How do you feel when you have finished a piece of work?

[pmmg]

Heh...I dont like reading the reviews. I dont want to jinx myself. No, I want to put my brain power behind the next one. not one that is already out.

But yeah...if someone found a major plot hole, I'd go and fix it.

The current editor seems to be way down in the weeds of my writing. I thought it showed well enough, but if you don't understand that the MC Sami has genuine love for the other MC Rue, you will miss the depth of the story. I am not sure he has caught on to that. He seems to be weed whacking my prose...which is good, I am learning a bunch, but I wonder if he's missing the story. Cause, you know, story kind of float on top of prose like there is a cushion of air. The prose can be bad, but the story can still be great. Its no small feat useful to all of it. The jury is still out with me. GIven the delays Book 2 is having, I may want to jump on book 3 earlier, or accept it will not have a release one year later.

 

[A. E. Lowan]

Heh...I dont like reading the reviews. I dont want to jinx myself. No, I want to put my brain power behind the next one. not one that is already out.

But yeah...if someone found a major plot hole, I'd go and fix it.

The current editor seems to be way down in the weeds of my writing. I thought it showed well enough, but if you don't understand that the MC Sami has genuine love for the other MC Rue, you will miss the depth of the story. I am not sure he has caught on to that. He seems to be weed whacking my prose...which is good, I am learning a bunch, but I wonder if he's missing the story. Cause, you know, story kind of float on top of prose like there is a cushion of air. The prose can be bad, but the story can still be great. Its no small feat useful to all of it. The jury is still out with me. GIven the delays Book 2 is having, I may want to jump on book 3 earlier, or accept it will not have a release one year later.

Just listening, I have this mental image of your editor with a literal week whacker (which looks like mine, which my FIL is holding captive) and it makes me want to ask, just in case he's down there because he's lost, what genres does he read on his own time? It would suck if he's down there because he doesn't grok Fantasy. But it would also be good to get it out in the open.

And, if your story is pulling at you, follow it. Release dates are great, but I always find that I'm more relaxed and better able to trance out when I'm not applying unneeded pressure. I also tend to write faster. And that's probably the smartest thing I'll say all day, because I didn't know that until just now, too.

 

[pmmg]

Yeah...My current editor wrote a fantasy series, so I suppose he must have an inkling of like about it. I read his book 1, which, after talking to him about it, really felt like a prolog to the larger tale, and maybe should have been a book 0 and not a book 1. I was not in love with his writer's voice, but I had a sense he would be, or know, a good editor. Because he read my book 1, and really enjoyed it, I thought he might be a win for book 2. I think I was right so far. I would like to talk about my story more, but he has so many comments, they are hard to get through. Also...MS Words markup and track changes is kind of ugly. Y'all may note that I color code a lot of comments when reviewing here on the site, but in Word its all in red ink. It could use some improvement.

I suppose the question is still out, will I use him for book 3? well, book 3 is like 200K words, and they charge by word...It could just be too much of a hit to my bank account to do it. I'll have to see.

My hope has always been Book 1 would sell book 2, and so on. I will have some data on that in a few weeks I think. Cove artists says she will be done this weekend for sure...and...I am not sure I believe it, but probably in two weeks.

My story is going to be written and finished. I hope the world appreciates it. Some of the expenses are hard to justify.

 

[Prince of Spires]

I am not sure he has caught on to that. He seems to be weed whacking my prose...which is good, I am learning a bunch, but I wonder if he's missing the story.

I recognize that feeling. I had the same when I used my editor. And looking back, I think my feeling at the time was right. I did get some pointer on the story itself, but it mainly focussed on the prose.

Now, I think it improved my prose a lot, and made me a better writer, which made it worth it. But there's only so much polishing you can do on a book before you have to look under the hood and fix the actual problems that keep the book from being good. I also think that that's a much harder critique to give.

