# Critiques - a weeeee warning!



## MikeCobley (Aug 21, 2018)

We all need critiques for our work, to help us grow as writers.
But be warned. We are all critiquers at heart, that does _not_ make us good ones. Some will try to give advice purely cause they feel as though they have to provide something to help. (Which is not always the case)
I my experience the best critquers were those that could give feedback based on what i had asked. So if someone wants to read it to give feedback - if its early stages - i might say, 'Of course' looking for help on story direction and character development - NOT GRAMMAR. And if they come back with grammar mistakes, then i know they are probably not what i am looking for.
It is very easy for writers to _worry_ about their work, hell i know i do. The easiest part for me, is to just keep writing!
Good luck all!
Rgds


----------



## Pluralized (Aug 26, 2018)

In my experience the most valuable feedback comes when I don't ask for specific details but let the critiques happen organically. When you ask for specific help on a specific element, such as dialogue or setting believability or whatever, you tend to 'color' the way people read it. Let your work stand on its own and see what the feedback looks like. Generally if there are elements lacking you will hear about it. Conversely, minor things you may have agonized over could be just fine and not as important. Listen to the hive mind.


----------



## Ralph Rotten (Aug 26, 2018)

There is a real artform to giving effective feedback.
1) Find something they did right, praise it and let them know that thing was good.
2) Then administer a shot-glass of couched advice or feedback.
3) If they seem open to that, then you can give them another shot of advice.

On the flipside, there is an artform to TAKING feedback.
1) SHUT UP UNTIL THEY ARE DONE WITH THEIR CRITIQUE. Do not argue with them; the reader is always right. If they didn't understand your story then you did not write it properly.*
2) Once they are done, then you can ask questions like:
     a) Who was your favorite character?
     b) Were there any areas that were confusing or bad?
     c) Were there any characters that weren't well-written, that did not create an image in your mind?
     d) Were there any boring parts?







*Arguing with someone during a critique will cause them to clam up, and you will get no more useful feedback from them. Shut your mouth and open your ears, even if it is painful.


----------



## QuixoteDelMar (Aug 26, 2018)

I don't have a problem taking critiques. A brief flash of irritation, a few moments of melancholy, and then the necessary evaluation to see what they're on about. Almost always, they have a point, so I try not to argue. I do try to explain myself though, which may accidentally bleed into a stand-offish tone.

My issue is in giving critiques - I feel like I rarely, if ever, have anything of value to contribute, or someone else has already flsaid whatever I was going to say. I don't like posting just to say ditto, so I don't.

My biggest issue comes from corrections - I cannot, ever, tell you _why_ something should be written that way, only that it should. Downside to doing it by instinct, rather than education. I only know how other people write; I'm just aping them.

I don't feel like I have any credibility, is what I'm saying.


----------



## Winston (Aug 26, 2018)

Ralph Rotten said:


> There is a real artform to giving effective feedback.
> 1) Find something they did right, praise it and let them know that thing was good.
> 2) Then administer a shot-glass of couched advice or feedback.
> 3) If they seem open to that, then you can give them another shot of advice...



As a manager, we called that "dishing out a poop sandwich".
No one want's the poop, but if you serve it between a couple of slices of "nice", it's more digestible.

Example:
"I really like the piece overall.  Your tone is appropriate and your voice is clear.
However, your characters are as flat as a molecule thick sheet of carbon fiber.
Work on your character development and I see a lot of promise in this!"


----------



## Sam (Aug 26, 2018)

If you only get feedback based on what you've asked for, then critiquers only look for what you've asked for. 

In doing that, they miss the numerous problems they weren't looking for. Ergo, you get a quarter of a critique. The best critiques look at everything, including grammar, and you get a whole critique.


----------



## Ralph Rotten (Aug 26, 2018)

Sam said:


> If you only get feedback based on what you've asked for, then critiquers only look for what you've asked for.
> 
> In doing that, they miss the numerous problems they weren't looking for. Ergo, you get a quarter of a critique. The best critiques look at everything, including grammar, and you get a whole critique.




It's really best to stick to the big stuff, or you risk overloading the recipient. They get so much feedback they either become depressed, or they don't even know where to start. Usually writers need to focus on the big-ticket items: character development, interesting story that flows, not boring the reader...

Unless it is a written critique the recipient will forget half of the stuff.


----------



## Sir-KP (Aug 26, 2018)

I'm the type who doesn't like seeing my own work, but I do love critics and comments. 

Like OP said, however, we are all critiquers at heart. This means everyone can critique. And just like everyone can write, that doesn't mean they always give quality.

I draw stuff way long before I started to write and people sure love to give comments and critiques without being asked. Some dropped pure innocent opinions, others give a constructive criticism, many others also just want to trash talk while acting like they are pro.

Hence personally I think we have to be selective of critiques, not only what's given, but also who gives it.


----------



## Ralph Rotten (Aug 27, 2018)

Sir-KP said:


> Hence personally I think we have to be selective of critiques, not only what's given, but also who gives it.




That's the second part of receiving feedback; how to deal with suggestions.

*Here's the deal; *you can get valuable feedback from any reader, but it is not all weighted the same.
If Steven King gives you feedback then you can consider it gospel.
If your neighbor Bob gives feedback then you have to look for the deeper meaning.

