Vindicated

[ostarella]

I left a writing forum over one major issue - the idea of being respectful when giving critiques. It was, basically, the straw that broke the camel's back. My contention (as a beta for several years) that there was absolutely no reason to get nasty or arrogant when giving a critique (and let's be sure to distinguish between a critique and a review). For that, I was labeled (along with anyone else who might hold the same opinion) a 'speshful flower'. (My own betas know that's so far removed from the truth it's laughable. Loudly laughable.) Now, I knew there were others who felt the same way (and who posted thusly in that discussion), but in a recent look-see at another forum, I discovered I was not the only one who left Forum A because of this attitude. Quite a number were so dismayed at the attitude of the other forum they not only left, they wanted to warn others about it.

Now, this is not to say that, after working with someone for some time, one has to be as tactful. With those who really want the honest feedback, it's easy to start jokingly 'bashing' something ("You didn't really write that, did you? :D") or getting more firm ("You need to correct this [continual problem] in future postings or I just can't work on it any more."). Then there are others who just want you to gush over their golden words - and after a point, it's difficult to remain polite, much less tactful. (I told one person sometimes it takes getting hit with a pile of bricks for it to sink in.) But again, this is after you've worked together and gotten to know each other. You don't do those sorts of things on a first post (or even the first couple of posts), or [especially] when the writer is new and genuinely seeking help.

It just is beyond me why writers, of all people, can't seem to figure out how to word a critique without getting arrogant, nasty, or snarky. I mean, that's what we do - use words and phrases to communicate effectively.  So I was left wondering who the 'speshful flowers' really were - those asking for help or those deigning to respond.

So anyway - glad I left one, even gladder (is that a word? lol) that I found the other.

[I'm deliberately not mentioning either forum because I don't want to provoke any snarkiness between the two - anyone interested can pm me. One for a warning and the other for a recommendation.]

Comments

[billy-shriner.livejournal.com]

I know you! And I value your critique! I know you'll tell it as it is, and will help me make my writing better.

I'm sorry if I sometimes still need those bricks thrown at me. But I swear, I really am trying!

[ostarella.livejournal.com]

Do I throw bricks at you??? MOI???

LOL

Actually, I really did tell one person that - after every comment (from me and others) continually went in one ear and out the other. Someone did get rather nasty with her, and of course, she started 'oh poor me' - and you know how well that goes over with me...

[billy-shriner.livejournal.com]

Lol!

Well, you are tough with me, but I'm grateful. Publishers are going to be even tougher ;-) And I know you're doing it to help me. And god, I'd like to think my writing HAS improved, even if it's the grammar! I sometimes put too many commas in or leave them out. I Know! But I think I will get my head around that soon. Then there's the stage directing... lol!

I think with me is finding the confidence, too.

But when someone isn't 'listening' to your critique and advice, over and over, it gets to the point that you find yourself not wanting to help them. There are some that are beyond help lol!

[ostarella.livejournal.com]

But when someone isn't 'listening' to your critique and advice, over and over, it gets to the point that you find yourself not wanting to help them. There are some that are beyond help

Oh yeah. There are some who are inexperienced and thus stubborn ("But I like that!") and others who are arrogant and above it all ("That's just my style!"). I'm not sure which is more insufferable.

Well, yeah. I do...

[beckyblack]

I think some people do make a big deal about telling it like it is, but get so harsh that they can discourage people. A writer who's new certainly has to learn how to be thick skinned, but they may not yet be ready for a full-on critique. It might make them give up right away, because if they're being told that basically everything they have done is wrong, they're going to think it's too much to fix and give up.

Some people talk as if having a beta is something every writer must have and must have from day one. I don't think that's true. It think it can be something that a writer needs to build up to. I wrote just on my own for at least a year, then got onto the ATSB and from there started working with the bunnies, when I was more ready for more intense crit. I wasn't ready for that right away. I had little enough confidence back then, even constructively worded it would have sent me rushing back into my cave!