If you've been editing for a while, pointing out where prose needs to improve isn't that hard. The evolution of said topic you just posted is a good example. Yes, improving this makes your writing stronger and more professional looking. However, once you know where to look it's also not that hard to spot.

Fixing a plot however means you really need to dig into the actual story. Keep track of the different plots. Think about structure. And each story is different. What works on one story would ruin another.

Also, I think most editors don't push hard enough. Fixing a story is hard. It can mean rewriting half a novel. For my current project, I've just spend a year fixing the plot using beta-reader feedback. It was worth it, but I had to rip out whole chunks. I've rewritten some chapters 3 times. I've added and removed chapters. I've given it a completely new ending. That is not something many authors want to hear. Which is why most editors don't go that far. Especially if there's also surface level stuff to fix. I think.

You could look into getting a manuscript critique for the next book. Those should focus more on the story stuff instead of digging into the prose. How great the critique will be, I don't know of course.

My story is going to be written and finished. I hope the world appreciates it. Some of the expenses are hard to justify.

Amen to that. The costs can really increase fast... And they're hard to justify if no one reads the thing.

 

[Mad Swede]

I recognize that feeling. I had the same when I used my editor. And looking back, I think my feeling at the time was right. I did get some pointer on the story itself, but it mainly focussed on the prose.

It might be, pmmg, that your editor is hacking at your prose so that the story will float above it. As writers we sometimes forget that what we think is good prose isn't seen that way by others, especially not by the readers. Tolkien is an interesting example. Some people love his prose and feel it makes The Lord of the Rings, others (like our own A. E. Lowan) can't stand his prose and so aren't able to read the book.

Now, I think it improved my prose a lot, and made me a better writer, which made it worth it. But there's only so much polishing you can do on a book before you have to look under the hood and fix the actual problems that keep the book from being good. I also think that that's a much harder critique to give.

If you've been editing for a while, pointing out where prose needs to improve isn't that hard. The evolution of said topic you just posted is a good example. Yes, improving this makes your writing stronger and more professional looking. However, once you know where to look it's also not that hard to spot.

Fixing a plot however means you really need to dig into the actual story. Keep track of the different plots. Think about structure. And each story is different. What works on one story would ruin another.

This is when it is so important to be clear about what sort of edit you want done. If you're looking to improve structure, story arcs and characterisation then what you want is a developmental edit. If you're looking to improve the prose then what you want is a substantive copy edit. Those two forms of editing are looking at different things, and they'll give you different results. Both will improve your writing for the next book.

Also, I think most editors don't push hard enough. Fixing a story is hard. It can mean rewriting half a novel. For my current project, I've just spend a year fixing the plot using beta-reader feedback. It was worth it, but I had to rip out whole chunks. I've rewritten some chapters 3 times. I've added and removed chapters. I've given it a completely new ending. That is not something many authors want to hear. Which is why most editors don't go that far. Especially if there's also surface level stuff to fix. I think.

I think this depends on your relationship with your editor. Giving (and accepting) hard criticism requires a great deal of trust. You both have to know what your roles are (writer and editor), you both have to understand where the oher is coming from and you both have to be able to discuss and criticise constructively without taking things personally. This is why I recommend a long term working relationship with the same editor, it's the only way to build that trust and understanding.

Amen to that. The costs can really increase fast... And they're hard to justify if no one reads the thing.

Yes, getting the editing done costs quite a lot of cash. As does cover design, layout, printing and distribution (and the audio books). Which is, of course, why publishers are so selective about which books they take on - they're betting quite a lot of money that your book will sell enough copies to cover all the costs and then make a profit.

 

[pmmg]

It might be, @pmmg, that your editor is hacking at your prose so that the story will float above it. As writers we sometimes forget that what we think is good prose isn't seen that way by others, especially not by the readers.

Might be, but you know...editors...when are they ever right?

