On Getting Criticism

[T.Allen.Smith]

I will say that, though there are some who meet your description, I've found a lot of posters who are the opposite. They really are seeking meaningful critique in order to improve.

I'm sure that's true. I suppose I've grown tired of defending advice, over and over, when the critique was given freely, took a lot of effort & time, and is always intended to be helpful. I see a lot of people rail against advice regardless of how it is delivered, even in the Showcase forum, where the poster placed an excerpt there to be read and reviewed. This has lead me to believe that many who say they want critique, really don't. Instead, they're looking more for support & encouragement, which is fine on its own. There are always exceptions of course.

Well, sorry to tell you Mr./Ms. Critic, but there is no such thing as "right" or "wrong" in storytelling. It's all subjective. What you perceive as "wrong" or "right" is really only your personal opinion.

I've always felt this should be something inherently understood by both the writer & the critic. Writers, are by and large, intelligent and thoughtful people. It baffles my mind to think that an intelligent person cannot discern that a critic is not the "be all, end all" authority, and that they can offer nothing more than their own opinion.

Their existence is why I don't wholeheartedly agree with the first item that says "everyone who dislikes your work is right". Some people are simply not objective reviewers.

I think the article writer is stating this under the assumption that it is a genuine dislike and not someone reading with some preconceived discontent or opposition.

 

[Twook00]

This has lead me to believe that many who say they want critique, really don't. Instead, they're looking more for support & encouragement, which is fine on its own. There are always exceptions of course.

Guilty. I've certainly posted my work in hopes of receiving validation. If I say, "would you read more?" I usually mean, "should I keep writing this?"

 

[Philip Overby]

To address T. Allen, I think a lot of people do want encouragement and validation. That is one reason I've started several groups on the forum to encourage people to share what they're working on and talk about progress. However, I simply don't have time to critique every single person's work. I will do so if asked, but they should be prepared for what I give them.

Sometimes I may disagree with a critique, but I'm not going to argue with someone over it. They took the time to read something, (which is already time consuming)comment on it (even more time consuming) and give analytical thoughts (again...time) before coming to some kind of overall view on a piece or chapter. If you, as a writer, are asking someone to put that much time into your work, you should be extremely grateful and take what you're given. If you don't like what you're given, just say thanks and don't ask that person for a critique again. No need to waste his or her time.

Sometimes getting a bad critique can be disheartening, I get that. But I'd say 9 times out 10, the person giving the critique is trying to help hone what you already have. That's what good critics do anyway. They don't try to make you write the way they write, they try to focus in on your strengths to bolster them and to highlight some of your weaknesses. Hell, you don't have to be good at every single thing to be a great writer. But it's great to have someone point out your weaknesses so you're at least aware of them.

 

[T.Allen.Smith]

Guilty. I've certainly posted my work in hopes of receiving validation. If I say, "would you read more?" I usually mean, "should I keep writing this?"

And there's nothing wrong with that. Validation & encouragement can be powerful motivators, especially for beginners.

I think it's helpful though, for the writer to be clear about what they are looking for in a review. Do you simply want to know if people would keep reading? Or, do you want it ripped to shreds so you can really make it shine, or learn a new technique? There's a lot of ground in between those points too. State what you need.

Writers are partially responsible for the type, and content, of the critiques they receive. We should be able to set expectations.

 

[BWFoster78]

I find that the real trouble with criticism is that most critics seem to think that what they really are is judges. Most of the criticism I've seen around the internet approaches a manuscript as if the critic is in a seat of judgement over it. They tend to tell the author what things are "wrong" and then they tell they author how to do it "right".

For a decade, my writing completely sucked. I never got feedback on it and kept reproducing the same crap over and over.

When I went to my first writer's group meeting, my eyes got opened. Big time. The writers there told me exactly, in excruciatingly painful detail, what I was doing wrong.

I am so glad they did. My writing is so, so, so much better now. Still not where I want it to be, but so much better.

