# Is it possible to improve writing without critiques?



## Randy_Mordoc (May 15, 2016)

Is being critiqued essential to becoming a better writer? Or is it possible to improve without it?



I ask because it's been my experience that getting critiques can get very hard.


----------



## PrinzeCharming (May 15, 2016)

Hey Randy! Great! You're already engaged! 

That's a good question. It's honestly a hit or miss for most writers. Allow me to explain. If Writer A is critiqued by someone not necessarily honest, or biased, they may not offer the most constructive critiques. That may cause Writer A to lose sight to improve and refine their writing skills. If Writer B is critiqued by someone honest and unbiased, they may improve greatly with this insight. If Writer C does not receive any critiques, they may have to read articles and educate themselves to learn the craft. Whether they dedicate hours or read more books, Writer C will still be uncertain of their skills unless a critique is provided. Favorably, the one critiquing Writer B. I am not going to say it's _impossible _to improve without it, but it will take a few battles against the inner critic.


----------



## The_Scribbler (May 15, 2016)

Hey Randy! It's definitely hard finding critique partners, but in my opinion they are invaluable. However, they shouldn't be personal friends or family members, as they are often biased and usually, they're more worried about hurting your feelings. 

You don't have to take every aspect of a critique to heart. You use what works for you and your story. Most days we become blind to our own writing flaws and problems within a story. Having a second or third set of eyes generally helps for us to figure out what we're doing wrong so we can improve upon it. 

If you have two CP's, and on one issues, their opinions differ, you probably know it's subjective and can go with what you prefer. However, if they are in agreement on something, chances are you want to take a closer look at it. 

No one is a perfect writer, but having CP's can help so very much.

I went through half a dozen or more before I found a great group to help me out. Just gotta keep looking.


----------



## ppsage (May 15, 2016)

I think the best way to get some perspective on taking and evaluating criticism is to do some crits yourself.


----------



## KThoughts (May 15, 2016)

It's 75/25 when you're going to write stories without anyone judging your work (75% It's not possible and 25% It's possible) I had seen my other writer friends go and try to improve themselves without critics and chances are they always seem to fail. It's *certainly not possible *to improve without it because even if you try to critique it yourself 
you will just notice some of the basic problems and not the actual problem itself. A writer can try to improve without it but it's very rare... 

Being critqued and accepting critics from others can really help you improve your work! But sometimes some of the critics might either do good improvement in your story or bad improvement so you also have to critic your work as well.


----------



## Jigawatt (May 15, 2016)

Becoming a better writer is easier with critiques. Not only do I benefit from critiques of my writing, but also through critiques intended for other writers. Writers learning the craft tend to make the same mistakes. Don't assume every critique is correct or fitting. It's wise to listen, but not always wise to act. Before the internet, critiquing was essential because it was about the only way to have mistakes pointed-out. Not so much today, as you can read the critiquing of other writings online and learn much about the common mistakes writers make. Finding knowledgeable people to critique your work can fast-track your writing skills.


----------



## InstituteMan (May 15, 2016)

I suppose that a writer can improve without critiques, but only so far. 

There's a real risk that a writer will develop bad habits without critiques. My first few posts on the creative boards here revealed some bad habits I didn't know I even had. Had I continued writing the same way, fixing those would have only gotten harder.

A quality critique may sting at first, but they're invaluable to learning.


----------



## voltigeur (May 15, 2016)

Question 1) There are some things you can improve on without critique but ultimately you will plateau. Writing is communications and without that proverbial second set of eyes you don't really know how your ideas play out to someone who doesn't share your internal understanding. 

You do have to approach critiques with a thick skin and your big boy panties. My first critiques were an exercise in how much red ink is produced in the USA! But with a supportive group I kept getting better. 

Also you get a better idea of your audience: 

I took a scene in about the day Reagan was shot. My character's were talking in the morning about plans to watch the Academy awards. Never mind all of the history the drama in the White House the drama for the country one reader looked up to see if I got the date wrong on the Academy awards! Would have never thought_ that_ would have been a point of concern. 

All kidding aside; critiques are the fastest way to see how you come across. You can answer questions like: are my characters connecting with the reader? Is my message communicated clearly? Are the readers engaged or are they just being polite? **Just a note never ask those questions you look for the answer in the feedback they give you.