 

[Prince of Spires]

I think this depends on your relationship with your editor. Giving (and accepting) hard criticism requires a great deal of trust. You both have to know what your roles are (writer and editor), you both have to understand where the oher is coming from and you both have to be able to discuss and criticise constructively without taking things personally. This is why I recommend a long term working relationship with the same editor, it's the only way to build that trust and understanding.

Partly I think there's a difference here between traditional publishing and self publishing. Maybe not even conciously. But an editor for a traditional publisher is working for the publisher. And his job is to make sure that the book meets the standards of that publisher and is good enough to sell.

When an indie author hires an editor, he is the one paying the editor. That creates a different dynamic. Of course if a book sells well that helps the editor. But the most important thing if you want to get return business or a recommendation is keeping the author happy. Not everyone might take critisism the same way and if you tell them a book is terrible and give them a long list of stuff that needs fixing, you might just end up with an angry author.

I'm not saying this always happens, but it is a risk. And it does mean that indeed you need a long term relationship with an editor you trust who delivers what you seek. Though that might also take you a few tries before you find the right one. And you might need different things at different points in your journey.

 

[Lillith_Sorvalen]

This is a very good question.
All of my stories are continuous and have the ability to branch out in many different directions. I want my stories to be timeless and consist of new areas to explore.

 

[A. E. Lowan]

This is a very good question.
All of my stories are continuous and have the ability to branch out in many different directions. I want my stories to be timeless and consist of new areas to explore.

Lofty goals, indeed. Lofty goals are a big portion of what it takes to climb this mountain called, "Author." I've got very lofty goals. I want five little words under this name, and I want a Hugo. But it's important to tuck those goals to one side and focus on other things like honing your craft and making pages. Don't fuss much about being 'timeless.' Defining it is a topic of contention in our circles, and to be honest, nothing is timeless. What you can be is you. You are a unique voice and that never changes. Focusing on developing it is a better use of your time.

And as for new areas, hell yes, do that. We strongly believe in writing beyond the common narrative and studies have shown that representation in media has positive influences that result in better outcomes, be it graduating from high school or getting through one more day. Getting to see themselves as a hero, not a terrorist and not a drug dealer and not as housekeeping, has tremendous impact on students' attention spans, completing assignments, and later with more effective methods of dealing with behavioral issues. We need more. So much more.

 

[Prince of Spires]

Lofty goals are a big portion of what it takes to climb this mountain called, "Author."

I'm not sure I have lofty goals. Though the more I write the more I discover that my mundain goals might actually qualify as very lofty indeed, just not in the way non-authors would consider....

I want to sell enough books so that I don't have to pour buckets of money into this publishing thing without anything in return. I want people to read my books. And I want to move people emotionally with my writing. Make them feel the hardships and victories of my characters, have them cheer and cry.

Timeless is a funny word. Things tend to always show their age. Sometimes in small word choices or references. Other times in style or in originality.

I've read the original Dracula, by Bram Stoker. You could consider it a timeless classic. However, it's also filled with all vampire cliches you can think of, and the way characters interact and think is very clearly from the turn of last century. It clearly has aged. When you read it, you enjoy it a lot more if you remember that all those cliches originated with this novel, and that it was original when it was first published. Same with Lord of the Rings. I love that book, and I think it still reads really well for a book that's published 75 years ago. However, you can still tell it was written 75 years ago.

 

[minta]

I feel a bit relieved and satisfied that I’ve accomplished something.

 

[Josh2Write]

Quite often, after many false dawns and self-deceptions, I realise that a piece of writing is finished. I tend to have a day of relief and disbelief followed by a weirdly distorting experience that I can describe thus:

I feel as if I had been trapped inside the story (less often a poem) for the whole of its invention, but when the story is finished I feel a bit like Alice and that the story has shrunk and I am now looking down on it. The story then loses all of its appeal for me and when I read it through, some weeks later, it is as if someone else had written it. I never feel any joy after finishing a piece of writing. I never feel like celebrating. I did feel some celebration recently when I realised that I had written a novel, but that is about form and not about the story itself.