[ostarella.livejournal.com]

This is precisely my point. Just because someone has finished a book and wants to publish it does not mean they are a 'seasoned writer'. And a critique should not be as harsh as a review - which is the constant 'excuse' I heard on that forum. "You think this is harsh, just wait." Well, the point of a critique shouldn't be to 'toughen up' a writer. It's not supposed to be as harsh as a review once a book is published. Writers use betas or critique groups to get help with problems they don't see - or that they see and don't yet know how to deal with it. Some disparagingly call that 'cheerleading' or 'hand-holding' - well, so what? Why shouldn't encouragement be a large part of a critique? Why is it coddling to tell someone, "That sentence isn't clear to me." versus "I don't get that sentence at all!"

If people on that forum are as 'eager' to help writers be successful as they claim, they shouldn't be pounding people into the ground to 'toughen them up'. It's a gradual process. As the writer learns what works, what doesn't, the crits can become more demanding - but still without getting snarky. That should be reserved for the people who just refuse to listen to anything. But then, those writers don't really want a critique to begin with.

[beckyblack]

I sometimes wonder if I've been harsh on people in the past, back in the old days on the ATSB group. And of course there's lousyfic... But I guess that's a different kind of place. And I suspect Emerald Princess has a thick skin anyway. ;-)

But I always tried to be polite and never scathing on the ATSB and beta_team, and to point out things I liked too and thought they should do more of - which I can now say that editors do do. My editor had noted things she especially liked during the editing of my books. So if they do it, no reason a beta shouldn't.

[ostarella.livejournal.com]

Lousy_fic is a good example of the difference between a critique and a review. On LF, it's reviews. Nobody asked our opinion or for help and that's not what it's for. But that's a very good point about editors - that's the sort of thing these "I'm brutally honest" people should consider.

[taleya.livejournal.com]

I don't get the beta thing...I have yet to find one consistently that works well with me. I've actually had people tell me "you must have a great beta" and had to point out..."err, I don't use one. Never have"

Which sounds flamingly egotistical, but is true :P I always invite criticism and discussion, but I've found (to sound badly egotistical again) that there's really only a very small pool of people that I'd trust to beta/bad serious conceptual ideas around with on the level I'm used to writing :/

but hell, I'm always open for a sporking. You put your work out, you invite it :D

[taleya.livejournal.com]

*bat not bad. Argh, excuse typos, I've one arm in a brace ATM.

[ostarella.livejournal.com]

Not everyone needs (or wants) a beta. If course, there are varying levels of beta work as well. Sometimes it's everything from a line by line grammar check to the flow of the story; sometimes there's only one part the author wants opinions/help on; sometimes it's just a general read-through to see if the whole things seems to hang right. So it's basically a second set of eyes on whatever the author is looking for. Some need it, some want it, some are fine without it. :)

[taleya.livejournal.com]

Wow. WTF? Respectful critiques are gold. Methinks the idiots in question are prone to the kneejerk sort of flaming bullshit and don't like being called on it.

There's nothing wrong with helpfully pointing out typos or missing stratas - hell, you can even do it self-deprecatingly ("I might be missing something but how did they get from A to Z?") Like any social interaction, there are things you can say in general conversation, and then there are things you *don't* say unless you know someone very well, especially in a textual format which strips out intent far too often and can be read in a very different way than intended.

Seriously, it's the difference between "This was a bit hard to read - can you please check your paragraph breaks" (or similar) and "JESUS CHRIST WALL OF TEXT". They both mean the same thing, but one is actually a sane response and not a kneejerk /b/tard reaction.

[ostarella.livejournal.com]

This is it exactly. There are a lot of things I've thought to myself about various stories I've beta'd - but I force myself to calm down before I start typing a response. The old count-to-ten thing instead of, as you so aptly call it, "a kneejerk /b/tard reaction"