Feedback: the good, the bad, and the ugly

But what I'm saying is more along the lines of it's a fallacy to assume that in order to be a good writer, or a good musician, or a good anything else, you have to want to become a professional. Ability is not a function of whether or not you get a paycheck for doing something. Deciding what you want to do for a living is an individual choice rather than a mandatory compulsion. Making a living as a professional author, especially a novelist, isn't easy, even for those who are very good writers, and there's things like paying the rent and putting food on the table.

Yes, I want to be good at the things that are important to me. As a writer I'm in the habit of revising my work frequently and would be happy to have concrit, but the lack thereof has been because it hasn't been sent very often, not because I have failed to encourage it.

-Tim

 

Healer_Leona I'm sorry your experience with a beta had a negative effect. Mine had the opposite effect. I was scared to death to have my work beta'ed because I didn't want it scrutinized, but I was pleasantly surprised after I did agree to have it done.

I found out what my bad puntuation and grammar habits were and realized they were easily identified and corrected. Also my beta brought up suggestions about my story that really made me think. I definately feel I improved my story and was much happier after having it beta'ed.

Having said that, I did have my work beta'ed by someone I had struck up a friendship with and whose writing I really admire. I trusted her and that may have made all the difference in the world.

Finally, I did not follow every piece of advice my beta gave me. I weighed what she had to say and then I thought about how I wanted my story to read. I know she would understand since she is a far more accomplished writer than myself.

Yes, I am here for fun. I don't have any pretentions that my writing is going to blow people away, but I have to say I do want to do a nice job for the small audience I have aquired.

 

Healer_Leona,

I too am saddened to hear of your bad beta reader experiances. My beta reader is never anything but supportive and encouraing. This does NOT mean she mindlessly gushes over everything I write, on the contrary, I have recieved some chapters that had more Red corrections on it than actual works. The key differance is that it is done out of love for the works and is ALWAYS done with respect for me as a writer and a person in mind. She too has a beta for her own works (who also practices the 'crit tempered with love').

We chose our beta's becuase they care about their works and it shows. Friendship is a happy side effect...

 

Well, I agree completely with Herman here. The discussion here is very very similar to the one oont he old Newsletter thread about newsletter reviews and I made a comment there that a lot of writers like myself just write fan fiction for fun and when someone anonymous comes of the blue to make a *consturctive* criticism in a *supposedly* objective thread ? well, not everybody is happy or grateful for it. While I know there are a lot of fan fiction writers who are hoping to one day become *pro* there are a *lot* who are just writing for a good time and when some of these *criticms* fail to be *constructive* and just *critic* then the writers is just made to feel bad and inadequate... that is an *unwelcome* opinion given by a *stranger* and sorry, no body can be expected to be happy about that!

 

Just a personal opinion here, but I think the only reason to seek out a beta reader (or two) for posting on the boards would have to be because you want your own work to improve.

That said, improvement is never a painless process - especially since our artist's egoes are almost physically linked with our creations. One really has to put their own ego on the shelf to accept honest constructive criticism.

I used to be the world's worst at becoming attached to my own work. I'd be adamant that I loved a certain paragraph or sentence and I'd cling to it even at the cost of the quality of the overall work. A couple of semesters in creative writing (especially the poetry course where an entire class gave critiques on every piece I wrote) really cured me. I don't think I had an ego left after that. I definitely learned not to become attached to anything I wrote.

I'm in the same boat with whoever wrote that they don't do much critiquing in-thread on the boards. I prefer my feedback there to be supportive because we all do this for fun. I want to encourage people to create in the SW universe. Rather than volunteer my critical opinion to someone who didn't ask for it I'll usually choose to say nothing.

 

"I think the point Mr. Black was trying to make is that if we know we have room for improvement, whether its in something we intend to do professionally or just for sheer enjoyment, wouldn't we want to work towards that imorovement? A musician gets better by practicing and taking lessons. A writer gets better by practicing and listening to constructive criticism. And if you don't know what needs improvement, no amount of practice is going to improve it, so constructive critiscism is really rather, uh, critical for an author to improve. Sure, it may just be a hobby for some, but don't you care enough about your hobby to do a good job with it?" --Bobbacca

That's what I was stressing. I'm glad to see that I wasn't entirely misunderstood. Thank you for that; I appreciate it.

