I will not read your f*****g script!

[Vertigo]

I came across this today and thought it might make salutory reading (warning there's quite a lot of that 'f' word in it):

http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/2009/09/i_will_not_read.php

It is an article by screenwriter Josh Olsen (A History of Violence) complaining about the no win situation of being a writer and being asked to read aspiring writers' scripts all the time. Essentially he is left looking bad either because he says no up front or because he does read it and then feels obliged to give truly honest feedback (usually involving telling the aspiring writer to either give up or go get proper training as a writer).

Here's a couple of extracts:

So. I read the thing. And it hurt, man. It really hurt. I was dying to find something positive to say, and there was nothing. And the truth is, saying something positive about this thing would be the nastiest, meanest and most dishonest thing I could do. Because here's the thing: not only is it cruel to encourage the hopeless, but you cannot discourage a writer. If someone can talk you out of being a writer, you're not a writer. If I can talk you out of being a writer, I've done you a favor, because now you'll be free to pursue your real talent, whatever that may be. And, for the record, everybody has one. The lucky ones figure out what that is. The unlucky ones keep on writing shitty screenplays and asking me to read them.

and

He was frustrated by the responses he'd gotten from friends, because he felt they were going easy on him, and he wanted real criticism. They never do, of course. What they want is a few tough notes to give the illusion of honesty, and then some pats on the head. What they want--always--is encouragement, even when they shouldn't get any.
Do you have any idea how hard it is to tell someone that they've spent a year wasting their time? Do you know how much blood and sweat goes into that criticism? Because you want to tell the truth, but you want to make absolutely certain that it comes across honestly and without cruelty. I did more rewrites on that f*****g e-mail than I did on my last three studio projects.

 

[mosaix]

Nothing wrong with him saying 'no' upfront, in my opinion. But there are ways and ways of saying 'no'.

BTW I wonder if he ever asked someone to crit a piece when he was starting out?

 

[Boneman]

Maybe you post this in critiques.... I agree with a lot of what he says, but I'd like to know how he got his first break!

 

[Jammill Khursheed]

His first break? Well... If he's a Hollywood script writer working in America, chances are his dad/brother/cousin/uncle gave him a job...


Jammill

 

[Venusian Broon]

Liked the article Vertigo, hardline but plenty to commend in his fair and truthful stance. Sometimes you have to cruel to be kind.

The other thing that stirs in me is that uneasy feeling that despite the few critiques I've forced on friends, those that I recieved because I was part of a course and the one that I paid for in a competition (out of curiosity), that I'm still in the dark regarding my craft and 'talent'. Perhaps I am that ar**hole he describes

That will only be partially allayed if I actually sell something in the market.

With regards to Mr Olsen - do you think he will now get flooded by a wave of terrible scripts after writing this article? Those kidz on the interweb love a bit of irony.

 

[Vertigo]

Well I came across the article from a link on the Sclazi blog site where Scalzi was talking about how he had posted a picture of his cat with a piece of bacon taped to it's back (don't ask) and now he seems to have every bit of trivia about bacon posted on the web forwarded to him! So quite possibly!

But, yes, I thought it an honest article and to be fair he probably got his break by going through the more normal cycle of writers' groups and studying writing at college/university and agents.

I do sympathise with him. How many people here have professions like doctor, lawyer, computer IT etc, and get totally fed up with being asked about someone's favourite illness, legal injustice or how to fix their computer. It's really just the same, as he points out in the article, and yet for some reason many people do seem to think that professional writers have some kind of duty to critique aspiring writers work.

 

[Peter Graham]

Great link, Vertigo.

He's right, too. I've noticed a creeping tendency amongst those seeking critiques to wish to prescribe precisely how the critique must be delivered - notably, that the critiquer is under some sort of obligation not to upset the writer and must therefore find one or more nice things to say. To me, this has always seemed akin to asking someone to give you a fiver and then getting upset because they won't bring it round to your house for you.

I suspect that problems arise because some (perhaps even many) aspiring writers secretly think their stuff is great. Modesty forbids them saying that, of course, so when they do the self depracating thing and ask for honesty, they do so thinking that honesty for them will equate to fulsome praise. When it doesn't, they get upset, angry or both.

I imagine that successful authors get it far worse, in that some of those who ask them to read their stuff are also perhaps hoping that the author thinks "Wow - this is so good that I must now go out of my way to pull a few strings with my agent/publisher to get this into print".

The only criticism worth asking for is honest criticism from someone who's opinion you trust and who ideally has some sort of knowledge, be that of publishing specifically or literature more generally. If an aspiring writer wants encouragement rather than criticism, can they please just say so?

Regards,

Peter

 

[Vertigo]

If an aspiring writer wants encouragement rather than criticism, can they please just say so?

Hehe that'll be the day! Now see I'm human and I want encouragement but I like to believe that I only want it if I have earned it.

 

[mosaix]

How many people here have professions like doctor, lawyer, computer IT etc, and get totally fed up with being asked about someone's favourite illness, legal injustice or how to fix their computer.

