How do you deal with criticism?

[Feo Takahari]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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).

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]

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]

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]

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".