Now, if this thread were to maintain a semblance of purpose, I think it best to move beyond the who/what/when of constructive criticism (as in who wants it, what is it, and when to use it), and focus more on the how: How to be constructively critical, while at the same time not being overly negative or condescending. This would be a beginning to that "Critiquing Manners" idea (originating from Dana) that has been resonating on and off throughout this entire discussion. First and foremost, I think, would be honesty. You wouldn't want/trust a reviewer that lied to you. Beyond that, what else should be considered? I'm entirely open to suggestion/discussion.

Oh, and it's good to be back .

 

I'm surprised that there are people around that actually would refuse anything but positive feedback. I go around begging for concrit; I can never get enough. Of course one doesn't always agree with it when one gets it! Nevertheless, to refuse it altogether makes me boggle. Concrit isn't flaming; it's suggestions for improvement, and if it were impolite, I would probably consider myself justified in ignoring it. Your characterisation makes my eyes bleed and your grammar is horrendous is not concrit. There is also a case for not humiliating the author publicly--if one is going to be harsh, PM or email is a more suitable medium.

I disagree with the poster who said that they would ignore concrit that came from a stranger or someone who wasn't an author themselves. They may write in a different fandom, be an English teacher or even a professional author or critic. You don't have to write yourself to know good (or bad) writing when you see it.

I saw people saying 'it's only fanfic' or that they 'cared about Star Wars more than writing' as well. I don't see that that's any reason why it shouldn't be good fanfic. It's not going to win any prizes for Great Literature (it's illegal anyway), but there is a greatness, a quality, that is specific to fanfiction. Even if one has no plans to write professionally, that doesn't mean that one shouldn't try to improve one's fanfic. If one is writing for love, one wants to show the characters and universe at their best, and how does one do that with sloppy writing? The characters and story of Star Wars are the subject matter, and the writing and characterisation of the fic is the medium through which they are seen. Badly written or characterised fic is like trying to see through a dirty window.

Basically my argument for concrit can be summarised as: What's the point of doing anything if it isn't done well?

 

I have a slightly different question for all of you. Do you think the reader's job with feedback is to try to make comments directly to the author on things or just to give their thoughts on what the story made them feel?

-sj loves kevin spacey

 

Boy, I've seen this little debate around, and not just in SW circles.

In one of the boards I frequent, there are a class of folks that we like to call "flouncers." Flouncers are those wonderful butterfly people who write the very bestest stories in the whole wide world--except that no one else understands them. And when someone gives them a little constructive criticism, they flounce off in a huff screaming that the critiquer has just ruined the joy of writing for them, for all time, and they'll never ever ever be able to write ever again, and it's ALL YOUR FAULT!!!!11!!

Puh-leeeeze.

I will never be a professional writer, and I know it. I'm not good enough (though I won't rule out the possibility that I may someday become good enough), and more importantly I don't have the discipline. But I still use beta readers. I still hold myself to the highest standards I can.

If you want to be admired for your work; if you want folks to say, "That [insert author name here], they're a terrific writer! Did you read their latest story?"; if you want people to be sincerely touched by your imagination, then you MUST work constantly to improve yourself. And you CANNOT improve yourself in a vacuum, I don't care how many books on writing you've read.

This is what constructive criticism is for. Now, most folks who don't leave feedback are simply lazy (hey, I can identify with that). But some are simply terrified that when they try and point out something that didn't make sense to them, the author will have a hissy fit and accuse them of flaming--or do the flouncing thing and leave shedding big crocodile tears. (Myself, I say good riddance if you don't have the cojones to take a little critiquing.)

