How do I take criticism?

[El Folo]

Holy shit, a lot of comments!

Been reading everything so far, thanks a mill, buddahs!

 

[GinaTina]

I want to be a writer; therefore, I expect criticism. I don't always like/agree with it, but it usually doesn't anger me. I actually appreciate those who take the time out to offer me their opinions/help.

I'm in the group that actually wants to improve. I take any and all advice (except those that are obviously devoid of any attempt at being constructive. IE: Your characters don't do what I want, how dare you not write what I tell you to?!) and continuously welcome it.

 

[sr71plt]

Well, you can make that clear just for yourself, can't you? Are you saying that what you are willing to do and want should be imposed on everyone?

 

[talismania]

I think it's important to note the difference between feedback and criticism.

Anyone can give feedback and it's valid, because feedback is somebody telling what they got out of your work, what they like or don't like, what they think--simply on the basis of what they think. It's information. It's up to the author to decide if it's of any use.

Criticism is commonly used to mean negative feedback. In more academic or literary terms, though, criticism is much more. It analyzes, interprets and evaluates. Criticism judges whether the work succeeds or fails as a piece of writing.

And here's the thing: not all critics are created equal. I have had stories critiqued in writers' workshops that had me turn what I did inside out--only to have the editor who later bought the novel tell me to put it back the way it was in the earlier version and ask, "Why did you change it?"

Why? Because someone said so. Because someone didn't know what they were talking about and I listened. Because I actually believed that if someone sounded so sure about something, they had to be right--only to find out later they were dead wrong. Bad advice from would-be critics has led me down the wrong path writing-wise often enough I've become quite selective about whose criticism I take to heart.

So how to take criticism? The same way you take your medication: find a doctor you trust, listen to the advice, and then still make up your own mind about whether you want to swallow the pill. Because that pill may be exactly what you need... or it could be poison.

That's the thing about criticism. It can help you or hurt you as a writer, so the best thing any writer can do is to develop a strong sense of which criticism to embrace and which to avoid. Same with feedback. It's great to hear from readers, and all of us learn from the exchange, but the writer ultimately doesn't have to listen to anyone unless he or she chooses to do so.

 

[CarlusMagnus]

I think it's important to note the difference between feedback and criticism.

Anyone can give feedback and it's valid, because feedback is somebody telling what they got out of your work, what they like or don't like, what they think--simply on the basis of what they think. It's information. It's up to the author to decide if it's of any use.

Criticism is commonly used to mean negative feedback. In more academic or literary terms, though, criticism is much more. It analyzes, interprets and evaluates. Criticism judges whether the work succeeds or fails as a piece of writing.

And here's the thing: not all critics are created equal. I have had stories critiqued in writers' workshops that had me turn what I did inside out--only to have the editor who later bought the novel tell me to put it back the way it was in the earlier version and ask, "Why did you change it?"

Why? Because someone said so. Because someone didn't know what they were talking about and I listened. Because I actually believed that if someone sounded so sure about something, they had to be right--only to find out later they were dead wrong. Bad advice from would-be critics has led me down the wrong path writing-wise often enough I've become quite selective about whose criticism I take to heart.

While I think you're right to be selective, I'd argue that you've underplayed the role of the author here. Yes, criticism, if it is to be criticism requires that the critic analyze, interpret, and evaluate. But all of the critic's work is useless unless the author, too, analyzes, interprets, and evaluates the criticism. If anything, the author's responsibility lies deeper, because, the work itself is ultimately the author's responsibility, and not the critic's.

So how to take criticism? The same way you take your medication: find a doctor you trust, listen to the advice, and then still make up your own mind about whether you want to swallow the pill. Because that pill may be exactly what you need... or it could be poison.

I dislike this analogy, because few critics have credentials for their practices that compare in any way to the credentials that physicians must have for their practices. In particular, a critic's shingle requires much less effort than a physician must make before hanging out a shingle. (And the mind boggles at the thought of a Board of Critical Examiners empowered to yank a critic's license to practice...) When we take medicine, we really do put ourselves in the hands of the medical practitioners involved in prescribing and delivering it. We frequently decide whom to trust in these matters on other bases than real qualifications---and we can afford to do so because there are moderately reliable systems in place to protect us from incompetents and charlatans.

Choosing a critic is an altogether different matter. No one certifies a critic's competence, and we must compare what one tells us to our own notions of what is right.

That's the thing about criticism. It can help you or hurt you as a writer, so the best thing any writer can do is to develop a strong sense of which criticism to embrace and which to avoid. Same with feedback. It's great to hear from readers, and all of us learn from the exchange, but the writer ultimately doesn't have to listen to anyone unless he or she chooses to do so.

But you came to a conclusion I agree with.