Topic ID: 20546
|
View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Incandescence
If you've nothing nice to say, come sit with me.
Epic Novelist
Gender: 
Age: 18
Joined: 22 Nov 2004
Posts: 3021
Reviews: 901
Country: USA
413 Points
|
 Posted: Wed Oct 03, 2007 8:24 am Post subject: A question of criticism: Is all fair in love and...writing? |
 |
|
Young writers -
For the past few weeks there has been intense, yet isolated, sparring on the appropriate approach to being a good critic: what it means, what is expected, and so on. Arguments have ranged from writers getting thicker skins to critics toning it down to everyone simply lightening up about the whole affair. I'm going to address some of the arguments proposed in this ongoing discussion, and I apologize if things seem in a state of catastrophic organization--I will have to reread this tomorrow and revise where necessary for clarification.
In a first move, I want to address criticism as a whole. For the most part, we all seem to have a pretty generalized conception as a critique being a response to a work of art. That's pretty heavy, if you stop and think about it: what does it mean to "respond" to a work of art, a craft, a creation? How does one go about "interacting" with such a thing--whether this be a poem or a story or a sculpture, or what have you? It's a very serious question that most writers--particularly beginning writers--take for granted. There's something fundamental about reacting to art, so much so that I suspect most of you have never really taken the time to think much about it.
In the same breath, we have to ask if all interactions are of the same value. Are they? Do we trust people who have doctorates in art history to give genuinely enlightening commentary on a new painting, or do we think it would be better to trust the guy who is now, for the first time in his life, walking into the art museum? At a more exaggerated level: do we trust medical doctors do diagnose and treat us properly, or do we run to poets? The answers are obvious: despite what illusions we may have about equality, the reality of the matter is that all critiques are not the same. And, further, their value doesn't stem from the amount of effort the critic put into responding to your work, or any such nonsense, but rather HOW they responded to it based on their past experiences. For us, here, it is difficult to know each other's background -- nay, let's say it's impossible -- so how could we possibly know whose critiques are worth second thought and whose deserve a smile and nod?
This brings us to the second big issue with criticism: many, many times since I've been here, I've seen fresh writers defend their work as something not written for others but written for themselves. This begs the question: why, then, have you chosen to post it here, in a public domain, where the most minimal effort on your part would reveal many users take their craft seriously and expect you to do the same? Besides the obvious contradiction that if you wrote it for yourself you wouldn't post it here, you'd keep it in a journal, there's something much more important that needs to be reconciled immediately: you need to decide (not definitively, for sure, but for the short term) what your goals are with writing.
This decision, above all else, should be your primary guiding light in determining which critiques are valuable to you and which are not. If you write for fun and someone who writes seriously comes down hard on you, then you should disregard it. That's the pleasure of being on a public website: you get people from different strokes who have different ideas all collaborating to form a giant community where all possible interests can be cultivated. Trust me, for every serious critic you'll encounter, there are plenty of people who also view writing as a past-time and will respond to your art as such. THUS -- the question of whether criticism should be harsh or constructive or nice or whatever should be totally thrown out the window: a criticism needs to be honest, and needs to be predicated off the critic's own experience--not your whims and fancy. Let me be explicit when I say this: there are people on this site who try immensely hard to better their craft through appreciating serious and harsh criticism -- your attitude that writing is not something worth investing more than a marginal effort in is an insult to them and to all poets who try to perfect their practice. That's not to say you're wrong, or that you are discouraged from enjoying it as a pleasurable hobby, but that you should be aware of how you are perceived by those critics.
Moreover, I have seen in more than one place the argument that because we aren't published and renowned, advice along the lines of "discard this" is invalidated and without justification. I am the first to stand up and decry this outrage: this argument is fallacious on many levels and demonstrates an ineptitude to appreciate the writing process. We do not disregard our doctor's advice because he has not suffered our ailments; we don't disregard film critics because they don't make (good) films, and we don't disregard art critics because they don't make (good) art. This line of reasoning seems to me bizarre and, at best, irrational. In truth, the practice of writing and the practice of critique are two mutually beneficial procedures, but ultimately they're mutually exclusive. A good writer does not make a good critic, necessarily, and a good critic does not make a good writer necessarily, as well.
