Recovering from the SDC process

[dr_mabeuse]

I hope I'm not out of line by stepping out of the queue (yes, a joke), but I wanted to get some other writers' opinions on this.

Since I submitted my story for SDC critiques, I find that I have absolutely no desire to work on it anymore. It's not like I feel crushed or rejected. It's more like I'm just thoroughly sick of the piece. It's like it's gone from being a labor of love into just being a labor of labor.

I had decided to let the story cool down for a couple of weeks after the discussion and then go back and revise it, but now I find I have no interest in it anymore. That's unfortunate, because I think one of the things you have to have as a writer is the ability to continue working on something even after the inspiration is gone.

The last story I'd submitted to the SDC was over a year ago, and that time too I ended up not changing anything. I just posted it to Lit as I'd submitted it to the SDC.

So I'm wondering whether anyone else has had an experience like this: where a good critique has made you lose interest in something.

---dr.M.

 

[Poussin]

.....

 

[Poussin]

.....

 

[neonlyte]

doc

I'm experiencing something of what you might suffering.

After the 'Ob' piece was reviewed I've stuggled to revise the submitted section. To jog memories it was written entirely as dialogue. It has taken some months to feel comfortable with tackling the revisions required - essentially a re-write. I have been able to work on other areas of the story that don't involve the two characters in the posted section and have only very recently begun the re-write of the posted section.

It's hard work, I feel I'm in some ways losing the initial objective but I am simultaneously strengthening my characters, defining their roles and relationship by introducing their inner emotional responses to the dialogue. But, I'm still not sure that the re-write drives home the message I wanted to convey. I'll work through the re-write then I'll look again at doing it as a much shorter all dialogue piece. It will be some time before I'm through.

I should add that the decision to leave the entire story alone was deliberate. I wrote the first draft of another novel in the interim. I expected to be able to go back and start work on the submitted section but found that was not immediately possible.

Very strange talking like this, you read the first draft of my first story barely eighteen months ago (alien incest) - now I'm talking about novels.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

I hope I'm not out of line by stepping out of the queue (yes, a joke), but I wanted to get some other writers' opinions on this.

Since I submitted my story for SDC critiques, I find that I have absolutely no desire to work on it anymore. It's not like I feel crushed or rejected. It's more like I'm just thoroughly sick of the piece. It's like it's gone from being a labor of love into just being a labor of labor.

I had decided to let the story cool down for a couple of weeks after the discussion and then go back and revise it, but now I find I have no interest in it anymore. That's unfortunate, because I think one of the things you have to have as a writer is the ability to continue working on something even after the inspiration is gone.

The last story I'd submitted to the SDC was over a year ago, and that time too I ended up not changing anything. I just posted it to Lit as I'd submitted it to the SDC.

So I'm wondering whether anyone else has had an experience like this: where a good critique has made you lose interest in something.

---dr.M.

I've only had one piece SDCed. I made alot of changes in Grammar, and some few in wording, but by and large I didn't take a lot of the advice I got.

If you recall, a lot of it centered on the length of the piece, with multiple ideas on how to shorten it. The problem being, truncated descriptive prose isn't me. It never will be.

SDC critiques are a wonderful tool, but I think they have an inherent problem. You get great advice, from writers you respect, and in no particular critic's response will you usually find wholesale changes neccessary. But in the entire process, you get so much feedback, trying to digest & collate it all can become a job in and of itself.

Were it me, I would shelve the story for a while, say a month or two. Come back to it and make whatever changes you feel are neccessary. i feel you will remember the more salient points in the critiques without getting boged down in the minutae of them.

 

[Pure]

hi mab,

i had a bit of that experience, since I have not rewritten to take account of my critics, here. which is not to say they did not make good points.

part of it, is this idea, mentioned above, 'why not start again, in a different story?'

but, to tell the truth, as neon said, revisions are a helluva big job and I had myself convinced that working through 15-20 drafts in three weeks would be enough. ha!

i believe many of us--myself included--are spoiled, since 'stroke' is easy to turn out. many of us do NOT want to do dozens of revisions, possibly spaced out over months (with fallow intervals). *and that what it takes for most writers.* if any of you saw, a few years back, Camus' first draft of 'The Stranger' was published. that draft was completely re-written to get to his classic version. almost none of us is willing to work like that.

tant pis pour nous.

