When should you listen to editors/criticism?

Sometimes you have an amazing idea that you should express no matter what as it its something so precious it can move the hearts of many. After all It's good to follow your vision; write what you love an take risks. Trying to make others happy (to the detriment of your work) by betraying yourself leads to bad results... as you can't please everyone.

On the other hand, sometimes you do have a horrible idea . Something that you will regret forever. A bad idea that an editor or a critique could easily point out save you from yourself and from screwing up badly.

For example George lucas's original trilogy Starwars had heavy input and criticism from others and thrived... but when he was surrounded with Yes Men he created Jar Jar banks among other awful ideas.

How do you know the difference?

edited 9th Dec '15 11:20:29 PM by RPGLegend

You never really can. All you can do is go with your gut. Unless you're trying to get into traditional publishing. In which case you'll have to deal with your editors. It's the name of the game.

You should listen to them and figure out what they're saying, what they didn't say but very much feel, etc.

Whether or not you follow their advice (or 'advice') is quite another matter . But you first figure out whether they're giving good advice.

And often, the only way to find out is to try.

edited 10th Dec '15 1:00:15 AM by hellomoto

Sometimes, you just have to ignore the "Suits." Perhaps it was said best by Dirk Benedict:

http://www.dirkbenedictcentral.com/home/articles-readarticle.php?nid=5

DISCLAIMER: It's basically a bitter rant. I don't agree with everything he says, but he does make some valid points.

edited 10th Dec '15 3:20:24 PM by pwiegle

The general rule of thumb I've heard is that you should begin to seriously consider following the advice of critics when they're all complaining about the same thing, especially if they're part of or sympathize with your target audience.

Yeah, even if you don't ever plan on traditionally publishing your work or marketing it beyond putting a URL in your forum signature, it's good to have a target audience in mind when you write, even if it's just something like 'sci-fi/fantasy fans'. It helps you stay focused.

Not to get bogged down by semantics, but in my eyes? Listening to editors and criticism is probably a good idea; they can point out stuff that you never would have thought of. Taking their advice, on the other hand? That's a bit trickier.

There's no ironclad rule, obviously. But I'd like to think that if someone took time out to pinpoint an issue with your story, you should consider it. After all, if one person spoke up about it, then who knows how many more might have an issue down the line (or even at the early stages)? To be fair, the weight you put on criticism should vary depending on the severity of the complaint. If someone gives a thorough rundown of the issues they had, then chances are you should take them more seriously than someone who just said "Eh, I didn't like it." That's a given, but still something to keep in mind.

YMMV, but I'd say that it's best to take criticism into consideration for two scenarios in particular. One: the editor/critic in question opens your eyes to a possibility that you would've never considered before, and/or could help make the story even better — making it more fun to work with, giving you more tools to use, whatever. Two: the editor/critic makes it obvious that something in your work isn't working, or being conveyed in the way you want — which means it's up to you to figure out how to fix it.

It's all based on the creator's role as, well, the creator. Taking on that illustrious role means being able to answer the questions that arise every step of the way, from inception and beyond. Editors and such may raise complaints, but they also might not have the context needed to make full assessments (especially if you've just released snippets of the full work). So if someone says "This character's boring" and explain why, and then you could theoretically answer that by saying "yeah, but that's entirely the point, because [insert brilliant plan here]", then it's possible to shuffle that criticism aside — or at least make a few minor adjustments on your terms instead of a massive overhaul. Granted that means that your answers and overall creative vision have to be, you know, good, but the point still stands. If you've got the skills, you can make or break the rules.

Or you could just go with your gut. That probably works, too.

One thing to decide is

1. Is the change/criticism minor

and

2. Are they your audience / do they know their stuff.

I had HUGE issues with trying to listen to all criticism, despite largely listening to people who didn't like the types of stories I wanted to write, and not understanding how the medium worked (folks a visual medium has very different rules than a non visual medium). And it really messed me up.

In the end I realized that some small changes aren't that big of a deal. Not every word needs to be fought over, on either side. Sometimes you can just shrug it off.

And it's a good idea to look at what a person has to say about other stuff. Basically, make sure you're listening to someone who wants to enjoy your story, and wants to enjoy your message.

I'd listen to an editor - because that would mean that the editor of some publishing house has seen enough merit in my work to take the huge financial risk of printing and distributing my work.

An editor is someone whose opinion you solicit - you submit your completed MS to the publishing house and if you're getting anything more than Form 37 - Rejection (Standard), then you're on velvet: someone experienced in publishing the genre you write in has deemed it worth more than a cursory glance en route to the rejects bin.

If they have opinions on how to make it more polished or that you need to spice up the conflict a tad, then it pays to listen - especially if you want to get your work published.

Critics, on the other hand, you've got to ask yourself "are they knowledgeable in this genre?" If it's SF and the critic is Playboy Magazine, then the answer's probably "yes". If it's a Mills & Boons style romance and the "critic" is a fan of WWII comics, the opinion probably doesn't count for much...

edited 14th Dec '15 7:40:18 PM by Wolf1066

Any examples of teasing apart critism from critics, and choosing whether or not to listen to them?

edited 16th Dec '15 2:16:58 AM by hellomoto

I can give personal experience. A couple people that I've shown my work to just didn't like my rather crude style of humor. It happens; not everybody has the same sense of humor. I chose to keep doing what I'm doing.

You hired the editor to edit, either you've wasted his time and yours doing so or you should take their advice.

Commonly repeated themes in criticism mean that you have made a mistake. It doesn't even matter if they're repeated themes from people who don't seem to be your audience; they got to your work somehow, so your advertising made a mistake somewhere.

Individual criticism may also matter, but it depends on how much they know their stuff. It doesn't have to be "their stuff about your story world" necessarily; if someone offers an articulate, considered criticism of the psychology of a character, for example, they may well be right.

I think it might depend on the critic, too. Like my old guild leader when I was in Clan Jade Falcon. Sadly, when he got his English degree, it went right to his head, and he used it as an excuse to condemn my stories and my ideas for them as harshly as possible. No, he really did. He never gave me any compliments or helpful advice. He never said anything like "good job" or "keep it up" or "I like the sound of that" or "let's try it this way." It put a serious strain on our friendship.

"Criticism" without suggested solutions is worse than useless, really.

"That character really sucks!" is far less use than "that character doesn't seem to work because they lack agency and behave in random manners that come across as totally out of character compared with what came before. If they actually made decisions based on their goals and the obstacles before them, and maintained a consistency of purpose, they would work better."

"Not bad, I like the guy, but I can't buy that he would do that after what he said earlier. Could you not show what has happened to make him behave in a way contrary to his own nature or at least give earlier indications that he's a screaming hypocrite so that it doesn't come across as totally 'left field'?"

"I hate your fucking characters, they blow hairy goats" is criticising, not criticism. Some people don't know the difference - even after going on a Literary course...

When it's valid.

When more than one person agrees that the same thing is wrong. It's good to give your work to several people and see what problems they find. If, say, one tells you that one character is unlikeable, while the other says that they really love him, then the character is not bad. However, if they both agree that the villain is a cheesy Cliché Storm, and not in a fun way, then... it's probably a cheesy Cliché Storm, and not in a fun way.

Also, if you're writing something like fantasy or sf, then it's probably bad if your critic tells you that they don't understand what's going on, what thing X is and why can't your heroes just use magic/phlebotinum to solve all their issues. If you can't point them to earlier part of your story that explains it, then you have a problem on your hands.

Yeah, you're right. I would have been fine with "That'll work." Which I heard was sort of Walt Disney's unofficial Catchphrase.