Well, sorry to tell you Mr./Ms. Critic, but there is no such thing as "right" or "wrong" in storytelling. It's all subjective. What you perceive as "wrong" or "right" is really only your personal opinion.

What else would it be but an opinion? Why would anyone take it as anything else?

If a critic really wants to be helpful to an author they need to stop talking in absolutes. They need to keep in mind that their perspective is just that: their perspective. Don't point out errors as if your word is final. Say things like "this part didn't work for me because..." or "this sentence felt off to me for this reason..." and don't give solutions. It's the writer's job to find the solution if they do agree that there is a problem.

This is probably the single worst statement I've ever read on this forum.

You know what, the critiquer just spent a lot of time and effort trying to help the writer. The critiquer isn't getting paid for his comments; he's offering help freely. In my experience, most critiquers do what they do out of a sincere desire to give back to a community that has helped them.

If someone spends an hour helping me, I don't then sit around complaining that they didn't help me in exactly the way I wanted. Instead, I say, "Thank you very much for taking the time and effort to do this for me."

If I had your attitude about learning from others, my writing would be no better today than it was a few years ago.

 

[Steerpike]

This is probably the single worst statement I've ever read on this forum.

This isn't really conducive to friendly forums interactions, though. The same points can be made without this statement. Let's try to keep things from getting personal, and keep the focus solely on the issue at hand.

 

[Mythopoet]

I've always felt this should be something inherently understood by both the writer & the critic. Writers, are by and large, intelligent and thoughtful people. It baffles my mind to think that an intelligent person cannot discern that a critic is not the "be all, end all" authority, and that they can offer nothing more than their own opinion.

Unfortunately, it isn't inherently understood. Mostly because the publishing industry has been spending decades convincing writers that they are nothing and that everyone knows better than them. Writers had to do what their editors told them, then they had to start doing what their agents told them, now the common advice on the internet is to do what your critique group and/or betas tell you. Writers have had it beaten into their brains for years that everyone knows how to write a story better than they do and that they are just one widget in a multitude of widgets.

Maybe I don't hang out in the right places, but the majority of writers I see on the internet seeking criticism take it like a browbeaten slave, furiously rewriting to please everyone and believing every "rule" they've ever had shoved down their throats. I feel sorry for them.

If I had your attitude about learning from others, my writing would be no better today than it was a few years ago.

Don't assume you know anything about my attitude about learning from others. My post did not touch on that at all.

 

[Twook00]

I think motivations are important here.

As a writer, what do you want out of this critique? Communication is key (after all, you are trying to be a writer). Be honest and share your wishes and concerns. That said, you can't expect another human being to respect those wishes. Be prepared for that.

Likewise, those doing critiques have their own motivations. They may be trying to help you grow as a writer but they may also be trying to learn from your mistakes. After all, they are writers too. By pointing out issues with your story, they are identifying these items not just for you but for themselves.

Art is subjective, but there is definitely craft involved as well. A person's writing can be objectively bad due to flaws in grammar or poor execution of certain techniques. It can be very hard to distinguish between what a person thinks is poor writing and what a person dislikes, especially for those who are new to it.

I believe a good critique takes just as much skill as good writing. Some are more experienced than others. Some are better at communicating or identifying issues. I always try to keep that in mind when I'm receiving or giving a critique.

 

[Steerpike]

Unfortunately, it isn't inherently understood. Mostly because the publishing industry has been spending decades convincing writers that they are nothing and that everyone knows better than them. Writers had to do what their editors told them, then they had to start doing what their agents told them, now the common advice on the internet is to do what your critique group and/or betas tell you. Writers have had it beaten into their brains for years that everyone knows how to write a story better than they do and that they are just one widget in a multitude of widgets.

By the time you've reached the point where you've got a decent handle on the mechanics of writing, I think you'll see any and all critique or commentary as opinion, and you have the skills to evaluate for yourself whether you agree with any given comment.