There's the old joke, Vertigo, about a doctor sitting next to a solicitor at a dinner party:

Doctor: I had someone at the bridge club ask me about a pain in his back, I recommended some pain killers and exercises. Later I sent him a bill for £25 and he's refusing to pay. What do you think I should do?

Solicitor: I think it sounds like a stern letter followed up with a summons to the Small Claims Court should do the trick.

Doctor: Thank you.

Solicitor: Not at all. That will be £50.

 

[Vertigo]

Yes... precisely Mosaix

 

[Jo Zebedee]

There's the old joke, Vertigo, about a doctor sitting next to a solicitor at a dinner party:

Doctor: I had someone at the bridge club ask me about a pain in his back, I recommended some pain killers and exercises. Later I sent him a bill for £25 and he's refusing to pay. What do you think I should do?

Solicitor: I think it sounds like a stern letter followed up with a summons to the Small Claims Court should do the trick.

Doctor: Thank you.

Solicitor: Not at all. That will be £50.

Consultants of the world unite; well, it is a recession.
Interesting article, and more about etiquette than critiquing I think. And reasons to go find some bluntly honest people. (nice is good, though - polite, bluntly honest people...)

 

[RcGrant]

Great link, Vertigo.

He's right, too. I've noticed a creeping tendency amongst those seeking critiques to wish to prescribe precisely how the critique must be delivered - notably, that the critiquer is under some sort of obligation not to upset the writer and must therefore find one or more nice things to say. To me, this has always seemed akin to asking someone to give you a fiver and then getting upset because they won't bring it round to your house for you.

I suspect that problems arise because some (perhaps even many) aspiring writers secretly think their stuff is great. Modesty forbids them saying that, of course, so when they do the self depracating thing and ask for honesty, they do so thinking that honesty for them will equate to fulsome praise. When it doesn't, they get upset, angry or both.

I imagine that successful authors get it far worse, in that some of those who ask them to read their stuff are also perhaps hoping that the author thinks "Wow - this is so good that I must now go out of my way to pull a few strings with my agent/publisher to get this into print".

The only criticism worth asking for is honest criticism from someone who's opinion you trust and who ideally has some sort of knowledge, be that of publishing specifically or literature more generally. If an aspiring writer wants encouragement rather than criticism, can they please just say so?

Regards,

Peter

Absolutely. When I go and take a look at the Critique forum I am always in two minds -- should I be honest if I don't like it, or should I just offer encouragement? I try to offer encouragement because I think if a person loves to write then they should write, no matter what. However, if someone is writing because they want to be published then it's a whole other ball game and I've come to the conclusion to hell with it, I will say what I think, even if it might sting a little. Frankly if someone wants to be a published writer they will need to develop a thicker skin; as soon as the first rejection letter hits the mat they will realise not everyone will love their work.

 

[Darth Angelus]

I can understand where the guy is coming from, and perhaps even sympathize with him. It can not be fun to be asked to read the works of others for free, over and over, and be severely handcuffed in how you may respond to it. A lot of people will write stuff that is sub par, but as he points out, they will only want the pretense of honesty. They will not see their own work objectively. That is probably a human bias, and it will take training to compensate for that.
He took his time to critique something he found really bad, and he only got labeled an a**hole for his time. That is not particularly thankful work.

I suspect that problems arise because some (perhaps even many) aspiring writers secretly think their stuff is great. Modesty forbids them saying that, of course, so when they do the self depracating thing and ask for honesty, they do so thinking that honesty for them will equate to fulsome praise. When it doesn't, they get upset, angry or both.

No doubt, this will unfortunately be true. Well put.

 

[Toby Frost]

At this point, you should walk away, firm in your conviction that I'm a dick.

Byee!

First up, why does so much writing on the internet, even articles on sophisticated sites, seem to read like a Joss Whedon character's internal monologue?

Anyhow, he makes a point. But perhaps people want him to read their scripts because this business is tough. Getting into writing is a pig, and once you're inside - properly inside, that is, as in making a living from it - it's probably rather easy to forget that you were once one of the dunces banging on the window. Any angle that puts you ahead of the competition is good, as is any opportunity to learn how to improve. So that's why people desperate to get somewhere take any opportunity that they can get, and that's why his acquaintances bother him. I suspect it comes with the territory.

As for critique, there are people who take a lot of pleasure in being very blunt, and they are usually a-holes. Sorry, but if I got a critique saying, in few more words "This is sh*t, don't bother me again", I wouldn't have the respect for the critiquer to trust his opinion. If it came back to the effect that it had its moments - almost everything does - but needed a hell of a lot of work, or that I needed to improve a lot as a writer, I'd pay that some attention. I have a feeling our writer may have chosen Option 1. It's definitely true that there is a tension between pointing out flaws and being encouraging, and I find it very difficult, especially when (as I thought about a piece recently) "This would be much better if you cut out the purple prose that you clearly worked hard on".