It is only when I have started a new project that I lose this contempt for the last piece and eventually I see the previous story as belonging to readers who are not me. Then I let go of that work. In other arts, such as acting, actors bathe in the glory of having done something well. Apparently Johnny Depp never watches his own movies, and so he might be an exception. I wonder, in the case of my writing whether it is the endless editing that pummels me until I have no hope left of the story ever finishing. When it does finish, maybe I am too exhausted to care.

It could be what you're writing about. There are actually a LOT of actors who don't watch their own movies because they feel blah from whatever went into making it, something said or done during production that left them feeling dirty. The blah way you feel after finishing your projects could be realization that what you've written isn't something that should be seen by others. If you're looking back over it and not recognizing it maybe something dark used you to write it and now you feel empty because you feel used, and deep down are hesitant to let that thing's voice be heard by others. What if you wrote something that to you sounds normal, but other people will interpret a different way and it will negatively affect them? If that's the case your battling internally with the possibility of wide spread damage. Take control, go back over, and erase everything that sounds like it was something else writing through you. Not all ideas are good, some are intrusive thoughts. They're just words, you'll find better ones.

 

[Josh2Write]

Quite often, after many false dawns and self-deceptions, I realise that a piece of writing is finished. I tend to have a day of relief and disbelief followed by a weirdly distorting experience that I can describe thus:

I feel as if I had been trapped inside the story (less often a poem) for the whole of its invention, but when the story is finished I feel a bit like Alice and that the story has shrunk and I am now looking down on it. The story then loses all of its appeal for me and when I read it through, some weeks later, it is as if someone else had written it. I never feel any joy after finishing a piece of writing. I never feel like celebrating. I did feel some celebration recently when I realised that I had written a novel, but that is about form and not about the story itself.

It is only when I have started a new project that I lose this contempt for the last piece and eventually I see the previous story as belonging to readers who are not me. Then I let go of that work. In other arts, such as acting, actors bathe in the glory of having done something well. Apparently Johnny Depp never watches his own movies, and so he might be an exception. I wonder, in the case of my writing whether it is the endless editing that pummels me until I have no hope left of the story ever finishing. When it does finish, maybe I am too exhausted to care.

It could be what you're writing about. There are actually a LOT of actors who don't watch their own movies because they feel blah from whatever went into making it, something said or done during production that left them feeling dirty. The blah way you feel after finishing your projects could be realization that what you've written isn't something that should be seen by others. If you're looking back over it and not recognizing it maybe something dark used you to write it and now you feel empty because you feel used, and deep down are hesitant to let that thing's voice be heard by others. What if you wrote something that to you sounds normal, but other people will interpret a different way and it will negatively affect them? If that's the case your battling internally with the possibility of wide spread damage. Take control, go back over, and erase everything that sounds like it was something else writing through you. Not all ideas are good, some are intrusive thoughts

Parker knew what was what. lol

View attachment 3992

Writers sure are pretentious, huh? Dorothy Parker, whoever she is or was, ruined a lot of passion with just this one quote. I bet her books suck. Most writers who write quotes like this suck because they know they suck but have reached a level and don't want others to reach the same level for fear of losing theirs, so they sabotage everyone they feel is beneath them and it's simply seen as teaching others who aspire to be realistic.
It's toxic. And anyone who does it is a coward and should feel ashamed.
Imagination goes beyond arrogant stupidity.

Also, The Elements of Style is not that great.

 

[Mad Swede]

Writers sure are pretentious, huh? Dorothy Parker, whoever she is or was, ruined a lot of passion with just this one quote. I bet her books suck. Most writers who write quotes like this suck because they know they suck but have reached a level and don't want others to reach the same level for fear of losing theirs, so they sabotage everyone they feel is beneath them and it's simply seen as teaching others who aspire to be realistic.
It's toxic. And anyone who does it is a coward and should feel ashamed.
Imagination goes beyond arrogant stupidity.