*Here's an example: *Bob recommends an alternate ending.
Translation: Your ending left Bob wanting to the point that he thought he could write a better ending. _No, you don't implement Bob's halfwit idea_, but you do need to think of a better ending because the one you wrote _ain't blowing up no one's skirts_.
If people are making suggestions about changes to your storyline, then it means those parts were either underwhelming or predictable.


I prefer to compile groups of recommendations to see if there is a pattern. I would never change a story just based on Bob's recommendation because Bob could be an idiot.  But if three beta readers say the same thing, then I give it serious consideration because there is a clear pattern to what they are saying.  But I'd never implement anything they suggest because the story needs to be something that readers were *NOT *expecting.


----------



## Kyle R (Aug 27, 2018)

I find it best to receive feedback from the kinds of readers that your writing's aimed at. If you're writing for teens, for example—get some feedback from actual teens.

You'll see this often (on various writing communities throughout the internet): someone says, "Here's a piece of my MG/YA Fantasy that I'm working on. Would love your input!"

Then you'll inevitably get responses that start with, "I don't read MG/YA, or Fantasy, but here's what I think about your writing ..." :grief:

And sure, it still helps to get varied opinions. But it's even better (in my opinion) to get opinions that represent the kind of audience you're aiming for.

I also find that there's a difference between feedback from other _writers_, and feedback from _non_-writers. Writers can (and usually do) give attentive feedback, though it's generally related to the craft. Non-writers tend to focus their commentary on how things made them _feel_, and what they thought of the characters.

Sometimes it's better to get one over the other. :encouragement:


----------



## Nelson (Aug 27, 2018)

I remember one time I had a number of people critique a piece of writing I was working on about three, maybe four years ago. All of them enjoyed and loved what I had wrote, except for ONE person. She completely ripped apart what I had done, and then admitted "I don't normally read this genre anyway, so its really not for me." 

I was incensed. Rightly or wrongly depending on your view, I was infuriated that she felt the need to completely destroy what I had worked on and then say it wasn't her genre! I'm sorry, but I don't like romance novels or anything of that calibre so as a consequence, I won't critique them myself because I don't consider my input to be valid/fair in a genre that I myself do not enjoy and thus do not read. Needless to say, despite the glowing praise and encouragement from the others, that one negative critique stuck with me and pretty much crushed my confidence. I was having a bad time with life in general with issues at work and not being happy with where I was and writing was my only escape. I would come home in the evenings, exhausted and unable to write because I felt I was wasting my time and wasn't really any good, issues at work compounded it because I couldn't relax and focus. 
I know that you are not going to please everyone with what you write, and that is par for the course you have to roll with the punches. It took me just over a YEAR to regain my confidence where I could write and say to myself "if someone doesn't like it, then that's there prerogative!" and I think I have come out better for it. 

Critique is fine as long as you are fair, not abusive/crushing to the writer who's work you are critiquing. Keep it constructive and as helpful as possible, encourage the individual. Don't crush them, because that's just not cricket! What I have just said may be obvious, at least it is to me, but I think sometimes other writers forget that.


----------



## Terry D (Aug 27, 2018)

If you get a bad critique take from it what makes sense to you and disregard the rest. It makes no sense at all to whine about someone's impression of your work.


----------



## Bayview (Aug 27, 2018)

Nelson said:


> I remember one time I had a number of people critique a piece of writing I was working on about three, maybe four years ago. All of them enjoyed and loved what I had wrote, except for ONE person. She completely ripped apart what I had done, and then admitted "I don't normally read this genre anyway, so its really not for me."



Looking back - was she right?


----------



## Ralph Rotten (Aug 27, 2018)

Nelson said:


> I remember one time I had a number of people critique a piece of writing I was working on about three, maybe four years ago. All of them enjoyed and loved what I had wrote, except for ONE person. She completely ripped apart what I had done, and then admitted "I don't normally read this genre anyway, so its really not for me."
> 
> I was incensed. Rightly or wrongly depending on your view, I was infuriated that she felt the need to completely destroy what I had worked on and then say it wasn't her genre! I'm sorry, but I don't like romance novels or anything of that calibre so as a consequence, I won't critique them myself because I don't consider my input to be valid/fair in a genre that I myself do not enjoy and thus do not read. Needless to say, despite the glowing praise and encouragement from the others, that one negative critique stuck with me and pretty much crushed my confidence. I was having a bad time with life in general with issues at work and not being happy with where I was and writing was my only escape. I would come home in the evenings, exhausted and unable to write because I felt I was wasting my time and wasn't really any good, issues at work compounded it because I couldn't relax and focus.
> I know that you are not going to please everyone with what you write, and that is par for the course you have to roll with the punches. It took me just over a YEAR to regain my confidence where I could write and say to myself "if someone doesn't like it, then that's there prerogative!" and I think I have come out better for it.
> ...





This is a prime example of why the rules I posted were so valuable. There might have been a nugget of truth to what she was saying, but after 10 minutes of tearing up your book you prolly lost track & stopped listening.
That's why rule number 1 (of the giving critiques list) is so important.
Build them up at the beginning, then give a shot glass of advice. No one wants to eat a breadless shit sandwich.



