"It's part of my style, so I can ignore your criticism."

I see this pop up in a lot of places, I thought we might get a discussion. Is it a valid excuse in any way? Are there certain areas where it might be applied— certain choices such as as using the present tense, first person, perhaps— or is it a terrible excuse, period?

It's a terrible excuse. Essentially, saying this is the same as saying, 'My style sucks, but it's mine, so you can't criticise'.

I'm of the opinion that any excuse to ignore criticism is a terrible excuse. Someone's opinion may be biased for or against you or they might just have different tastes, but criticism is the central part of sharing your work. If you're prepared to show your work to people, you have to take what they say on board. It's how you learn as a writer.

You don't have to agree with it, but you can't ignore criticism, especially if it's backed up by decent arguments.

Though the majority of people use it to excuse laziness, I find that in a very few rare cases it actually is justified.

For example: I have very frequently come across the criticism to "This piece will work better in past tense rather than present".

In that case, I look through the review as a whole and reply somewhere along the lines of "I will take all of your criticisms into consideration, except for the one about present tense. It is a stylistic choice, which I put a great deal of effort into making sure is a consistent choice and enhances rather than detracts from the quality of my work."

I find people do this more with art than with writing.

It happens: sometimes critics mistake a stylistic choice for a genuine error. And sometimes writers mistake genuine errors for stylistic choices. I believe it is safe to apply Sturgeon's Law here, however.

I suppose the best option if something you believe is a legitimate stylistic choice is criticized is to review the reviewer. If they're frequently the nay-saying voice in a sea of good reviews, they've probably just got a stick up their asses. But if they've been reliably sorting the good and the bad for a while, you should likely listen to what they say. Also pay attention to the tone of their advice; if they seem to be genuinely trying to be constructive, consider their arguments. Somebody who has convinced themselves they're a Caustic Critic, however, isn't worth your time — such people are amusing, certainly, but not to be taken seriously.

It's definitely something I've seen happen more with visual art. There are instances where a shortcoming might be a deliberate stylistic decision, but if it didn't properly convey whatever it was trying to achieve, you can definitely fault the writer on those grounds.

Though this isn't quite the same thing, I've seen critics get annoyed when the writer tries to explain a perceived shortcoming in their story; I think there's a fine line between "explain" and "excuse" that a lot of people have to toe at some point. I don't think it's ever okay to outright "ignore" criticism, even if they're objectively wrong about something. If someone's having trouble following part of a story, finding some way to make it clearer without dumbing it down would at best make a fun mental exercise.

And yeah, that's completely digressing.

Yeah, what everyone else said.

For instance, Manet◊ partially kicked off impressionism by intentionally painting, basically, really crappy realism.

But yeah, I've definitely encountered the other way too: "If the mom looks at this scrapbook every night, why don't we see it until now?" "Because I like having it this way."

Roughly, although harshly, the more of a master you are, the more you can pull this off. It's a matter of proving that you're doing it intentionally and with the ability to do it the preferred way if you had wanted to and the knowledge of the relative benefits of each option.

This happened to me once. I shall be honest; I was quite peeved how she didn't seem to understand my intentions, at all - instead going through what she thinks are errors in someone's subjective perception. And when the reader is just looking at a creative piece to fix something, she'll see errors alright and miss out on the forest. The analogy of everything becomes a nail when you wield a hammer is especially applicable in this sense. Fixing things become irrelevant if your corrections really do not advance the piece's oeuvre. (In other words, don't tell me to put salt and barbeque sauce when I'm making a fruit mix.)

I find it very degrading to treat someone's work - their expressing themselves - like it's simply a matter of errors. That said, I'm always having an eye out to improve my writing, to make it move the reader's heart. If I find an opportunity to do an aspect better, I will gladly take it.

But not that way.

edited 4th Jun '11 7:20:13 PM by QQQQQ

Criticism tells you how well your work succeeds at being what the critic thinks it should be. If that's not what you want it to be, that is fair enough. However, just because something is your style does not mean anybody else necessarily will like it (much less should like it).