Never ever explain your work! If several beta readers don't get it, you need to change how you write it. I think of it like this; If my book is published and someone 5 states away is reading it, I'm not going to be there to explain my intent or message; the work _has_ to stand on its own. 

I prefer in person critique to on line. I find the discussion and seeing reactions is most helpful. But again stay thick skinned and don't take negative feedback personally.

Lastly keep anything you give out to 2500 to 3000 words. This is a 10 to 20 min read for most people with 10 min of feedback. That way having them help you is not a big chore. If they come back and say they want to read more? Congratulations you got the greatest critique of all.


----------



## Patrick (May 15, 2016)

Yes, a writer can improve without critique.

The good thing about critique is the critic doesn't have to be a better writer/thinker than you to draw your attention to something you might have missed. When taking (or leaving) criticism, it's best to ask what your main motivation as a writer is. It should be to produce something that's really good, and to achieve that, you'll have to make some sacrifices. Make the first sacrifice your ego. Think about the merits of your work objectively and if you think there's a chance somebody could be right in their observations of your work, give yourself some time to think it through, and then do what  you think is in the best interest of your fiction.

That's it.


----------



## Jay Greenstein (May 15, 2016)

It's a complicated question, because as has been mentioned, if someone gives you advice that sounds good but isn't, you won't have the knowledge to evaluate it.

Making it harder, if you've read any of my critiques you'll notice that I often point out that in our school  days our training is primarily to help us get and keep a job, and thus become productive adults. The traditional three R's are meant to provide industry with a pool of potential workers who have a set of predictable and necessary skills. And since most business applications require nonfiction writing techniques, designed to inform, most of us leave school not even realizing there is another way to write. After all, when we critique, we look at the work and say, "So how would I do that?" Great if the one doing the critique has more skill than you do—which is why you should always look at the writing of the one who gave the critique to see if you want to write like they do.

I've been in, and have chaired critiquing groups, and one constant was that beginners and pros alike, were saying, in effect, "You need to stop writing like you and write more like me." :fat:

In general, the advice you get will be heartfelt and sincere. But it could be dead wrong or great. It might make perfect sense—if we're missing critical information, or actually be perfect. And here's the thing: in a room full of beginners, an expert will be outvoted. And I mean that literally. I once watched Nora Roberts driven from a romance forum by the loud and ignorant.

That's why my view is to go to the pros first, to be certain that your technique and knowledge isn't based on what amounts to a game of whispering-down-the-lane. You can always toss a tool you don't like or need. But you can't use the tool you don't know exists. There are lots of ways of getting that data. Editors, agents, and publishers, visit every conference. They _want_ us to become great writers, because they need good stories to stay in business. There are also workshops, conferences and retreats, like Green River Writers. There are even writing cruises. And of course the local library system has a fiction writing section containing books by authors, publishers, and agents. And the one thing you can be certain of is that the advice they give works, at least for them.

If you write romance there is the Romance Writers of America, an organization that is both helpful and nurturing. I spent six fun years as a member. And if you look around there are lots of such organizations where you can find help getting a nuts-and-bolts education in the techniques our medium necessitates.

So of what use are critiques in a site like this? A _lot_, because one thing that people miss is that it's not what the one critiquing says to do that matters, for reasons I've already mentioned. It's the question of what made that reader "fall out of the story" and make a given comment.s They may give you good or bad advice on fixing what they see as a problem, but the _fact_ that they were moved to comment says your writing wasn't mesmerizing the reader as-it-shouid-have. So there, with the question of, "what went wrong," lies pathway to the answer on how to fix it.

If, for example, your dialogue is knocking them out, make dialog a focus issue, and so on. If you learn a trick, look at your favorite _modern_ fiction to see how authors you like used it. They will be in effect, critiquing you by showing you how they use it.

And in the end, there i a secret trick that will probably make as much of an improvement as anything else: Critique others. To do that you will be forced to think about why you do the thing you suggest, when framing your response. But there's an even better effect. It's a _lot_ easier to see mistakes in the work of others than your own. So by finding them for someone else you will find the same issue will jump out at you if it's in your own work.