But back to BV's question: How did it work?


----------



## Jack of all trades (Aug 28, 2018)

There is no one person whose feedback is gospel, and that includes me, so feel free to ignore what doesn't resonate with you. 

It can be hard to put a seriously negative "critique" behind you. The upside to such an experience is that when your book is being reviewed by a big shot, say for the New York Times, you'll be better prepared in the event the reviewer loves trashing new authors.

Since this is an online forum, and everything is written, I wonder why verbal critiques are being given so much attention in this thread.

Getting to know the person giving you feedback is important. Feedback from someone who doesn't care for your genre or whose work you dislike should be viewed a little differently than someone whose work you enjoy. 

Personally I find I get more helpful feedback from those who are not writers. Readers tell you what works and what doesn't without trying to reform it in their own style. Writers, in my experience, have a tendency to think in terms of how they would write the piece. Maybe there's legitimate information, but maybe it's just style preference. It can be difficult, especially for those new to being critiqued, to tell the difference. When you find a reader who gives valuable feedback, nuture that relationship! Show gratitude, avoid being demanding, and accept the feedback graciously.


----------



## Ralph Rotten (Aug 28, 2018)

To me, I prefer beta readers that are avid readers. Someone who reads 3 books a year in your genre is not as good as someone who reads 100 books a year in any genre.
Experienced readers make waaaay better beta testers.


----------



## Jack of all trades (Aug 30, 2018)

Ralph Rotten said:


> To me, I prefer beta readers that are avid readers. Someone who reads 3 books a year in your genre is not as good as someone who reads 100 books a year in any genre.
> Experienced readers make waaaay better beta testers.



My best beta reader doesn't read books in my genre -- except mine.

I don't think there's a rule as to what type of reader makes the best beta reader. I do prefer readers to writers, but to each his own.

What was the original question/comment?


----------



## luckyscars (Aug 30, 2018)

Guys I have to say I find it disappointing to encounter so many viewpoints treating negative criticism as some kind of burden and/or applying ridiculous notions of certain readers being more qualified to assess work than others. 

What does genre have to do with it? I don't read any romance but I guarantee I'd be able to tell the difference between a terrible romance novel and a good one. The only thing knowledge of a genre is useful for is picking out the cliches and tropes. That's great for pure trivia, but I can't see why that would affect your ability as a critic to sort the wheat from the chaff. Please explain it?

Nobody owes your work a fair trial. It is a huge red flag to me when I come across any writer unable to take criticism that is blunt, dismissive, unqualified or downright vindictive with anything other than a smile.


----------



## Theglasshouse (Aug 30, 2018)

Leec was very honest with my writing. Honesty is a desired trait that all writers need in critiques. I now know I must read all my work outloud line by line. But I will take some other measures to make it less work for me to do. If you have no honesty you cannot grow as a writer, and you may find the wrong advice given will stunt your growth. Because of that quality, which is hard to detect you may waste years with a select group of critiquers. For example my choppy sentences I can write at times, need to be edited line by line. I don't know why that is. But I made a very big effort today, and finished it. Leec told me it was choppy and I didn't know until he gave an example. Encouragment is needed in writing though to help a writer be nurtured, and I agreed with some posts on that part of the discussion.


----------



## Bayview (Aug 30, 2018)

luckyscars said:


> G\What does genre have to do with it? I don't read any romance but I guarantee I'd be able to tell the difference between a terrible romance novel and a good one. The only thing knowledge of a genre is useful for is picking out the cliches and tropes. That's great for pure trivia, but I can't see why that would affect your ability as a critic to sort the wheat from the chaff. Please explain it?



Really? You GUARANTEE you could tell the difference between a "terrible" Romance novel and a "good" one?

Maybe, if you're using non-Romance standards for your definition. But if you're not? I've been writing and reading in the genre for almost a decade, and I'm still struggling to accept what many romance readers would define as "good". I've been stunned, over and over again, by the books that become best sellers in the genre. And, as I said, I've been reading and writing in the genre for almost a decade.

So... tell me. What are the qualities  you see in a "good" romance that you don't see in a "terrible" romance?


----------



## luckyscars (Aug 31, 2018)

Bayview said:


> Really? You GUARANTEE you could tell the difference between a "terrible" Romance novel and a "good" one?
> 
> Maybe, if you're using non-Romance standards for your definition. But if you're not? I've been writing and reading in the genre for almost a decade, and I'm still struggling to accept what many romance readers would define as "good". I've been stunned, over and over again, by the books that become best sellers in the genre. And, as I said, I've been reading and writing in the genre for almost a decade.
> 
> So... tell me. What are the qualities  you see in a "good" romance that you don't see in a "terrible" romance?



First I would need you to identify what you mean by "using non-romance standards".

I don't know what that means because I don't recognize substantial differences between what qualifies as good writing in terms of romance and what identifies as good writing in terms of, say, horror. That is, as noted, besides a different buffet of tropes and "typically this happens", none of which I should be required to know up front, should I? Perhaps you should tell me...why do _you _think I need to know anything about "romance standards" to be able say with certainty if it is a good, well-written story?

