Criticism, it never gets easier, does it?

it wont get easier until you get protectionFromEditors

as of the 2nd of Nov. has 6 weeks for a broken collar bone to heal and types 1 handed and slowly

No, that's just hiding from your problems. Then you're just living in your own delusions.

Read my stories!

If you have Protection From The Editors, you'll probably have bigger problems with criticism from your readers.

Thanks for the all fish!

ya, but it's still easier to take criticism if you ignore it all

as of the 2nd of Nov. has 6 weeks for a broken collar bone to heal and types 1 handed and slowly

...yes.

But anyone who follows such a blanket statement is an idiot, I am sorry to say.

edited 16th Aug '11 1:16:11 PM by MrAHR

Read my stories!

Ya, but as far as I know no one does that here. I was just saying that if you ever DO do that, critizm is easier to take.

as of the 2nd of Nov. has 6 weeks for a broken collar bone to heal and types 1 handed and slowly

I remember Joe Abercrombie said somewhere on his blog that he found reading criticism and negative reviews of his work gets easier, but is never easy.

I've found it to be the same. I plan ahead for the knee-jerk emotional response and allow myself a cooldown period. After the first few minutes I'm pretty calm and rational about things.

edited 16th Aug '11 1:52:52 PM by MildGuy

this makes me want to write

as of the 2nd of Nov. has 6 weeks for a broken collar bone to heal and types 1 handed and slowly

I like criticism, personally. Makes me a better writer.

I'll hide your name inside a word and paint your eyes with false perception.

Me in a nutshell. The only critiques have been towards typos and grammar goofs on my end. Rarely has it been "your story/scene sucks/kicks ass, here's how to improve/don't change it at all".

"Allah may guide their bullets, but Jesus helps those who aim down the sights."

Actually, listening to criticism does get easier, once you recognize that most people are not attacking you as a person when they give a critique—they're just analyzing the work you've put up.

A lot of new writers can't seem to disconnect their words from themselves, while at the same time treating the critic as a disembodied voice which (doesn't) agree with them. Fixing this problem takes a while, but once it does you'll be good to go.

I have several basic rules I always follow when asking for and receiving criticism, and they've served me pretty well.

• Be specific when making the request. Don't simply hand your work to someone and ask what they think; tell them what parts you want critiqued and why. Example; if it's a rough draft, a bunch of nit-picky grammar and word-choice stuff isn't really that helpful; chances are you'll catch most of that during revisions anyway.
• Never, EVER say "be merciless" unless you really mean it. Many people say this too soon and regret it. Only when you think your work is done do you ask for people to go at it with a scalpel.
• Pick your reviewers carefully. I'd honestly advise against asking what everyone in Writer's Block thinks; you'll get a lot of conflicting advice that likely will just confuse (if not frustrate). Ask specific people, give them small pieces as a test and see what kind of results you get. If they're unhelpful or mean, don't give them any more.
• Consider the source. Always take a critic's biases into account when processing what they tell you. A good benchmark; ask what sort of books/movies/music they like and why, as well as stuff they don't like before you show them anything. If they hate on things that are similar to yours (hell, I'm always leery of people who hate on anything as critics, they tend to not be helpful), look elsewhere.
• Follow your own mind. This sounds obvious but too many writers forget who's in charge when they start asking for help. Sure, listen to what other people say but don't let it change your ideas too much. Good stories are seldom fashioned by committee.
• Stay calm, stay focused, stay motivated.Don't let assholes ruin your creative impulse; if someone's being hurtful about your work, let 'em go fuck a duck and continue on. Haters gonna hate, after all, and that's likely all they're ever going to do with their life. Such people generally miss everything cool and die angry, so why sweat what they think?

If I were to write some of the strange things that come under my eyes they would not be believed. ~Cora M. Strayer~

I'd also add "but recognize other people will follow theirs, even your target audience".

Listen to the Scribemaster. He knows his shit.

Read my stories!

Amen, dude.

"Proto-Indo-European makes the damnedest words related. It's great. It's the Kevin Bacon of etymology." ~Madrugada

post, dude.

Thanks for the all fish!

From one scriblerian to another: Yes.

I'll hide your name inside a word and paint your eyes with false perception.

It's a mental thing, ultimately. It won't get easier until you let it get easier. Not a difficult concept.

Take note of what people say and consider it. Then, decide whether or not the improvements/changes should be made. There's no legitimate reason to be scared about it, you're not going to be ostracized by us or exiled.

We should have a criticism sub-forum.

That drunk guys post is gold.

edited 16th Aug '11 9:00:58 PM by Jewbacabra

Two Wong's don't make a white.