---
Note to Colly,

as to your:
[revise] without getting bogged down in the minutae of them [critiques].

without addressing you or your process in particular, I think that's exactly what's needed in most cases. published writers have both copy editors and proofreaders and every punctuation mark is checked.

further, minute details that involve continuity and nuance of character (how a remark is phrased, in a recent story of Rumple's) *are* worth attending to. i don't say *every* minute quibble is valid, but *among* the many minute quibbles of a dozen critics, a large number deserve to be addressed if one wants professional quality.

 

[CharleyH]

I hope I'm not out of line by stepping out of the queue (yes, a joke), but I wanted to get some other writers' opinions on this.

Since I submitted my story for SDC critiques, I find that I have absolutely no desire to work on it anymore. It's not like I feel crushed or rejected. It's more like I'm just thoroughly sick of the piece. It's like it's gone from being a labor of love into just being a labor of labor.

I had decided to let the story cool down for a couple of weeks after the discussion and then go back and revise it, but now I find I have no interest in it anymore. That's unfortunate, because I think one of the things you have to have as a writer is the ability to continue working on something even after the inspiration is gone.

The last story I'd submitted to the SDC was over a year ago, and that time too I ended up not changing anything. I just posted it to Lit as I'd submitted it to the SDC.

So I'm wondering whether anyone else has had an experience like this: where a good critique has made you lose interest in something.

---dr.M.

No, never had a good critique make me lose interest. I have always felt inspired, but some stories are more daunting than others, particularly when they are close to our hearts. I have been sitting on a story (that was edited by a very good editor) for about a year now. It is my life long passion to write it, but the complexities, the editing, the adding . . . seems overwhelming. You WILL get your passion back, I assure you. Particularly because IT IS a labour of love.

 

[CharleyH]

doc

I'm experiencing something of what you might suffering.

After the 'Ob' piece was reviewed I've stuggled to revise the submitted section. To jog memories it was written entirely as dialogue. It has taken some months to feel comfortable with tackling the revisions required - essentially a re-write. I have been able to work on other areas of the story that don't involve the two characters in the posted section and have only very recently begun the re-write of the posted section.

It's hard work, I feel I'm in some ways losing the initial objective but I am simultaneously strengthening my characters, defining their roles and relationship by introducing their inner emotional responses to the dialogue. But, I'm still not sure that the re-write drives home the message I wanted to convey. I'll work through the re-write then I'll look again at doing it as a much shorter all dialogue piece. It will be some time before I'm through.

I should add that the decision to leave the entire story alone was deliberate. I wrote the first draft of another novel in the interim. I expected to be able to go back and start work on the submitted section but found that was not immediately possible.

Very strange talking like this, you read the first draft of my first story barely eighteen months ago (alien incest) - now I'm talking about novels.

I remember your story distinctly. Very good. Looking forward to seeing what has transpired.

After reading your post Neon, just an added point here. Doc has often wondered why 'I' think about stories/theme so much, and then post a question in AH . . . well, because, like Neon (you) we want to convey the message as succinctly as possible. There is no harm in posting what your main concern is, and perhaps that question, even for discussion can renew the diminishing passion? Example. From a question, months ago, when I asked about BDSM, I have since finished that chapter and closed the book until final edit. It was a silly question to be sure, but it elicited responses that got my mind twirling . . . your response included, and THAT was all the push I needed to be inspired again.

 

[Rumple Foreskin]

Great thread, Doc.

My thinking is similar to CharleyH's. I like the critique process.The sharing of ideas. Call it "shop talk." Maybe this is because I don't have any RL writer friends and I'm not in a writer's group. The discussion of "chicken coop" and "perch" in my 2/28 "Evening" story was, for me at least, fun.

I'll correct mechanical errors as soon as possible and make any minor chages that pop into what passes for my mind. For instance, I added a line or two to show more negative reaction to the teacher's coercion in Ann's Story.

If the comments point toward some major re-think, for instance the view of several folks that the sheriff should be more strident and his victum, Amos, show more fear, in the "Evening" story, I'll usually wait and let the story "cool" before I tackle that.

When writing a story we care about, the challenge is to write with subjective passion but then re-write with objective dispassion. It can be a tough act.

Anyway, that's my story and I'm sticking to it. (oh, my goodness to my gracious, I ended a sentence with and "it" )

Rumple Foreskin

 

[wishfulthinking]

I am pre-SDC - I'm booked for 13/3

I never, ever thought I would put one of my stories up on the chopping block. People either like my stories or hate them, and I know they are not for everyone.