Let me put it this way: I don't much like romance as a broad genre but I do like several novels that fall into the category and there are several romance novels I have read that I really don't like. Broadly speaking I _think _most (though by no means all of course) of what I would consider really good or really bad within that genre, as somebody who does not know much about it at all, would probably more or less align with your view as somebody who clearly does. We will, naturally, have differences due to taste and personal preference and maybe you'll be able to view the work in terms of a bigger picture because you have other books with which to compare it. But the point is we probably won't have major differences as to whether it sucks or does not suck because you "know romance".  

Yeah, there are some real stinkers in terms of what becomes best sellers and, yep, I am similarly befuddled by that. I must say I always think best seller lists are rather poor indicators of quality, partly because books that receive heavy marketing or come from recognized publishers or receive a ringing endorsement will usually achieve plenty of sales regardless. Perhaps a fairer way of doing it would be to create a composite rank based on sales, reader reviews and those of critics but that's a topic for another day...


----------



## Bayview (Aug 31, 2018)

luckyscars said:


> First I would need you to identify what you mean by "using non-romance standards".
> 
> I don't know what that means because I don't recognize substantial differences between what qualifies as good writing in terms of romance and what identifies as good writing in terms of, say, horror. That is, as noted, besides a different buffet of tropes and "typically this happens", none of which I should be required to know up front, should I? Perhaps you should tell me...why do _you _think I need to know anything about "romance standards" to be able say with certainty if it is a good, well-written story?
> 
> ...



I don't think I know another what way to decide what's well-written besides looking at what seems to have reached a large number of readers (ie. best sellers). What criteria are you using?


----------



## luckyscars (Aug 31, 2018)

Bayview said:


> I don't think I know another what way to decide what's well-written besides looking at what seems to have reached a large number of readers (ie. best sellers). What criteria are you using?



What do I need any criteria for? I think most of us, at least within our cultural enclaves, have a pretty good common understanding of what competent writing is and isn't, don't we? 

I don't need to look at the all-time sales list or use any metric to say with absolute certainty that, say, Wuthering Heights is an very well-written romance novel and Fifty Shades Of Grey is not. I feel able to say that and know I am _probably _on the same lines as the overwhelming majority of sound-minded readers are. All one need do is read the workshop critiques and discussion threads on this forum to see that for the most part people do overwhelmingly agree when it comes to saying if work is good or not good. For all the arguing, most of it comes down to details and processes; the odd statement or term and its supposed meaning or relevance. Stylistic choices and minor misgivings. This is, of course, what you and I are now doing...

But yeah, I think I can make that call. I'm not saying _you _need to believe me. I don't critique work to force my view on anybody, I do it partly to explore my own interpretation in more detail and mostly to share feedback with the author when driven to, which they can then dismiss if they want to. I know you and I may disagree vastly on the precise merits of any given work and prefer certain aspects, but we will probably never disagree on whether a given piece is well-written or not. "Well-written" isn't quite the same as assessing if the book in question is_ enjoyable_ (some enjoyable books aren't very well written, which likely explains those bestsellers you hate) but it's the most objective, rational way I know to talk about it.


----------



## Bayview (Aug 31, 2018)

luckyscars said:


> What do I need any criteria for? I think most of us, at least within our cultural enclaves, have a pretty good common understanding of what competent writing is and isn't, don't we?
> 
> I don't need to look at the all-time sales list or use any metric to say with absolute certainty that, say, Wuthering Heights is an very well-written romance novel and Fifty Shades Of Grey is not. I feel able to say that and know I am _probably _on the same lines as the overwhelming majority of sound-minded readers are. All one need do is read the workshop critiques and discussion threads on this forum to see that for the most part people do overwhelmingly agree when it comes to saying if work is good or not good. For all the arguing, most of it comes down to details and processes; the odd statement or term and its supposed meaning or relevance. Stylistic choices and minor misgivings. This is, of course, what you and I are now doing...
> 
> But yeah, I think I can make that call. I'm not saying _you _need to believe me. I don't critique work to force my view on anybody, I do it partly to explore my own interpretation in more detail and mostly to share feedback with the author when driven to, which they can then dismiss if they want to. I know you and I may disagree vastly on the precise merits of any given work and prefer certain aspects, but we will probably never disagree on whether a given piece is well-written or not. "Well-written" isn't quite the same as assessing if the book in question is_ enjoyable_ (some enjoyable books aren't very well written, which likely explains those bestsellers you hate) but it's the most objective, rational way I know to talk about it.



By modern standards _Wuthering Heights_ isn't a romance novel at all, so... I think things like that show how at least _some _genre knowledge comes in handy.

In terms of other criteria, I struggle with the idea of "well written" in general, largely because of books like _50 Shades_. I've never read it, but I agree with you that I don't think I'd consider it well-written. But it's obviously been ridiculously successful, so it's doing _something_ right. Might a fan of erotic romance be better at identifying what that something is, and recognizing its presence or lack in a piece they're reading, than you and I would be? Given that I still have no real understanding of why the book was such a success, I can only assume the fan would do a better job...