That said, I can remember the first bit of serious critique I received, in a writing group. A rather stern lady asked whether my fantasy novel was for children "because children like over-writing". This seems pretty harsh but not downright offensive, and although I was annoyed by it, I did take it on board. Peter has a good point that many people do want to be congratulated rather than advised (me included). As someone once told me, first you have to learn to listen to critique, and then you have to learn to decide what to do with it.

Over the last year, I have seen one story here that needed to be thrown in the bin and forgotten about, with the recommendation that its author take up another hobby (almost certainly nobody reading this). Almost everything could do with improvement (lucky I've not posted for critique, because my stuff could too!) but that's different. I suppose I am basically working towards the point that there's no need to be rude, but I'd put it more forcefully than that: if you don't have the basic decency to be polite, either in seeking or giving critique, why should anyone give a toss what you think?

 

[RcGrant]

As for critique, there are people who take a lot of pleasure in being blunt, and they are usually a-holes. Sorry, but if I got a critique saying, in few more words "This is sh*t, don't bother me again", I wouldn't have the respect for the critiquer to trust his opinion. If it came back to the effect that it had its moments - almost everything does - but needed a hell of a lot of work, or that I needed to improve a lot as a writer, I'd pay that some attention.

I agree. There is a difference between being honest and being nasty about it. I have to add though, I have encountered people who believe you are being nasty simply because you are not praising their work to the hilt. I tend to avoid critiquing their work in the future because they're simply not ready to listen to anyone.

 

[Toby Frost]

Yes, definitely, both online and in real life. I remember that a guy came to the writing group I'm in a few years back, expecting everyone to be awed by his genius. When people made suggestions and comments, he simply left. Not the right attitude!

I agree that having a thin skin is potentially a problem. Sometimes you do have to put aside the thought that a critique of your work is an attack on either it or you. ("Why do you hate me and my lovely book?") The flip side of this, I suppose, is where the critique is too readily accepted, and the writer reads "I would prefer it like this" as "What you have done is objectively wrong". As to whether it's legitimate to ask commentators to go easy on you, I'm less sure. I think you're welcome to try, but you can't expect people to jettison their honesty. I suppose a good critique would take such background circumstances into consideration anyway.

As an aside, I don't see why a writer should pay any attention to criticism of spelling, grammar etc where the critique contains grammatical and spelling mistakes (which this sentence almost certainly now has. Such is karma!).

 

[Darth Angelus]

As for critique, there are people who take a lot of pleasure in being very blunt, and they are usually a-holes. Sorry, but if I got a critique saying, in few more words "This is sh*t, don't bother me again", I wouldn't have the respect for the critiquer to trust his opinion.

Agreed, I loathe people like that, too, but that does not sound like it was the case here. He explained in his article that he had worked on his reply over and over in order to explain the situation without offending. The reaction he got certainly seems like that of someone who can't handle even constructive criticism.
At least, that is if he describes the situation correctly.

 

[Hex]

I think critiquing (unless you're explicitly doing something else) is about honestly saying what you think of a piece.

There are almost always positive things to say as well as negative things, and it annoys me when the critiquer seems to be interested in showing how clever they are at the expense of the person whose writing they're looking at. Like this guy -- so he's a scriptwriter. Yey for him.

If I have nothing positive to say about a piece, I try not to say anything (but most often I say nothing because I'm doing other things!).

The assumption that brutal negativity* is the only way to help beginners really irritates me.

*No one here!

 

[Jammill Khursheed]

I can see EXACTLY where the blogger was coming from concerning people not really wanting criticism, and who are only submitting their stuff to people for moral support and/or ego-boosting... I can also see why people who do crits put something nice in there ( a'la the "compliment sandwich" version of staff reviews "you always turn up on time, you're ***** at the actual job, but you have nice hair"), because doing the crit you don't want to be seen as the 'bad guy', even if the work is terrible...

I 'SEE' all this stuff, but in my past experiences I haven't had to endure it... The first writing group I ever went to is known for being the sternest writing group in Manchester, and I've seen people who never came back after getting ripped apart for something that was terrible... Conversely, I've also seen people take on-board all that criticism and improve a hell of a lot as writers, so I've become accustomed to being as harsh as it needs to be (without ever getting personal) as that's the only way to really improve...

If it makes people give up, they were obviously wasting their time in the first place, because if someone has talent you can see that through the poor structure/dialogue/pacing/prose and the criticism reflects that instead of being 100% bad...

The thread (and RCGrant's comment in particular) have given me an idea though:

In the crit section - state whether you are writing 'for fun' or 'professionally' when you post something

It lets the critter know if you are looking for advice on making the work sellable (and sometimes need harsh criticism), or just writing to enjoy the process (in which case being overly harsh as a critter just seems mean)...

Only a thought...


Jammill

 

[Jo Zebedee]

That, or something similar, has been mooted before. the concensus seemed to be if you're putting it up for crit you can't expect to set a limit to the type of crits you get.