Dorothy Parker, Academy Award (Oscar) nominee for Best Writing - Screenplay, 1937

She is well worth reading, as a poet, as a writer and as a reviewer. Her works have never been out of print. Anyone who thinks reviewing snark was born with Roger Ebert needs to read Dorothy Parker's literary reviews for The New Yorker. They're succinct, acerbic and often very funny - look for the collection Constant Reader: The New Yorker Columns 1927–28.

As for discouraging new writers, the two sets of quotes from Dorothy Parker are accurate. Any author who has a publishing contract can tell you how hard it can be to make the last minute changes in time to meet the publishers deadline. I know from experience that making those final changes is sometimes boring, sometimes frustrating and can be very hard to get motivated about. But you have to do it because you have a contractual deadline - and it does feel good when it's all over.

Being a writer can be bitterly frustrating, especially if you can't find someone to publish your work. But you know this Josh2Write. You know how you feel when you get yet another rejection. That's when you find out how badly you want to write.

Also, The Elements of Style is not that great.

That may be so, but you do need to have some idea of style if you want to write stories, if only to avoid styles which don't suit you.

 

[A. E. Lowan]

Writers sure are pretentious, huh? Dorothy Parker, whoever she is or was, ruined a lot of passion with just this one quote. I bet her books suck. Most writers who write quotes like this suck because they know they suck but have reached a level and don't want others to reach the same level for fear of losing theirs, so they sabotage everyone they feel is beneath them and it's simply seen as teaching others who aspire to be realistic.
It's toxic. And anyone who does it is a coward and should feel ashamed.
Imagination goes beyond arrogant stupidity.

Also, The Elements of Style is not that great.

Whew! That was a lot of edgy, with a lot of campus union coffee and a light undertone of a failed MFA program. Might want to give that whole attitude thing a spit and polish. It's looking over-used and under-loved.

Writing isn't the oldest profession, but it comes in close. About the time they handed papyrus to the priestess who'd never come back quite right, writers have traditionally been denizens of the deep end. You really do need to be a little crazy to do this job. So, old profession, old professors, and publishing is an old ship with a big ass; it takes forever to change course. And as such we do lean in on older rules of etiquette, like thank you cards and not trashing other authors - HUGE No No - and our professional institutions. It's rude. It's childish. And it's not a good look and it doesn't make one a lot of friends.

Last... There are many types of humor. You are a writer. Go learn about them. The Parker quote is a joke. And it's a very funny one, to my mind and the minds of oh, so many others. Humor isn't easy to write, and writing humor that won't be heard is especially difficult. That joke represents decades of experience and refining the craft. Showing respect for others is also a good skill to pick up...

...especially in a profession where reputation is everything. Remember, some decaf brands can be just as good as the real thing.

 

[Mad Swede]

Partly I think there's a difference here between traditional publishing and self publishing. Maybe not even conciously. But an editor for a traditional publisher is working for the publisher. And his job is to make sure that the book meets the standards of that publisher and is good enough to sell.

When an indie author hires an editor, he is the one paying the editor. That creates a different dynamic. Of course if a book sells well that helps the editor. But the most important thing if you want to get return business or a recommendation is keeping the author happy. Not everyone might take critisism the same way and if you tell them a book is terrible and give them a long list of stuff that needs fixing, you might just end up with an angry author.

I'm not sure that the dynamic is that different. Or maybe I should say that the dynamic ought not to be different. The aim is always the same, to produce a book which is better (in terms of structure, characterisation, prose or whatever) and so more ready to go on sale.

What some forget is that all relationships are two-way. Sure, you as a budding author might not like getting a load of criticism for a story you've put your life and soul into. And no, you might not go back to that editor, and you might tell others why you're not happy. But what some don't consider is that editors also talk to one other. Reputations go both ways, and if you get a reputation as a difficult author who won't take criticism you may find it hard to get an editor - and even harder to find a publisher.

