The Place For My Writers Notes

Original posting Sun, 14 Nov 1993 10:33:28 JST

>>> Item number 20844 from WRITERS LOG9311B --- (298 records) ---- <<<
Date: Sun, 14 Nov 1993 10:33:28 JST
Reply-To: WRITERS <WRITERS@NDSUVM1.BITNET>
Sender: WRITERS <WRITERS@NDSUVM1.BITNET>
From: Mike Barker <barker@AEGIS.OR.JP>
Subject: TECH: Re: critiquing

First, hi Tim. Glad you've joined us. as a side issue, you need to send jobs to LISTSERV, not the writers list. You may also want to use narrower margins to allow comments on future writing. This is discussed in my draft FAQ on submitting and critiquing.

You'll see my note about getting a copy of the overall FAQ. If you get that and read it, there are directions about getting the FAQ about sub and crit. I'm also going to resend that FAQ in two parts, so everyone can see it without having to pull up a copy. I'll be very interested in your comments on that FAQ.

I do have some comments on your essay...

- As writers, we all want to constantly improve our craft, to get better and
- better. Having been a member of a local writing and critique group in
- Sacramento for two years now, I have found that the most valuable critiques
- tell you very specifically

- 1) what's wrong with the story, and WHY
- 2) what's right with the story, and WHY

good points. I also like to provide some suggestions about how to fix the things that I think are wrong, or at least less effective than they might be.

I think it can be a very helpful part of a critique to let the writer know what you "saw" in the story and what affect it had on you, too. This helps the writer to see if they have managed to convey the message they intended.

For example, while I think you were trying to provide some guidance in how to critique, I was somewhat offended and put off by the tone of your piece. I don't think that was what you intended, but that is what I felt on reading it. I think the main reasons were the insistence on there being only one right way to critique, only one right reason to write, and the implicit demand that I set aside whatever I may be doing and dedicate more time to doing things according to the one great church of tim. Can you understand why this might not be the best way to convert, unless you prefer a small band of "one way" believers?

- The recent critiques I have read of "Tongue in Cheek" did neither, and I
- suggest to the authors of those critiques and to others that you are doing the
- author of the story no favors. If all we ever do is pat ourselves and each
- other on the back, then we will never grow as writers, never polish our craft,
- and almost certainly never get published.

close, but.. psych 101 teaches us that REWARDS (such as pats on the back) ARE the most effective way of encouraging desired behavior. As whatever I am, I really want people to write. Therefore, I prefer not to take actions that discourage writing, even when that writing isn't quite along the lines I prefer.

I do agree that we need to push our craft, to move onward - but there is a very fine line between encouragement (which most of us need from time to time) and political "glad-handing" which I try to keep in mind. I think part of the "trick" is to pat each other on the back while also pointing forward to paths yet untrod.

- (I don't know about you, but to me
- that is the acid test: if you're not already published, then you should be
- working your ass off to get published; if you aren't then you're not a writer,
- you're a dabbler, a diletante, a wanna-be. This includes those too lazy to do
- market research.)

I assume you think that offending people is a good rhetorical move? someday someone will explain this to me, perhaps.

sorry, tim, but what you are doing is trying to discourage competition, to close off other paths than the one you have chosen, and I find that to be a very poor approach.

Let me toss you a statement that we've heard here from the "other side" - artists come in many flavors, in their own ways, and never worry about minor commercial matters - and automatically tromp all over the commercial ass buster. If you are trying to get published, you can only generate trash. (roughly paraphrased by me)

Before you explode - I don't buy either approach to writing as absolute categories. I'm sorry, but writers come in too many different packages to fasten down in these narrow ruts. I also see your "acid test" as one of the best damn ways I know to get myself into a solid, ugly "writers block." I've been there, didn't like it, and don't really want to try it again.

why is it so important to smash those who aren't following your path? I mean, you are trying very hard to discourage anyone who isn't ready for your "crusade," - basting them with "you're not a writer, you're a dabbler, a diletante, a wanna-be." what if someone said "you're not a writer, you're a hack, a plot-boiler, a sweaty grunt?" I mean, if we are writers, we should be careful with our language, and perhaps consider the impact on the reader, don't you think?

Incidentally, I believe diletante is misspelled. Don't be too lazy to use a dictionary in checking your work - the word is dilettante.

too lazy to do market research? ah, me, you do have a way of pre-judging, do you not? It is rather frustrating to be so lightly judged and cast aside, isn't it?

