Criticism, it never gets easier, does it?

@The Gloomer

I apologize for my harshness.I suppose I misread what you were saying.

No need to worry. You weren't being harsh about anything.

To use H.R. Giger’s art for an example, the idea of humans being physically fused with their own technology is a “key” concept that enables us to begin unravelling other meanings in his work. Another “key” in Giger’s work is that of human sexuality being an emotionless mechanism of reproduction.

Most artists, though they may not be aware of it, have a personal preference for using certain types of encryption. Some painters place great emphasis on colour combinations to establish moods. Some writers create complex personal histories for their characters. And some musicians create notation that mimics the phonetic sequences of lyrics. The types of messaging in the arts are incredibly varied.

Most artists engage in some sort of subjective encoding, whether they are aware of it or not. They consistently express or “encode” their own emotions and beliefs into what they create. Much of the time these encoded expressions are easy to decipher, but sometimes they’re extremely difficult.

Rather than simply saying "a cigar is just a cigar", which is an easy cop out clause for those who prefer face value meanings, it is worth acknowledging that there are universal patterns in how messages are encoded into art.

It takes basic comprehension and language skills to be able to read — on the basic levels. Naturally, it follows if you have a golf ball sized awareness, when you read a book you'll have a golf ball sized understanding. But if you're willing to expand that awareness then you would read the book with more understanding. This is true even for those "simple" stories from Michael Bay who— when you pay attention, you'd notice these recurring patterns of stereotypes which exist in his films; at least one black/racial character to serve as comic relief, his strong attention to visuals whilst not the least bit of subtlety in his characters, and his use of female characters as fanservice to the men who would be watching. His films can speak massively about himself.

George R. R. Martin infuses his fantasy works with grit and darkness, and what occurs in his stories result from the research he took to make the setting real, as well as what counts to grip the reader with the plot. But it's not so much a deal about endorsement as it is about what happens according to his biases — see what I said above. (He didn't pull those words from nowhere; he wrote them.)

Meanwhile in the voice actor's union, Mark Hamill has very much enjoyed The Joker not for the diabolical evil, but because of the thrill of conveying his manic, almost charming persona on sound.

Mhm.

But of course! Why would we? It is insane to suggest a work might provoke the reader into deeper thought.

I affirm the author and give her my insights so she can take it upon herself to move forward. I'm not really into their methodology unless there's something about their way of doing it that's preventing them from getting their wishes.

edited 1st Dec '11 11:38:19 AM by QQQQQ

What really makes me nervous is when I don't get criticism. I realize maybe not everyone can put their finger on what they think should change, or maybe they don't think anything should be changed, or they're not familiar with the genre/fandom.

But I still have an irrational fear that no criticism means it's not worthy of criticism, or it's too terrible to be saved by criticism. It's a very irrational fear, I know, since even the worst work invites criticism. I should be more afraid that it's too mediocre to warrant thought.

Or maybe just not afraid at all.

Be bold, Elephant! If you're not getting criticism, it's far more likely to be a symptom of "everyone wants to be read, but no one wants to read" than actual suckage on your part.

Speaking of, I've become a sort of unofficial beta/critic for one person on Deviant Art, and I enjoy critiquing them because, although they have a lot of room for improvement, they're always receptive to criticism and are even willing to tell me places where they disagree with my criticism. Which are generally stylistic difference places, so I appreciate that. I wonder if they've been writing at all recently? It's always fun to see someone improve, after all!

Incidentally, I have to say that while it is definitely frustrating to not get criticism if you want it, I strongly advise against urging (or threatening) your readers to give reviews as is commonly seen in fanfiction. It's juvenile and unprofessional.

Really?

"His films can speak massively about himself."

And here, then, is where you lose the plot and descend into the murky netherworld of positivism. You assume that everything must have meaning, which is a dangerous assumption in itself when you wish to pretend to the mantle of science and even more so lacking context, but worse yet you assume it must have meaning about the artist rather than the end user.