The thing that changed my mind is that possibly I could learn things about my writing that could improve it, although I'm a bit nervous.

I guess I always worried that people would be so busy trying to improve me that they would forget the little things that make the story enjoyable to me.

But I always wondered what people felt about having done the process, what were the positives and negatives they took with them. It makes me feel better that I'm not the only one with reservations, albeit different ones.

Ramble over

 

[Colleen Thomas]

hi mab,

i had a bit of that experience, since I have not rewritten to take account of my critics, here. which is not to say they did not make good points.

part of it, is this idea, mentioned above, 'why not start again, in a different story?'

but, to tell the truth, as neon said, revisions are a helluva big job and I had myself convinced that working through 15-20 drafts in three weeks would be enough. ha!

i believe many of us--myself included--are spoiled, since 'stroke' is easy to turn out. many of us do NOT want to do dozens of revisions, possibly spaced out over months (with fallow intervals). *and that what it takes for most writers.* if any of you saw, a few years back, Camus' first draft of 'The Stranger' was published. that draft was completely re-written to get to his classic version. almost none of us is willing to work like that.

tant pis pour nous.

---
Note to Colly,

as to your:
[revise] without getting bogged down in the minutae of them [critiques].

without addressing you or your process in particular, I think that's exactly what's needed in most cases. published writers have both copy editors and proofreaders and every punctuation mark is checked.

further, minute details that involve continuity and nuance of character (how a remark is phrased, in a recent story of Rumple's) *are* worth attending to. i don't say *every* minute quibble is valid, but *among* the many minute quibbles of a dozen critics, a large number deserve to be addressed if one wants professional quality.

J,

Let me clarify. What I meant by minutae was the multiple small suggestions generally tied to the same larger oversight. In short, the "big picture" suggestions tend to stick with you. If you put it away for a bit, when you get back to it, you are likely to remember the big picture things people mentioned, but are less caught up in the myriad of suggestions on how to fix it. It lests you correct the things that stuck out in your own way, then check back and compare the work to the critiques.

If you try to make every small correction mentioned, you can drive yourself buggy fast, removing the pleasure of writing and making it feel like you are doing a term paper.

 

[Softouch911]

Since I submitted my story for SDC critiques, I find that I have absolutely no desire to work on it anymore. It's not like I feel crushed or rejected. It's more like I'm just thoroughly sick of the piece. It's like it's gone from being a labor of love into just being a labor of labor.

Asolutely. Part of my background was as a participant in a university writer's workshop .... everytime I submitted a piece, this was the result. I haven't been on SDC yet, but I expect the same result when that occurs. At the writer's workshop I used to blame it on the bloodbath, vitriol, and arrogance that was sloshed liberally around the room (and over whatever poor piece of writing was being assailed). That isn't a problem at SDC, at least while I've been here, so maybe it's a response I have to the critical process itself.

What I eventually learned to do was to submit pieces which were "finished." I don't mean published, but taken to the point where I was already tired by them and knew I didn't have any revisions left in me for quite awhile. Then when I submitted the piece, whatever good insights and information I got from the discussion could be applied to the next piece of writing .... most criticism I've received seems to be highly transferrable.

If it's a story that needs to be done for you, dr. M, you'll find you rediscover the need to revise it somewhere in future sessions, perhaps. The story has a lot of potential, imo, and I hope you get back to it sometime.

Best in the meantime, Softie

 

[hmmnmm]