Critics do not have to force themselves liking a piece. But that does not excuse them for missing where the piece is trying to go. Of the "it should be this" attitude, they can best keep it in their sockdrawers - it gets in the way of actually reading.

On the other hand, if they're missing the point, then how well was it expressed? I'm talking hypothetically, not you specifically, but when a writer departs from commonly accepted conventions to get a point across and a critic takes issue with it, the writer should at least be able to articulate why they did what they did, and communicate with the critic with that in mind. From a reader's standpoint it's also a lot more helpful, especially if you didn't "get" something.

Forgive me, I was ambiguous; by "should" I meant any form of improvement, not merely alterations to suit the critic's personal tastes.

If a critic can't tell you how they think a piece could be improved, they may as well not criticise at all.

If there is one thing I learned, don't assume something is irrelevant just because it doesn't bother ya. It's why Fan Wank happens.

I mean, I've written stuff that I thought made sense, only to have Cakman point out plotholes or problems he had with it.

Even when I fought him about it tooth and nail, I still internalized his perspective and used it to make a more solid story.

edited 4th Jun '11 8:19:03 PM by MrAHR

I think it's a perfectly legitimate excuse to not change the work. What counts as good writing is subjective as all get out, so its perfectly reasonable to hear someone else's opinion, consider it, and reject it because it doesn't suit what you do. Just as long as you aren't an ass about it, of course.

The point where it's least applicable is where the criticism boils down to "I have no clue WTF you just meant". That is where you've got an all-around problem, because if you're not communicating what you want to communicate… what's the point of all those words, again?

I've seen that a lot, too. Its one of the things I think makes critique for writing so much different from art critiquing — when you're given a finished picture, it is much harder to go for a single part by itself instead of how it looks as a whole, but with writing it can be almost the complete opposite. It makes it a bit more of a challenge to be constructive.

@ OP, yes. Not everyone, critics in particular, like all styles and that's fine if you've got a style you/your audience like.

So do I, and it always irritates me. I don't think it's a valid excuse at all, ever. Sure, beginning writers (who I see use it with the most alarming frequency) use it to try and deflect the legitimate critcism of their writing skills because they take the critique personally (admittedly something I'm no affcionado at myself - although I've gotten much better at it, and appreciate others critiques). But it's still, at the heart of it, the person saying it denying that the criticism has any validity, and it marks them as immature.

Did I do it once? Yeah, I did, but I got better, and grew a thicker skin. Occasionally I'll get annoyed at someone who focuses only on what I did wrong, especially writing-mechanic-wise due to visual troubles with scanning for errors, but I've got enough sense to not try and prove why they're wrong in a long...rant-thing. It looks childish, and one would do better to just say "thank you for your time and opinion" and make the changes suggested. Often, they'll find that the work is better for doing that, anyway.

The "It's part of my style" bit is fine; the conclusion, "so I can ignore your criticism," isn't. Stylistic choices, like mine of using a multiple-person Perspective Flip and writing sometimes as a third-person-limited narrator for each character (so that the audience can see how that character observes another's actions and reacts, and why they do that) - the latter also allows for ample misconceptions and misinterpreted by different characters and the preservation of Dramatic Irony, which drives much of my plot - are perfectly fine, and mine have been challenged before. I enjoy explaining why I use those techniques, but a good tip in general is to not get accusatory, and to make a point of thanking the person for their challenge.

When I explain why I do those things, and the purpose they ultimately serve, I make an interested reader out of that person, usually, because they want to see who does what and just how much I can twist the web of lies and secrets and misunderstandings before it breaks. And I must say, it's fun, seeing how far I can take it before I veer into unbelievability - and I've found that with some application of the skills I've gained this year in argument and rhetoric, and tweaking of minor details, I can take it pretty far.

But I digress...

As I was saying, stylistic choices are perfectly alright so long as they don't detract from the work, and sometimes a challenge is a fine opportunity for the author to gain a reader or two, if their explanation is good enough and they don't antagonize the critic. But just out and out using it as an excuse to ignore any concerns - legitimate or not, but often legitimate - isn't. And it annoys a lot of more experienced readers and writers when it gets used. It can annoy them in a big way.