- With that in mind, and having roused the ire of, I'm sure,
- more than a few on this list,

does a good writer, a real writer, deliberately try to "rouse the ire"? for no better reason than to coddle his own egotism? I think there are other ways to present your points that would make people accept them and try to follow without having to descend to aggression and abuse. That old mule fights the whip, but pulls all day for one carrot.

May I suggest that you might want to think about why having everyone fall into lockstep with your program is so important to you? Honestly, I don't believe writing is a competition - there is plenty of space for all kinds of writing, all kinds of writers, and many different approaches. The only person you really need to please is yourself.

- here is the critique of "Tongue in Cheek" that I
- sent to the author by private email, with (very) slight modification:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
- First, what's wrong:

according to sales principles (yes, they can teach too), management training, rules of human interaction, and quite a few years of personal experience, this is the wrong beginning. As I recollect, the most effective approach is to start with positive, in particular affirming the person. Then present the problem. Then provide suggestions for improvement. End with positive affirmation of the person, and (if possible) of some aspect of their work.

So, for example, you might have started by admitting that you are new to the list, and thought enough of this piece to want to critique it, since the writer is obviously quite good. You might also provide a bit of your "philosophy of critiquing" just to let the writer know what is coming. Obviously you care about your writing, so you may want to add this kind of approach to your already careful critical "bag of tricks."

- Cute at first, but it fizzles from the middle on. By the time you got
- halfway through the court scene I'm asking myself, "So what?". I think it's

this is very good, providing him with fairly clear indications of the effect on you as a reader.

- because the story doesn't really deliver on the moral. For us to feel like

since I don't think he provides a moral, it might be good to describe the moral you drew from the story.

- Randy has been had, we need to know what a great thing his tongue is (was).
- You need to *show* us, not simply tell us. A single line like "his tongue was
- a thing to be worshipped" is not enough. Who worshipped it? Randy? or the
- women in his life? And if so, how did they express their admiration? (Let's
- see some examples. Did women fight for dates with him? Was he asked to a lot
- of parties because he could do marvelous party tricks with his tongue?) The
- only reactions you show us from coworkers are negative (disgust, etc), so that
- only makes Randy look like an insensitive jerk.

I tend to end up quoting parts, and providing my own rewrites. While the questions you provide are good ones, and should help the writer think about the piece, I find it helpful myself to be shown what to do, instead of simply asked and told. You do a little of this with your hints that perhaps women fight for dates, or he does party tricks. Still, I end up "interlining" my comments into the text.

- In other words, you have not shown us any basis for the claim that his tongue
- was marvelous; the only person who seems to think so is Randy. It would be
- funnier (and a much better comment on these politically-correct times) if he
- had been admired all his life by others because of his tongue, if it had gotten
- him lovers, gotten him promoted, made him popular, etc. Then when Delores wins
- her suit, poor Randy is to be pitied, not jeered. It would heighten the effect
- even more if thereafter Randy developed a phobia about his tongue and could no
- longer satisfy his lover(s) with it, nobody in the office wants to see him do
- party tricks with it, etc. In short, his life becomes *very* sad, and not just
- because of a failed movie-of-the-week.

This seems to me to be describing a very different story from the one you are critiquing. Admittedly, it can be effective to provide a different plot and recommend places to expand or shrink, but I'm not sure if I agree that this would be a funnier piece. As you say, you have turned it into a tragedy, with a rather predictable outcome.

- Boiled down, it comes to this: we don't care about Randy because he looks
- like a jerk. Even in a short, humorous piece we *must* care about the
- characters or there is no story, and no point in relating it. For this piece
- to work, we must like Randy and sympathize with him, so that his descent into
- disfavor seems unjust.

descent into disfavor? he became supreme court aardvark, didn't he?incidentally, are you pregnant or just suffering from tapeworm?

I think it is good that you have pointed out some "keys to writing" to back up your specific comments. I think I would be a bit less dogmatic about the results of not following them, but that is partly a stylistic choice.

- Second, what's right:
- It's a very cute and funny premise. This story could be really good. Keep
- working on it. I've had some stories go through 3 or 4 critique cycles before
- they really flowed.

Ok, you've got the positive. Of course, I'd like some particulars - line-by-line comments make it very easy to say "this phrasing is good" or "I laughed at this point."

- --------------------------------------------------------------
-
- Now if it seems I've been tough on the author, I have, BECAUSE THAT IS THE ONLY

well, from your example, I'm tempted to let this slide, but... I think you misstated the point.