I'm not saying this always happens, but it is a risk. And it does mean that indeed you need a long term relationship with an editor you trust who delivers what you seek. Though that might also take you a few tries before you find the right one. And you might need different things at different points in your journey.

I keep saying this, but finding an editor is like finding a job or recruiting someone. You both need to feel it's right. so you should treat it like a job application and do things like interviews, test samples etc. It takes time, and it takes effort. It also makes it much more likely that you'll find a good match, before you've spent a lot of your own cash.

And before you do all this, take a long hard look in the mirror. Ask yourself if you really want to put you and your story through the wringer. If you can't answer yes immediately it may be that you're not ready to work with an editor.

 

[Josh2Write]

Whew! That was a lot of edgy, with a lot of campus union coffee and a light undertone of a failed MFA program. Might want to give that whole attitude thing a spit and polish. It's looking over-used and under-loved.

Writing isn't the oldest profession, but it comes in close. About the time they handed papyrus to the priestess who'd never come back quite right, writers have traditionally been denizens of the deep end. You really do need to be a little crazy to do this job. So, old profession, old professors, and publishing is an old ship with a big ass; it takes forever to change course. And as such we do lean in on older rules of etiquette, like thank you cards and not trashing other authors - HUGE No No - and our professional institutions. It's rude. It's childish. And it's not a good look and it doesn't make one a lot of friends.

Last... There are many types of humor. You are a writer. Go learn about them. The Parker quote is a joke. And it's a very funny one, to my mind and the minds of oh, so many others. Humor isn't easy to write, and writing humor that won't be heard is especially difficult. That joke represents decades of experience and refining the craft. Showing respect for others is also a good skill to pick up...

...especially in a profession where reputation is everything. Remember, some decaf brands can be just as good as the real thing.

I don't drink coffee, or caffeine. Many writers are incredibly pretentious, moreso as time goes on. Most professors are narcissistic, thinking their tenure somehow gives them the right to decide the fates of others, especially when they're failures themselves, having fallen back on "those who can't, teach". Those specifically make sure their students are left with more questions than answers, because it's fun for them, playing their own god. I never went to college and feel bad for those who did. So many lost confused and angry because they let negative things like quotes inside.

That Parker quote is not humor, it's one of MANY subconscious jabs to knock people off their writing ladders. That kind of crap is why so many writers struggle. Even a little is toxic.

Then there's ones like you, using a flurry of fancy words to sound important. Only popping up when you feel your kind of thinking is needed to prove a point, to jab at what you assume is intellectually weaker just because you disagree. That's a form of manipulation, which is how things like fascism took hold, by trying to silence with fancy words. As I told pmmg I don't throw stones, I launch them out of catapults. Go back to the chat and eat your popcorn, silent den mother.

(Just to clarify to all the easily triggered, before you blow up with more fancy words, I didn't say Lowen specifically was a fascist, I said that's how it was born, and also how its been able to survive this long.)

 

[Josh2Write]

Dorothy Parker, Academy Award (Oscar) nominee for Best Writing - Screenplay, 1937

She is well worth reading, as a poet, as a writer and as a reviewer. Her works have never been out of print. Anyone who thinks reviewing snark was born with Roger Ebert needs to read Dorothy Parker's literary reviews for The New Yorker. They're succinct, acerbic and often very funny - look for the collection Constant Reader: The New Yorker Columns 1927–28.

As for discouraging new writers, the two sets of quotes from Dorothy Parker are accurate. Any author who has a publishing contract can tell you how hard it can be to make the last minute changes in time to meet the publishers deadline. I know from experience that making those final changes is sometimes boring, sometimes frustrating and can be very hard to get motivated about. But you have to do it because you have a contractual deadline - and it does feel good when it's all over.

Being a writer can be bitterly frustrating, especially if you can't find someone to publish your work. But you know this Josh2Write. You know how you feel when you get yet another rejection. That's when you find out how badly you want to write.

