Relative Sensitivity
This post is going to be somewhat personal to myself and friends, and I will say I am not trying to single anyone out or target anyone deliberately. This is my own thoughts on a subject that has been in my mind for a while. I as a person am relativey thin-skinned, and have trouble handling constructive criticism.
My goal is to be a professional writer, and that means dealing with criticism, and learning from it. I want people to tell me what works, and especially what doesn't. If I don't know I can't learn. But at the same time, it is very hard to handle any kind of disapproval, well-intentioned or not. This is a personal challenge. So, how to handle it? One method is to just take it, and let it be waht it is, constructive criticism. That is very hard to do for yours truly.
A second method, one that is really unhealthy, is to take it as a personal attack, and seethe in the unfairness of it all. 99.9% of the time this is NOT the intent of the critiquer, but the interpretation of the thin-skinned person who was expecting perfection out of the gate and got told that she fell short. This can keep one wound up for days and cause all sorts of angst and anguish, which also affects any writing.
A third is to use an alias and allow a half-step of removal (mentally) from the critique. In an example, writer-wanna-be uses the name 'Bits' as a ID, and gets a less than glowing critique about a post in her blog. Here the person can say "That was for Bits, so let's see how we can help her do better with this." That way you are helping your friend 'Bits' hammer out the perceived weaknesses in the writing, and it's easier to re-write and modify.
A fourth is to ignore the critique completely, dismissing it as purest idiocy on the critiquer's part.
Pesonally, I use 3) fairly often at times, but not exclusively. I'm learning to see that the critiquer is not someone who wants to hurt me, but that they liked the story or article enough to comment on it in one form or another. I'm still hoping to get to 1) much more consistently, but that I get there is a triumph in my mind.
On rare occasion, I will get a blistering commentary, and then I will sit and mope, probably a few days before I go back to it again. But the challenge there is to throw away ad hominem attacks and see the rest of the critique. Not easy, and if one is thin-skinned like myself, it is difficult to go back to that source for another critique, but it comes down to which do I want more, not to be possibly hurt by someone's comment, or improve my writing so I can share ideas and fun with others more effectively. I know which side I want to come down on, but only time will tell for certain. How about you?
My goal is to be a professional writer, and that means dealing with criticism, and learning from it. I want people to tell me what works, and especially what doesn't. If I don't know I can't learn. But at the same time, it is very hard to handle any kind of disapproval, well-intentioned or not. This is a personal challenge. So, how to handle it? One method is to just take it, and let it be waht it is, constructive criticism. That is very hard to do for yours truly.
A second method, one that is really unhealthy, is to take it as a personal attack, and seethe in the unfairness of it all. 99.9% of the time this is NOT the intent of the critiquer, but the interpretation of the thin-skinned person who was expecting perfection out of the gate and got told that she fell short. This can keep one wound up for days and cause all sorts of angst and anguish, which also affects any writing.
A third is to use an alias and allow a half-step of removal (mentally) from the critique. In an example, writer-wanna-be uses the name 'Bits' as a ID, and gets a less than glowing critique about a post in her blog. Here the person can say "That was for Bits, so let's see how we can help her do better with this." That way you are helping your friend 'Bits' hammer out the perceived weaknesses in the writing, and it's easier to re-write and modify.
A fourth is to ignore the critique completely, dismissing it as purest idiocy on the critiquer's part.
Pesonally, I use 3) fairly often at times, but not exclusively. I'm learning to see that the critiquer is not someone who wants to hurt me, but that they liked the story or article enough to comment on it in one form or another. I'm still hoping to get to 1) much more consistently, but that I get there is a triumph in my mind.
On rare occasion, I will get a blistering commentary, and then I will sit and mope, probably a few days before I go back to it again. But the challenge there is to throw away ad hominem attacks and see the rest of the critique. Not easy, and if one is thin-skinned like myself, it is difficult to go back to that source for another critique, but it comes down to which do I want more, not to be possibly hurt by someone's comment, or improve my writing so I can share ideas and fun with others more effectively. I know which side I want to come down on, but only time will tell for certain. How about you?
posted by JD at
8:33:00 AM
4 Comments:
There is an argument to made that a lots of writers are made up of equal parts talents and ego. (After all, without the ego part, who would have the audacity to believe that they could beat the odds to become a published author? ;)) It's the ego part that gets wounded by an unfavorable critique of one's work. It's uncomfortable, unpleasant, and generally not nice--but it comes with the territory.
I don't know that all of the methods you listed for dealing with critiques are mutually exclusive either. Sometimes I think it's also like the stages of grief, (also depending on the criticism and the person delivering it).
I hadn't before considered the psuedonym approach. I can see how that might help with the distance. I might have to try that one. (I wish I had with one particular piece, but that's a whole different story.)
Ain't a writer's life grand? :D
This comment has been removed by the author.
I realized that I didn't address anything you said in your blog, so here's a better reply with a little more time to digest, not to mention a little more caffeine and looking at your post as I write.
I'm thin-skinned, which is why I don't plan to ever be a "paid professional writer." I won't hock my novel out to anyone and everyone because 1) I don't have the nuts and 2) I'm lazy and 3) I think I'm not good enough. I write because I want to. If one person reads it, that's great.
If someone cares enough to send me a criticism it means they care enough to say something, sure. It doesn't mean they're attacking. Maybe if I say it enough times I'll believe it. But that other person thinks something's wrong with my creation. It cuts me right to the quick most of the time, so I also will mope for days.
I don't usually use an alias. I was thinking of it as I was writing the war stories, mostly because it's tough for a guy to believe that a girl actually writes historical military fiction. And forget about a critique in that environment...
I think we're naturally inclined to become defensive when something we have put a lot of ourselves into isn't greeted with thunders of applause and expressions of awe.
I was a writing instructor in law school, and it's a huge challenge for law students (many of whom graduated at the top of their class) to accept that what they write isn't getting the job done. It doesn't mean there aren't strengths to the writing product, it means that the writing didn't accomplish what it should have.
I have my legal writing critiqued on a daily basis, and for me, it's a matter of pedagogy. I want to improve my writing to communicate better, and I need my peers and mentors to help. That doesn't mean that I won't get irritated when something I spent hours and hours writing is handed back with a slew of changes. I'm human, after all. But I have to get past it or the job won't get done.
As a senior attorney, it's also my job to provide constructive criticisms of junior attorneys' writings. Meanwhile, my boss hands something back to me with subtle changes, all of which massively improve what I wrote.
So my point here is that I do lots of critiquing and I get lots of critiquing. I trust my peers and my mentors to respect my professional goals enough to set aside petty personal issues we may have and give me the tools I need to be better at what I intend to do for the rest of my life.
It's no skin off my back to critique until someone takes it personally. They mope. They don't talk to me for days. They deny that anything I said had value. They eventually justify why they made the choices they mad. At that point, I'm just viewed the bitch who just criticized someone's product. It normally doesn't bother me unless it's a friend who (a) should know enough about me to know that I don't give hollow compliments or empty praise for the sake of the friendship, and (b) should know that I respect what her/his professional goals are to provide feedback.
So it comes down to this: Do you want constructive criticism that could help, or do you want empty compliments so you feel good about yourself, no matter how many shortcomings may be in your product?
I agree that the methods of accepting constructive criticism aren't mutually exclusive. However, anything after the first method lowers your chances of getting any constructive feedback. You risk the critiquer moving on to people who show real dedication to their professional aspirations by making themselves open to feedback without so many negative consequences.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home