New writers (and particularly young ones, though not limited to that) do not often make that connection. You can see by the number of "Is it OK to do this" posts in writing forums that new writers are unsure, often insecure, and don't yet have the confidence or grasp on the art to recognize that writing is open-ended. They're more likely to take opinion as fact, and to some extent there is reassurance in believing, however erroneously, that there is one right way to do things and all they have to do is adopt that approach to be successful.

It's with respect to those writers that absolutism in critique does the most harm. For those who have already been around the block a few times, it's a non-issue.

 

[AnneL]

If a critic really wants to be helpful to an author they need to stop talking in absolutes. They need to keep in mind that their perspective is just that: their perspective. Don't point out errors as if your word is final. Say things like "this part didn't work for me because..." or "this sentence felt off to me for this reason..." and don't give solutions. It's the writer's job to find the solution if they do agree that there is a problem.

As a concrete example, I find "This scene didn't work for me because X's motivation to do it came from out of the blue" is much more helpful than "Your characters are inconsistent."

That said, there is an art to learning how to give criticism, in part because not everyone benefits from the same kinds of criticism. People aren't born knowing how to be good readers anymore than they are born knowing how to be good writers.

 

[Philip Overby]

Unfortunately, it isn't inherently understood. Mostly because the publishing industry has been spending decades convincing writers that they are nothing and that everyone knows better than them. Writers had to do what their editors told them, then they had to start doing what their agents told them, now the common advice on the internet is to do what your critique group and/or betas tell you. Writers have had it beaten into their brains for years that everyone knows how to write a story better than they do and that they are just one widget in a multitude of widgets.

Maybe I don't hang out in the right places, but the majority of writers I see on the internet seeking criticism take it like a browbeaten slave, furiously rewriting to please everyone and believing every "rule" they've ever had shoved down their throats. I feel sorry for them.

I'd like to think there are thousands and thousands of good books created because an editor pushed for changes that made the book so much better. Oftentimes I feel sad when I read a review for a book and it says, "This is an excellent concept and is a great story overall. But it was in desperate need of an editor." This could mean grammar, spelling, etc. or just content. Writers tend to think that every single thing they put in a book is needed. I'm the same way. However, if you have someone to say "You have like five parts where your character is kidnapped" then maybe it would be good to pare it down.

I don't believe any one person should dictate how a writer does rewrites. I think a good aggregate would be three or more critique partners. If you see the same things crop up in their comments, then maybe something you're doing really doesn't work. However, if you're seeing one person rail on about the characters and the other two people have more moderate views on them, then perhaps it's best to consider the majority's opinion.

Critiques are nothing but suggestions. They're well-meant, thoughtful suggestions though. I don't think any writer should ever sacrifice their vision to please critique partners, but they should take these things into consideration.

At the end of the day, only change what you want to change, but realize there may be the chance you're depriving the world of a great book in favor of simply a decent one.

 

[Mythopoet]

It's with respect to those writers that absolutism in critique does the most harm. For those who have already been around the block a few times, it's a non-issue.

This is probably generally true. But it bothers me that I see the message "writers need to learn how to take criticism" all over the place and never "critics need to learn how to give criticism".

Yes, I get it that a lot of people do critique for free out of the desire to help. And if your desire is to help then you should be interested in making sure you are actually acting in helpful ways and not in harmful ways. Someone who thinks they are being helpful no matter what they do just because they intend to be helpful is not someone I would want to deal with.

 

[Steerpike]

This is probably generally true. But it bothers me that I see the message "writers need to learn how to take criticism" all over the place and never "critics need to learn how to give criticism".

Sure. If you want to be an effective critiquer, it pays to learn how to give the critique in a way that is going to be most beneficial, and also most likely to be received by the writer. If you don't, you're just wasting the time you put into the critique if the writers ignores it.

