Assuming the worst with writers when online.

I really, really hate these characters.

Not that I don't agree with other parts of that post, but that bit really stands out for me.

And I've honestly never had a lot of problems with taking critiques, so long as they're fair.

edited 21st Dec '11 1:28:10 PM by nrjxll

Hah, critique is disappointing, not nerve-wracking. Nobody ever tells me all the mean things I want them to tell me. I wish I were rich and could hire an editor.

Every time I get a mean critique I completely throw away whatever I'm working on because I know there's no way to fix it.

This is why I never post anything. I have like over 500,000 words squirreled away that I've written in the past four years or so but I just don't want to show any of it to anyone.

edited 21st Dec '11 1:40:19 PM by ohsointocats

Critique online is awkward because, as this thread was built upon, people assume the worst. I love critique in person, because you can have a human conversation with the person, which is why I adore my tiny little writer's club at college. If someone finds a problem with my writing, they tell me, and we can offer suggestions, building off each other fluently, and if needed, I can justify myself as to why I wrote things in such a manner.

Online, you get a bunch of random notes come flooding at you at once, it's harder to point at specific places that need revision, and then there's just the general troubles of trusting some anonymous person on the internet with your work. The most I'm likely to trust Writer's Block with is an excerpt of one particular issues, ie. "how do you suggest I describe this object?" or "is this going to push people the wrong way?"

I'm pretty sure the concept of Law having limits was a translation error. -Wanderlustwarrior

^^ Then write vignettes, 500-1000 words, and get them critiqued as quickly as you can. When you're told what's wrong with them, write new vignettes that don't have those flaws. When you're told the new flaws, write more vignettes—and when you start to get less critique, and people start saying that your stories are basically fine, you can graduate to longer works.

(Seriously, I think the single biggest problem with this forum is that so many people are writing novels who haven't tried writing short stories. Novels are so much harder to critique, and consequently harder to learn from.)

That's Feo . . . He's a disgusting, mysoginistic, paedophilic asshat who moonlights as a shitty writer—Something Awful

But I hate vingettes! They're terrible to write and they're terrible to read. Why would I pollute the world with them?

^ Er, okay. Sure. No vignettes. Short stories, at least? (There must be some story you want to tell that doesn't require tens of thousands of words. Then again, maybe that's just my inner minimalist—I have difficulty managing tens of thousands of words worth of story.)

edited 21st Dec '11 1:50:39 PM by feotakahari

That's Feo . . . He's a disgusting, mysoginistic, paedophilic asshat who moonlights as a shitty writer—Something Awful

Some critique is better than no critique at all, which is all this subforum ever seems to hand out. Or when you ask for certain kinds of critique, you get questions about format or structure when you only want to know about a their opinions of a character etc.

edited 21st Dec '11 1:55:08 PM by Schitzo

ALL CREATURE WILL DIE AND ALL THE THINGS WILL BE BROKEN. THAT'S THE LAW OF SAMURAI.

Not at the moment.

I have no problem with writing tens of thousands of words and throwing them away at a second thought. Anyway most of the problems are symptoms of larger continuity issues that cannot really happen in a story under a few thousand words.

edited 21st Dec '11 1:54:53 PM by ohsointocats

If your problems are largely because you write long stories, this seems suggestive of something.

It's very difficult to have issues with continuity when you write a short story.

It's possible, but difficult.

I think if people got more encouragement to post their work, there would be more concrete things posted. I know every time I've seen a particular discussion about someone's concrete work, it makes me want to post my own work (if I had any). That is what encourages me, personally.

oddly

I wish people would finish reading when they said they hadn't read the whole thing.

And I wish bumping ones work on its own thread wasn't such a hassle.

ALL CREATURE WILL DIE AND ALL THE THINGS WILL BE BROKEN. THAT'S THE LAW OF SAMURAI.

I feel kind of bad now. Because this could describe me. I'm sorry!

SPATULA, Supporters of Page Altering To Urgently Lead to Amelioration (supports not going through TRS for tweaks and minor improvements.)

Oh, you're definitely not alone. But that said, brutal honesty is generally a far better policy than unnecessary sugar-coating.

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

Not necessarily. Brutal Honesty can lead to (unintentional) bullying if there isn't a proper communication built between the critter and the critee. Yes, you need to be able to take criticism, but not everyone is going to have stone skin.

oddly

I generally warn people before I critique for them that they need a tough skin because when I critique my niceness-filter doesn't always work properly. Also I feel I respond well to politely asking to tone it down, and I'm willing to apologize, so...I feel like I'm not a total bully at least.

edited 21st Dec '11 4:42:03 PM by NoirGrimoir

SPATULA, Supporters of Page Altering To Urgently Lead to Amelioration (supports not going through TRS for tweaks and minor improvements.)

Actually, when I got a critique from you, it was one of the nicer ones I've gotten over the internet...

Well that's good, I am trying to improve on that.

SPATULA, Supporters of Page Altering To Urgently Lead to Amelioration (supports not going through TRS for tweaks and minor improvements.)

I guess it depends on the bluntness. There is the dull sort of bluntness of "I did not like it." and the more reactionary "Ugh. This is really bad."

Both are fine in the end, but one can lead to more boring analysis that is helpful, and the other can occasionally lead to some unfortunate comments, if still helpful analysis.

oddly

The "certain person" I mentioned later isn't Noir, since we're yet to interact in that sort of situation.

But generally, the "certain person" tend to be blunt outside critiques. As in, the "certain person" would often post an objection to my opinion. Which makes me paranoid every once in a while.

...this does not help matters, it only makes them confusing. The blunt people I can think of are:

Noir

Leradny

Nrj (sometimes)

...

hmmmm...

oddly

For the sake of the person, I'm dropping the topic...unless that person happens to pop up.

While I've disagreed with chihuahua on a few things, I can't remember ever getting involved in a serious critique.

It's conversations like these that make me realize that I've been missing out on too many stuff. D|

edited 21st Dec '11 5:20:57 PM by Masterofchaos