The dark side of a good idea.
I had wondered about this and was tempted to brave the comment.
I think this would be similar to talking out a story/piece idea, getting all excited and then when you sit down to do it, the interest has died .
Not quite the same as this, because you actually put a lot of work into the thing. Now, other people may be able to talk about an idea and retain interest in it when they sit to the task of composing it.
I think it just has to do with different personalities and motivations, or however to say it. From surfing various past threads I recall that you prefer to let your characters and such develop as the story goes along as opposed to drawing up an outline (correct me if this recollection is incorrect).
The former method would lead to a spontaneity with the inherent risk of grammatical errors, internal inconsistencies, maybe more.
The latter, those who have the patience to go through and submit to critique and to reconstruct here and there, putting all the pieces just so, will lead to a more perfected construction with the inherent risk of dissection to death.
This is certainly not to say that the former must be rife with errors or that the latter is incapable of life - but as examples of the tendencies as they sit on either end of a scale.
And I think if you're a more spontaneous writer and you submit it to critique you are in danger of killing the heart of the piece.
One of the best things that happened to me since being here was to realize that I needed to go back for some Strunk refresher. There are indeed some eyes here who will catch the slightest error or weakness - which is good, because these rules developed for good reason. Nonetheless, I found myself going back and forth and in circles, hesitating - imagining what this or that critic would say about a piece - and now, I've gone back to what I enjoy and the way I enjoy doing it, with at least an inclination towards grammatical discipline.
What I think I'm saying is that if you're an outline sort, you'll take delight in each little intricacy of a piece and your interest will not expire under the blades of dissection. But it may if you're a more spontaneous develop - as - you - go - writer.
These are just some first thoughts on the matter - don't mind them if they make no sense. I have not gone over it.
I could be way wrong about this.
It's possible.

 

[Pure]

One point that's inadequately stressed, partly my fault is that a critique is not just objective, not just 'here's what's wrong' or even 'here's what I did not like.' Every 'critique', or better, set of comments on another's serious efforts should contain mention of the merits of the piece AND in various ways should (where the impression is not wholly unfavorable) *encourage* the author. Killer Muffin was quite good in stressing this point.

For instance. One says "The plot has some problems of plausibility." But one adds, "Given your gift for story telling and real abilities in crafting a piece of writing, I'm sure you'll straighten things out."

The 'critique' or comments, we should remember, is addressed to a human being, one with some pride and probably lots of doubts; hence, unless a work is slipshod or utterly distasteful, it desirable for the critic/commenter to offer encouragement.

Perhaps when I have a chance I will emphasize this more, in the 'stickies' about wiitwd.

 

[CharleyH]

One point that's inadequately stressed, partly my fault is that a critique is not just objective, not just 'here's what's wrong' or even 'here's what I did not like.' Every 'critique', or better, set of comments on another's serious efforts should contain mention of the merits of the piece AND in various ways should (where the impression is not wholly unfavorable) *encourage* the author. Killer Muffin was quite good in stressing this point.

For instance. One says "The plot has some problems of plausibility." But one adds, "Given your gift for story telling and real abilities in crafting a piece of writing, I'm sure you'll straighten things out."

The 'critique' or comments, we should remember, is addressed to a human being, one with some pride and probably lots of doubts; hence, unless a work is slipshod or utterly distasteful, it desirable for the critic/commenter to offer encouragement.

Perhaps when I have a chance I will emphasize this more, in the 'stickies' about wiitwd.

Not sure if i am understanding your post, Pure.

In this case I need to read the story.

Perhaps before I read it, Doc has other concerns spinning off the initial ones, initial question? Are there particualr questions, other than the ones you (Doc)initially had about the story, that you have now?

I would rather read from this point, your concerns now, rather than concentrate on the concerns you had, and which others have already addressed.

 

[Pure]

Sorry, Charley, I can't make out what you're saying. I was suggesting that it's a good idea for a 'critique' to contain some encouragement. And to tie in: Perhaps that would lessen some of the 'aversions' felt by authors as reported in this thread.

 

[CharleyH]

Sorry, Pure. Edited to try to clarify 'my' question, yet still not sure it makes sense.

Will read your post more carefully, wasn't sure I was understanding you correctly, but it is really of no consequence to this discussion.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

One point that's inadequately stressed, partly my fault is that a critique is not just objective, not just 'here's what's wrong' or even 'here's what I did not like.' Every 'critique', or better, set of comments on another's serious efforts should contain mention of the merits of the piece AND in various ways should (where the impression is not wholly unfavorable) *encourage* the author. Killer Muffin was quite good in stressing this point.

Mea Culpa on this one.

It's just so much easier for me to see things that are wrong than it is to see things that are right. When we write, we're always looking for the weak points and the parts that need help. We train ourselves to see them. It's natural to look at other stories the same way.

I also think that, quite honestly, good writing looks so effortless that we take it for granted. Unless the imagery or language or something reaches out and really grabs us, good, solid, writing passes by unnoticed. And that's what it's supposed to do

But I want to stress that what inspired this thread was not that I got discouraged or felt picked on. Rather that the very process kind of put me off the story. It was like it turned a story into a specimen. I got tired of looking at it.