 

[Chessie]

New writers (and particularly young ones, though not limited to that) do not often make that connection. You can see by the number of "Is it OK to do this" posts in writing forums that new writers are unsure, often insecure, and don't yet have the confidence or grasp on the art to recognize that writing is open-ended. They're more likely to take opinion as fact, and to some extent there is reassurance in believing, however erroneously, that there is one right way to do things and all they have to do is adopt that approach to be successful.

This is totally me today haha. But the reason why I post these questions from time to time is to play with everyone's suggestions in my head. Like playing dodgeball. I like delicious brainstorms. I definitely have had my fair share of tears and emotions over critiques before. Every experience made me grow stronger as a writer and now it doesn't even bother me anymore.

I went to one critique group where most of the writers wrote romance. That didn't work out so well for me. Most of their complaints were centered around the fantasy elements...which they didn't like. So I have learned to find critique partners or beta readers that understand fantasy, or at least what you're trying to do with it.

I love getting feedback from my beta readers and they aren't soft about it either. Their suggestions are useful and sometimes I rewrite, and other times I don't. I think growing thick skin is the other part of the equation to being a writer. If its not critique groups then its amazon readers, or whatever. Someone out there is always going to think you could have done something different in the story.

Who cares? I say. Have faith in yourself and the story. It will all work out. I've been working on trusting my internal artist lately and I think its paying off. Confidence as a writer takes time to build but that's why we have sites such as this to support us in our creative endeavors.

I also think its a good idea to remember that those offering their critiques are doing us a service. Its not easy to read someone's work in progress and provide feedback that may/may not be helpful...plus you never know how someone is going to take it. The perfect relationship of the two would be a feel good communication where writer points out what he is looking for and critique person states their suggestions in a respectful manner.

 

[Jabrosky]

I find that the real trouble with criticism is that most critics seem to think that what they really are is judges. Most of the criticism I've seen around the internet approaches a manuscript as if the critic is in a seat of judgement over it. They tend to tell the author what things are "wrong" and then they tell they author how to do it "right".

Well, sorry to tell you Mr./Ms. Critic, but there is no such thing as "right" or "wrong" in storytelling. It's all subjective. What you perceive as "wrong" or "right" is really only your personal opinion.

If a critic really wants to be helpful to an author they need to stop talking in absolutes. They need to keep in mind that their perspective is just that: their perspective. Don't point out errors as if your word is final. Say things like "this part didn't work for me because..." or "this sentence felt off to me for this reason..." and don't give solutions. It's the writer's job to find the solution if they do agree that there is a problem.

For me the most painful judgements that reviewers can make are the moralistic ones, especially when they take on the absolutist tone of voice you describe.

Recently I reviewed a beautifully written story about jazz musicians on another message board. The lead female character's skin color was described as "cafe au lait". Personally I felt it was a fitting metaphor for a woman portrayed as beautiful, and so did everyone else in the thread, but I know certain people who would shriek like harpies at the very prospect of likening non-European skin tones to flavorful foods. Apparently such compliments are taboo in politically correct circles nowadays.

If someone were to point out perceived stylistic problems with my writing, I can thank them for their opinion even if I don't agree with it. It would be another matter entirely if said reviewer were to accuse me of propagating this or that immoral ideology even when I had the opposite intention. Such statements go beyond literary criticism and effectually amount to personal attacks on a writer's character.

I suppose if a reviewer adopted the "personal opinion" disclaimer when pointing out potential unfortunate implications in my writing and simply asked if I really wanted to convey those messages, it wouldn't seem so bad. Alas, outraged moralizers generally gravitate towards the absolutist stance.

 

[GeekDavid]

If someone were to point out perceived stylistic problems with my writing, I can thank them for their opinion even if I don't agree with it. It would be another matter entirely if said reviewer were to accuse me of propagating this or that immoral ideology even when I had the opposite intention. Such statements go beyond literary criticism and effectually amount to personal attacks on a writer's character.

In many cases (note, I didn't say all), the reviewer in question hasn't even read the whole work. It's happened that a reviewer posted a review based on what X said about the book, or what Y said Z said about it.