One need not be renowned or published to have an ear for good verse, good dialogue, or anything. What one should have, however, is a refinement of taste based on exposure to other works which are considered "good" and coming to appreciate their value in the realm of literature. No one is able to really define what would make a good sensibility, but it's like pornography: you know it when you see it. To that extent, comments such as "throw this out" are meant literally: there's nothing in the poem that is salvageable in any conceivable rewrite. That doesn't mean stop writing; it doesn't mean give up. It means whatever you've been working with is showing no signs of getting any better with any foreseeable effort. Sometimes, that's just how it is: an idea isn't good, the execution is terrible--whatever.
When I hear young writers going on about how such so-called "destructive" criticism goes against their mettle and ultimately discourages them from writing: I ask myself who has really given up writing because someone disliked it? The writers most often using this line of argument further--ironically--tend to claim they're writing for themselves, not for others, so lay off (Do I even need to point out that this is the "Young Writers Society" as opposed to the "Young Diary Society"? This isn't a journal for you to post your sloppy seconds for others to chew on--when you post, make sure it's something you feel you've put an effort into (which, notably, is more than simply writing it once and never looking back)). What I wonder is, then, how destructive criticism goes against their mettle if they're entirely self-driven? It's contradictory. The truth is: we all write to express ourselves and be understood. Whether our chosen media is fiction or poetry or essay or what have you, we all desperately seek to be understood. The hard truth of the matter is, however: not all expressions, like critiques, are equal. What critiques, harsh as they may be, destructive as they may be, are trying to guide you to do is to find better, more inventive outlets for your expression.
At the birth of your career as a writer, that's a tough proposition. But let me tell you, from first-hand experience, you have much farther to go--and the sad fact is you may never be the next Frost, or Auden, or Whitman. That doesn't mean that you won't be great and that you should nihilistically abandon the profession of writing: that, precisely, is why God made critics. Critics help you understand your weaknesses; they help you understand your limits and how to deal with them. You will, by the way, have limits--that's what makes poetry and writing, in general, such a diverse and interesting field: it's not homogenized, but it's vastly heterogeneous based precisely on the fact that we all have our limits. Good writers know when and how to deal with these, but they certainly don't just stumble into them: it takes time, and it takes considerable effort, and, most of all, it takes hard knocks. I'm sorry if that's not appealing to you, but it's the truth.
If you aren't willing to try, it means your poetry will always be appallingly bad, and harsh criticisms will not stop showing up at your door (or computer screen, for that matter). Completely apart from the sheer mess it makes of a piece of work, you will thus never learn what actually makes a poem effective - more than any words you use, it's the underlying psychological triggers of arrangement, form and structure that affect the reader. If you don't bother to learn some basic ground rules and work with them, and insist on writing for yourself, then people will always read your poetry and basically say, "Whatever." There are always people who will claim they don't need to use poetic rules and techniques because they want poetry to be "free" and that they don't want to be serious; unfortunately, what they don't notice is that the reason it never leaves the internet and onto the bookshelf is because it always turns out badly.
Cheers, and all the best! |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
Sam
starface
Epic Novelist
Gender: 
Age: 15
Joined: 12 Dec 2004
Posts: 4920
Reviews: 1251
Country: 'mreeka
446 Points
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 03, 2007 1:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
*claps for Brad*
A few things of agreement, dissent, and general support:
| Quote: |
| Do we trust people who have doctorates in art history to give genuinely enlightening commentary on a new painting, or do we think it would be better to trust the guy who is now, for the first time in his life, walking into the art museum? |
- In writing- which is for the most part, a highly public profession- you want both opinions, if you don't want completely strange literary fiction and you want readers, but do not want the writing quality of a Danielle Steele novel. The doctorate in art history will give you an analysis of your art as art, and the guy who simply walked in will give you an analysis of whether or not is is appealing to the masses. You need both to "make it" in literature.