When you're given constructive criticism, READ it. Consider what it says, and whether it has merit. Try some of the suggestions, see whether your story actually does improve. After a while, you'll begin to see a pattern of shortcomings where you can stand some improvement, and guess what! You'll become a better writer! How 'bout that! And then sometimes you'll get suggestions that are actually wrong for your story, and won't work. So you don't have to use 'em. But either way, always THANK your critiquer--they've put in a lot of time and effort to help you improve yourself--and trust me, critiquing/beta reading is HARD WORK.

One other thing, and then I'll shut up. (No, really.) If you've never left a critique for someone, try it. Learn how to dissect a story: you'll actually learn how to write stories better that way.

 

solojones:

Is there a difference? If I leave feedback about what a story made me feel, am I not talking to the author? Constructive feedback is not simply saying "Great story," "Try changing that comma to a semicolon," or "I'm not sure a Wookiee would do that," it's also saying "LOL!", "I have a bad feeling about this," and "What a jerky thing to do, I feel awful for your main character." That way, the author knows their story is working in the ways it should (and sometimes even in ways they didn't expect).

 

Hello, I'm currently going through a thought ...

If I write a story with my heart, need I to dissect it, then ?

Or would the feeling of Heart be destroyed, then ?


I mustadmit that I cannot describe what I mean. The thing goes a bit like this :

- Dissecting something is a logical, rational, materialistic approaxch to something. It will deal with everything that can be perceived through the Ration, through logical thinking, through an materialistic point of view.

- However, if I decide to "build" somthing while using a different point of view - I mean the emotional way of perceiving things - then I might get a different result.

What might be brilliant and stimulating from a rational, logical, materialistic point of view might be just clean dumb from an emotional point of view.
And vice versa.
That's just an example to explain what I mean.

Therefore, could a rational dissection of a story - thus totally negating the emotional content of the story - be desastrous to a story ?

And vice versa ?

That's just what I'm currently pondering about. I'm still undecided.

 

Concrit isn't flaming; it's suggestions for improvement, and if it were impolite, I would probably consider myself justified in ignoring it. Your characterisation makes my eyes bleed and your grammar is horrendous is not concrit. There is also a case for not humiliating the author publicly--if one is going to be harsh, PM or email is a more suitable medium.

I agree with you to a point, SoDV. I don't think one is ever justified in being harsh--people who write, put their hearts into it, and their stories are like their children--can you imagine if someone told you that your child "sucks" or something similar? (If I said that to a parent of one of my students, I'd get fired--and rightfully so.)

However, constructive criticism, done with the writer's feelings in mind and done with respect, can and should be helpful. I've had three or four beta readers in the time I've written fanfic--none of them have been afraid to call things as they were. None have been afraid to say "That scene doesn't work", or "Would Padme do that?", or "You need to not write such long sentences," or something similar. I've gotten stories back with a couple of pages of beta notes for one scene--and that's fine. But one element has always been there--respect, and friendship. I knew that they all thought I had talent or they wouldn't waste their time trying to help me improve.

Do I want criticism from a complete stranger? It depends on the extent of it. Something like, "I didn't really get what Padme was supposed to be doing there, or why she did it", I don't mind. But "I really don't like your story"? I think that's a case of, "If you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all."

 

I don't think one is ever justified in being harsh--people who write, put their hearts into it, and their stories are like their children

That was really my point - not that authors don't benefit from constructive criticism. Of course they do. Just not from everyone all the time.

For example, when I used to write poetry for class each poem was analyzed by everyone in the class - and everyone had a different opinion on what I should do to make my work better. What started out as crystal clear in my head quickly became muddied.

For that reason I'm more comfortable leaving the harsh job of critiquing to the beta readers the individual author chooses. If someone truly wants to improve they'll have a couple of betas who read and offer suggestions prior to posting each section on the boards. IMO that is where constructive criticism belongs. Note, you do not need to criticize to be constructive.

To me, though, critiquing is a beta's job. They have an investment in that particular author and in that person's work. I beta for several people, but the truth is I can only be bluntly honest with someone I'm not afraid of offending. In other words, no total strangers. I'm going to hold that author's work to the same exacting standards as I hold my own to and I know how hard I am on myself. Not everyone wants that level of influence so I save it for those I'm certain of. It isn't an easy thing to be critical and constructive while keeping the author's ego & creative voice intact.