----------



## Kevin (Aug 31, 2018)

Just a small aside- Not being a fan of Fifty Shades, myself, but being a fan of sex (in a general, 'perfunctory' sort of way) I'd say that what the book provides is titillation which I call 'tits'. Sex being so popular, I think I can understand why some or many might like- mm- tits. I have also asked my numerous S&M friends about it, that book, and what they say is that the book is not real S&M , but more in the 'chic lit' category. I don't quite get that, what small gum means and how it relates to female perspective romance (apparently a very popular, successful genre as far as sales), but my numerous friends assure me that Fiftyshades is not real S&M, but like false tits as far they're concerned. So there's that...


----------



## luckyscars (Aug 31, 2018)

Bayview said:


> By modern standards _Wuthering Heights_ isn't a romance novel at all, so... I think things like that show how at least _some _genre knowledge comes in handy.



...OR it shows that genre is actually totally unimportant when it comes determining whether a book works or does not work.

 I happen to agree with you, actually. I don't _think_ of Wuthering Heights as a romance novel either. I used it simply because I couldn't think of an example of a good romance novel that I had read so I typed in "romance novels" and it came up near the top of the list on Google Books. In actual fact I have no idea what genre it is - Paranormal? Rural drama? Family saga? I don't know. I doubt Bronte did...

What I do know is it's pretty well _written.
_
I know the core purpose of a romantic book is to portray romantic love between two characters. The only point I have (intentionally) made is I have yet to see how knowing a genre has any bearing on one's ability to distinguish between good and bad _writing.

_I am sure you know the romance market. I am sure you know how to sell it and in a critiquing scenario, presumably, harbor far more passion and interest for the subject matter than I would. I assume you would be able to provide detailed points of comparison with other works. That is great, by the way, and I totally respect it. I imagine all that is absolutely vital from an author's standpoint. But from the standpoint of a discerning reader there simply to offer a basic yay-or-nay opinion as to whether the story works, I would like you to enlighten me as to what this "knowledge" does?

So go ahead: What, in your opinion, does knowing a genre have to do with deciding if a plot is engaging? What does it have to do with determining if the characters captivating and believable? Or the narrative achieving of a purpose? I am a little worried....does my admitted ignorance of _this genre _mean I should absolutely not be offering any critique of stories that fall into their category? Would I be unable to give an accurate assessment as to whether its good or not? Does the fact I probably read about 30-50 books in an average year and don't particularly study them as cliques indeed make me less qualified to critique a romance than, say, somebody who has read exactly five novels in their life but those five happened to be romances? Why not? They probably have more "genre knowledge"...

That appears to be exactly what you are saying, or at least implying, and it makes no sense. In any case, since you don't seem to want to tell me what these "romance standards" you constantly refer to actually entail, and I don't know where to find them for myself, I have no means to engage further.



Bayview said:


> In terms of other criteria, I struggle with the idea of "well written" in general, largely because of books like _50 Shades_. I've never read it, but I agree with you that I don't think I'd consider it well-written. But it's obviously been ridiculously successful, so it's doing _something_ right. Might a fan of erotic romance be better at identifying what that something is, and recognizing its presence or lack in a piece they're reading, than you and I would be? Given that I still have no real understanding of why the book was such a success, I can only assume the fan would do a better job...



I know nothing about erotica but I don't think that is a mystery at all. In my last post I stated that well-written books aren't necessarily enjoyable and vice versa. Fifty Shades is obviously enjoyable. Heck, I enjoyed it as a kind of spectacle. As far as its propensity to arouse I would imagine it is certainly acceptable. As far as popularity as a measure of quality, I would imagine many pornographic videos attract far more viewers than Oscar-winning films and yet nobody in their right mind is going to seriously say _Debbie Does Dallas _has better production values, is better written, than_ Citizen Kane_...are they?

I am not here to say that Fifty Shades is a less enjoyable than Wuthering Heights or Don Quixote or whatever else. Quite the opposite, actually. Depending on the - ahem - needs of the reader Fifty Shades may well hit a proverbial spot. Fine. That doesn't make it good writing*

If I need to explain my assessment (and I don't think that I do) all I need to do is refer to a extract like this: ""_His tone is so... so directorial, his usual control freak. I imagine him as an old-time movie director wearing jodhpurs, holding an old-fashioned megaphone and a riding crop. The image makes me laugh out loud_" and politely ask whoever is defending EL James's quality of writing to please give me a hit of whatever they're smoking.


----------



## Kyle R (Sep 1, 2018)

luckyscars said:


> I am a little worried....does my admitted ignorance of _this genre _mean I should absolutely not be offering any critique of stories that fall into their category? Would I be unable to give an accurate assessment as to whether its good or not?



I don't believe ignorance of a genre should automatically disqualify someone from giving feedback—but it _does_ likely mean that the individual doesn't line up with the book's intended audience (which further means that their likes and dislikes probably won't completely jive with the likes and dislikes of the book's intended readers).

