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

[Darth Angelus]

From the article...

Which brings us to an ugly truth about many aspiring screenwriters: They think that screenwriting doesn't actually require the ability to write, just the ability to come up with a cool story that would make a cool movie. Screenwriting is widely regarded as the easiest way to break into the movie business, because it doesn't require any kind of training, skill or equipment. Everybody can write, right? And because they believe that, they don't regard working screenwriters with any kind of real respect. They will hand you a piece of inept writing without a second thought, because you do not have to be a writer to be a screenwriter.

I can understand why he would be annoyed that people think everybody can write. It would be true, if by "write" you mean physically typing any imaginary sequence of events into a document. However, in that case, you could say that everybody can act, too, as long as they are not mute and know how to speak the language of the movie. I mean, the acting equivalent of just typing some story into a document would just mean making an imprint on the video recording by standing in front of the camera and speaking the lines of your assigned character in the script.

There must some kind of implied demand on the resulting script quality, just as there must be on acting performance. To treat the two cases differently seems like a double standard.

 

[Hex]

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)...

What springs said, but also there are levels of 'sellable' -- from stories you want to sell for $10 and a copy of the anthology, to stories you'd like to sell to a professional market (SFWA qualifying, for example). And novels and screenplays etc etc.

I don't (yet) understand how to critique differently according to these desired outcomes, and I wonder how judgements are made by those who feel confident doing so. I'd like to understand because I think it would help me become a better writer.

 

[Peter Graham]

Seems to me that if something is posted in critiques, it's fair game to be...erm...critiqued.

There are rules about courtesy, which I know we all abide by, so beyond that I think that it is entirely up to the critiquer as to whether their critiques are positive, negative or a mix of the two.

Those who seek encouragement should post an "eek" thread in GWD - but perhaps not a sample of work.

Regards,

Peter

 

[HareBrain]

If someone is only writing to enjoy the process, then asking for critique at all seems a bad idea to me. I most enjoyed writing for its own sake before I had any idea of the Other Reader, who might have their own opinions about what works.

If you're writing with the aim of someone else reading it, and you want to make their reading experience as pleasurable as possible, then you're writing for an audience whether it's your mum or a million SFF readers. And in my opinion, either you want to improve or you don't. If you're only prepared to improve a certain amount, and therefore only want critiques up to a certain level of honesty, then I don't see the point, whether you hope to eventually sell your work or not.

In any case, very few critiques here are at all harsh, because most people won't bother commenting on something they see no promise in -- why would they? So I don't think there's any need for a distinction.

 

[TheDustyZebra]

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

To me, it should require the same level of quality for either. It's the same argument made by people who used to annoy the **** out of me in internet poker games -- I don't care if it's a penny tournament or a $100 tournament, one should give it the same level of play. If you are just there to waste time, you should go waste it somewhere else. Of course, in writing, you aren't affecting anyone else's book by wasting your time writing slop for fun, but if you then put it up for critiques, that's wasting other people's time.

 

[RcGrant]

From the article...


I can understand why he would be annoyed that people think everybody can write. It would be true, if by "write" you mean physically typing any imaginary sequence of events into a document. However, in that case, you could say that everybody can act, too, as long as they are not mute and know how to speak the language of the movie. I mean, the acting equivalent of just typing some story into a document would just mean making an imprint on the video recording by standing in front of the camera and speaking the lines of your assigned character in the script.

There must some kind of implied demand on the resulting script quality, just as there must be on acting performance. To treat the two cases differently seems like a double standard.

I think people underestimate how much work is required to learn how to write well. Of course, a large number of people display strengths in particular areas of writing, but it takes a bucket load of dedication and effort to get anywhere near decent. I remember having a few "flukes" -- where something I'd written would be well received but I was pretty much oblivious to what I may have done right (or wrong, in other cases). It took effort to begin to understand what I was doing (and what I should be doing).

It's also an ongoing process, I think. I'm fascinated by the mechanics of writing and I want to always be learning so I can get better, but I also know many people who want to just write without having to put in any of the work to improve -- perhaps they should be more aware of what the Critique section is, and why they wish to post there.

 

[Darth Angelus]

I think people underestimate how much work is required to learn how to write well. Of course, a large number of people display strengths in particular areas of writing, but it takes a bucket load of dedication and effort to get anywhere near decent. I remember having a few "flukes" -- where something I'd written would be well received but I was pretty much oblivious to what I may have done right (or wrong, in other cases). It took effort to begin to understand what I was doing (and what I should be doing).

It's also an ongoing process, I think. I'm fascinated by the mechanics of writing and I want to always be learning so I can get better, but I also know many people who want to just write without having to put in any of the work to improve -- perhaps they should be more aware of what the Critique section is, and why they wish to post there.

Yes, there are many seperate skills you must master in order to write decently, no doubt. I find the hardest part is to create a certain flow, and distribute the information I want to impart on the reader in just the right amounts. All this has to be done, and getting the reader emotionally invested. There are many things to balance, and it is hard work.