I used to have a couple of readers who read my work and gave me feedback AS they read it, writing down their thoughts as they went. This allowed me to see where my plot muddied and bogged down or when something didn't make sense immediately, prompting clarification and refinement. That said, I wish I had more constructive criticism. I have almost none of the sort. Most people who have read my work and gotten back to me are all "Dude it was awesome thumbs up" etc. I wish for more constructive criticism. Haha

@Last few posts: Glad to be of service, y'all. -tips hat-

Okay, now to advise the other half of the equation; the critic. I've a few rules I apply when giving critiques that have also served me well:

• Only dish out what you're prepared to take. There's nothing wrong with being harsh as long as you've got a thick enough skin to take it in kind. Put yourself in the writer's shoes, and ask yourself; would I be okay with hearing this about the work I've been slaving over/obsessing about/dreaming of? If you even hesitate to answer, dial back the vitriol and be nicer.
• Find a problem, offer a solution. Saying "This sucks!" is for amateurs; most people with an IQ over the speed limit follow that with "I could do it better and here's how!" Use that. A writer will feel better about listening to deficiencies in their work when you give them a suggestion regarding how to correct them. If you can't find a better way, maybe there isn't a flaw to begin with.
• be specific. Spend some time and bake your noodle to come up with why you didn't like it, as well as what specifically you didn't care for; This gives the writer direction when they go to fix it. And besides, "vague criticism" is another term for "insult", which is not productive.
• know your biases. The flipside to "consider the source"; don't critique works based in genres you abhor. You won't enjoy reading them and will be constantly tempted to tear them apart on general principle. There's nothing wrong with saying "look, I'm sure (X) is good, I'm just not into that kind of thing". This plays into the next one which is...
• Know what you are getting into. Ask the writer lots of questions. Try to get a feel for their work before you read it (trust me, it isn't hard to get a budding writer to talk about their project). Make sure its something you even want to read before you agree to review it.
• Don't preach to deaf ears. If someone shows a propensity for being very defensive about their work, don't volunteer your time. They won't listen, and you won't accomplish anything. Critiquing is a give-and-take; If someone doesn't want your help (and categorically refusing to listen to your review counts, regardless of what they say beforehand), don't give it to them. And don't feel obligated to teach someone how to accept criticism; trust me, the world will do that for you.

If I were to write some of the strange things that come under my eyes they would not be believed. ~Cora M. Strayer~

I'd also like to offer:

• If there are many problems with a work, pick the top thing to review first: One of the mistakes I made early on as a reviewer was trying to list every single problem in a work. Your language is not strong enough here. This character is underdeveloped. This plot twist makes no sense. This is a bad case of Did Not Do The Research, etc, etc. When you're offering advice to someone whose work has a lot of problems, tell them first and foremost that there's quite a few things that you would change, but start with the most important problem first. Take the single thing that needs the most fixing and focus on that. If they fix it in a new draft, then focus on the next problem. If they don't ask you to review anymore, then at least you go them on the right path. But trying to tell them everything that's wrong with the story will probably just confuse and frustrate them.

^ To add to this: At the writing help centre I work for *

, we always talk about what are called Higher Order Concerns before tackling Lower Order Concerns. A HOC is a problem with the content; the subject is unfocused, the ideas don't flow into each other, it's badly organized or developed. LOCs are problems with the mechanics— spelling, grammar, syntax, word choice, citations, etc.

If you're offer criticism, it's best to look for broader problems first— the mechanics are vitally important, but they're so much easier to fix than wonky characterization, unnatural dialogue, or a broken plot. So in general, unless the author is asking you to check for problems in the mechanics, try to critique the more important things first.

Thanks for the all fish!

^^^ Gotta disagree with this one.

The writer should figure out how to fix their own problems. Doing this puts the critique giver in the dangerous situation of telling the writer how to write like the critic. It's fine to offer suggestions for fixes if the author asks for them, but even in that case I think it best if you offer multiple examples, not just ones you'd use if you were them. It's tricky...

Edit: Yeah, I really don't think "I could do it better and here's how!" is something that should be used unless you're dealing with a writer you know is mature enough to take inspiration from your idea, drain it of its vital juices, then toss the husk aside and find yet a better idea on their own later. A less confident writer might find themselves taking suggestions as edict—to be followed on pain of ultimate failure.

edited 17th Aug '11 7:45:05 AM by MildGuy

A writer can fix their own problems, but not giving them a suggestion of how they might fix it just makes the critic look like an imperious, holier-than-thou douchebag.

"Proto-Indo-European makes the damnedest words related. It's great. It's the Kevin Bacon of etymology." ~Madrugada

Yeah, if I was to simply criticize without giving suggestions, I would feel as if I'd stopped helping make the work better and started pointlessly sniping.

Shinigan (Naruto fanfic)