|
sebmojo posted:Not discussing feedback you've received is an excellent rule imo. Mainly because you always feel like saying NO BUT DON'T YOU SEE and it actually doesn't matter. What your critter read is what they read and its up to you to either ignore their response (if it's pure vitriol, which is actually very rare in CC) or internalise it and learn whatever lessons it has to teach you. It's more that I had problems where the person was being very oblivious in an intentional seeming matter. For instance I remember one person told me on that same forum that when they read they treat every sentence like it has no context what so ever. Context is what makes ideas flow. It's why have paragraphs and the like for relate subjects. I know it's totally okay to ignore the idea a person has, but I feel like it's better to at least let them know for the sake of future reviews why it's an issue to be like that. Also there have been times where a person goes on about invalid points like someone cursing in a first person narrative. "You should never curse outside of quotation!" I feel like if we're really being gracious and accepting our critiques we should be able to teach the person doing the critique a little bit to help them better in their own work or in future critiques.
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2014 07:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 14:45 |
|
|
sebmojo posted:Not discussing feedback you've received is an excellent rule imo. I don't know- I like discussing feedback, because it helps clarify exactly what it is that the reader didn't like. Critters/readers are human too, and it might be possible they missed something obvious simply because they skimmed a little too fast or had their mind on other things- it's happened to me before, at any rate. A little clarification on both sides and what they want would help greatly. Besides, discussions are fun! CB_Tube_Knight posted:I remember one person told me on that same forum that when they read they treat every sentence like it has no context what so ever.  Why would anyone do this?
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2014 07:53
|
|
|
CommissarMega posted:
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2014 07:58
|
|
|
CommissarMega posted:I don't know- I like discussing feedback, because it helps clarify exactly what it is that the reader didn't like. Critters/readers are human too, and it might be possible they missed something obvious simply because they skimmed a little too fast or had their mind on other things- it's happened to me before, at any rate. A little clarification on both sides and what they want would help greatly. Besides, discussions are fun! Yeah, that's fair enough - I'd just say keep it as the exception rather than the rule. Every time someone's said something mean (=critical) about my stuff I've felt that itch to reply and invariably I'm glad I didn't. quote:
It is pretty drat dumb.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2014 07:59
|
|
|
Anathema Device posted:Does anyone else get self conscious when they write crits? I have a hard time telling when my crits are helpful, and I'm always afraid I come across poorly. Yeah, I second guess every drat thing I write in a critique so that is definitely a feeling I emphasize with. But you know, everyone has their own unique perspective on things and critiques from people with varying experiences, etc are pretty useful. Taking a chance is better than silence I think. Silence makes for a terrible crit. And yeah, harsh is the style in some of the writing threads (strangely enough, the art threads here are far more gentle) but style is just packaging. Harsh or gentle, an honest critique is a good critique. That said if you notice stuff you like, I'd definitely make mention of it. Nothing wrong with that. You don't have to change your style of critique or whatever to fit in with any trend. Just be yourself and call it as you see it. As far as critiques go, I agree 100% with Sebmojo. Someone's reaction to your work is their reaction to their work. Arguing that someone read or reacted to your work wrong is just asinine and a waste of everyone's time. Just say thank you, and if you think the advice is good use it, if it's bad then don't. You might also ask for something constructive like clarification on a point if you don't understand the critique or ask for advice on how to fix a problem but complaining is just not useful at all. JuniperCake fucked around with this message at 08:06 on Mar 21, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2014 08:03
|
|
|
sebmojo posted:Yeah, that's fair enough - I'd just say keep it as the exception rather than the rule. Every time someone's said something mean (=critical) about my stuff I've felt that itch to reply and invariably I'm glad I didn't. I think it all depends on the nature of the reply. If your response is reasonable, like say, "All right, but could you clarify what you meant when you said my dialogue was stilted?", I'm sure the resulting discussion would be very good for all involved. However, if your response is "GET OUT HATER! YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND THE LOVE I SHARE WITH SEPHIROTH!", then you may have a problem.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2014 08:05
|
|
|
CommissarMega posted:I think it all depends on the nature of the reply. If your response is reasonable, like say, "All right, but could you clarify what you meant when you said my dialogue was stilted?", I'm sure the resulting discussion would be very good for all involved. However, if your response is "GET OUT HATER! YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND THE LOVE I SHARE WITH SEPHIROTH!", then you may have a problem. Every story I write is a thousand tiny love letters to Princess Peach.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2014 08:18
|
|
|
CB_Tube_Knight posted:Every story I write is a thousand tiny love letters to Princess Peach. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2014 09:09
|
|
|