That said, I'm not above sending someone a PM letting them know they misspelled/misused a word, or telling someone when they completely confuse me. By the same token, I don't mind when someone does that for me - either in or out of thread. My skin is very thick.

 

My viewpoint is finally coming through! Huzzah!

This thread is like the finale fight in Rocky. It keeps going back and forth, back and forth. Eventually, both sides're gonna wind up for that final punch, and it's up to the fates to see who can get to their feet before the 10 count.

I digress from that lunacy. I'm glad that what I was saying finally got through; that every writer, no matter if they're looking to chizzle their name on the best-seller list, or just write for the sheer fun of it, wants to be able to do the best job they can with their story.

Going back to hammering out a schema for employing concrit without ripping a sensitive & fragile author's heart out; we have honesty, which is a start. A very close second to that should be a sense of encouragement; you want to point out how an author can be come a better author, not just dwell on everything that (you think) they've done wrong. I've said it before: every story has at least one good quality, which is as good as anything to act as a foundation towards progressing literal skill. What does everyone think?

PS: Reihla; I was in a similar situation, but it was a straight prose fiction class, not a poetry class. There was a significant number of opinions, and all of them differed by degrees, running the gamut from "change nothing; it's great!" to "this is a candidate for a complete rewrite" (luckily, my teacher usually agreed with the former category). The key thing to remember is that it's your story/poetry/written work. Ultimately, any changes that are made rest with your implementation as the author, not with the peanut gallery. That's one of the best things about being a creator; every choice regarding the creation is ultimately in your hands.

 

Sock_of_Darth_Vader: I saw people saying 'it's only fanfic' or that they 'cared about Star Wars more than writing' as well. I don't see that that's any reason why it shouldn't be good fanfic.

That was me that said I cared more about SW than about writing. I think my meaning may have gotten a little muddled there. Yes, I do care about writing a good fanfic, but my emphasis is more on the fan part than the fic part. I want to write a readable, enjoyable story, yes...but am I going to obsess over every word, every sentence, every comma and semicolon to get it just right? Well, probably no, because I just don't have the time for that! I'm a single mom who also has to work to pay the bills (12 hour night shifts, at that). Am I making any sense at all?

That being said, Mr_Black, I think most of the controversy on this thread came from HOW concrit is applied rather than IF it is applied. I would venture to say that most of the authors on these Boards already have a beta reader...some of them have more than one. It's the unsolicited thing that got most of us, I think. Look at it this way...if you were standing on a corner and a stranger walked up to you and said "About that suit you're wearing..." and then proceeded to nicely explain what was wrong with your fashion sense, wouldn't you be a little startled and put off, even if you were wearing plaid pants with a striped jacket and NEEDED someone to tell you why this is wrong?

I do believe in doing my best at whatever I'm doing, but fanfic is not up there with taking care of my son, spending time with my family, and keeping my job on my list of priorities. That's not to say it's not important to me (in fact, I think it saved my sanity when I was going through my divorce) but if something has to give in my life, fanfic would have to be the first thing to go.

I REALLY hope I never have to make that choice.

 

even if you were wearing plaid pants with a striped jacket and NEEDED someone to tell you why this is wrong?

Soooo... what's wrong with wearing plaid pants with a striped jacket?

sg

 

*demurely straightens his awesomely plaid collar*

Go on...try to make me change. I'll jump off of a ledge before I sacrifice Plaidy McPlaid-Plaid (Yes, I gave Him a name). . Cool is a relative term, after all .

I think we're still trudging around in a foggy, dark space with this whole "I don't know you, but I'd be willing to help you out with your story if ya want me to" issue, kayladie97. The quote basically sets it up: 95% of the people on JC are strangers to me. There are a considerable number of writers in that percentile, and I'm sure my advice and suggestions would be taken as helpful assistance to a majority of them.

