(no subject)

[intothewood]

Sharing. When do you determine who, when and how?

I'm very wary of sharing any of my writing beyond silly little things I care nothing about. It's like a native fear of picture taking - if they see it, they will steal my soul!

But there are precautions in sharing, especially things you're currently working on - or at least I think so, anyway. Maybe I'm just paranoid, but I can't imagine I'm the only one who feels this way. Of course, I am a little extreme - I can't seem to let go of even one sentence. I was going to ask people to share a sentence from what they're currently writing, something that may sum up the gist of the story, but I don't know if I could reciprocate. Yes, yes, that is paranoid, isn't it. But I don't know you, you don't know me... we could all be soul stealers, who can say?

So how do you know when to share, with whom, and at what stage?

Comments

[intothewood]

Why did that suck? What made it suck?
Haha aw! But it's true, sometimes stuff just plain sucks.

As an editor I've offered a lot of critiques to others, so I know they are important. Professionally I deal with journalistic writing, so different guidelines apply. I've given feedback on fiction, mostly when I come across something that truly shows promise. I've seen beginning writers who have no concept of mechanics, yet their ability to form plot or their descriptions or dialogue seem to come very naturally. That's really fun, to find someone who has such natural ability and it's great to nurture them along.

Mostly I'm pretty hands off, I tend to let others find their way with only a few basic observances. It seems best, imo. When a writer is beginning to find their voice, the less said the better. Established writers are a different story of course, and they often ask for feedback on specific things.

As for commenting on something so outside my purview that I can't connect, or something that truly sucks - I sidestep these.

[smw]

When a writer is beginning to find their voice, the less said the better.

Funny; I'd say quite the opposite. Certainly there needs to be room left over for personal style, but the basic fact is that you have to learn the rules before you break them. I didn't make any serious bounds forward as a writer until someone was willing to sit me down and say, "This, this, and this? They don't work and they're ugly." Of course, that same critique came with "That over there is brilliant and beautiful and you should pursue it". So I got twofold directions: pushed away from my bad habits and towards my good ones.

As I've progressed as a writer, I've gotten a better idea of what I do and don't like in fiction, and I've adjusted my style independently; but I question if I would be so able to change if not for that first push.

[niniane]

Stuff does sometimes suck, but there's generally a way to make it suck less. I mean, I am personally not a fan of self-insert vampire novels. But more than a few have made their authors very wealthy, so if that's what's someone's into - hey! - more power to them! That said, there's a huge difference between "Twilight" or "True Blood" and most of the stuff that's posted for critique. (Generally incoherent plots, poor pacing, overuse of latinate words, etc.) So there are almost always of making things suck less, even if in your opinion, the general concept is a crappy one.

I tend to be more hands on. It's a different approach, but I'm generally a fan of trying to figure out exactly what the issue is and fix it. I see so many stories where the problems boil down to mechanics - the plot leaps about in a way that's confusing, the characters are inconsistent, there's too much exposition, there's a lot of needless stuff that slows down the story, etc. These are all fixable issues!

I'm growing to avoid the "OMG, this sucks!" stuff as I just don't see the point. That said, I feel kind of sorry for the poor would-be authors out there who are genuinely trying and just aren't there yet. I was there once (as were almost all of us), and it's fun to give tips. (Although, amusingly, it tends to be the better authors who are gracious and eager to receive criticism. Hmmm...I wonder if the two are connected?)

[intothewood]

That brings up an interesting question - is it doing anyone any favours to avoid critiquing sucky work? Should a person venture outside of their purview to offer feedback?

I think the only way to improve is to take people's critiques and suggestions as they're intended. It can be like hearing someone tell you that your baby is kind of malformed or maybe underdeveloped, but if it helps to make a better baby, it's worth the initial little hurtful cringe.

I've seen people be absolutely nasty and vicious, and that really pisses me off. Why on earth would they attack a fellow writer? Which comes back to the question of offering feedback on pieces you don't care for in one way or another.

[niniane]

Well...somewhat.

I know why I tend to not critique sucky work. (Many) Writers get furious and scream at me for telling them that they're not perfect. Not all, but a good percentage. *shrugs* Plus, better writers tend to give better critiques so...as a critiquer I'm both 1) more inclined to critique stuff that's good as it's more fun for me, 2) better/more experienced writers are less likely to attack me for trying to help so I prefer working with them and 3) I am more likely to get a reciprocal critique from someone who knows what he/she is doing if I stick to critiquing better stories.