sebmojo posted:Yeah, that's fair enough - I'd just say keep it as the exception rather than the rule. Every time someone's said something mean (=critical) about my stuff I've felt that itch to reply and invariably I'm glad I didn't. I think it depends on your writer/crit relationship. I have a couple of people who a) I really trust and b) like the sort of thing I like. They can say something doesn't work, and then I say "okay, I was trying to do this," and then we work out why it didn't happen for them.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2014 12:36
|
|
|
Symptomless Coma posted:I think it depends on your writer/crit relationship. I have a couple of people who a) I really trust and b) like the sort of thing I like. They can say something doesn't work, and then I say "okay, I was trying to do this," and then we work out why it didn't happen for them. CommissarMega posted:I think it all depends on the nature of the reply. If your response is reasonable, like say, "All right, but could you clarify what you meant when you said my dialogue was stilted?", I'm sure the resulting discussion would be very good for all involved. However, if your response is "GET OUT HATER! YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND THE LOVE I SHARE WITH SEPHIROTH!", then you may have a problem. Sebmojo probably meant that if you have the urge to respond like the second reply in CommissarMega's example, you're better off simply saying, "Thanks for the crit." Even if you don't rage and froth at the mouth like a dog with rabies whenever someone criticises your work, it's still hard to resist the temptation of explaining and arguing, and trying to prove the criticism wrong.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2014 16:13
|
|
|
shooz posted:Even if you don't rage and froth at the mouth like a dog with rabies whenever someone criticises your work, it's still hard to resist the temptation of explaining and arguing, and trying to prove the criticism wrong. If I start explaining something, it's not because I think of the criticism as "wrong." No matter what, something failed to fire, and 99% of the time that's gonna be on me. (The other 1% covers unforeseeable Acts of God.) When I explain, it's with the expectation that the reader isn't going to magically see it my way; I'm simply looking for more information so I can better do my job, and I make sure that's clear to anyone offering crits.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2014 16:38
|
|
|
DivisionPost posted:If I start explaining something, it's not because I think of the criticism as "wrong." No matter what, something failed to fire, and 99% of the time that's gonna be on me. (The other 1% covers unforeseeable Acts of God.) When I explain, it's with the expectation that the reader isn't going to magically see it my way; I'm simply looking for more information so I can better do my job, and I make sure that's clear to anyone offering crits. I'm not 100 percent sure that I understand what you mean by explaining. If you mean explaining what you're aiming for, so that others can give you better advice on how to get there, then I don't think there's anything wrong with that. I never meant to imply that the one and only appropriate reply ever is "Thanks." I agree with what CommissarMega said - it's useful to ask for clarification if you don't understand why something isn't working. I can't know what other people are thinking when they respond to criticism, but I have read replies to crits that pretty much boil down to explanations on why the person giving the critique "just doesn't get it." I'm sure I've responded so myself. I never consciously try to discredit criticism, but I do have to restrain myself from trying to justify my lovely work. I shouldn't even need to explain it in the first place. My writing should, after all, be able to stand on its own without explanations. Unless of course I want to litter my work with footnotes explaining what I mean. Anyhow, I didn't intend to attack anyone's way of responding to a crit. I've just learnt more once I gave up defending my work and instead accepted that when people say it sucks, it does.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2014 19:30
|
|
|
Not discussing crits is a good rule for people you don't normally work with, like when you first join a writing class or get weirdos on the internet to look at your stuff. Your first response to a criticism is almost always something you shouldn't actually respond with. Every writer is a big baby about their work, and crits sting no matter how long you've been getting them. Once you get to know someone and you can finally internalize that no, they're not actually attacking you, you can get into more constructive conversations where you work out what went wrong together. Everyone takes a different amount of time to get to that point. Some people never get there.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2014 19:36
|
|
|
DivisionPost posted:If I start explaining something, it's not because I think of the criticism as "wrong." No matter what, something failed to fire, and 99% of the time that's gonna be on me. (The other 1% covers unforeseeable Acts of God.) When I explain, it's with the expectation that the reader isn't going to magically see it my way; I'm simply looking for more information so I can better do my job, and I make sure that's clear to anyone offering crits. Some people don't have the knowledge to properly articulate why they don't like something. Just that they do. And its important to listen why. Criticism of any type is great, and good for motivation.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2014 19:47
|
|
|
After hanging out with published writers and editors, I realized all criticism sucks in writing communities. If you get an editor to look at your stuff, they're not gonna hold your hand, but they're not gonna be assholes about it either. They'll go in and say ''this doesn't work, re-write this paragraph'' or ''cut these 10 pages out, they aren't adding anything.'' Anything that's smaller, they'll just change themselves, leaving nothing to argue about. You still learn by looking at the changes as you do your editing. Why can't crit communities do that?