In simple terms: I don't go through the member listing, pick out some poor soul at random and say "HEY YOU! would you be willing to stake your life on your subjective genitive usage, because I have an axe that I just freshly sharpened." I give them a PM/post explaining who I am, what I'm doing, and that I'm trying to be helpful, and then I proceed to systematically demolish any preconception of talent that they may have stubbornly clung to (Kidding). I point out where I think that their story might have hitches, or where the plot might've stumbled into a hole somewhere. Of course, since they're the authors, the final decision to make the changes, or indeed, read my PM or post, rests with them.

It isn't like it's a conspiracy to take over the world or anything (no...of course not; where would you get that idea?! *gulp*)--it's just me trying to be a good samaritan, and a nice guy .

 

I give them a PM/post explaining who I am, what I'm doing, and that I'm trying to be helpful, and then I proceed to systematically demolish any preconception of talent that they may have stubbornly clung to (Kidding). I point out where I think that their story might have hitches, or where the plot might've stumbled into a hole somewhere. Of course, since they're the authors, the final decision to make the changes, or indeed, read my PM or post, rests with them.

But, see, that's still in keeping with my point. The caliber of writing on this site is far and away above most others, IMHO, and so I'm pretty sure that most authors here have a beta reader already. If someone, even in a PM, sends me an unsolicited concrit of my story, it's still going to take me aback for a moment. Would I still pay attention to it? Well, I probably would if it was as nicely done as you're talking about.

But, I think a better way to go about it is to post in my thread a few times first, telling me what you like about my story...the usual feel-good FB. Let me get to "know" you here at the JC. Then, send me a PM that says, "BTW, I have some suggestions if you'd like to hear them." Or do as you did and put up the thread offering your beta services. See, then the writers come to you and not the other way round.

As far as members of the JC being strangers, well, we all start out that way! Have I met anyone from here in RL? No, but I do feel like I have made many friends here.

And spiritgurl, I'm strictly a jeans and T-shirt girl myself, so plaid and stripes might really be okay for all I know!

 

This thread is like the finale fight in Rocky. It keeps going back and forth, back and forth. Eventually, both sides're gonna wind up for that final punch, and it's up to the fates to see who can get to their feet before the 10 count.

That would imply that there's a "winning" viewpoint--when in fact both sides only seem to be arguing *opinions*...which, like constructive criticism itself, can only be accepted or rejected by the individual person. I see no objective "winner" coming out of this discussion. Those who believe in one side of the issue will continue to believe their side; those who believe in the other will continue to believe in the other. No winners, no losers. *shrug*

For myself--and not to disparage the fine writers here--I don't really see fanfiction as something to labor and sweat over. It's really just for fun. It's kind of like riding a bike: when I'm out there on the trail, I'm out there for the enjoyment; sure, there are plenty of other, better riders in their little spandex outfits who go zipping right past me as I'm pedalling away, but that doesn't detract from my enjoyment of the ride--I'm still having fun regardless of how good I am. I *could* work to improve my riding, and be the guy who's passing up everyone else, but that wouldn't necessarily improve the *fun*. Again, in the end, that's really what riding (and fanfiction) is all about for me.

As far as criticism goes, I recall reading Stephen King's advice years ago. Paraphrasing from memory, he basically said that if ten people view your story and they each have different problems with it, you can safely discard all their opinions--but if they all have the *same* problems with it, then the story needs to be changed.

Oh, and speaking of constructive criticism, Mr. Black--there's no such word as "chizzle". Perhaps you meant "chisel" ?

 

That would imply that there's a "winning" viewpoint--when in fact both sides only seem to be arguing *opinions*...which, like constructive criticism itself, can only be accepted or rejected by the individual person. I see no objective "winner" coming out of this discussion. Those who believe in one side of the issue will continue to believe their side; those who believe in the other will continue to believe in the other. No winners, no losers. *shrug*

I think Mr_Black was just trying to make a light-hearted comment, not some brilliant, perfect metaphor for the thread

Everyone is going to have their opinions on if and when concrit should be given. I think we've displayed that quite thoroughly. I don't want to beat a dead horse on that one. Rather, I want to go back to my earlier question and give my point of view on it:

Should feedback be readers speaking directly to the author or speaking simply about how the story made them feel?

