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

[Teresa Edgerton]

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.

I have to disagree with you JD. If you don't look at both the good and the bad, you have no comparison. It is very easy to see the flaws in the work of other aspiring writers, especially when looking for them, and it's very rare indeed for anyone to copy them. (Not, alas, the case when it comes to the less felicitous examples of published writing.) Once you see how clumsy something looks in somebody else's manuscript, and realize you were thinking about doing it yourself, I guarantee you never forget the lesson.

And one thing that happens a lot with writers who never read the work of other unpublished writers is that they will get "clever" ideas and because they have never seen anything of the sort before they'll get the idea that they've come up with something brilliant in its originality -- all the world will be stunned by their genius! -- and it can be hard to convince them otherwise. Let them see how often the same idea comes up in other people's unpublished manuscripts and they understand: It's not that no one ever thought of the idea before; it's that people think of it and discard it all the time when they realize how weak it is.

So I would say that generally speaking it is very beneficial to look at the work of other writers who are at the learning stage, too. The only time it becomes a problem is when you belong to a group that exists solely for the sake of complimenting each others' work. Under those circumstances, there can be a lot of copying.

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

Not altogether true. The non-professionial writer does, at the very least represent the reader, and can be good at spotting problems, if not always good at identifying them or knowing how to fix them. (Although some people are much better critiquers than they are writers -- yet -- and make very good suggestions.)

But when I posted some of my work for critique here (partly so that everyone could have their revenge, and partly because I was expecting some useful suggestions), everyone got so flustered, I probably won't do it again.

Too bad, because I did get some good feedback.

 

[j d worthington]

I have to disagree with you JD. If you don't look at both the good and the bad, you have no comparison. It is very easy to see the flaws in the work of other aspiring writers, especially when looking for them, and it's very rare indeed for anyone to copy them. (Not, alas, the case when it comes to the less felicitous examples of published writing.) Once you see how clumsy something looks in somebody else's manuscript, and realize you were thinking about doing it yourself, I guarantee you never forget the lesson.

And one thing that happens a lot with writers who never read the work of other unpublished writers is that they will get "clever" ideas and because they have never seen anything of the sort before they'll get the idea that they've come up with something brilliant in its originality -- all the world will be stunned by their genius! -- and it can be hard to convince them otherwise. Let them see how often the same idea comes up in other people's unpublished manuscripts and they understand: It's not that no one ever thought of the idea before; it's that people think of it and discard it all the time when they realize how weak it is.

So I would say that generally speaking it is very beneficial to look at the work of other writers who are at the learning stage, too. The only time it becomes a problem is when you belong to a group that exists solely for the sake of complimenting each others' work. Under those circumstances, there can be a lot of copying.

You may well have a point (or, rather, several) there. Let me qualify my statement, then, to "in my experience", including in this what I have also heard from a lot of others... but the experience of yet other people obviously doesn't necessarily match.

I would definitely agree about the startling new idea bit... though the more one reads even in established literature, the more one finds that there really is verrrry little which is new under the sun.

I think the one place where I would tend to be a good deal more cautious with this is the fact that -- especially with newer writers -- it is easy for influences, even undesirable ones, to creep in without you being aware; and it is by no means unusual to find someone doing precisely the thing for which they had just recently criticized another, and being completely oblivious to that fact, often even when it is pointed out to them. (Of course, once they do realize they've done so, they tend to feel quite chagrined, but the tendency is, I think, rather common nonetheless.)

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

Then I take it, JD, that you don't believe that new writers benefit by forming writers groups?

it is by no means unusual to find someone doing precisely the thing for which they had just recently criticized another, and being completely oblivious to that fact, often even when it is pointed out to them.

This hardly argues that they are being influenced by other people's writing habits, however. Rather the obvious: they stick to their own bad habits.

 

[Karn Maeshalanadae]

Then I take it, JD, that you don't believe that new writers benefit by forming writers groups?

I don't think he's saying that; I think what he's saying is that drawbacks can, and probably do, come out of groups as well as benefits. I've been a part of writers groups before, and while I found a lot of feedback to be on the entertaining side, I've never met in person a published author, or one who said they've ever written for more than a school/college assignment, and as a result, never really got any truly deep, solid help with my own side of things from them.