Overall, and without exception, it's an utterly terrible, immature, and ill-conceived excuse, and only marks a bad author.

edited 4th Jun '11 9:09:40 PM by punkreader

Personally I'd prefer to understand both sides of the fence in regards to critiquing style, because both sides can have legitamate points of view. While it is easy to understand when the critic has a valid point, the writing style really is ineffective at communicating with your audience, do we truly understand when it is valid for a writer to say "It is part of my style, please don't critique me"?

Perhaps a writer is experimenting with the way meaning is conveyed through words and how their audience reacts, as some writers are wont to do. In such cases it would be best for a critic to not critique that piece unless the writer says so, because it is most likely going to be some one off thing. However if the writer does allow for critiques, then the critic should explain all of the advantages and disadvantages to using such a writing style.

Regardless of what role we play I think it is important to be gracious, kind, patient, and considerate to those who we disagree with in order to better communicate our understanding of things. Although this might be me projecting my values a little bit into this thread.

@}-;-'—-

When I critique, I like to help the author - first letting him know how I felt reading it, affirming what he has done goodly, and then suggesting to build on his strengths. I encourage him to improve. I would much like a critique like that for myself. I would not go to dam his way, blowing up his story and saying "There. Now pick up your pieces and build another one. You figure it out yourself. Then come back later so I can demolish your building again."

Though I acknowledge that some writers prefer that "Toughen your skin up" approach, I know there are other writers who will just feel discouraged if they're only told "You did this wrong." (I'm one of them. ) So I help them along. I give them the reason to write, for I am a reader also and I like to enjoy stories.

Sometimes, the writer will reject a critique - they don't want to hear it. You can say it is their ego blocking them, and I say it is because you need tact if you want them to listen your critique, and take it in for the better. Even though you might be right, nobody really wants to hear things phrased in an ugly manner. The critiquer too bears certain responsibility on their part.

I adopt my affirming approach from Ernest Hemingway's writing positive, not negative. What does he mean by positive? Basically, you should say what something is rather than what it isn’t. This is what Michel Fortin calls using up words. By stating what something isn’t can be counterproductive since it is still directing the mind, albeit in the opposite way. If I told you that dental work is painless for example, you’ll still focus on the word “pain” in “painless.”

• Instead of saying “inexpensive,” say “economical,”
• Instead of saying “this procedure is painless,” say “there’s little discomfort” or “it’s relatively comfortable,”
• And instead of saying “this software is error-free” or “foolproof,” say “this software is consistent” or “stable.”

edited 4th Jun '11 9:33:12 PM by QQQQQ

I've seen this issue from the other side, in that I used to frequently discover that my reader had missed the entire point of my story. I eventually learned that the proper approach was to make my point more obvious.

Feo: Heheh. Reminds me of when I started reading homestuck. I had problems with the introduction style. Looking back on it, I realize it was a stylistic choice, but that doesn't mean I liked it, or it made it OK.

I think that if it truly is part of your style then there are ways to make that style accessible to most people. Yeah, you will always get the people who still are put off by it, but that doesn't make them wrong. You just have to make that conscious decision to think "I acknowledge your criticism, and I see its validity, but I do not necessarily plan to directly act upon it, for stylistic reasons. I will, however, keep it in mind."

It depends upon whether the criticism takes certain stylistic parameters into account. If they don't, then they well may be wrong, and you are indeed right to point it out; if they have and they still take issue with your choices... then you may well be doing it wrong. Very wrong.

Take stream-of-consciousness: If the mode is not taken into account by the critic, then they will probably miss the point entirely; on the other hand, if the critic in question is well-acquainted with the method, they have every right to tell you that they see something wrong with the way you've written it... as long as they can give you means of improvement.

Now, if they can't.... It's one of three very different things.

edited 5th Jun '11 10:33:11 AM by JHM