 

[Hex]

But at the same time, posting something that is not of publishable (or whatever) quality does not mean the poster is lazy or unwilling to put in the work. Most people want to learn and improve, but some of us are inexperienced and find it hard to judge the quality of what we write.

I'd hope that the Critiques section is to help us get better.

On the other hand, if I post again and again with the same errors then people might get annoyed that their critiquing effort was not being listened to.

(I've learned a lot about writing from the critiques section here over the past year and from generous Chrons people giving up their time (some over Christmas!) to read and comment on my work. I'm truly grateful for it.)

 

[RcGrant]

But at the same time, posting something that is not of publishable (or whatever) quality does not mean the poster is lazy or unwilling to put in the work. Most people want to learn and improve, but some of us are inexperienced and find it hard to judge the quality of what we write.

If I post again and again with the same errors then people might get annoyed that their critiquing effort was not being listened to.

(I've learned a lot about writing from the critiques section here over the past year and from generous Chrons people giving up their time (some over Christmas!) to read and comment on my work. I'm truly grateful for it.)

Oh absolutely. Everyone starts somewhere. I'm nowhere near an expert (I wish!).

 

[Jo Zebedee]

(I've learned a lot about writing from the critiques section here over the past year and from generous Chrons people giving up their time (some over Christmas!) to read and comment on my work. I'm truly grateful for it.)

Seconded, especially those who were prepared to say this doesn't work. And still put up with another attempt. And another.... and some of whom are still suffering on... Can't say they don't hurt at the time, but always when I pick myself up, things have improved.

 

[Darth Angelus]

But at the same time, posting something that is not of publishable (or whatever) quality does not mean the poster is lazy or unwilling to put in the work. Most people want to learn and improve, but some of us are inexperienced and find it hard to judge the quality of what we write.

I'd hope that the Critiques section is to help us get better.

On the other hand, if I post again and again with the same errors then people might get annoyed that their critiquing effort was not being listened to.

(I've learned a lot about writing from the critiques section here over the past year and from generous Chrons people giving up their time (some over Christmas!) to read and comment on my work. I'm truly grateful for it.)

Good points! I absolutely agree.
It is just that when you ask for critique, you have to be ready to hear what does not work, and it seems like he was just expected to give mindless encouragement.
I think this process can work just fine between grown-up people. The writer must be willing to work to improve and not have an unrealistic idea of how praiseworthy their script is, and in return the person doing the critique can tell his or her honest opinion without being excessively harsh when it comes to the flaws.
If either or both parties are somehow emotionally immature, there are bound to be clashes, however.

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

I have to sympathize with the guy who wrote the article.

Since I've been posting on this site, a number of people I've had only a handful of very brief interactions with have asked me to read and critique their work for free. I don't have time to do this for strangers and I wonder why they think I would. Do they think they are the only person who has asked?

When they asked me to look at their synopses, I'd do it, because a synopsis is short and even though it did take a fair amount of time, I felt uncomfortable saying no. Heaven knows why. I don't say yes now, since someone wrote back to savage me because I didn't give the same advice as another published writer (needless to state, the other writer told him he was doing a particular something right and I told him he should be using a different approach to that same thing). So much for being nice and trying to help someone out.

(People who ask strangers for time-consuming favors often have a sense of entitlement. These are not the people who are going to take kindly to criticism.)

I've also had people PM me and tell me it was my duty as a published writer to encourage aspiring writers, after I gave some criticism they didn't like. I don't think I actually have a duty to unpublished writers. My inclination is to be helpful, but I can only do that by being honest -- polite, but honest. And sometimes honesty does not include saying something nice in order to give what some would consider a balanced critique. These are small excerpts, and sometimes there isn't anything I feel that I can honestly praise. In something long, there is bound to be something, but not necessarily on something short. I think that people who put up a piece of writing for critique should be aware of this. Any random 1500 words may not show their strengths.

And I absolutely agree with this:

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.

 

[Vertigo]

That's not good Teresa and I'm frankly a bit shocked that you should have got that sort of treatment from people here on the Chrons. For myself I feel guilty putting up a piece for critique simply because I am asking for other people's time for free. It wouldn't be so bad if I was doing more critiquing myself but, frankly, I don't really feel qualified (yet) and I struggle to find the time. So I figure if I can't find the time why should I expect others to.

(I really must find the time and make more of an effort, if only because I'm convinced critiquing others work will surely improve my own.)

Oh and I also particularly liked the extract that you quoted from the article!

 

[Jo Zebedee]

(I really must find the time and make more of an effort, if only because I'm convinced critiquing others work will surely improve my own.)



I definitely find this. I still find it hard to edit up close, but I now have a much more critical eye than I once had.

It's like any professional field - if someone wants to pick my brains as a consultant, I'm happy to go help out (so far there isn't much demand for my skills set, sorry all...) I do a lot of work in the voluntary sector, accept a lower rate when I do, throw in the odd day or meeting for nothing, and that's fine, that's my choice. I get work on the back of it, but nowhere near as much or as lucrative if I went elsewhere.