That being said, some of the feedback and reviews I've overheard were quite entertaining and some of the ideas I've been witness to had potential, and even-inevitably, some might say-mirrored others of long time past.


I remember one that stood out to me so well, back about two years ago or so when I went back into college. One woman had written something up for the creative writing course I was taking, and the end of it had some vague similarities to Faulkner's A Rose For Emily. (No, I won't say how. It's a family forum.)


Point is, I'm never at the point where I won't read a manuscript or at least offer feedback via another review. Whether or not the author of said manuscript will take advice and opinions to heart objectively or not, I don't know.

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

Unless I misread him, Karn, he said nothing about the benefits, and indicated that the general result was that the writing became more flawed.

Writing groups usually become better the longer they are together, as the members take turns helping each other to improve. But of course you need people who are intent on improving. You can usually figure that out after a couple of meetings. If you didn't see that kind of dedication in the groups you joined, Karn, I hope you moved on very quickly.

 

[Karn Maeshalanadae]

Unless I misread him, Karn, he said nothing about the benefits, and indicated that the general result was that the writing became more flawed.

Writing groups usually become better the longer they are together, as the members take turns helping each other to improve.

And a misread on my end?


I meant to say that whether or not J.D. spoke of any benefits a writing group might have is moot. Simply because of mingling, there's bound to be some flavors that permeate the butter as it's in the fridge, to put it another way. I don't really know how else to put it...


Not to mention an effort to please our peers, especially those who we've not known long, and I think our minds will subconsciously try to imitate just to make that effort, unless we're wise to our psyche and can manage to dam the flow.

 

[The Judge]

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.

It also avoids the "I'm suing you for $1 million because you pinched my storyline" try-ons.

But when I posted some of my work for critique here (partly so that everyone could have their revenge, and partly because I was expecting some useful suggestions), everyone got so flustered, I probably won't do it again.

Too bad, because I did get some good feedback.

I don't think we were flustered so much as... er... in a bit of a dither... not to say flurried and flapping... But I hope it's not the last time you post something, especially if it did help you, even if only a little, because it made for a lot of excitement! (And gave some excellent reading.)

 

[Boneman]

I've said this before in other threads, mainly when I'm trying to encourage other wannabees, but when I wrote my first novel, waaayy back, I had absolutely no yardstick as to whether it was any good or not. Sure, I'd been an avid reader of SciFi and Fantasy, and could quote chapter and verse on some of them. So I did what I guess we all do, and showed it to friends and family, and they all waxed lyrical about it. Now, if I'd bumped into Josh Olsen, I wouldn't have asked for an opinion because I'm a shy retiring Brit, but if I had, I should have received the scathing type of critique my novel deserved... when I look back at it now, I am seriously embarrassed at how bad it was. The idea was great, the execution was appalling, but I can only see that now*. But I paid for a professional critique and had my mistakes pointed out to me firmly but politely. And it helped enormously. By the time I won Patrick Rothfuss's charity auction to have the whole book critiqued (there's a thread somewhere about that experience) I'd rewritten it 18 times over a few years. The idea was still great, but now the writing was catching up. It's still catching up.

Discovering the chrons was the best thing that ever happened, and I've learned as much by critiquing as being critiqued. The point of this ramble is that, like myself all those years ago, 'virgin' writers arrive here all the time and many of them flourish, and some can't stand honest critique and disappear. Some of them reappear after you edit their work for them every six months or so, repeating the same mistakes, relying on newer members who haven't got wise to them, to do more editing for them. And I'm hoping that this thread will help us to be more honest in our critiquing, and especially in giving the reasons why a piece doesn't work for us. We're all free to choose to accept or reject individual criticism (you'll often see me add a provison that what I'm saying is entirely my own opinion etc etc), and I've seen it so many times that when a consensus starts appearing the critiquers (who are also readers) may actually be pointing out something that needs addressing. It really helps to re-read the stickies at the beginning of the critiques section, especially Teresa's wisdom. It costs nothing to be honest, even if we are fearful of doing it. It's up to the recipient to respond positively to positive criticism... And the piece Teresa quoted about discouraging writers is so spot on...


*When I'm a published author, maybe I'll post the first version as a 'how-not-to-do-it."

 

[Venusian Broon]

If you don't look at both the good and the bad, you have no comparison. It is very easy to see the flaws in the work of other aspiring writers, especially when looking for them, and it's very rare indeed for anyone to copy them.