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2014 19:49
|
|
|
ravenkult posted:After hanging out with published writers and editors, I realized all criticism sucks in writing communities. If you get an editor to look at your stuff, they're not gonna hold your hand, but they're not gonna be assholes about it either. They'll go in and say ''this doesn't work, re-write this paragraph'' or ''cut these 10 pages out, they aren't adding anything.'' Anything that's smaller, they'll just change themselves, leaving nothing to argue about. You still learn by looking at the changes as you do your editing. We mostly do? 90% of the crit I read here is pretty much that, with a fair sprinkling of MST3000ing on top for the peanut gallery, which I wouldn't want to lose because its hilarious. I mean Blue Squares did some content-free ranting at elfdude a while back but that was notable for how unlike the normal run it was. sebmojo fucked around with this message at 20:04 on Mar 21, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2014 20:01
|
|
|
Editors are paid to make your work better. Asking strangers to rewrite your stuff is too much. Their reactions are plenty. EDIT: VVV Now you're just being weird. Shageletic fucked around with this message at 20:41 on Mar 21, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2014 20:05
|
|
|
sebmojo posted:
I'm glad I've found my place in this wonderful community. Just like elfdude is the resident 'guy who should just give up'
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2014 20:20
|
|
|
ravenkult posted:After hanging out with published writers and editors, I realized all criticism sucks in writing communities. Writing community feedback/editing is worth every cent you pay for it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2014 20:44
|
|
|
ravenkult posted:Why can't crit communities do that? I've yet to see a serious crit in this subforum that wasn't helpful, so I don't know what your point is. (There have been some duds, but those were typically the critiquer going purely for what they thought was funny over anything resembling productivity.) Other places, sure, but that's presumably why we're all here and not there. blue squares posted:I'm glad I've found my place in this wonderful community. Just like elfdude is the resident 'guy who should just give up' Your place is "stop saying things" corner, please stay in it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2014 21:15
|
|
|
Echo Cian posted:
Oh come on, I was just messing around. Nobody should just give up. Nor should anyone insult someone personally because of their writing, even if it is on the internet
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2014 21:20
|
|
|
ravenkult posted:After hanging out with published writers and editors, I realized all criticism sucks in writing communities. If you get an editor to look at your stuff, they're not gonna hold your hand, but they're not gonna be assholes about it either. They'll go in and say ''this doesn't work, re-write this paragraph'' or ''cut these 10 pages out, they aren't adding anything.'' Anything that's smaller, they'll just change themselves, leaving nothing to argue about. You still learn by looking at the changes as you do your editing. Editors are working with material either they or someone higher up their chains considers publishable by default. Of course they're not that harsh. If they thought the work was less than good, they wouldn't be dealing with it at all. Rejection letters would be a better point of comparison, but even with those, only the better stories get personalized rejections at many markets. Not that I'm in favor of super-rear end in a top hat crits, but contrasting crit groups to professional editors is futile unless you look only at how those groups handle high-quality work.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2014 21:32
|
|
|
I wasn't talking about CC, I don't really post here. There's load of other critique forums though. I did post in CC once, years ago and what I got was a two-bit comic telling me the story was poo poo for 200 words so I never bothered again.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2014 21:32
|
|
|
blue squares posted:Oh come on, I was just messing around. Nobody should just give up. Nor should anyone insult someone personally because of their writing, even if it is on the internet Then stop doing it, even if it is "ironically," because you're apparently quite bad at making a joking tone clear.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2014 21:35
|
|
|