This generally happens with highly controversial works, but in these hypersensitive times when "cafe au lait" can get people up in arms -- I happen to like that descriptive term, by the way -- just about anything can become controversial.

 

[Philip Overby]

I find that the vast majority of time something comes up here, the phrase "it depends" comes up a lot. That goes to show that most people that have seen many, many kinds of writing will unmistakably say that anything goes. However, a certain degree of awareness can help temper writing. For example, if someone says your dialogue is stilted, sure, that's their opinion, but if someone says that to you, maybe it's a good idea to analyze examples of stilted dialogue and see why someone might think that.

So for example, if someone questions your choice of description of skin color, look at it from their perspective. Why would they be bothered by this or think it's a problem? If you come to conclusion that the reasoning isn't good enough for you, then carry on.

 

[Jabrosky]

So for example, if someone questions your choice of description of skin color, look at it from their perspective. Why would they be bothered by this or think it's a problem? If you come to conclusion that the reasoning isn't good enough for you, then carry on.

If the objecting reviewer did happen to come from the racial or ethnic group purportedly slighted by the choice of descriptor, their personal offense might be worth considering. However, it so happens that non-European people, being human beings with diverse perspectives and all, don't all agree on what's personally offensive to them. I've seen African and Afro-Diasporan women proudly label themselves "mocha", "chocolate", "ebony" or other adjectives that PC types denounce as inherently fetishistic or whatever. I've even seen them call interracial dating "swirling" in reference to chocolate/vanilla-swirled ice cream. Sure, there may also exist non-European women who take offense to such metaphors, but that only makes the decision all the messier.

 

[Penpilot]

I think it's helpful though, for the writer to be clear about what they are looking for in a review. Do you simply want to know if people would keep reading? Or, do you want it ripped to shreds so you can really make it shine, or learn a new technique? There's a lot of ground in between those points too. State what you need.

Writers are partially responsible for the type, and content, of the critiques they receive. We should be able to set expectations.

I think this is a very good point. In my critique group, we state if it's the first draft, the fourth, etc. If it's a first draft, I'll circle grammar mistakes on a printed copy if I notice them, but otherwise I focus in on story, structure, etc. If it's a fourth draft, I'll spend a little more time on the mechanics of things because it's supposed to be more polished.

A lot of times when a new member comes into the group, before I comment on anything they've written, I ask "Are you looking for anything specific in the critique?" and "What draft is this?"

 

[psychotick]

Hi,

Just a quick point about the comment that people who hate your work are right - I recently received this review on one of my books and have to say it floored me:

"This book is so contrive, that if it would have been a paperback instead of on my kindle I would have thrown it across the room. Also if this woman could see that the main character killed, why could she not see why? I hate books where the character shows an unreasonable amount of guilt for either protecting themselves or other by killing their attacker. This shows poor writing skills to us such a contrived emotion to drive the story line. People who survive an attack feels relief not guilt."

Now not to belabour the point but to set the scene - my Mc initiated the attack (for noble reasons thankfully) peppered the guy with arrows and then watched him fall into a fire and burn to death screaming - in a manner reminiscent of his childhood memories. Since he's a normal enough guy morally speaking, I would expect him to feel guilt and shame for that. I don't think I went overboard in portraying that since it's only a small part of the book. But hey maybe for some people any form of guilt or remorse is too much.

My point is that if this guy is right - and in my view he's not - then I really want to be wrong! I don't want my MC to be some sort of sociopath.

And that's actually the hardest part about accepting criticism, judging when to listen to advice and think well maybe they have a point, and when to think - well they're just plain wrong.

In this case I read the review, I consider it a genuine view, I weighed it up, and I considered that I don't want to change my books in any way to reflect his point of view. It's my book and my vision and ultimately I have to be able to write what I believe in, and not simply bend to the whim of every critic and assume they are the best judges of what my books should be. A few years ago I might not have been so sanguine about this and would have been riddled with self doubt after reading his review.

Cheers, Greg.