Totaly agree Terasa. I've picked this one point out of your many on the thread to string together my point, but I'm definitely very much in tune with all of your views on this thread.

I must also add my distaste at the negative experieces you've recieved - but then I was brought up in 70's Calvinist Scotland and firmly believe that respect was earned, through hard work and long-term trust and not to given out willy-nilly at the start of a relationship!

Simply because of mingling, there's bound to be some flavors that permeate the butter as it's in the fridge, to put it another way. I don't really know how else to put it...

I have to disagree with you Karn. Or at least for me personally I can't see the problems that you are talking about. For me the process of critiquing, and now as I am much more serious about learning the craft of writing, general reading as well, is all about analysis and understanding - the twin pillars of learning. And because of this, I find looking at any writing, brilliant to absolutely terrible, excellent for reflecting on my own writing.

When I am critiquing other peoples work and I come about something that says to me 'oh that's not right', my first thoughts are 'Why?', then 'What would I do this to solve it?' and then as invariably as night turns to day, 'oh cr*p, do I do this?' Equally the other way its: 'That passage was brilliant' then 'Why?', 'How is this style/effect constructed' followed by 'oh cr*p, I should be doing this in my writing too!'

Possibly it could be argued, that we don't pick up all the bad habits and mistakes while reading 'lesser work' and somehow subconsciously replicate these hidden bad boys in our own. Well I'd argue, that as we've never picked up on the fault before, then it's much more likely that we've always had that bad habit, rather than a transference from some 'infected' piece of work.

Not to mention an effort to please our peers, especially those who we've not known long, and I think our minds will subconsciously try to imitate just to make that effort, unless we're wise to our psyche and can manage to dam the flow.

I agree this can be a very powerful force and one that can be negative. I think the way around the bad aspects of it is discipline and willpower.

The way I see it is that writing is an odd hobby/profession - 99% of the time you are alone, only when right at the end do you automatically let others in to share what you have created.

Hence I find by far the greatest thing about writers groups or wonderful forums like this is that this provides a social space where there are a large number of people with a commonality of aims, ambitions and desires. We can all readily identify with each other, get support and help, share bad and good moments, have a laugh or let off a rant. And of course for these issues, we all want to please our peers, fit in and be a member of the group*.

[In the dark days BC (Before Chrons) I really was alone - I couldn't find any writers groups and even through a good few years of searching there seemed nothing online. It was perplexing, there had to be other SF/Fantasy writers out there - it couldn't be just me and the published authors ]

When it comes to my actual writing however, it's a different story. I try and be strictly professional about it. If the piece is terrible and should be immediately destroyed I need to know. If I get a comment like 'It shows promise, but there's a long way to go before it's in a publishable state, here's what I think is wrong...' then I need to have the discipline to accept in humility & good grace the advice that has been given. (The 'oh but you don't understand what I'm trying to do here' argument is such an easy excuse to fall into!)

Of course it would lovely to be showered by glowing positive comments and the such like from you people, but again, at the end of the day I must have the discipline to remind myself that the main goal of this is to improve my craft and ultimately get published, not to get brilliant reviews here!

I have been on these forums for a fair bit** and have yet to put anything up for critiquing. This has been for a number of reasons, for example I honestly still see myself needing to earn my dues here and be a better member of the forum espcially with regards to critiquing, but chiefly my regimented approach is to blame (and you really don't want to read my first draft stuff...really you don't).

But one day, one day....

------------------

* I readily admit that I have no doubt that I have pee'd off a few with my opinions and thoughts. I am generally quite good-natured, however: clumsy phrasing, typing before thinking, and a skinful of Stella while on the computer can all contribute to some terrible lapses. For those I apologise

** 500th post, yee-haa!

 

[Jammill Khursheed]

re: The quality of writing groups helping you grow - I admit I was a little spoiled having joined Manchester's (quite) infamous Monday night Group as I was starting out... At the time, there were about five published authors regularly attending, along with an award winning play writer (can't remember her name now) and some of the best poets in the country, including at the time the now poet laureate Carol Ann Duffy...

The feedback i received from the group, famed for its 'harsh' critiques, helped me immensely as a writer because of the quality and experience of the more successful members... My poetry started out terrible, but I have improved enough to have some published and become an accomplished performance poet, simply because the criticism I got was harsh but both truthful and helpful at the beginning, and got less harsh as I improved...