So, yes, that was a lot more than an answer to if critiquing is a good thing, but I'm afraid I'm a blabbermouth, and one thing leads to another. I also write novels, so I find it hard to say hello with less than 10,000 words.

Hope this helps.


----------



## voltigeur (May 15, 2016)

> I've been in, and have chaired critiquing groups, and one constant was that beginners and pros alike, were saying, in effect, "You need to stop writing like you and write more like me." :fat:



If you seek out a real time critique group, You will probably have to go to several critique groups before you find a good fit. If what Jay said happens run for the nearest exit. 

I'm lucky in that the moderator of my critique group makes sure that suggestions are only suggestions and other members don't beat a dead horse in the dirt. They give their feed back make notes and shut-up. It is ultimately your story and has to be written by you. She also points out the rules that different genres, for example I write Historical Thrillers someone may give me advice that is good for Romance writers. She has always known when to say "that particular advice doesn't apply to your genre."

Another thing fun if you are in a live group is have someone else read your selection. That will teach you a lot very fast. Try it; it is fun.


----------



## Jack of all trades (May 16, 2016)

Hmmmm. Yes and no. 

I have learned the most from reading the pieces others have posted and the critiques they received. So while it wasn't MY work that was critiqued, I did learn from critiques.

By reading the original and the suggested changes, I could objectively look at what works and what doesn't. Sometimes I agreed with the suggestions others made, and sometimes I didn't. Either way, I learned something.

I have also learned from giving critiques. By reviewing the work of others critically, I was able to review my own more objectively. But there again, critiques are involved, just not of my work.

I have eventually put a few things out for critique, and learned from those as well. When writing, the author knows the world and characters so well that sometimes (s)he forgets to tell the reader something important. A critique can point that out. And I agree with what a previous poster said about learning your own bad habits from a critique. 

In addition, I have asked others to read my book and give me feedback. Having read and given critiques on this and another writing forum, I was ready to accept the feedback objectively. Also, I picked who I wanted to review my work. I think that helped. 

So all in all, I think critiques are very helpful. Is it possible to improve with ever seeing anyone's critique? Even a book review is a critique, so it's unlikely that you would never see a critique. I'd have to say that critiques are an important part of the process to becoming a good writer. You may be able to learn without critiques, but it would probably take longer and you run the risk of getting a reputation of being a poor writer in the meantime.

Maybe we should have a common criticisms thread. Two that jump to mind are : Show, don't tell; and Avoid backstitching.


----------



## Jack of all trades (May 16, 2016)

P.S. It is important to remember that not all advice or suggestions will be helpful, and learning how to weed out what doesn't work for you is part of the process.


----------



## Jack of all trades (May 16, 2016)

voltigeur said:


> She also points out the rules that different genres, for example I write Historical Thrillers someone may give me advice that is good for Romance writers. She has always known when to say "that particular advice doesn't apply to your genre."



I don't want to hijack the thread, but could you post an example? So much advice is general that an example may help.



voltigeur said:


> Another thing fun if you are in a live group is have someone else read your selection. That will teach you a lot very fast. Try it; it is fun.



I both read my work aloud to a writing partner and have my partner read aloud it to me. You are right that listening to someone else read it reveals MUCH.


----------



## voltigeur (May 16, 2016)

> I don't want to hijack the thread, but could you post an example? So much advice is general that an example may help



I'm not sure this is a good example but here it goes: 

I wrote a scene where my naval protagonist is getting ready to launch off the USS Eisenhower (Ike). I describe Ike rolling on an angry ocean, I describe the howling winds ripping spray for heaving waves. The inside of the plane is humid and the protagonist is seasick. When he puts on his oxygen mask and pulls his visor down making him faceless the rest of the launch is purely about the plane and the deck crew. 

One of the members criticized the scene for not being character driven and too much technical detail. (He writes YA Fantasy) 

The moderator pointed out that to my key audience, that carrier is a character in its own right. She also pointed out in the tradition of nautical fiction, the ocean is an antagonist making it a character as well. She also explained the need to show the human characters as part of the machine. 

Another one is my character Emily that is a congressional intern. I was criticized for being too detailed in describing her clothing and mentioning the records she bought during a shopping spree. (The person making those comments wrote urban fantasy and the other wrote epic fantasy.)