I also want to add that I am going to revise the story and incorporate a lot of the suggestions. In fact I'm already halfway through the revision. I think it's important that I go ahead and revise it whether it's fun or not, so all your suggestions are not in vain. I'll let you know when the revised version posts, in case you're interested.

---Zoot

 

[Rumple Foreskin]

Quote:Originally Posted by Pure
One point that's inadequately stressed, partly my fault is that a critique is not just objective, not just 'here's what's wrong' or even 'here's what I did not like.' Every 'critique', or better, set of comments on another's serious efforts should contain mention of the merits of the piece AND in various ways should (where the impression is not wholly unfavorable) *encourage* the author. Killer Muffin was quite good in stressing this point.

Mea Culpa on this one.

It's just so much easier for me to see things that are wrong than it is to see things that are right. When we write, we're always looking for the weak points and the parts that need help. We train ourselves to see them. It's natural to look at other stories the same way.

I also think that, quite honestly, good writing looks so effortless that we take it for granted. Unless the imagery or language or something reaches out and really grabs us, good, solid, writing passes by unnoticed. And that's what it's supposed to do

---Zoot

The lower life-form in the back of the class raises his hand. "Yeah, me too."

Rumple

 

[neonlyte]

I also want to add that I am going to revise the story and incorporate a lot of the suggestions. In fact I'm already halfway through the revision. I think it's important that I go ahead and revise it whether it's fun or not, so all your suggestions are not in vain. I'll let you know when the revised version posts, in case you're interested.

---Zoot

It is the right thing to do, I for one will look out for it. Knowing of your difficulties and confronting mine has fired up my re-write. I'd say it was a good thread.

 

[BlackShanglan]

Keep slogging, Dr. M. - but perhaps a week or two is not enough. When I SDC'd the Hesperus, it took me quite some time to get all of the comments together in my head at once and winnow through them until they began to connect with each other and start to form a coeherent pattern. So long as they looked like a wildly disparate collection of observations, I think on the whole that it was wise not to try to act on them; at any rate, it was too baffling to attempt it. But once they'd had long enough to gel together in the subconscious, I began to see the connecting thread and to understand what central elements might be generating that particular variety of response. Not everything fit, but once I saw the big pattern I felt quite energized and ready to act. Perhaps the patten just hasn't come home yet?

Carson introduced me to the simplest and most delightfully pleasant method of draft editing - albeit one that doesn't work well in posts (which is why I have often sent emails to people when SDC'ing). We use red and blue highlighting in drafts. Red is for critical comments, and it's quick - sometimes it's enough just to highlight it, although naturally one is always grateful for Carson's gentle comments of "Stop. Please, God, stop."

Blue is for good. It struck me like a loy upside the head the first time he did that; why had I never looked for a simple, quick way to tell someone that I liked something? It's a lovely device both for supporting the author and for identifying his or her strengths - surely as important as the weaknesses. It's always nice to see a phrase or idea I particularly liked graced with the lovely blue.

Shanglan

 

[KarenAM]

I had a piece come through the SDC last year and haven't felt the urge to submit another. It wasn't that I felt discouraged by the critiques, but they didn't really get at the meat of the story as I had hoped. It was a character-based story and the feedback seemed interested only in the plotting. I have to wonder if I had submitted it as a draft rather than as a nearly finished work if I would have put it aside as Dr. M. tells us happened to him.

On the other side, I've found myself not involved in critiquing here either, and I think this is because I worry that I'm not really qualified to tell another creative person how to be creative. If reviewers miss what I'm trying to do, will I inadvertently miss what they're trying to do, and wind up sabotaging them? I've seen writers give up on writing because of bad feedback from critique groups and I worry about that whenever I do give feedback.

I've got no answer to your conundrum, Doc. Sorry. Just some thoughts which you should all take with a very large boulder of salt.

 

[Pure]

Hi Karen,
Sorry you didnt get what you were looking for.

Are you referring to the story
Need and Redemption
http://www.literotica.com:81/stories/showstory.php?id=132014

which is discussed in the SDC thread
https://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?t=238483 ?

In the thread, looking it over, I don't see much reference to character either by you or the critics.

Part of the reason may be that in the short piece, we see the woman in a situation, and her reactions are pretty steady over the few days. She is consumed with desire and has to abase herself.