It's still nice to get varying opinions, of course! But if I'm a steakhouse chef perusing my restaurant's reviews, I'll certainly be more interested in the opinion of a self-described "steak enthusiast"—and far less interested in the opinion of a self-admitted vegetarian. :nonchalance:


----------



## luckyscars (Sep 1, 2018)

Kyle R said:


> I don't believe ignorance of a genre should automatically disqualify someone from giving feedback—but it _does_ likely mean that the individual doesn't line up with the book's intended audience (which further means that their likes and dislikes probably won't completely jive with the likes and dislikes of the book's intended readers).
> 
> It's still nice to get varying opinions, of course! But if I'm a steakhouse chef perusing my restaurant's reviews, I'll certainly be more interested in the opinion of a self-described "steak enthusiast"—and far less interested in the opinion of a self-admitted vegetarian. :nonchalance:



I often feel exactly this way when I read reviews of children's books written by middle-aged professional critics who one must assume cannot possibly look at work from the same point of view as a ten year old.

When we are talking detailed critique which goes beyond what is merely on the page to make statements about where work might place in the industry, I agree. That should be left to those who know the market, either because they write in it, publish in it, or read and fund it. I would never try to tell a horror author "I think readers would really love the originality of the monster" or an LGBT-romance author "I think the relationship between Steve and David seems watered down to the point it would only be enjoyed by hetero-women" because those are the kinds of statements that require knowledge of the market. When I receive such wisdom myself, I tend to do some digging into the qualifications of the author. That is not exactly the kind of critique I am talking about, though. 

You mention a vegetarian at a steakhouse. I can take that point absolutely. But I think a vegetarian at a steakhouse can still say whether a restaurant is _good_ or _not, _can't they? Specifically they can still rate the service, the drinks, the decor, the ambiance, the overall cleanliness, and make a full assessment of any dish that doesn't contain meat (and presumably a _really _good assessment of vegetarian-friendly options), all of which a restaurateur would still be interested in as these things are as fundamental to their business as the steak. They can see and _smell_ the steak on a passing plate if they wanted to, can probably tell if its under-cooked or over-cooked and how it is presented. I think you're 100% right that the chef would not be as interested in the finer points of what they may say about the steak itself (I know this, actually, having worked in such a place once) but vegetarian or not they are still a customer. Still as equipped as anybody else to say whether the establishment as a package is viable.

Counter example: I assume you know nothing about sculpture. I don't. But I assume we both know with near-total ignorance that something like Michelangelo's _David _is a better sculpture than a five year old's clay modelings. We can say that. Yeah, it's two ends of an extreme - but that is what I am talking about when I say "well-written" is not that hard a concept to critique. I am not intending on preaching ignorance, but when it comes to writing I do think most sound-minded, moderately-educated people are more than capable of judging a book as being readable or not. Usually our attention span does this for us anyway.


----------



## Bayview (Sep 1, 2018)

luckyscars said:


> ...OR it shows that genre is actually totally unimportant when it comes determining whether a book works or does not work.



I don't think "work" is the same as "well-written". I mean, _50 Shades _clearly WORKED like a damn mule. Extremely effective writing. Did its job and then some. But I don't think you'd consider it well-written.

So, if we're going to have this discussion, do you want to stick with "well-written", or should we go with "works"?


> I know the core purpose of a romantic book is to portray romantic love between two characters. The only point I have (intentionally) made is I have yet to see how knowing a genre has any bearing on one's ability to distinguish between good and bad _writing._


I realize we're stumbling into the land of semantics, but... when you say "writing", do you mean the ability to string words together in a pleasing way, or do you mean the entire show? Characterization, setting, plot, mood, etc.? If the first, I more-or-less agree with you except I'd say there are conventions in different genres that do seem to affect the definition of "pleasing". A lot of hard sci-fi uses more jargon than a lot of other genres, a lot of romance uses more flowery description than other genres, a lot of fantasy uses more made-up words, etc. But these are details.

When you get to the larger issues, though? I think there are a lot of genre-specific conventions that come into play. For characterization? There's a subset of romance (not one I care for at all) that more-or-less specializes in alphahole characters. The heroes often do things that are, to my tastes, absolutely appalling. They stalk, they manipulate, they control, they're violent... they're horrible human beings, to my taste. But the readers of that sub-genre love 'em.

In a similar note, I tend to find action-genre heroes absolutely ridiculous and often offensive, but clearly many readers don't agree; I feel as if characterization in general is too-often missing from hard scifi; etc. Different genres appeal to different readers _for a reason_.

If I'm reading an action-adventure novel and I say I find the main character repellent because he resorts to violence too quickly, and if the author of the novel takes my opinion to heart, I've done that author a disservice. The author is writing to genre expectations, and I'm advising her to write to _my_ expectations, and they just don't match.



> ...But from the standpoint of a discerning reader there simply to offer a basic yay-or-nay opinion as to whether the story works, I would like you to enlighten me as to what this "knowledge" does?



Back to "works". To me, "works" is in the eye of the reader. Stuff that works for one reader will not work for another. Again, that's why genres _exist_, because some writing works for some of us and not for others of us.



> ... Does the fact I probably read about 30-50 books in an average year and don't particularly study them as cliques indeed make me less qualified to critique a romance than, say, somebody who has read exactly five novels in their life but those five happened to be romances? Why not? They probably have more "genre knowledge"...