Fair enough. This isn't the thread for that sort of thing. I'll keep my future posts more professional and constructive. Sorry for previous displays of immaturity, everyone.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2014 22:18
|
|
|
I am thinking I might sit here and try and come up with alternate interpretations for the Four Horsemen because the Bible isn't as concrete on most of their names as we're led to believe. I don't know where people got this whole thing with Pestilence from, but that's not even close to what the text says.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2014 03:54
|
|
|
CB_Tube_Knight posted:I am thinking I might sit here and try and come up with alternate interpretations for the Four Horsemen because the Bible isn't as concrete on most of their names as we're led to believe. I don't know where people got this whole thing with Pestilence from, but that's not even close to what the text says. congratulations!
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2014 04:38
|
|
|
CB_Tube_Knight posted:I am thinking I might sit here and try and come up with alternate interpretations for the Four Horsemen because the Bible isn't as concrete on most of their names as we're led to believe. I don't know where people got this whole thing with Pestilence from, but that's not even close to what the text says. Usually a lot of popular religious iconography comes into place later , often long after the religion has been established. An example that comes to mind involving greek myths is that Hermes, in the original myths, only had winged boots. After a painter painted him one time with wings all over the drat place, everyone started slapping wings on all of his stuff as well. If it weren't for that one painting, the caduceus that hospitals used to use would probably just have the two snakes, but now everyone thinks of the symbol as having two wings. Course the caduceus is the worst possible symbol for a hospital so yeah, people's knowledge of source material is usually not so good. So any popular enough corruptions or interpretations of source material can easily become the new standard. For the horsemen, I imagine there was probably a poem or artwork at some point featuring the 4 horsemen as war/pestilence/etc/etc and everyone just copied that until that got stuck in people's minds. JuniperCake fucked around with this message at 04:43 on Mar 22, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2014 04:41
|
|
|
CB_Tube_Knight posted:I am thinking I might sit here and try and come up with alternate interpretations for the Four Horsemen because the Bible isn't as concrete on most of their names as we're led to believe. I don't know where people got this whole thing with Pestilence from, but that's not even close to what the text says. If you want to do something slightly different, consider other things which come in tetrads, then apply the attributes of those things to the Horsemen. The first thing which comes to my mind is the seasons, so discard that idea immediately because it's way too obvious.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2014 04:47
|
|
|
You guys personal attacks in this thread are getting out of hand, this thread is for advice and discussion in good faith, okay.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2014 04:50
|
|
|
Blade_of_tyshalle posted:If you want to do something slightly different, consider other things which come in tetrads, then apply the attributes of those things to the Horsemen. The first thing which comes to my mind is the seasons, so discard that idea immediately because it's way too obvious. I know Chinese/Japanese culture has a "4 = Death" thing, because the words for each sound very alike; maybe you can have your Four Horsemen be inspired by that? Like, maybe Chinese generals or samurai etc. I also don't know the tone of what you're writing, CB_Tube_Knight, but you could also base your Horsemen on the Four Musketeers (including D'Artagnan), 4 jolly bros having wild apocalyptic adventures. If you're not going to do the latter though, please tell me because holy poo poo, now I want to do it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2014 05:24
|
|
|
I just wrote: "The Binary sun shone above in a lopsided squint." Which is supposed to indicate that the secondary is visually smaller and is below the level of the primary. But I'm not sure it does, and neither that it's appropriate to use in a non-poetry book. On the other hand I love the way it sounds. What's your opinions, goons?
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2014 16:42
|
|
|
Maybe if you say the binary suns, plural?
