Suggestion - Critiquing Extracts of Published Works?

[AJB]

Just a thought I had just now.

Would it be beneficial to this section of Chrons to have a place to critique extracts of published works?

I often see people make suggestions in the regular critiques threads, then qualify the suggestions by saying something along the lines of ... 'this is just my opinion' ...'having not been published' ... 'obviously, I'm just an aspiring writer'. I always have these thoughts in my head also. Just as a side note, I believe the critiques section is a fantastic place to improve your craft and is a place to find/see excellent advice.

Could we perhaps gain something else from critiqueing published works as well as our own?

I imagine if we did critique extracts of published works, I imagine the threads of discussion would be for aspiring writers to point out features that worked particularly well, highlighting technical uses of structure/language/character...etc.

Or, perhaps, comment on how things could have been done differently to get a different effect or change it to suit your personal tastes as a reader.

Perhaps even, we could point out bits that didn't work for you as a reader, which may highlight to us that things can always be improved.

It could also just inspire aspiring writers to read certain works, or view techniques we could use in our own writing. Certainly, this can be gained from all the above discussion.

I expect many people do this anyway when reading other authors, but perhaps seeing others comment on published work may benefit us as readers (in the context of improving our writing). Maybe we don't notice things that others notice.

I'm not sure if this would be possible though. Would Chrons need to get permission from the authors? Would there be a limit to how many words could be extracted? (on amazon, you can view a small section of the work before buying).

 

[ctg]

Although this could be excellent, and we have done similar thing in smaller pieces, the problem is that the published pieces are copyrighted and therefore they cannot be subjected to same criticism as what we give to our members.

 

[Abernovo]

There is a thread, over in the Workshop that does something similar.

Members try to dissect what it is about a passage that makes it work. You can comment on a previous entry or bring in one that stands out to you. Mouse started it with Oscar Wilde. Now, he could write prose!

As to 'it's just my opinion', isn't that simple politeness and humility. I give crits, but I never think that I have all the answers. I only know what works for me, when I'm reading. There are so many different tastes in this world (thank goodness), that a critique is always going to have a measure of personal opinion in it, regardless of what any literary snob might say.

 

[Hex]

Is it really because they're copyrighted? You can say appalling things about academic pieces without running afoul of copyright, can't you? Is fiction different?

 

[The Judge]

It's possible to quote passages of copyrighted works for the purposes of review and criticism, so that's not a problem, though it's best if the passages are kept relatively short and there's confirmation of author and the work itself.

By all means pick up Mouse's thread, or start another one if you want AJB. I think it is valuable to analyse how published authors achieve their effects, or even console ourselves that the occasional clunky sentence or missed punctuation isn't immediately fatal to being published!

 

[Esfires]

Is it really because they're copyrighted? You can say appalling things about academic pieces without running afoul of copyright, can't you? Is fiction different?

It's not the fact that we're afraid of giving our opinions on the pieces, it's that we literally can't slap up 1500 words of some author's published work on a public website without legal ramifications.

 

[Brian G Turner]

It's not the fact that we're afraid of giving our opinions on the pieces, it's that we literally can't slap up 1500 words of some author's published work on a public website without legal ramifications.

Indeed - "fair use" is notoriously undefined.

Most writers and publishers had absolutely no problem with Google stealing their works without permission for Google Books. However, I do not have the lawyers office that Google has.

If people want to work with small excerpts - ie, a couple of sentences, I can't see there being a problem - but, additionally, not much use.

I can't risk falling foul of publishers with 1500 word critiques, though. Which aspiring writers here would like themselves blacklisted by the publishing industry?!

 

[AJB]

Abernovo:

There is a thread, over in the Workshop that does something similar.

Members try to dissect what it is about a passage that makes it work. You can comment on a previous entry or bring in one that stands out to you. Mouse started it with Oscar Wilde. Now, he could write prose!

As to 'it's just my opinion', isn't that simple politeness and humility. I give crits, but I never think that I have all the answers. I only know what works for me, when I'm reading. There are so many different tastes in this world (thank goodness), that a critique is always going to have a measure of personal opinion in it, regardless of what any literary snob might say.

Thanks Abernovo. Just had a look at the thread briefly - That's pretty much what I was thinking (nice one Mouse!). It was a nice choice of extract to look at first (the start of Dorian Gray). I thought that description exuded with the unrestrained decadence that was one of the main themes of the book. I found it interesting that someone commented, saying they didn't like it, by analogising the overused description to an older lady wearing too much gaudy perfume. In a way, I think Oscar Wilde would have loved that description of his prose - over decadent with hints of something nasty lurking. To me, that sums up most of the book!

Yes, I agree about the 'in my opinion' comment - I mean, everything is subjective really. I suppose what I was getting at was the uncertainty that I suppose all writers have with whether or not their writing is working or not. I suppose the benefit of also analysing published works is that, whether rightly or wrongly, it has been deemed publishable by people who can make those decisions.

Right, so I just need to clarify the use of copyrighted extracts. I kind of guessed that 1500 words would definitely make some legal people twitch. I thought Mouse's 300ish extract did the job of showing something significant in the writing. However, I understand that Oscar Wilde's works are now not copyrighted due to being over 70 years since he passed away. There are lots of great older books to look at but I suspect modern books may be more useful (in some ways at least) for the purpose of discussing what is working in our own time. Would 300ish words be considered 'relatively short' as you mentioned TJ? Or, does it mean more like what I Brian mentioned: 'a couple of sentences'?

I wouldn't want to get anyone in trouble!

If things are considered all above board, legal-wise, I would probably just use Mouse's thread in the workshop as suggested.

 

[Ursa major]

Most writers and publishers had absolutely no problem with Google stealing their works without permission for Google Books. However, I do not have the lawyers office that Google has.

To be fair, that was before many of them realised the full implications of what was happeneing, and leter, before they knew that they could do something effective about it. Don't forget that many of these schemes (including the current one in France), fly under false colours, claiming that their aim is to rescue forgotten, out-of-print books while not mentioning that they mean every book whose author hasn't complained; and most don't complain because they don't think anyone would be mendacious enough to include their books in the scheme without them being individually informed. Basically, some of the people running these schemes are behaving like the Vogons did re the hypersapce bypass.)

 

[The Judge]

Would 300ish words be considered 'relatively short' as you mentioned TJ?

Something in the region of 200-250 I think would be OK for copyrighted stuff, though the shorter the better. Though if we're praising it (and giving the citation, of course, so it can be found), I can't see any author or copyright holder worrying too much -- it's all good publicity!! (Perhaps use much shorter extracts for pieces we want to knock, like Dan Brown!)

 

[TheEndIsNigh]

Presumably, we're OK 'having a go' at older, out of copyright works though.

Say, the King James Bible or some of Caxton's early output.

 

[Mouse]

Would like to see that thread again, AJB, I was looking through it the other day funnily enough. I put up something from Corbenic, which was published recently (I say recently, I mean about ten years ago) so I think new stuff's ok.