You have been tough on the piece (not quite the way I would be, but that's unimportant). However, you have done a good job in NOT BEING TOUGH ON THE AUTHOR! And I think that is critical. Smash, burn and destroy the piece - fine. But take care not to bash the person. That is one of the keys I see to doing a good critique, and too many people make the same mistake you did, of saying they are being tough on the author.

I have to admit, I have trouble getting it right, but I consider this one of the most important parts of my writing critiques. I do consider critiques to be a specialized and interesting exercise in writing. I consider one of the hard parts of doing them to be encouraging and supporting the writer at the same time that I provide detailed dismemberment of their offspring. It's a bit like trying to perform surgery on a wide-awake patient - you have to get the local anaesthetic or nerve block in the middle first and then keep telling that head that what you are doing down here in the bowels really doesn't hurt.

- WAY TO HELP HIM (or any writer, myself included). Polite, congratulatory

maybe it is my age, but I rarely am this certain that I know "THE ONLY WAY" to do anything, let alone help people. Sometimes I have some suggestions about ways that seem to work for me, but that's about as far as I go.

- critiques serve little purpose, except to make the recipient feel good, but

and keep them writing and help promote group membership and keep YOU writing and help avoid the feelings of "no one is reading my stuff" when you don't hear from anyone for weeks and ... there are a few other reasons and purposes that these can meet.

Frankly, while I prefer detailed critiques and prefer doing that kind myself (mostly because I learn a lot when I do that), I am also happy to hear even one word from anyone on the list. A polite, congratulatory critique may be the first step for someone on this list, and I certainly love to see someone making that step, because once they do that, we can talk about how to do more effective critiques, and start playing pattycake reward and strokes to keep them growing.

Or we could just smash everyone who hasn't had the experience, is short on time, or otherwise has difficulty being able to do the one and only, blessed in bond and ruined by time, hardcore real professionals' kind of presentation. probably certified by the professional writers institute, to boot.

- good feelings will not help you get published. And THAT should be the aim of
- us all.

Good feelings do help people get published, Tim. They help them continue in the face of discouragement, unbelieveable turnaround times, personal difficulties and all the other idiocy that makes up the normal publication routes. They even help them decide which of the many aims in a writing life they will dedicate their time and efforts to, whether that is the simple one of being published, the more subtle one of writing well, or even the social one of being part of the writers group that hangs out at this saloon for a while.

By the way - I appreciate the fire and drive I see in your piece, but think you would catch more flies with a little honey and some consideration for the wide varieties of writing and life that I am sure you have experienced. Tell me, did your group in Sacramento use some of the popular checklists for critiquing, or some books on writing? Which ones (there is a list in one of our FAQS)? Would you like to prepare a TECH piece summarizing either the checklists or some favorite books? How did you handle limiting submissions and spreading out the task of critiquing? I really think this is an area that could use some organization and information. Perhaps you could help us with it, after you take a look at some of the thoughts on the subject that we have.

Thank you for commenting - and I look forward to your participating on the list. If you have a chance, I would be very pleased to hear from you about my little pieces on how to submit and critique. I am also interested in hearing your reactions to this critique.

Original posting: Fri, 11 Feb 1994 12:45:25 JST

(I'm sorry - long and rambling, without all the connections it should have. Put together parts from several files I've started, and haven't boiled down to the pith yet... may be of interest, though... and there's a sort of story at the end if anyone wades that far...)

Hi, apathetic. Interesting tag - you ever consider what the opposite of the pathetic fallacy is? I mean, having the surroundings reflect emotions is a no-no, right? but what's the apathetic fallacy? NOT having the surroundings reflect the emotions? or is it not having the emotions reflect the surroundings? or maybe simply ignoring the subtle interplay of observed surroundings and internal stresses? or perhaps just ignoring the other people around, their influences and interactions with that life claimed as solely one's own, untouched by humanity's dirt and grime, unwashed with the tears one refuses to heed... (whoops - let the fingers get carried away, and they'll take you places you didn't expect... sorry about the slips... Ayn Rand would be very upset with me:-)

oh, well - on to the questions. I know everyone else has taken a whack at them (GREAT STUFF!), but I wanta spend my yen while I can, okay?

so...

- little something, in my opinion, is ART.

backtrack - ART? art? something like the concepts of beauty, art, etc. that I spent semesters in philosophy trying to pin down...?

judging from the experience - you may find a negative definition more helpful than a positive one (mostly because the positive ones are so painfully few and far apart). There are books and papers and stuff on aesthetics - philosophically very shaky ground...