That said, I became a better writer when someone better than I was (probably still am...) took pity on me and gave me a thorough critique that I listened to. So I think that it's kind when someone will give honest feedback (even if it's a bit outside their purview - a lot of the issues really are mechanics). Just...I can see why they don't want to waste their time.

I don't like the nasty and vicious, either. But there's a really thin line. I give the same sorts of critiques to everyone. (In fact, I'm meaner to my critique partners than to strangers, as they know me!) But I've had some people claim that I'm the meanest meanie in the world (usually using stronger language...), and others thank me for "saving" their story. I don't see myself as being "nasty", but some writers see everything as an attack, while others are grateful for honest feedback even if it stings a little.

(Let me also throw in that if you have to critique something for one reason or another - it does happen - it can be really frustrating to run into the same problem again and again and again in a single manuscript. I had one writer who begged me to critique his stuff...and after the first ten pages or so, I found that the manuscript was riddled with misogyny, fail!science, continuity errors, etc. I tried to be nice for the first 10 pages or so, but by page 90 had gotten pissy. Admittedly, I could have stopped...but that would have caused a lot of problems, so I continued and wasn't quite as gentle as I otherwise might have been.)

(That said, people do give grudge critiques...but I think they're fairly rare, and reflect more on the reviewer's sanity than much else...)

[intothewood]

You're absolutely right that it's easier to take coming from someone who generally knows you and knows your writing. It can seem like it's coming out of left field (and it is, really) with unknowns. That said, it should be expected if you're going to ask for the opinions of a general group of people. I guess that's why I rather build relationships, so that people understand where I'm coming from. But general feedback is useful, too. After all, we don't know the majority of people who will pick up our writing.

I've worked with a lot of student writers, so I'm pretty good at giving the gentle critiques, and I suppose that's why I'm drawn to new writers as it's what I'm used to. It kinda goes "praise, praise, praise, perhaps...." :D

I once critiqued a tickle fetish story - oh lord, was laughing so hard because I was tickled in a different way - but considering the stuff I've written, I have no right to judge. But. There are topics I couldn't deal with fairly, if fair is even an option given some of the stuff out there.

[niniane]

It is easier to get critiques from people you know. The problem is that if you don't already know people who've learned to critique, you're out of luck. (And they have to have enough time to do it, etc. etc. This is why places like Critters are so useful! You can meet people, and get critiques even if your BFF who's an awesome editor is busy.)

I think that praise, praise, "oh, here's an idea" critiques are lovely. The challenge does become time vs. content. In general, I have so much time to devote to a critique. And, often I wonder whether scrambling to find something nice to say is worth it vs. just saying what I think and might be helpful to the writer. *shrugs* This feels especially true in the case where the author hasn't done anything for me. (I get a fair number of people who say, "Please critique this!" and throw a 10,000 word story or even 100,000 word manuscript at me, despite that they've never read my stuff/commented on my stuff/done anything for me at all. Usually I say no, but pretend I'm feeling generous...do I make the critique take 2xs as long as it otherwise would to spare their feelings, or move into the next one?)

These are all issues...complicated by the fact that critiquers aren't paid for their time. If someone wants to give me, say, $20/hr. to read their stuff and write "OMG, this was amazing!" I'll do it. But for free? *shrugs* You get what you get...and I think that smart writers realizes this to a certain extent and both 1) trade critiques, and 2) learn how to make even the ones that "hurt" feel useful.

I do agree that it's difficult to crit certain things that are way out of your comfort zone! But I do think that most stories can be critiqued on mechanics, even if you're like, "um, YKINMK". It does help to be the intended audience, though. ;)

[intothewood]

Yes, exactly, and there is the time commitment. If you're not getting paid, it can be difficult to rise to it. I'm sol under the circumstances, and yet I can't imagine shoving an entire manuscript onto someone, much less a stranger. That's asking for a slap.

For me, it's a matter of being grabbed by the premise at the very least, or the first paragraph. Hence the challenge of getting published, as I think the same applies. And it's luck. If i'm feeling less than generous, it's a no go. Then again, I'm not being paid to read manuscripts... though I think that doesn't always register in the minds of those who are.