The moderator pointed out that for historical fiction Emily not only takes you into the halls of the Senate but she is the 80's. She is the reader's window to the culture of that time, and for those old enough to have lived in that time she is their personal connection that reminds them of where they were when these events were taking place. (So wish I could say I planned it that way. She saw way more in this character than I envisioned.)  

 I hope that helps.



> I both read my work aloud to a writing partner and have my partner read aloud it to me. You are right that listening to someone else read it reveals MUCH.



 Having someone else read my stuff will tell me in 2 seconds if my pacing and phrasing are off. When you are the creator; you know the back story, you created the world the story takes place in, your brain make adjustments as you read your work. Involving someone who is not part of that process will reveals so much so fast.


----------



## escorial (May 16, 2016)

some more than others....


----------



## JustRob (May 16, 2016)

Well, here are my meagre personal experience and views, for what they are worth.

First, one must consider what one's target reader is like. If you are your only critic then inevitably your target reader will be someone like you. Do you consider yourself to be representative of your intended readership or, as a writer, do you have or need aspects to your own personality that they may not have? When I started writing I thought about this. Was my typical reader likely to be cleverer than myself or less so? Would they be better read, have a wider experience of life or a very different outlook on it? Which details of the story would I need to explain clearly and which could I leave them to work out for themselves? What would they be seeking to find in the story and why would they be reading it at all? Was it a simple story to be interpreted at a single level or was I attempting to present a deeper underlying meaning which some readers, possibly too many, would miss? Even if I believed that I had got all these things right, at some point I would have to test that out by getting critiques from suitable readers, ones who fitted my profile reasonably well.

In life we develop self-criticism to make ourselves better in our own eyes. Criticism from others may help us to become better in their eyes. Which is actually better though? As Jay mentioned, a fellow writer may encourage you to write more like they do, but equally a reader may encourage you to write more what they want to read. When I sent part of my first draft to a professional reader for assessment he suggested that I radically shift the focus of the story to make a different character central to it, as he found that character's predicament more interesting than my main thread. I agreed with him that that would make a very interesting story, but said that it wouldn't be the one that I was attempting to write and I wasn't the right person to write it. It was the difference between a writer looking for the right story and a story looking for the right writer. The problem with dealing with such professionals may be that they only understand fiction writing as a profession, where any story may well do so long as it sells. So, you have to ask yourself why you write, to please yourself, to please others or to share your perceptions of events with others regardless of their reactions?

I was once told about the curator of a museum in the USA who showed a documentary film on the life of Abraham Lincoln to a group of youths and then asked for their views on it. Their response was "There wasn't much sex in it." Well, maybe that was true, but was the criticism of any value?

Now that I have attempted writing myself I have noticed that my reading habits have changed. Now when I take a dislike to something that I read in a published book I ask myself whether I do the same thing in my own writing and if so or not so why our writing styles deviate. It helps understanding of what psychologists call the personal equation, the specific biases that make each of us who we are. Only by understanding them can we decide whether we want to keep them or change them. That is a good reason for reading the work of other writers critically, because it may help either of you. You may choose to differ in your styles but at least you will be aware of the deviation and have made a conscious choice about what you are each aiming for.

I write primarily for my own amusement and development. If others enjoy what I write that is a bonus. Critique is nevertheless informative as it tells me whether there may be another reason for me to continue writing as I do. Your aims may be different.


----------



## Tettsuo (May 16, 2016)

No.  I don't think you can really improve without someone giving you the view of the forest, because all you the artist can see are the trees.

You know what you're trying to say.  This will enable you to skip somethings, or overlook stuff.  Someone outside of your brain has zero idea of what you're trying to say.  They can only read the words.  So, that person outside will reflect only what the words say.


----------



## Bishop (May 16, 2016)

It's possible, if you're a voracious reader and can be critical of yourself. But it's far, far easier, and far better for your writing if you get critique. It's going to offer you a lot more insight and improve your writing far faster and more effectively.


----------



## EmmaSohan (May 16, 2016)

Jay Greenstein said:


> And the one thing you can be certain of is that the advice they give works, at least for them.



True? Stephen King gives the advice to avoid passive verbs. He's quite enthusiastic about that advice.