That may be so, but you do need to have some idea of style if you want to write stories, if only to avoid styles which don't suit you.

Just because someone wins an award doesn't mean what they say should be taught to others. Especially young writers.

I don't listen to critics, not because I can't take criticism, but because most are rats who only like to cut others down to feel important. And they get paid to do it.

The quote I commented on said nothing of guidelines. "Give em a book and shoot em".

Every time a person hears stuff like this it sets them back, no matter what any of you think. And quotes have affected every one of you at some point as well, some more than others, you just don't realize it because it burrows deep as it does its damage and a little part of you dies, every time. And the more you hear and accept them as truths, which they are not, the longer it takes you to get back up and try to find the willpower to succeed. Many writers give up.

That's why the quotes are famous, because they can do the most damage with the easiest words. And the narcissists, cynics and critics know this.

 

[A. E. Lowan]

Publishing is a fairly old industry, and some things have yet to change. In any profession where you trade away bits of your soul for validation, a thick skin is a requirement, for self-protection if nothing else. We are artists and creators. Are we sensitive and easily bruised? Yes, especially at the start of the adventure. But if any of us want to survive here, developing armor and shields is a must. We put pieces of ourselves in our work, and when they don't vibe with the reader, that rips away at our armor and leaves us questioning our abilities.

This shit has to stop right now. Pain lies to us, and the longer we give it our attention, the deeper it gouges its way to our souls.

I'm going to pause here and give you probably the best writing advice you'll get at this stage. You're carrying a great deal of resentment and hurt, and you seem to direct it at targets you think of as being in positions of power over you. Knock it off and explore the publishing industry from a more rational, reasonable, professional, and adult perspective. If you are holding on to this resentment because owie someone kicked your feels, it's going to drag you down. No one wants to work with anyone this negative - and we all know, we are all people watchers and you'll reek of resentment and rage and fail.

 

[Josh2Write]

Publishing is a fairly old industry, and some things have yet to change. In any profession where you trade away bits of your soul for validation, a thick skin is a requirement, for self-protection if nothing else. We are artists and creators. Are we sensitive and easily bruised? Yes, especially at the start of the adventure. But if any of us want to survive here, developing armor and shields is a must. We put pieces of ourselves in our work, and when they don't vibe with the reader, that rips away at our armor and leaves us questioning our abilities.

This shit has to stop right now. Pain lies to us, and the longer we give it our attention, the deeper it gouges its way to our souls.

I'm going to pause here and give you probably the best writing advice you'll get at this stage. You're carrying a great deal of resentment and hurt, and you seem to direct it at targets you think of as being in positions of power over you. Knock it off and explore the publishing industry from a more rational, reasonable, professional, and adult perspective. If you are holding on to this resentment because owie someone kicked your feels, it's going to drag you down. No one wants to work with anyone this negative - and we all know, we are all people watchers and you'll reek of resentment and rage and fail.

How can you expect to develop thick skin, armor, and shields if you're also trading bits of your soul? THAT shit is what needs to stop because it takes a toll on you body and mind, snapping at anything you find offensive, no matter how small. And if you truly believe that chipping away at yourself is the best thing, you will never succeed at anything except being miserable because everyone and everything will set you off.

I refuse to trade my soul for validation.

My commet was about not allowing quotes from others to break a writer down. The quotes that destroy you from the inside. And you're twisting it into my "resentment" at a system created to destroy imagination so higher ups can stay high up.

You say I'm negative cuz owie hurt my feels, but at the top you also say you're ALL sensitive and easily bruised, so you're all over the place. Which sounds like you're just coming after me cuz you didn't like what I said, like I hit a nerve you weren't ready for. It wasn't even that big a observation, but you snapped like a rubber band.

You tell yourselves you write for fun, but your child-like wonder died long ago. And if a reader not vibing destroys your self worth that easily, I would call that resentment more than anything I've said.