If those were my only two choices for readers and I was only allowed to choose one of them, yes, I'd probably choose the one who does more reading overall. But... I don't think I've ever suggested anything nearly as extreme as the setup you're proposing? I mean, for my own extreme setup... Does the fact that I probably read about 20-30 _romances_ in an average year and then another 20-30 other books from other genres NOT make me more qualified to critique Romance than someone who has only read one book in his whole life and it was "Curious George" and who is, in fact, an actual monkey? Not really a fair setup, right?

So how about a reader who reads 50 romances a year vs a reader who reads 50 scifi novels a year? Again, I don't think we need to choose only one person in real life, but for this setup, if I've written a romance novel and DO have to pick only one reader? I'll probably pick the romance reader. Wouldn't you?



> That appears to be exactly what you are saying, or at least implying, and it makes no sense. In any case, since you don't seem to want to tell me what these "romance standards" you constantly refer to actually entail, and I don't know where to find them for myself, I have no means to engage further.



I'm not sure I've been _constantly _referring to anything, and I don't think you've asked me what they are? I'm talking about things like, as above, alphahole heroes. Or the areas in which readers will suspend disbelief. Romance readers will suspend disbelief in terms of the power of love, SciFi readers will suspend disbelief in terms of the power of science, Fantasy readers will suspend disbelief in terms of the power of magic, etc. Are these examples enough to clarify?



> If I need to explain my assessment (and I don't think that I do) all I need to do is refer to a extract like this: ""_His tone is so... so directorial, his usual control freak. I imagine him as an old-time movie director wearing jodhpurs, holding an old-fashioned megaphone and a riding crop. The image makes me laugh out loud_" and politely ask whoever is defending EL James's quality of writing to please give me a hit of whatever they're smoking.



We're back to the semantics (sorry, but...!) when you say "writing", in this context, you seem to mean the sentence-by-sentence stuff. But elsewhere you've seemed to mean the larger issues (characterization, etc.) So it seems possible that _50 Shades_ could be weak on the line-by-line but stronger in other areas, or possibly it's weak in all areas, but nevertheless works...

I think, honestly, that may be what this discussion comes down to. I really don't believe in "well-written" as an absolute term. We've all seen the books that are currently considered classics that were dismissed when they were first released, and books that were released to great acclaim that no one wants to read anymore. So we'd at least need to introduce an element of "well-written by current standards" to the term for it to have validity. But then we see the disagreement among critics of even new releases, suggesting there's no one definition agreed upon by everyone even today. I know I've come across critically acclaimed books I thought were total crap. Not necessarily on the line-by-line level (although I've seen some people pick and choose individual lines from widely acclaimed novels and hold them up to ridicule) but certainly on the larger level of plotting, characterization, etc.

Honestly, I don't care if my work is considered "well-written". Well, that's not entirely true. I like it when people say my work is well-written, but I think that's because I translate it in my head into "this worked for me". And that, for me, is by far the more compelling point. I want my writing to work--I want people to enjoy reading it, and I want it to plant little seeds in their minds so they'll keep thinking about it long after they're done reading it.

And, back to the point... I think genre readers have a slightly better chance of saying if something is well-written according to genre expectations, as outlined above. But I think they have a_ vastly_ better chance of saying whether something "works". And since "works" is really what I'm mostly concerned with, genre readers are generally my most valuable critiquers. Doesn't mean people who don't read the genre can't say useful things. I just think it's less likely.


----------



## luckyscars (Sep 1, 2018)

Bayview said:


> So, if we're going to have this discussion...




A lot of the questions you put in your post I either know or am fairly certain I have already answered. I suspect, however, that those answers are probably getting lost due to the length of the posts. I think I may be verging on doing that also, so I am taking out anything to which you attached a firm ? and responding in a Q&A format. Hope that's okay :wink:

-*Do you want to stick with "well-written", or should we go with "works"? *I consider the terms synonymous in this case because I personally think well-written books always work. I am, however, one hundred percent referring to the quality of the discourse only. Meaning: Its SPAG, it's succinctness at telling a story, the credibility of its dialogue as involving human beings, and so on. But if it helps we can absolutely use well-written, since I am only expressing my qualifications to judge words on a page. Not genres and markets.

- *When you say "writing", do you mean the ability to string words together in a pleasing way, or do you mean the entire show? *Neither, really, at least not as far as how I understand your definitions. All I am talking about is whether I think the average, disinterested reader (which admittedly I base on myself) can become and remain engaged to what is being written. In other words, I am talking about everything that involves me as one person with the text in question. Can I make it through without wanting to put it down? The reason I dismiss genre as relevant to that is because there are lots of books in the genres I tend to like (literary fiction, thriller, crime, science fiction) that I cannot get through the first chapter of and there are actually a few books in genres I don't tend to like which I can and do find myself intrigued by. Whatever attributes facilitate that are the ones that matter.

- *I don't think I've ever suggested anything nearly as extreme as the setup you're proposing? I mean, for my own extreme setup... Does the fact that I probably read about 20-30 romances in an average year and then another 20-30 other books from other genres NOT make me more qualified to critique Romance than someone who has only read one book in his whole life and it was "Curious George" and who is, in fact, an actual monkey? Not really a fair setup, right? *No, you didn't, I was being mildly flippant...but I do see that as being the end-game once people start going in too heavy on the significance of genre and "genre-knowledge" (which was a term you used). Put it this way: People wrote and read and studied really good books for hundreds of years without any notion that knowing what genre the work was mattered or even that such genres existed. That does not mean they don't exist, but I think it means its not important to knowing and appreciating a book. Like Wuthering Heights. 