It wasn't even my idea to start writing scripts, a lot of the ones I've got started out as part of a truly awfully written and paced novel... The idea behind it was praised by the novel/short-story writers, and I was encouraged to turn them into scripts (and start writing plays, which I never got around to) because everybody loved the dialogue...

It's because of the group I stopped writing prose, having successful plawrights and the future poet laureate sit you down in the pub afterwards and suggest you focus on scripts because you write "some of the best dialogue we've ever heard" does that to you (NOTE - I don't personally think that, I'm not big-headed at all and hey, its not like I've sold any yet)...

There are plenty of other writing groups in Manchester, none of them are viewed as being anywhere near as harsh, and none of them have anywhere near as many published/successful/award-winning writers, and I personally believe that the two things go hand in hand...

As well as the advice I got from established writers, there were other people like me who were just starting out, and seeing the problems pointed out in my own work, surfacing in others, helped me see the same flaws in my own un-submitted writing before it ever got critiqued...

It's not the only writing group I've been to, but it does allow me to 'sniff out' the groups that seem a waste of time because they are only patting each other on the back and not really helping anyone, and sadly the vast majority seem like that...

Suffice to say, this is not the only sci-fi/fantasy writing forum on the internet, but it is the only one I stuck with having read through good chunks of the current-ish posted crit section to see what it was like here before I even bothered registering and posting myself... I'm not gonna name names and get the rest of you big-headed, but from that time before I posted there were certain members I had quite a lot of respect for and sat there all nervous when I finally did post something to the critique section, hoping that I'd get some of THEIR advice (and I have )...

Basically, MOST writing groups aren't THIS good... Whatever the genre... And the advice I and others have gotten here is much more constructive and useful than most aspiring writers will ever get... If it wasn't, I'd have never even joined, and my fellow members (especially the ones who are just starting out or haven't been part of any other writing groups) should know that finding anywhere more useful to them is going to be hard...


Jammill

 

[Hex]

Yes. We are extremely lucky to have such a resource.

It's perhaps because I haven't yet found a consistent voice (that whole beginner thing again) but I do find it tough to critique and write close together. I find -- especially when I'm reading longer pieces -- that the tone of the excerpt can seep into my work.

It's nothing easily identifiable like er too many comma splices (I have so many of my own anyway), but in the space where I'm not yet sure of rule-following -- in the space where the writing sings (or doesn't) -- I pick up habits and patterns from other people.

I have to balance critiquing with reading authors I admire (not necessarily published ones) -- like sorbet between courses

 

[Ursa major]

It's perhaps because I haven't yet found a consistent voice (that whole beginner thing again) but I do find it tough to critique and write close together. I find -- especially when I'm reading longer pieces -- that the tone of the excerpt can seep into my work.

I think I have the opposite problem. (No: "My name is Ursa and I know I have this problem.")

When I see someone else's text and think it needs improving, I either hold back (knowing what would happen) or jump in and rewrite it as I would have written it.

This is okay for the odd sentence or two - which is why I "critique" when someone's having problems with a sentence or short paragraph; the author can take it or leave it - but less so for longer pieces. And where little text is being changed, I have the time and space to explain what I've done (possibly at very great length ).

The author asking for a critique wants help to improve their own writing, not for me to rewrite their text as if it's mine. Even if what I produce is better than the original - which is in no way guaranteed - the reasons why I've done things differently aren't always apparent. (And by giving a solution, rather than identifying the problem, I may very well have robbed the author of a better solution to that problem.)

 

[Venusian Broon]

The author asking for a critique wants help to improve their own writing, not for me to rewrite their text as if it's mine. Even if what I produce is better than the original - which is in no way guaranteed - the reasons why I've done things differently aren't always apparent. (And by giving a solution, rather than identifying the problem, I may very well have robbed the author of a better solution to that problem.)

This is precisely the issue I have when critiquing. In my mind when it looks like it could take a very long paragraph or two to explain why this part, or that part is wrong, it makes me feel that if I present a re-written sentence or two (or three, four etc...) then I am cutting down superflous words and helping out the author. Which of course, I'm not really. What I'm really doing is editing the text as if it's my work as you point out Ursa.