[niniane]

I'm always rather amazed at the total strangers who are like, "Read and critique my novel!" It's really annoying. (And, yeah, sometimes I read the first paragraph and am tempted to rip it apart brutally. Usually I delete without reading.)

Of course, reciprocation is what drives groups like Critters and Critique Circle. The idea is that you *have* to critique in order to be critiqued. But that can drive interesting dynamics where people crit stuff they hate, as they have to keep their own counts up. *shrugs* And it also can drive some really lousy critiques, as quality often matters far less than does just getting the words in. (And let's be frank, I could probably write a generic, "OMG, I loved this story so much! Your plot totally engrossed me, and your characters were great and so sympathetic!" critique and copy and paste it to every story...while not having a single angry author...and even if I didn't do that, 200 words of mindless gush is easier to write than a thorough critique.)

I do think that getting a critique from someone you don't know relies a lot upon having a strong opening and a good first few pages. (Same for being published.) That said, there is some reciprocation, so if you agree to critique four or five people's work, one is bound to say "sure" and do the same for you. And, of course, people who've only read a bit by you are more likely to critique if your story is short...

But either way, there's definitely a supply/demand imbalance. For this reason, I tend to get irritated at people who demand that their critiques only match their "demands". (i.e. the authors who go "I demand at least two nice things said about my story for every critique!" Which I find kind of hilarious as none of the major online critique groups allow you to pull that kind of thing.) If the supply/demand imbalance was reversed, it would make perfect sense. But as it's the other way around, I figure that authors should be lucky for almost any constructive feedback they get. (I certainly feel that way.)

[intothewood]

I didn't know that about the groups. Based on that alone, I'll skip it. I'm not saying there's no worth, just for me it doesn't seem like what I'm willing to partake in.

I'm happy to critique, in fact I gain a lot of insight. Then again, I have nothing else taking up my precious time, outside of my own work. Right now I'm fortunate that I can devote myself to writing only, and I'm relishing every moment. I realize I'm lucky, if only briefly.

While I can, I'll take time to build relationships so that I can give and take equally. This is my first foray into engaging in a group focused on writing, and I'm learning a lot.

[niniane]

Don't get me wrong...most people in the groups are genuinely trying to improve the writing of the other members. *shrugs* But to make them work, people have to review. And this can result in frustrated/grumpy/over worked people reviewing as they know they need to get one more in to be caught up or whatever. (And, to a certain extent, you get what you get. I've gotten everything from, "OMG, that's so helpful!" to "useless, delete" reviews. The nice thing is that most of the time you get 4-40, so even if you have to trash two, you've still got some advice.)

Also, some people suck at critiquing. It's a skill like most others. Someone at Critters said that 1/3 of the members were helpful, 1/3 were at least trying, and 1/3 were way out there. Sadly, that's true with any open writing group. (And the reason you see a lot which are invite/application only.)

In an ideal world, I definitely think that finding a few perfect critique partners is best. But finding them can be incredibly difficult. And it tends to only happen through interacting with others in a writing community. (Which, of course, include things like Critters, Critique Circle, Absolute Write Water Cooler, etc.)

[intothewood]

Time invested. That seems fair enough. btw Niniane - Nimue, Merlins lover? Or I may be mistaken, my lore come from Mary Stewart, I'm a trusting soul. Sole. Sol. Anyhoo, I really thank you for this exchange, you have helped a great deal.

[niniane]

Yup, Niniane = the most archaic version of Niniane/Nimue/Vivian/Nineve, whatever. ;) I was very into Arthurian legend as a teenager! (And Mary Stewart was fairly good with her lore. It varies all over the place, but she at least attempted to take in multiple accounts and merge them with history, etc. etc. OMG, I could go on for ages about Arthuriana. I am such a nerd!)

Critiquing is definitely a time invested thing. I've found that you tend to get out of it what you put in. (i.e. the very active members tend to get more and better crits). It's like any hobby, really. ;) I'm glad it helped, regardless. I always recommend critiques (and crit groups), but over a decade of them has given me some idea as to both their strengths and weaknesses!

[intothewood]

She was! And that's partially why I loved her books. I was, too (into the Arthurian legend) - in fact, I think it was she who showed me that story could be melded with history and legend to create something that was beautiful and readable and relatable.

You're right, and I do value investing my time into beneficial relationships.