- *So how about a reader who reads 50 romances a year vs a reader who reads 50 scifi novels a year? Again, I don't think we need to choose only one person in real life, but for this setup, if I've written a romance novel and DO have to pick only one reader? I'll probably pick the romance reader. Wouldn't you?  *No, actually. At least not necessarily. There are many, probably millions, of die-hard genre aficionados who don't have any sound ability to critique writing. I come across them all the time as I'm sure you do in your genre. 

I mean, you're sort of overlooking other qualifications that person might well have, no? Somebody who reads a lot of Romance but has extreme dyslexia, a relative lack of education and a poor grasp of the English language is a poor beta reader regardless of what they read. I'm not trying to muddy the waters, I'm just saying in the grand scheme of things somebody who likes the genre is, at best, a bonus (because they might enjoy it) but there's no guarantee, zero, they will offer good critique of the writing quality on that basis. In actual fact, if we are going to conduct head-to-heads between any two prospective readers, I would say reader who is also a selling writer or successful literary agent/publishing representative is probably going to offer more useful feedback than some uber-fan of the genre.

But the fact you have genre knowledge doesn't _hurt _and I would never say that. It just doesn't in itself help either, not compared to other qualities. Put it this way: Based on your obvious intelligence I would probably rather you (who I assume reads little or no sci fi...?) critique my book than some of the dolts I have encountered at the conventions.

- *I'm not sure I've been **constantly referring to anything, and I don't think you've asked me what they are? *You brought up the notion of "romance standards" at which point I asked you to tell me what those are. The standards came up again in a later post. Hence.

The rest: You seem to be using the idea of "works" for where I previously said there is a difference between books being "enjoyable". If I replace every instance in the latter paragraphs of you referring to what works with what is enjoyable and scrub my earlier comments about how I enjoyed fifty shades as sort of titillating comedy (because that obviously isn't a sincere endorsement...) I think we are more or less speaking the same language. I think somebody who is familiar with a genre is definitely more qualified to say if something is enjoyable. Not least because they, presumably, really like the kinds of things that will probably feature in there. Somebody who likes gore will enjoy a horror novel more than somebody who likes, I don't know, handsome fellows on mountain tops. 

I don't think we are a million miles apart, I just struggle(d) to see why you found the idea that somebody who doesn't read a lot of romance can't say if something like Fifty Shades is badly written in a heartbeat without need for comparisons to genre norms. But I suppose if you don't recognize that a term like "well-written" has solid, objective meaning it's a non-starter.


----------



## Ralph Rotten (Sep 2, 2018)

Okay, so now that you two have compared penises, who has the bigger dick?
Inquiring minds wanna know.


----------



## Theglasshouse (Sep 2, 2018)

> I mean, you're sort of overlooking other qualifications that person might well have, no? Somebody who reads a lot of Romance but has extreme dyslexia, a relative lack of education and a poor grasp of the English language is a poor beta reader regardless of what they read. I'm not trying to muddy the waters, I'm just saying in the grand scheme of things somebody who likes the genre is, at best, a bonus (because they might enjoy it) but there's no guarantee, zero, they will offer good critique of the writing quality on that basis. In actual fact, if we are going to conduct head-to-heads between any two prospective readers, I would say reader who is also a selling writer or successful literary agent/publishing representative is probably going to offer more useful feedback than some uber-fan of the genre.



I disagree with this completely. Because people with dyslexia have been published. Novels are difficult to write for people like them, but having a disability doesn't make someone less intelligent or qualified to offer a critique, it makes them disabled. People who have dyslexia can have an extraordinary ability to learn. Their disability to not read affects the fact if they possess talent? In your post I question this stance. If you did a google search you would see there are famous writers with dyslexia. They exist, your question is a scientific one that needs research. Not one based on intuition and you raised some points that are based on a lack of evidence or scientific papers. It seems like a negative statment, that is a generalization in how they fail at reading and writing cannot lead to that and is jumping as a conclusion. I seem to be one of the few people with dyslexia which is why I strongly disagreed with what you said. If someone wants to write and has dyslexia it is no one's prerogative to make them stop writing. Someone tried that on me, in real life. It had some bad consequences because the person refused and became stubborn that I'd save myself myself a lot of time by not writing anything. I became enemies of him this way, since he'd be in constant disagreement and be called incoherent. He in fact wanted to keep his friends after he knew I had some mental issues afterwards. But my uncle told them since he contacted them one day. To ruin his reputation. He made endless exucses since he cared about his self image more than he cared about what he did. My aspegers is tied to on obssesion to write I realize. But that's another personaility difference I have.

Also I am getting paid a pro rate to publish a short story. What does the future hold for someone who cannot predict their own future? No one knows.

I also went to mclean high school which is one of the best schools in virginia to be in that are public.  It's located in the richest county in Virginia. It is was ranked 22 best public shcool bested by langley when I went.

Are all people with dyslexia poor critiquers? I say that doesn't sound true to me.


----------