Anyway - could you explain a little what you mean by ART? about the only explanation you give is "a special flair" - which seems subjective and hard to deal with. Any more particulars?

- It seems that most of the people on this board would consider themselves
- writers. Does anyone on this board consider themself an Artist? Does
- anyone on this board professes to have an understanding of what Art is?

certainly. as a matter of fact, I have several understandings of what art is. I even have an understanding of what Art, Beauty, and the Ideal is. I also have a navel. of course, my various understandings may not help you much...

some hints, though...

First, go back and review Randy's posting on TECH: Re: help and some general talk about criticism.

If any of you skipped Randy's posting on 3 Feb - shame on you! go back and read it... I'll wait (randy, I may add that one to the list of good things in the FAQ - or maybe in the one mji is putting together about being blocked - okay?)

I'm waiting...

Good. I'm going to pull some pieces out, but you really owe it to yourself as a writer (even as an Artist!) to read Randy's original posting. BE AWARE THAT I HAVE ONLY CLIPPED SECTIONS - go read the original. (with apologies to lots of folks - especially those who don't approve of humor gilding the lily...:-)

- First, a disclaimer. Revision is the soul of writing. It may also
- be the sole of writing, since it invariably treads on the
- wonderful euphoria your initial inspiration provides. (No, I don't
- feel like a heel for making the joke.)

these boots are made for writing, and that's just what they'll do...
I took the plot less trodden, and that has made all the difference...
walk a mile in your neighbor's moccasins, and hope you don't catch athlete's foot...
you got to walk that lonesome valley, you got to walk it all alone...
don't step on my blue suede shoes...

you don't think I can walk around the world, old man? one step at a time, I can do it. watch me.

stomp out the grapes of write, randy! amen. I say, amen! the wine will flow!

polish them boots, polish the writing, put some spit and polish into it - you think you're still a civilian? I wanta be able to see my face in that boot, boot!

<that "joke" rang so many echoes in here I may have to dig another cavern to put some of them in...>

okay - I got a few thoughts about telling a story that I'd like to interject here.

I've been mulling it over, and I realized that I have been wrong, somewhat, in dismissing the "natural" approach to writing. Dammit, telling a story is the most natural thing anyone can do, and the least natural.

How can it be both?

From the first time you told your mother what the other kid in the playground did, asked for the jello in the refrigerator, or planned an assault up the drawers, across the counter top, and into the cookies - you have been telling stories. Someone asks you "where were you yesterday?" or "did you see the game?" or "what did you want to do about lunch?" - and your storyteller spins a web without any hesitation.

that's the "natural" part.

Selecting, arranging, polishing, and putting the story out in public in a form which makes readers you don't even know sigh over it... That's the "unnatural" part. and it is often where the writer returns to being "blocked."

You probably know the story of the caterpillar? Someone asked him which foot he started on - the poor bug is still standing there, trying to do consciously what used to be an effortless waddle.

Ask a baseball player how they swing, and (most likely) you'll get a fantasy that has little to do with the real muscle flex, back shift, hip twist, half step, lean forward, gum popping action. Worse, trying to turn that fantasy into action on your part is likely to result in a comedy, at best. Sure, you can practice - oh, the half-step - and add it in, make it a part of your game, but the real flowing glory of a whistling bat cracking a fastball into the outfield takes practice and experience, and is the easiest thing in the world - if you don't think about it, just do it.

Stop to think about it, and that fastball is in the catcher's glove. STRIKE!

With writing - you tell a story, letting your storyteller spin out the fragile web as smoothly as possible. Hold your breath and let it go (as Randy said). But, unlike the baseball player, you get to look at what came out. You can break off the odd little crystal that doesn't match in shade (save it for another time!). You can straighten out the strands that aren't quite right. You can even crumple it all up and toss it - hey, selection is part of every art I know. Watch a top potter sometime - all through the process, s/he tosses things. And the final piece looks so effortless...

So you take the swing, then look at where the ball went. Then you do it again, and again, and again... and one day, you hit a home run, and it doesn't feel so unusual.

Step up to the plate and swing.

Strikes, balls, fouls, pop flies, ground balls, bunts - you gotta play to get on base. And you gotta practice to play.

