to," or "you have to," or "you can't..." Those statements imply that the reviewers way is the only way, and those statements are incorrect

 

[Scribble]

To be fair to Mythopoet, what s/he said was that a writer doesn't *need* feedback to improve, not that it doesn't help at all. There are plenty of other ways to learn, after all. When I was a beginner programmer, nobody went through my code and said tighten up this part and add a couple more subroutines there. I improved by finding out for myself what worked and what didn't, by reading manuals and magazines, and by seeing other people's code (which taught me both what to do, and what NOT to do). And for anyone who thinks programming is a craft not an art, you're obviously not a programmer - an elegant sort routine is a thing of great beauty.

In my first job, we were two interns each assigned a senior to teach basic structures, best practices, etc... We had to have our code reviewed before we could commit it. In that time of wrestling with complex data and systems, loaded down with idealistic "fresh out of school" ideologies about programming, without a coach, it would have been disaster. I was given room to innovate, to try new things, but under the watchful eye of "the people who know stuff". It was a great environment to learn in, I was there almost two years. On my LinkedIn profile I have this recommendation from my then senior, going back 14 years!

Jason is team player who is not only able to deliver clear good work, but when face with new problems, he is able to find a solution. He also brought new knowledge to the team that made us change the way we approached future projects.

The key of that environment is that they cared about me learning AND them learning. They also learned from me, and they recognized that. When I get critiques from someone who cares about me succeeding in my writing, I feel it. When I get critiques from someone who has their head up their... business... and just wants to preach their sermon, that's easy to sense as well. You just don't always call it out, for bull**** is the glue of polite society, n'est-ce pas?

 

[Scribble]

Oh, I missed a point I wanted to add. There were some really bad programmers at that job as well. There was in that great environment, unfortunately a bit of nepotism as well to deal with. I was told by certain "senior" developers to do things in a way that I knew even as a first year programmer, were bad. So, I side-stepped their advice and did things my way. You have to pick and choose, and after all, it's YOUR art. Pick the brains of people to get the good fruit, and toss out the rotten. Someone had to teach you how to hold your pencil, and not to write on the table. There's certainly more to learn than that.

 

[Trick]

Returning the favor of noticing a unique thought, as you put it, a quotable quote:

Someone had to teach you how to hold your pencil, and not to write on the table. There's certainly more to learn than that.