The critics will chose what they will; they can't be closely guided; that can be a blessing or not. See below.

On the other side, I've found myself not involved in critiquing here either, and I think this is because I worry that I'm not really qualified to tell another creative person how to be creative. If reviewers miss what I'm trying to do, will I inadvertently miss what they're trying to do, and wind up sabotaging them? I've seen writers give up on writing because of bad feedback from critique groups and I worry about that whenever I do give feedback.

It's certainly good if 'critique' groups do not demolish egos and motivation; indeed, I believe they (and we here) should encourage.

As to your (lack of) 'qualification,' I don't think it has to be in telling someone how to be creative. It's as a reader and fellow writer.

While I agree it can be irritating to be critiqued in an area not desired (but chosen by the critic), this does have its 'up' side. This replicates what happens with publishers and their readers; if they see something, they will comment and not be bound by the writer's agenda. If something is not on that agenda, it's possibly a 'blind spot' of the writer.

I think at the amateur level, the phenomenon of reader missing the point has to be looked at from two sides. Yes it may be the reader's incomprehension, but the writer has to take some responsibility.

If there are lots of 'inadvertent misses', that may--leaving aside Joyce and Pynchon--raise questions about the way the writer tried to convery his or her point.

In the end, the circle is like literotica in general, and the 'reading world' at large. The writer exposes herself. Some readers, even NY Times critics, are going to 'miss the point' or hate the way it's made. To survive in writing is develop the hide of a rhino.

Thanks for your comments. Things I've written above are merely reactions, and whatever your view of the critiquing process, here or elsehere, you're entitled to it. ..though I don't like to see you disappear.

 

[KarenAM]

Hi Karen,
Sorry you didnt get what you were looking for.

Are you referring to the story
Need and Redemption
http://www.literotica.com:81/stories/showstory.php?id=132014

which is discussed in the SDC thread
https://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?t=238483 ?

I suspect that I didn't know what I was looking for, which may have had an impact on what I recieved and how useful it ultimately turned out to be.

I add that I'm grateful for the feedback the story recieved, and for the time that everyone put into it on my behalf. Many of the critiques pointed out valid issues and it is helpful to have another set of eyes go over one's work. Looking back at the thread now I see that I found a lot of what was said useful, even the very negative stuff. I don't regret having submitted the piece, and I hope no one regretted having to read it and comment on it.

I also have to balance the critiques against the other feedback the story got (see below).

In the thread, looking it over, I don't see much reference to character either by you or the critics.

Part of the reason may be that in the short piece, we see the woman in a situation, and her reactions are pretty steady over the few days. She is consumed with desire and has to abase herself.

The critics will chose what they will; they can't be closely guided; that can be a blessing or not. See below.

I suppose what's odd is that the story was extremely well recieved by a number of readers who weren't being asked for critiques, and who did see the character issues. This led me to wonder if I was imposing the story on people here who felt they had to critique, and who weren't able to therefore simply read the story. It's a problem I have when reading sometimes; I start rewriting things in my head. But the result is that I wind up with a very different story than the one before me, and I've missed what the author was trying to say.

It's certainly good if 'critique' groups do not demolish egos and motivation; indeed, I believe they (and we here) should encourage.

There is a time in a writer's career for critique groups. I learned a great deal from mine. But critique groups can also outlive their usefulness, and there is a time for every writer to step away from them and write alone. This is a bit frightening (and I've seen excellent writers who could never break away from the comfort zone of critiques, and who never grew past a certain point in their development as writers, denying the world of some fine work indeed). But my best writing came only after I said goodbye to a group I had been with for several years. It was then that I started to take stylistic risks and allow myself to do more than simply construct narratives.

But I can't tell anyone else when that time is. We each have to determine it for ourselves. I'm not much of a guru, am I?

As to your (lack of) 'qualification,' I don't think it has to be in telling someone how to be creative. It's as a reader and fellow writer.

While I agree it can be irritating to be critiqued in an area not desired (but chosen by the critic), this does have its 'up' side. This replicates what happens with publishers and their readers; if they see something, they will comment and not be bound by the writer's agenda. If something is not on that agenda, it's possibly a 'blind spot' of the writer.

