From: julie@pascal.org
On Tuesday, June 10, 2014 4:07:30 AM UTC-6, mumble wrote:
> On 06/09/2014 11:22 AM, William Vetter wrote:
>
> > On Sunday, June 8, 2014 10:40:30 PM UTC-4, Michelle Bottorff wrote:
>
> >> J.Pascal wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>>> To ignore criticism and seek to discredit the critic instead is not
>
> >>
>
> >>>> useful, it is avoidance, and at best it does nothing to improve your
>
> >>
>
> >>>> writing skills.
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>> Honestly, mumble... as I said... this is assuming that you have the
>
> >>
>
> >>> ability to help anyone. It's not illegitimate to ask where you're
>
> >>
>
> >>> coming from with a criticism in order to help evaluate it.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> It didn't look helpful to me either.
>
> >>
>
> > They are not critiques. They are zingers.
>
> > If he had ever been involved in some kind of workshop where people
critique one another's manuscripts, they would resemble critiques.
>
> >
>
>
>
> Criticism does not involve pandering to the desire of the manuscript
>
> writer to be praised, it is rather commentary which is intended to help
>
> the manuscript writer improve.
True enough... and written in a "voice" that sounds like a pronouncement from
on high. This particular register is not one that communicates "intends to
help you."
In this case *you* are the writer and your audience who are your readers,
according to your standard are the ones who are always right.
> No, I have never been involved in one of the "workshop" sessions in
>
> which people take turns patting each other's backs, ...
Good. Those things are never particularly helpful to anyone who is trying to
improve. Nor, despite your clear prejudice, are they what anyone is looking
for.
> but I have been
>
> involved in formal document reviews, which are a face-to-face meeting
>
> where the author fields comments from multiple reviewers, and in some
>
> cases benefits immensely from the kindly eviscerations provided by their
>
> reviews.
So... not fiction, but rather a case of extreme power difference, where the
presenter is a supplicant and the reviewers are supposed to be mentors. This
may explain your chosen register.
> One learns that "the reader is always right" and those whose
>
> egos permit such learn to modify their presentation so that readers
>
> other than himself and a small circle of like-minded colleagues will
>
> grasp the material and receive its intended meaning.
>
>
>
> So-called "writers" like yourself William Vetter and your "colleague"
>
> Julie Pascal (intern/wannabe-"professional writer") are unable to let go
>
> of your egoic need to be recognized as The Next Great Writing Genius for
>
> long enough to absorb that which might actually help you arrive there.
Now this is absolutely adorable. As if my recent return to university is the
entirety of my ability and reputation. How *thorough* of you.
I also truly appreciate the psychological evaluation.
And you know... I *have* actually participated in critique of fiction with
numerous different published (or at least *now* published) authors who have
attempted to help me improve and learn and be a better writer. And I've done
so here many times over
the years so I actually do know what "helpful" looks like.
Your particular "critique" was superficial.
> If you offer your work to others for criticism, be prepared to bleed,
>
> always; only through a willingness to bleed for improvement can you
>
> achieve the state which allows it, as long as you remain wedded to the
>
> idea that you are already great you will never become so.
I think we need to have a discussion of voice and register and tone, because
your writing is pompous. In fact... hey, David, you've been trying to get a
hold of the concept of "voice" and making your various characters sound
different. Mumble here is
an excellent model if you've got a character that needs to sound pompous.
As for the substance of what you said, yes, no one improves if they aren't
willing to listen to critique. However, they will also not improve if they
accept critique without question because, contrary to what you said, the
reader is *not* always right
and a critiquer can only relate their own reaction to what they have read and
are sometimes, but not a majority of the time, right about what is wrong, and
even less often are right about what the "fix" is.
So critiques are valuable, even necessary, but the person giving the critique
is not anything similar to an authority. They are a data point.
"I didn't like this."
"I was completely put off by the subject. Yuck!"
It doesn't matter what words are used to say those things or how preachy
someone is when they say it, the "critique" is that this particular reader did
not like the passage. Yay.
So the writer has to figure out why.
If it's the subject matter... well, a well loved and rather talented author on
this board will not read a well loved and talented author because of kitten
abuse in a book. Other people love everything that author writes.
The dislike of the subject is legitimate... but it's one data point.
And *fixing* it would be a travesty.
"I will never get past this particular thing you did" is interesting, but not
particularly useful.
To be useful there has to be something more. And no, "your prose sucks" is
not the sort of "more" I'm talking about. I'm talking about mechanics and
craft and being able to say "this doesn't flow" or "the narrative seems
disjointed" or "you could use
description better to parallel the action in that part there."
If you like, call it "actionable intel."
If you haven't provided actionable intel, what was the point?
-Julie
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