Yet when I studied his narration, I found him using a passive verb (or sentence or construction) about once every two or three pages.

But it seemed like King made an concerted effort to avoid passive verbs. Like he really didn't like them. I ended up taking his writing as the way to avoid them. And, when he used a passive verb, I could see why -- so (ironically) he ended up also being a good lesson in when to use passive verbs.

So his advice is really useful to _him_, because it helps him focus on what might need fixing. But it's only useful because he knows how to apply that advice and when to ignore it. Is his advice useful to a beginning writer? Probably not, right?

So there are problems with beginners trying to follow advice as they understand it.

BTW, I loved your comments. And because you were careful, I ended up agreeing with what you said, just not how it might be understood.


----------



## Patrick (May 16, 2016)

Jack of all trades said:


> I both read my work aloud to a writing partner and have my partner read aloud it to me. You are right that listening to someone else read it reveals MUCH.



It depends on the reader's literacy and how well they cope with reading aloud in front of others. People stumble over plain English when reading aloud all the time. Then there are those who are very literate and can read aloud almost perfectly. You will have a different impression of your own writing depending on who reads it aloud to you. I don't think this is helpful at all. Many people, for example, run out of breath reading long sentences aloud, which shows they don't read aloud enough to know how to breath while reading. That's the same as me trying to sing a complex peice of music and calling it trash because i run out of breath. No, I am just not a trained singer.

Reading your own work aloud is helpful, and reading literature aloud in general is also helpful for developing an ear.


----------



## msjhord (May 16, 2016)

I can honestly say that critiques have helped me a lot.  Yes, sometimes it gives the ego a little bruising but it's nothing life-ending.  And, you have to consider your source of the critique as well.  If a seasoned writer tells you that you've got some work to do to get GOOD, believe them.  Cast your own ideas and preconceived notions and get down in there and do it.  I say this because I did the exact opposite for awhile and I think it held me back.  But once I got my head screwed on right and out of my tuchus, I've been doing some of the most personally satisfactory writing I've done in a long, long time.


----------



## Terry D (May 16, 2016)

Randy_Mordoc said:


> Is being critiqued essential to becoming a better writer? Or is it possible to improve without it?
> 
> 
> 
> I ask because it's been my experience that getting critiques can get very hard.



It is definitely *not* essential. But writers getting critique (particularly from other writers) has been around for a long time. Mary Shelly wrote _Frankenstein_ as the result of a 'prompt' from her critique group.


----------



## Non Serviam (May 16, 2016)

Receiving critiques helped me a lot, back when I first started and I was completely unpublished and clueless.  But _giving_ critiques has helped me a thousand times more.  That's what really taught me to analyse a piece of prose.


----------



## Jack of all trades (May 16, 2016)

Patrick said:


> It depends on the reader's literacy and how well they cope with reading aloud in front of others. People stumble over plain English when reading aloud all the time. Then there are those who are very literate and can read aloud almost perfectly. You will have a different impression of your own writing depending on who reads it aloud to you. I don't think this is helpful at all. Many people, for example, run out of breath reading long sentences aloud, which shows they don't read aloud enough to know how to breath while reading. That's the same as me trying to sing a complex peice of music and calling it trash because i run out of breath. No, I am just not a trained singer.
> 
> Reading your own work aloud is helpful, and reading literature aloud in general is also helpful for developing an ear.



I am working with a specific individual, not a random person off the street.

I find listening to the person I have chosen to work with read my work aloud to be extremely helpful.

Your argument about not being a trained singer works for reading your own work aloud as well. You are not a trained reader. :-k


----------



## Patrick (May 16, 2016)

Jack of all trades said:


> I am working with a specific individual, not a random person off the street.
> 
> I find listening to the person I have chosen to work with read my work aloud to be extremely helpful.
> 
> Your argument about not being a trained singer works for reading your own work aloud as well. You are not a trained reader. :-k



I am actually. I am just an autodidact.


----------



## Terry D (May 16, 2016)

Patrick said:


> I am actually. I am just an autodidact.



If you taught yourself more than one subject would you have polyautodidactyly?


----------



## Jack of all trades (May 16, 2016)

Patrick said:


> I am actually. I am just an autodidact.