A big problem is that all too often critiquers assume their own motivations for writing are shared by the writer whose work they are critiquing. Is it fair or helpful for me to critique assuming that the writer wants to produce stylistically complex, intellectually challenging work along the lines of Steinbeck when maybe all they want to do is give their reader a hard-on or moist panties? The fact is that there isn't a writer here whose work I couldn't rewrite to suit my own literary prejudices. And most everyone here could do the same with my work, too. Skilled editors are those who can see what the author is trying to do and can help them do it better without changing what they're doing. But I'm not an editor; I'm a writer. And I've done real harm with misplaced critiques, believe me.

I think at the amateur level, the phenomenon of reader missing the point has to be looked at from two sides. Yes it may be the reader's incomprehension, but the writer has to take some responsibility.

Amateur has nothing to do with it. The writer is always part of the conversation, and that means they bear some of the responsibility. The difficult thing is balancing between saying what you want to say and pandering too much to the reader. No one said this was easy.

If there are lots of 'inadvertent misses', that may--leaving aside Joyce and Pynchon--raise questions about the way the writer tried to convery his or her point.

In the end, the circle is like literotica in general, and the 'reading world' at large. The writer exposes herself. Some readers, even NY Times critics, are going to 'miss the point' or hate the way it's made. To survive in writing is develop the hide of a rhino.

Thanks for your comments. Things I've written above are merely reactions, and whatever your view of the critiquing process, here or elsehere, you're entitled to it. ..though I don't like to see you disappear.

I do critique a few writers here and elsewhere. But I only do it if I think it will help them improve, and that usually means I have to sense that they write with the same or similar literary tastes and goals as my own. I also prefer, as a rule, to critique privately, since taking apart someone's work publically can make them defensive and can even hurt them. On the other side, when I review a story (reviews being by their nature public), I don't like to dwell on what went wrong with it but rather on how it made me feel as a reader, not a writer. If I don't like a story I probably won't finish it and certainly won't critique it if I don't; if I'm ambivalent about it, I also won't leave a review, since I don't see that as helping the writer.

I don't want to rain on the parade here. As I said, critiques have their place in any writer's career, and anyone who feels that the SDC can help them should participate. But Dr. M's point that started this thread remains: it is possible that having work critiqued will kill the desire to finish it, and I have hunderds of thousands of words in unfinished novels that testify to this.

Be careful, and be true to yourself as a writer. That's all the advice I think I'm really qualified to give on this subject.

 

[Black Tulip]

Keep slogging, Dr. M. - but perhaps a week or two is not enough. When I SDC'd the Hesperus, it took me quite some time to get all of the comments together in my head at once and winnow through them until they began to connect with each other and start to form a coeherent pattern. So long as they looked like a wildly disparate collection of observations, I think on the whole that it was wise not to try to act on them; at any rate, it was too baffling to attempt it. But once they'd had long enough to gel together in the subconscious, I began to see the connecting thread and to understand what central elements might be generating that particular variety of response. Not everything fit, but once I saw the big pattern I felt quite energized and ready to act. Perhaps the patten just hasn't come home yet?

Carson introduced me to the simplest and most delightfully pleasant method of draft editing - albeit one that doesn't work well in posts (which is why I have often sent emails to people when SDC'ing). We use red and blue highlighting in drafts. Red is for critical comments, and it's quick - sometimes it's enough just to highlight it, although naturally one is always grateful for Carson's gentle comments of "Stop. Please, God, stop."

Blue is for good. It struck me like a loy upside the head the first time he did that; why had I never looked for a simple, quick way to tell someone that I liked something? It's a lovely device both for supporting the author and for identifying his or her strengths - surely as important as the weaknesses. It's always nice to see a phrase or idea I particularly liked graced with the lovely blue.

Shanglan

Shanglan,

That is an excellent suggestion. And one that could work in posts as well. Simply quote and use color tags for the good and the bad or ugly. LOL

I know I have learned some important things about my writing from getting critiques here. They've stayed with me while writing other stories and I think they make me a better writer.

As for surviving a heavy session of dissecting, I agree with you, Shanglan. I have not yet begun a revision of my latest story.
Perhaps some of you will recall I was ready to drop it in the garbage, but the comments and suggestions I got are so varied I need time to digest it all properly. I need to let it ferment at the back of my brain for a while. I know I will get back to it, but certainly not within a week of getting all that extra information.

And that is exactly what you are doing right now, Doc. You have not given yourself a lot of time to make all our comments your own. So, basically you are doing a chore instead of improving your work according to your own idea.

*shrugs* Just my hunch.