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2014 16:44
|
|
|
I dunno, in my opinion this is a situtation where telling is better than showing. It's so hard to understand what the hell you're trying to say with lopsided squints... "Two suns were in the sky; one looked lower and smaller than the other, but was actually just further away." Is the whole two suns, one smaller, one lower, thing even important in your story? or is it just a "oh man we sure on an alien world!"
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2014 16:55
|
|
|
Were you just suggesting a different form? Because I wouldn't use "were in", "looked", or "was actually just"
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2014 16:57
|
|
|
I wouldn't talk about the sun period, because I have a modicum of self-respect  I know it's short as hell, but it says everything that I feel it needs to. fixed for blue squares: "Two suns the sky; one lower and smaller than the other, but further away." crabrock fucked around with this message at 17:20 on Mar 22, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2014 17:11
|
|
|
^two suns what the sky? I honestly wouldn't be able to picture the suns from the phrase 'lopsided squint', especially their size relative to each other. I also don't know how 'squint' apply to suns, as in normal applications 'squinting' either refers to eyes not being properly aligned or partly closed. The former definition might apply to binary suns if they're not aligned but again it doesn't help regarding their size. Then again, what is the 'proper' alignment for binary suns? I admit I might be a bit too literal, but the point remains: if that is the first line of your story, I'd be utterly confused. Also adding to what crabrock said, is this 'lopsided squint' a significant change to the status quo? Do the sizes and positions of the suns incite the action? Why do the character find the condition of the suns worthy of note?
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2014 17:25
|
|
|
supermikhail posted:I just wrote: Imagery and visual metaphor are absolutely appropriate for prose writing. Some of my favorite English sentences are metaphors like this: quote:Waking to an inner flash of metallic migraine light, as if reflected off wings of receding dream. Your construction should probably be 'the binary suns shone above in a lopsided squint', or 'the binary suns shone above, a lopsided stellar squint' or something more radical like 'the binary stars squinted down'. It's not perfect, but it is an image, and I think you should roll with it instead of crowdsourcing if you love it. You can't talk your way into better writing. You just need to put words down, read authors better than you, think about why their words are better, get a few crits, and repeat the cycle (forever). Writing imagery isn't about making perfect logical sense. You can deploy logically meaningless constructions as long as they convey an intuitive emotion to a reader. Cat Valente is a master of this - a really mild example, grabbed at random, "[There was] no place that did not suppurate in her absence, which was not ringed with the light of her old selves, like film burned with a cigarette.”" I think you will not get much useful advice here because you're presenting an isolated image. In the context of a paragraph or a passage the reader will probably skim it, say 'okay', and move on without conscious thought. Write for effect. General Battuta fucked around with this message at 17:31 on Mar 22, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2014 17:29
|
|
|
I'm not sure if it'll be useful (I will cut it if it's not), but in case I ever have to refer to the suns again I'd like to establish the fact that they're binary as soon as the character first sets his eyes on them. Thanks for your input. General Battuta posted:You just need to put words down, read authors better than you, think about why their words are better, get a few crits, and repeat the cycle (forever). I'm going to copyright my approach as "proactive criticism... receiving... something... 
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2014 17:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 14:45 |
|
|
supermikhail posted:I'm not sure if it'll be useful (I will cut it if it's not), but in case I ever have to refer to the suns again I'd like to establish the fact that they're binary as soon as the character first sets his eyes on them. You know, if you're going to make binary suns part of your setting, there are other consequences that you could also weave into your story. For instance the totally hosed up day/night cycle and the resulting adaptations of the native biology (assuming the planet has life). If you want to get a sense for where this can go, read Nightfall by Isaac Asimov. supermikhail posted:I'm going to copyright my approach as "proactive criticism... receiving... something... You mean patent. Copyright is only for exact replication of information (text, images, computer code, etc). Patents are for ideas. Strictly speaking they're for inventions, so I'm not even sure whether you could patent a writing approach. Sorry for  over a throwaway one-liner, but a basic understanding of IP law is absolutely essential if you want to be a writer.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2014 20:17
|
|