If you can successfully train yourself how to read aloud, then I'm sure others can do so with equal or greater accomplishment.


----------



## Sam (May 16, 2016)

When you're an experienced enough reader, in conjunction with being a seasoned editor of your own work, you tend to stop relying on reading things aloud. Or, at least, I have. Just from reading a sentence in my head, I can tell if it's too wordy, needs tweaking, or isn't coherent. 

When you begin writing for the first time, reading aloud is a great way to train yourself to notice issues of flow, redundancy, etcetera. Soon, however, you should start to do it subconsciously. 

As to the OP's question: no, critiquing or receiving critique is not strictly necessary to becoming a better writer, but it does help. Critiquing someone else's work helps a lot more, in my opinion, because, among other things, it teaches you how to be honest when it comes to editing your own stuff.


----------



## Patrick (May 16, 2016)

Jack of all trades said:


> If you can successfully train yourself how to read aloud, then I'm sure others can do so with equal or greater accomplishment.



That doesn't have any bearing on what I've said. Having others read your work aloud doesn't actually tell you anything other than that person's literacy and aplomb. You can make anything sound bad if it's read with that objective in mind.

As Sam said, once you have enough experience, you don't have to read things aloud, you just know something reads awkwardly. I edit as I go, so I spend quite a lot of time smoothing sentences. Reading your own sentences aloud in this process can be helpful sometimes. I just don't get the point of having somebody else read it aloud.


----------



## EmmaSohan (May 16, 2016)

Patrick said:


> That doesn't have any bearing on what I've said. Having others read your work aloud doesn't actually tell you anything other than that person's literacy and aplomb. You can make anything sound bad if it's read with that objective in mind.
> 
> As Sam said, once you have enough experience, you don't have to read things aloud, you just know something reads awkwardly. I edit as I go, so I spend quite a lot of time smoothing sentences. Reading your own sentences aloud in this process can be helpful sometimes. I just don't get the point of having somebody else read it aloud.



If they aren't good enough to read a book out loud, how will they be good enough to read it to themselves?


----------



## Sam (May 17, 2016)

EmmaSohan said:


> If they aren't good enough to read a book out loud, how will they be good enough to read it to themselves?



I'm sure that made sense in your head, but . . . 

What?


----------



## Jack of all trades (May 17, 2016)

The day one thinks he is above the mundane is the day he sets himself up to look like a fool.


----------



## Jack of all trades (May 17, 2016)

Sam said:


> When you're an experienced enough reader, in conjunction with being a seasoned editor of your own work, you tend to stop relying on reading things aloud. Or, at least, I have. Just from reading a sentence in my head, I can tell if it's too wordy, needs tweaking, or isn't coherent.
> 
> When you begin writing for the first time, reading aloud is a great way to train yourself to notice issues of flow, redundancy, etcetera. Soon, however, you should start to do it subconsciously.
> 
> As to the OP's question: no, critiquing or receiving critique is not strictly necessary to becoming a better writer, but it does help. Critiquing someone else's work helps a lot more, in my opinion, because, among other things, it teaches you how to be honest when it comes to editing your own stuff.



Once again, I am working with someone I know and trust. Not a random person. Not a back stabbing competitor.

I find it helpful to both read my work aloud and have someone else read it aloud. I will continue to to do those things. And I will continue to suggest others do the same. You are free to follow the advice or ignore it, the same as everyone else.


----------



## Patrick (May 17, 2016)

EmmaSohan said:


> If they aren't good enough to read a book out loud, how will they be good enough to read it to themselves?



It isn't a question of being good enough; I am saying the whole practice is unreliable. When you listen to somebody else reading aloud, how good what they're reading aloud will sound will have a lot to do with that person's literacy and whether they like the work and buy into the voice or not. How can you judge the quality of your writing if two people give two very different readings of your work?

In my opinion, it is a mistake, because it's _your _voice you're listening for and refining, not somebody else's (and people do add their own style when they read aloud). Your spoken and written voice is unique, and voice is one of the things that's off the table when it comes to critique. This isn't a democratic process. This is a dictatorship. The reader has no business shaping the writer's voice. And I give a proverbial handslap to anybody who tries to monkey with this aspect of my own work and that of others. The role of critique as it concerns style is to offer perspective on what may or may not be working and then to let the author get on with coming up with his/her own solutions (or not).