While, of course, you assume the author is going to read your feeback, there's still a distinction here. As authors, is it better to get feedback on a story that says-

'I like your characterization of Luke. He has grown up a lot and isn't just a farmboy anymore. Now he's faced with some really tough decisions, and I like that you treat him as someone who approaches these decisions logically and seriously. So many people write him as just some stupid kid.'

OR

'This is a horrible position for Luke to be in! I don't know how he's going to decide what to do. If he chooses choice a, this will happen, but if he chooses choice b, this other bad thing will happen. I can't wait to see what he does!'


The difference is that the first way looks at the story from a literary perspective while the second looks at it from a realistic perspective.

In my literary analysis class, one of the things we are never allowed to do is speak of the characters as though they were real people. It's stessed to keep in mind that all of these characters and situations are creations of the author and so to instead focus on how the author creates those situations so as to make the reader feel something. It's not to say that you shouldn't ever read a story just to enjoy it, but if you're someone who is yourself and author, I think it means more to your fellow authors if you can understand the skills they have as a writer as opposed to simply knowing how it affects you.

Personally, I try to give a mix of both kinds of feedback. Since I am a writer, I try to appreciate the techniques other writers use and give them a pat on the back when one is well done. However, I am clearly also reading these stories and getting enjoyment, sorrow, laughter, etc out of them and it's important to note those things as well. I think that many people who are authors only give feedback strictly from the reader perspective, though; it is helpful and appreciated, certainly, but it is kind of nice to know that other authors whom I respect appreciate and notice my own writing methods.

-sj loves kevin spacey

 

In my literary analysis class, one of the things we are never allowed to do is speak of the characters as though they were real people.

Nothing against you or your class, but this bugs me. As a writer, in order to do my characters justice, they have to become real for me.

Anakin, in my mind, is very much real--that doesn't mean that I don't know on a logical level that he's a fictional character and isn't going to come knocking on my apartment door and want to go have a cup of joe (or caf in the GFFA) at Starbucks, but when I'm writing about him, I can hear him tell me what he wants, needs, and plans to do next, if I listen hard enough. That's what I've had to learn to do as a writer--just watch and listen to my characters and write down what they're doing, as opposed to trying to control the story myself, which is a recipe for disaster IMHO.

That doesn't mean that analysis shouldn't include how the writer has put the story on paper, and how well the reader is able to get to know and appreciate the characters--far from it, I think it's important that analysis include this. However, if the characters aren't real on a certain level, why does it matter how well the readers know and appreciate them?

 

No, I completely agree with you a_g, and this is why I always try for a balance. I understood that perspective of the class because it is needed for people who don't naturally understand the art of writing. I always knew, though, that to these authors, these characters were very real because mine are to me. They have to be because you put something of yourself and others into them. They have to be real to you as an author for the story to mean something to you and to your readers. My point was, however, that sometimes it does help to have other authors step back and comment on the actual writing of the story as well, especially if you're someone who seeks to improve your writing.

-sj loves kevin spacey

 

BlueNebula: Oh, I meant chizzle. Exerybody else might chisel, but not me. My chizzle has a hydrospanner & a sammelflange. It's so far beyond chiseling, that it's summarily incomparable . In truth, I misspelled that because I made the reply at like 1:30 am, and to be honest...I'm partial to the letter 'z.' Needs to be used a heck of a lot more, in my opinion

solojones: I'm with a_g on this one; any critique of fanfic should focus on the emotional and thematic resonance of the characters and the situations. I think that technicality should definitely take a back seat. Should it be overlooked entirely? No, just deemphasized. And when I give feedback, I always try to speak directly to the author. Advice just seems much more earnest and worthwhile if you personalize it--pretty much avoid sounding like a text book. Again, that's just me.