All artistic endeavor is a negotiation. (Indeed, you claim to this to me, here, standing upon this site, the greatest tool ever presented to an artist for the purpose, and say to me that none of us will ever make a choice based on the desires or expectations of others.) Sometimes a cigar is a cigar because the reader or viewer expects there to be cigars. Sometimes it's simply there. The choice is too obscure and the possible meanings and reasoning too many to draw a conclusion.

Does Micheal Bay make movies like he does because he is himself prone to treating women as sex objects, thinks black people are funny, and likes explosions...? Or is it because he knows people will watch the movie if he does these things? Does George R.R. Martin write about gritty and dark fantasy because of a personal desire for it or because that is reflective of the way feudal systems have actually worked? Is a cigar phallic, reflective of class, reflective of nationality, reflective of the circles in which one travels, did the author simply like cigars themselves, did they select against their original impulse for a cigar? After all, one conscious of their biases can fight them. (And I have maintained since long before I came here that craft of authoring stories is most advanced by being able to squash one's biases as best you are able, and that the root cause of all artistic failure is the failure to control one's biases.)

As for your efforts to claim that human cognitive biases somehow allow us to examine every new thing clearly, after somehow spending a whole post arguing against it...

You are aware of the contradiction, yes? We are biologically conditioned to believe in the meaning of things, much as we are conditioned to believe in things we cannot see. We have the genes of those who believed that grass moving without an obvious source was a predator moving to attack us, because sometimes it was. Our desire to see patterns where none exist, to ascribe meaning when we lack sufficient context, has been one of our worst enemies. Your efforts perpetuate it.

edited 3rd Dec '11 1:39:13 PM by Night

I think it's a matter of controlling the emotions and reactions of the reader. The better you are able to manipulate the audience, the better an artist you are.

@AHR: Yes, really.

Accept rejection and reject acceptance.

The second part's going a little too far. After all, if you can't find any strengths in your work, not only is it disheartening, but you won't know what you're doing right and where you should keep doing what you're doing.

Sometimes I'm afraid to say when I don't agree with criticism, for fear of being called "butthurt," when the reason I don't agree may be because I don't think the critic's suggested change would really help the story.

So I guess sometimes I feel like I have to do everything the critics say, or that means I'm a deluded wannabe with no taste in writing who thinks she/he is the next Stephen King. (I realize this is wrong, but some people don't react well to people disagreeing with their advice and it's hard to tell which people will jump down your throat and which people will be fine with it.)

Take suggestions where you see the logic in them; ignore them where they are clearly a matter of personal bias; and keep them in mind if you aren't sure.

And there you are.

Has anyone been afraid/too embarassed to look at criticisms?

I mean, my beta just sent me my chapter back with comments on it, and I'm really hesistant to take a look at it.

droy: It depends on the person. Some people send me feed back with plenty of advice. I jump on those immediately. But sometimes there are people who give only really negative criticism. Those, those scare me. I avoid those.

@Atticus - He's both. He's very thorough, supportive, and humorous in his comments.

However, when he criticizes, oh dear...

Then I can understand why you would be hesitant, but I hope it doesn't go into outright fear or avoidance.

It borders on those. ;_;

Eheh. You are just a bit more timid than I. There is nothing wrong with that. Perhaps the order of criticisms would be better?

Some people like ending on a high note, others, a low note, and prefer to have the more supportive statements first.

Gurgh, I got to suck it up, damn it! DX

And be thankful for what you do have. I had a beta reader once, and he was awesome, but then he got swamped by work, it made me very sad.

But it's ok to feel what you're feeling, just don't let it get in the way of separating the good advice from the not so good advice.

edited 28th Dec '11 6:30:35 AM by AtticusFinch

I've just realized that part of my uneasiness toward criticisms can actually be attributed to laziness, as in "Oh God, do I have to write this again? It took me so much time to write this one!"