The scientific minds, and the writers on the Chrons have given me so much of their hard-earned knowledge, and I really can't give anything back on that level, but I do try to do as many crits as I can get to, (and am very happy to discuss management/organisational structures with anyone who wants to be bored by same.)

But, if it became a taken for granted - ask because she's a pro - I'd back away. Not least because I have professional indemnity insurance that only covers me for a contracted agreement, and I can't stand over advice given otherwise. But also because this is a group of people who have a funny little relationship, who've got to know each other in a virtual sense, and the notion of taking that for granted... it doesn't seem quite right.

(but every consultant has to make a living, and that includes - um - charging. - goodwill only goes so far and it doesn't pay the rent.)

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

That's not good Teresa and I'm frankly a bit shocked that you should have got that sort of treatment from people here on the Chrons.

Not anyone posting on the boards right now. These tend to be people who haven't been here long and don't stick around for more than a few weeks. I think they take what they can out of the community and leave before they've contributed very much themselves.

The 30 post rule in the Critiques forum has discouraged a lot of them.

 

[RcGrant]

(I really must find the time and make more of an effort, if only because I'm convinced critiquing others work will surely improve my own.)

I like to try and critique partly for this reason; I feel it helps me spot errors in my own writing. I also like to read what others are spotting, mostly for the same reason. I posted once (before the board changed, it seems) but I feel I am at a stage where I need more than 1500 words to be looked at for it to be any use for me.

Honestly, I love this forum, and the people on it. The Critique section is invaluable. It makes me sad Teresa (and perhaps some other members too) has had people approach her in such a manner.

 

[Jammill Khursheed]

I think that, as aspiring writers, critting other people's work is an amazingly good tool for learning to be a better writer...

When we write our own stuff, we are far too close to the project to look at it critically, and seeing other people's work lets us do that... When we see plot holes, they aren't our fault... When the prose is overly flowery and far too long, its not us who have messed up and got carried away with it, making both of those things easier to see...

Then, when we go back to re-write our stuff (even if it hasn't been critiqued by anyone else yet) we can see the same things we have been complaining about in our own, much-loved personal-opus better than if we hadn't critiqued for others...

Expecting PUBLISHED, and therefore professional writers to provide us with a professional service, for free, out of a sense of entitlement, is proper taking the piss...

I'd say it was safe to assume that a professional writer has already learnt how to look at their own work critically, and needs the views of someone trying to get into the industry about as much as Wayne Rooney needs the guys having a kick-about outside my house to teach him how to play football... So the 'mutually beneficial' aspect also falls down flat...

Basically, us aspiring writers helping EACH OTHER out from a sense of community is a hell of a lot different than expecting a professional to help YOU out of a sense of entitlement...


Jammill

 

[j d worthington]

Jamill: While it can have such a salutary effect, the best way to improve your writing is to read the best writers out there, not other aspiring writers... and to read them critically, and read them more than once, as you will certainly miss a great deal otherwise. Other than that... write, write, write. Be ruthless with your own work, put some distance between it and yourself before reading it for editing, and then go after it hammer and tongs.

But, generally speaking, reading the work of others who are still learning their way around is much more given to introducing more flaws into your own work, rather than less.

 

[Fishbowl Helmet]

This is why most writers simply state that their lawyers advise them not to read aspiring writers' scripts, novels, shorts, etc. It saves them from having to say 'no', and looking like an ass; or writing screeds about things like this, which also makes them look like an ass.

 

[Darth Angelus]

(People who ask strangers for time-consuming favors often have a sense of entitlement.

I cannot fault the reasoning behind this statement. It seems perfectly logical that it would be that way. Asking for a significant amount of the time from someone you do not know at all is not the most reasonable expectation in the history of humankind.

These are not the people who are going to take kindly to criticism.)

I can see why this would be the case, too.

I've also had people PM me and tell me it was my duty as a published writer to encourage aspiring writers, after I gave some criticism they didn't like. I don't think I actually have a duty to unpublished writers.

I am not sure whether to laugh or cry at that. I mean, omg, duty. Published writers owe complete strangers nothing. These people do go waaay to far.
Anyone who is unwilling to hear what needs improvement in their writing are probably not fit to be writers, anyway, as they will never improve the writing to an acceptable standard with that attitude.

My inclination is to be helpful, but I can only do that by being honest -- polite, but honest. And sometimes honesty does not include saying something nice in order to give what some would consider a balanced critique. These are small excerpts, and sometimes there isn't anything I feel that I can honestly praise. In something long, there is bound to be something, but not necessarily on something short. I think that people who put up a piece of writing for critique should be aware of this. Any random 1500 words may not show their strengths.

It depends on whether you mean helpful to their ego or their writing, but the (main) point of critique is the latter, not the former, so I have to agree on that.