 

[The Judge]

Actually, I think that can be useful (says she, who does it...) -- having a critique which says "This can be made tighter" is helpful, but seeing how someone else has made it tighter can help that little bit more, because the two passages can be compared and contrasted. This provides a solution, but the author still has had the issue identified and can search for a different solution in his/her own voice.

 

[Vertigo]

The author asking for a critique wants help to improve their own writing, not for me to rewrite their text as if it's mine. Even if what I produce is better than the original - which is in no way guaranteed - the reasons why I've done things differently aren't always apparent. (And by giving a solution, rather than identifying the problem, I may very well have robbed the author of a better solution to that problem.)

This is precisely the issue I have when critiquing. In my mind when it looks like it could take a very long paragraph or two to explain why this part, or that part is wrong, it makes me feel that if I present a re-written sentence or two (or three, four etc...) then I am cutting down superflous words and helping out the author. Which of course, I'm not really. What I'm really doing is editing the text as if it's my work as you point out Ursa.

I have a problem with that as well. If I'm looking at a piece for critique I typically don't know why something doesn't work. Now I know it can be useful to simply say "I don't know why, but it doesn't work for me," but I feel I should say more than that. The other extreme is that I want to rewrite the sentence/paragraph but somehow that feels almost insulting to original author; like I'm completely rejecting their version in favour of my own.

I guess it can be a fine line that I need to learn how to walk.

 

[Mouse]

(And by giving a solution, rather than identifying the problem, I may very well have robbed the author of a better solution to that problem.)

Actually, I think that can be useful (says she, who does it...) -- having a critique which says "This can be made tighter" is helpful, but seeing how someone else has made it tighter can help that little bit more, because the two passages can be compared and contrasted. This provides a solution, but the author still has had the issue identified and can search for a different solution in his/her own voice.

Now see, I'm the type of person who learns by seeing (or doing, in a non-writing sense), not from being told.

So, TJ's recent crit of my piece where she rewrote a sentence for me (which I nabbed*, ta), worked better for me because I could see why she did it and understood why, whereas if she'd just explained what could've been improved I probably would've been left scratching my head.

It's like when I first put things up for critique way back when, people would point out my passive sentences. I had no idea what that meant. They'd explain it, but I'd not understand how to fix it. It wasn't until I was shown that it suddenly clicked. So don't worry about 'rewriting' people's paras!


*In this case I took the exact sentence TJ gave me (I think), but in others, where other people have offered an alternative I've taken it and tweaked it slightly to make it my voice.

 

[Hex]

I find it interesting and useful when people rewrite my stuff. I don't necessarily lift what they've done directly (although I have) but it makes me reconsider how I've said something and how important it is to say it the way I have.

I also really like it when people say 'this didn't work for me but I'm not sure why', because you want to know where people get jangled by the writing, even if they're not sure precisely what annoyed them.

Also, unless you're a professional like Teresa, all you can really say is what works for you as a reader, and we're all readers, right?

 

[Ursa major]

But one can still take things too far:

"My name is Ursa, and I've inserted a joke into some text I was critiquing."
​

(It wasn't a hidden one, by the way. Doing that would be unforgivable, I think.)

 

[TheDustyZebra]

When I see someone else's text and think it needs improving, I either hold back (knowing what would happen) or jump in and rewrite it as I would have written it.

This is okay for the odd sentence or two - which is why I "critique" when someone's having problems with a sentence or short paragraph; the author can take it or leave it - but less so for longer pieces. And where little text is being changed, I have the time and space to explain what I've done (possibly at very great length ).

Yes! This is why I don't get much done in critiques, even though I keep going over there and trying. I always want to do more than I have time for, rewording and rewriting and stuff, and it wouldn't be fair to the writer anyway, so I end up not doing anything at all. It works better, like you say, when it's a sentence or two, and it wouldn't be unduly influencing the writing style to show how I would change it around for them.

 

[Tecdavid]

This is the kind of thing that gets me thinking. Does anyone else here ever wonder to themselves: "What if my stuff isn't any good? What if these characters, this world, and the story itself are just tripe?"
It's only natural to take a pride in one's work, regardless of its true quality, and since others' opinions can be so sugar-coated or biased, it can be tough to find out just how good your work really is, if such a thing can - in fact - be 'officially' measured.
The critiques and feedback I've received from others has been pretty promising, but I can't help but wonder: "Did they really mean that?"