Jack of all trades said:


> The day one thinks he is above the mundane is the day he sets himself up to look like a fool.



I don't know why you're reading elitism into my posts. You say you're having your work read aloud to you by a friend you trust. You've just displayed elitism there, as you wouldn't trust a "random" to read it aloud.

I am sorry for applying logic to a discussion on writing and critique.


----------



## EmmaSohan (May 17, 2016)

Sam said:


> I'm sure that made sense in your head, but . . .
> 
> What?



Laughing. Patrick suggested that I have a unique voice and if they read my story, they would add their voice instead of mine. But if there's some voice I have in my head and want the reader to understand -- won't they make the same "error" when they read to themselves? Basically, I am failing to communicate that voice.

Same thing for confusion and ambiguities.

It gets interesting if I expect them to read a character as speaking angrily and they do not. Won't the same thing happen if they read to themselves?


----------



## Terry D (May 17, 2016)

If it helps you to have someone read your work aloud, then, by all means do so. But, I'd be careful of recommending the technique to others. I say that because there really isn't a close relationship between the way the brain processes spoken words and the way it handles written words. The two functions take place in entirely different areas of the brain, so the way something sounds to our physical ear can be very different from the way a written passage may 'sound' to our 'reader's ear'. The difference between the processing of things we hear and the way we process things we read is dramatic, so, IMO, the value of listening to someone else read my work would be very limited.


----------



## Sam (May 17, 2016)

Jack of all trades said:


> Once again, I am working with someone I know and trust. Not a random person. Not a back stabbing competitor.
> 
> I find it helpful to both read my work aloud and have someone else read it aloud. I will continue to to do those things. And I will continue to suggest others do the same. You are free to follow the advice or ignore it, the same as everyone else.



I'm sorry, is your name Randy Mordoc or Patrick? 

I wasn't talking to you.


----------



## Newman (May 17, 2016)

Randy_Mordoc said:


> Is being critiqued essential to becoming a better writer? Or is it possible to improve without it?
> 
> 
> 
> I ask because it's been my experience that getting critiques can get very hard.



 I see it as feedback. Don't take it personally.


----------



## LOLeah (May 17, 2016)

I guess it depends on what your ultimate writing goals are. You can improve your writing without critiques, yes, in my opinion. The question for me would become "Can I improve my writing enough to produce something marketable without feedback?" And for myself the answer to that is a resounding "no".


----------



## Randy_Mordoc (May 17, 2016)

Thanks for all the replies, everyone!


----------



## Miranda de la Costa (May 24, 2016)

I started writing by the time I was around 10 to 12 years old. I'm 28 now and when I go back and read some of the stuff that I wrote it's downright laughable. I honestly believe that age can play a factor in how well you write. Practice and reading books definitely help. However, I also believe that as writers we are biased on what we write and another person can be that neutral voice of reason we lack for ourselves. We are own worst critics yet we are our own biggest cheerleaders who frown upon those we feel are attacking our work (our babies) when they're just trying to help us improve.


----------



## Kyle R (May 24, 2016)

Feedback can be great—I just make sure to get it from various sources. For me, a mixture of feedback from both writers and non-writers is ideal. Writers tend to comment more on technical aspects of the story, such as prose and execution. Non-writers tend to focus more on how the story/characters make them feel. Both kinds of feedback are valuable.

Also, just because someone dislikes something about your writing, that doesn't mean you have to immediately whip out the red pen and change it. That very thing that one reader dislikes could be the same thing that another reader loves. Weigh and consider all the feedback you get, absolutely! But reserve the right to dismiss any constructive criticism if you feel it doesn't work for you.

If you get many different readers commenting on the same thing, though? That's when you know you've got something worth paying serious attention to. :encouragement:


----------



## msjhord (May 24, 2016)

I agree with Kyle.  I've gotten some feedback wherein one person has panned something I did but the general consensus was different.  

Just have thick skin and be willing to do whatever it takes to make yourself better.  That's not to be confused with kow-towing to the masses at the expense of artistic integrity.