BUT - and it's a big but - you don't think about being a home run hitter. You practice, you listen when the batting coach says to step into the ball, or to drop your shoulder, you do laps (UGH!), and then one day that ball flies. And you grin, and walk around the bases. No sweat, no strain, it just was!

And that's the mark of the pro - the final piece doesn't feel effortful. When someone reads your piece and says, "I've been there." - that's the best accolade. Notice they didn't even say one word about the writing. That's really one of the problems I have with reading the "great masters" as writing models - it is so hard to pay attention to their writing. The story "behind" the words comes out and grabs me, and I forget all about trying to see how they put it together.

<another clip from Randy's post>
- I know that sounds like I'm backing down on the value of revision,
- and maybe I am. But I think, if the piece that was criticized was
- any good to begin with, you'll eventually reevaluate it and come
- back to it. That's when you'll rework it, mold it into a piece that
- comes closer to your ideals than the original did. And that's not
- easy, either, but the finished product will make you prouder than the
- original ever did, with a high that's longer lasting than the high
- from the initial inspiration.

rocky writer's high
inspired to ideals
they panned the gold
from early spewing

rocky writer's high...

<CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP ...>

-How can you let someone else help you write a poem by asking for criticism
-on it? It all seems a little hopeless to me.

-If you are going to write something, write it. And if you don't like it,
-rip it up. Don't post it and hope that someone will help you fix it. That
-amounts to plagarism.

very brief note - editors have been known to suggest changes, as well as performing the heresy of rejecting work. were you planning on publishing? does letting an editor suggest a change make it plagiarism?

when a writer decides to come out into the real world (and I think this is one case where I can use that word accurately), then there are innumerable influences that meld into every artist's work. The selection and "final strokes" are theirs - but to say that they have produced everything in the work by themself, without "standing on the toes of giants" at least, is perhaps a bit exagerrated.

Now, I will grant - actually daring to let someone else look at your work and comment on it is HARD! being enough of an artist to do something with those comments to improve your work (whether that means taking them, trashing them, or doing something else) is HARD! and daring to put your work out there where the common horde will misunderstand it, revile it, and once in a while get it - that's HARD!

sitting in the corner saying I can't let anyone near me because I'm creative is safer. it is also sad.

I've spent time in the corner - not because I was creative, but because I wasn't. Rational, logical, no flair, no talent... but I couldn't leave it alone. and... it really is better outside the corner! there's sunshine, beagle dances, all kinds of good things...

BTW - Herb, excellent post. I did wonder why you skipped the third definition of artist - a professional entertainer. Personally, I think this may be the real key to the ongoing craft/art debate. The writer is an entertainer. When s/he gets paid for it, they are professional (just like the Olympics!). And sometimes, usually without them knowing it, their entertainment slides over into art.

I don't think art is something you try for, or even necessarily recognize yourself. You may be gifted with it, but it isn't something you put in there. You put in the hours of revision, rewriting, practice, and pondering to make it the best you can. That perfect pitch that whistles in and goes flying out into the stands - that's something else. Just be glad when it comes, and ready for it!

As reward for anyone who waded through all this... a little cautionary tale... well, it's non-fiction, but it will have to do while I think up a real story... <wink>

Imagine a painter. She has studied hard, composition, perspective, colors, all the basics, and practiced and practiced. She has spent years, literally, on painting and knows the techniques inside out. Still, something isn't quite right.

One day, while settling down to try again to paint the willow tree her latest teacher has her doing again and again, she looks around and sees an old trashcan, with a mangy alleycat chewing on a fishhead and licking itself, illuminated by a beam of sunlight. She stops, frozen.

She glances back at the willow tree once, then picks up the brush and the oils. She looks at the scene, and at the white canvas, and hesitates. Then she turns her back on the willow.

The brushes move, as she watches, silent, smiling with the buddha that isn't there, somewhere in the back of her head. The cat moves off, and the sunlight fades, but the fingers still touch, lightly, dab here and there. The eyes are half-focused, almost dreaming.

Later, as she wipes at her fingers with the turpentine on a rag, she looks at the canvas. She stops, steps back, and looks again.

If you visit her studio (I have), she has many other paintings now, but that one is hung in a place of honor. There are two oddities about it compared to her other work. First, it is unsigned. Second, although she has had offers for it, she will not sell it.

As she told me, "I can't sign it or sell it. It isn't my work. And I don't know who did it, but I love that piece."

Her hands painted it, her brushes, her oils, her technical skills - but she doesn't consider that one to be her work, although she considers it the best piece in the studio.

I call her an artist.