----------



## Darkkin (May 24, 2016)

Critique is essential to learning.  Does it sting, oftentimes yes, but there is vital information to be gleaned because critiquers are looking at your work from an impartial perspective.  And it is that perspective that allows them to see things we, as authors, might otherwise miss.  

As with everything there will be extremes from people proclaiming a piece perfect to those that dissect every word.  I actually ended up with a critique that wailed on every single word I used, the order in which I used it, and the story of which those words spoke.  A twenty-seven stanza tercet poem that ended up with a 10,000 + word critique, (not on this site...)  

The reply was so glaringly overblown that I couldn't help but laugh.  I said thank you, bookmarked it as a stunning example of what not to do in a critique and moved on.  I did end up receiving several nasty PMs demanding to know why I had not refashioned my poem in keeping with the wisdom of their critique...I then PMed a critique of their critique and that was the end of it.  In thread critique on critique is a pet peeve of mine, so I refrain from doing so, but I will admit to learning quite a bit from the reverse engineering of that particular critique.

Keep a shaker of salt handy and your critical thinking skills sharp because a good critiquer will be able to quantify why something does or does not work.  And you as an author, have a right to question critique if something is not clear.  Look for the reasoning and run through it logically.  Does what they're saying make sense?  If yes, then they probably have a valid observation.


----------



## Nicholas McConnaughay (May 24, 2016)

It depends on what you're looking to accomplish. Every writer is different. There is a plethora of writers who I don't enjoy, that are enjoyed by millions, and vice versa. In the end, there are two things that reasonably matter. If you want to make a living as a writer, it's about making others like your work. If you write because it's your passion, it's about you liking your work. A happy-medium is ideal and if you can satisfy both, nothing else really matters.

I find that I am my biggest critic. It works to my benefit and detriment. I have to be happy with it. And, when it's released, I'll take careful note of the response and apply it to my own insecure paranoia for the next book


----------



## RhythmOvPain (May 24, 2016)

Critique is the most gratifying complement a writer really gets IMO.

Good solid critique.

Still, development starts inside of you.

Read. Remember not the story, but the sentence structure. Read up on punctuation and parts of speech.

Eventually, you'll actually learn something.

Apply everything where necessary. Perfect your work in your own vision.

Critique has to be earned. No one wants to sit and read boring tripe. At the same time, people want to be able to read it.

When you take into account the rules of writing (and especially how flexible they are), you can articulate your writing much more proficiently.

It will boost your confidence in what you're writing when you look at a paragraph and think to yourself... _I could rewrite this thing three different ways._

When you have mastered the art of writing coherently AND cohesively, the story stands on its own merit. 

Critique is then the icing on the cake; whatever you didn't get quite right, someone else can check with a fresh eye and perspective.

Damned be all if a well written story doesn't generate more in-depth critiquing about what really matters: the plot.


----------



## Bard_Daniel (May 24, 2016)

I firmly believe that critiques can help your writing. They can clue you in to what is, and is not, working quicker than you would be able to ascertain. 

I also believe that you need to keep writing and experimenting and tinkering (on your own) to make yourself a better writer at the same time. You need to put the effort in. 

So while it's possible to improve on your own I would recommend, especially for those budding writers, going the critique route. It's always good to have another set of eyes on the slate.


----------



## Arrakis (Sep 16, 2016)

In mine opinion, it takes a very rare artist to improve without critique, for most "artists" are satisfied with their knowledge and think their work is top-notch. Writers whom are their own worst critics, such as mineself, are always challenging themselves and questioning their opinions--and thus are naturally open to improvement.

However, despite mine advanced level and natural talent (not bragging, just explaining), even I didn't become topnotch without an intellectual bottom-flogging. Ergo, improving without critique, in mine opinion, is like growing up parentless; without that greater guide to affirm and support you, you wouldn't know which path to take, or if you're taking the proper strides. It's very possible, but you'd need lots of loopholes and inner potential. That said, if you ask me, it's just easier to lose your pride and take the bottom-flogging.


----------



## Annoying kid (Sep 16, 2016)

I just limit the critiques I request to concepts. I don't post actual work for review. I find that more efficient.
The only writing on the pages is dialogue and even then not much usually, which without context, doesn't lend itself well to the typical correctional critique.


----------