| Quote: |
| your attitude that writing is not something worth investing more than a marginal effort in is an insult to them and to all poets who try to perfect their practice. |
Amen. Much as I hate to say it, that's how I feel...I try not to let it show, but it is just one of those things.
| Quote: |
| I have seen in more than one place the argument that because we aren't published and renowned, advice along the lines of "discard this" is invalidated and without justification. |
- I read somewhere that Ray Bradbury has written 800 short stories and only about 90 have ever been published. Was every one of those stories nuggets of gold? No. You bet he's deleted quite a few, right?
I think I've rambled about this before, but I do believe that it takes writers a while to develop. There was a time where I couldn't take tough criticism, but now I thrive on it.
My stance on this matter: don't take it too seriously. People used to complain that they didn't get enough critiques, and now they have a more than ever before, and they're still complaining. That's just not fair to the fellow members of your community. |
_________________
You can build a throne with bayonets, but you can't sit on it for very long.
- Boris Yeltsin |
|
| Back to top |
|
Leja
Slightly more inclined to writing than previously
Epic Novelist
Gender:
Age: 18
Joined: 20 Mar 2007
Posts: 2707
Reviews: 788
Country: my locker
300 Points
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 03, 2007 7:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I agree (to everything). I think that the sooner people learn the difference in criticisms, the better off they (and everyone else) will be. But what surprised me most was the word or two of hope here and there.
To answer the title's question, yes. All is fair in love and writing.
| Quote: |
| There's something fundamental about reacting to art, so much so that I suspect most of you have never really taken the time to think much about it. |
On a slightly unrelated note, my music teacher says of great music that you don't think; you react, because by the time you try to pin down the thought, it's gone. |
_________________
Got YWS? |
|
| Back to top |
|
Cade
Stores writing utensils in a flowerpot.
Master of the Forum
Gender:
Age: 17
Joined: 13 Dec 2006
Posts: 1944
Reviews: 752
Country: Where the wild things are.
521 Points
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 03, 2007 9:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Newer members would be well advised to read this.
I feel that sometimes we should show some sensitivity; after all, this is a Young Writers Society. While we should be taught from the beginning, as soon as possible, that we're not always going to receive praise, people have to be eased into this gently; an ice cube plunged into hot water will crack.
A child who creates a drawing with fingerpaints should be encouraged; all children have the potential to become great artists, after all. Poets are born as well as made. A child who writes a bad poem should still be encouraged; if he is not encouraged, or even worse, if he receives harsh criticism, he is not likely to write one again.
Obviously, YWS is mostly teenagers, not children; depending on the ability and experience of the teenager in question, we need a mix of encouragement and criticism. (Still, some people do have to be shocked into it or they'll never get it, and just keep posting trash. As you said in your last paragraph, Brad, if a writer does not take the time and effort to learn the ground rules, he doesn't deserve to call himself a serious writer.)
I definitely agree that the writer should not defend himself by saying, "But I write it for me, to express myself." No one who posts on a public forum should ever be allowed to use that excuse to discredit an editor. I do write for myself, but to say that the stuff I post on YWS was not also written for an audience is hypocrisy. |
_________________
"My pet, I've been to the devil, and he's a very dull fellow. I won't go there again, even for you..." |
|
| Back to top |
|
Meep
♥less
Master of the Forum
Gender:
Age: 19
Joined: 25 Oct 2006
Posts: 1851
Reviews: 209
Country: Nutopia
300 Points
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 05, 2007 9:08 pm Post subject: Re: A question of criticism: Is all fair in love and...writi |
|
|
| Incandescence wrote: |
| Do we trust people who have doctorates in art history to give genuinely enlightening commentary on a new painting, or do we think it would be better to trust the guy who is now, for the first time in his life, walking into the art museum? |
This brings up an interesting idea. The person with a Ph.D. in art history will have been taught what "art" is, and what it is supposed to be - what it should look like, what it should mean. His or her response will be based on what they have learned from others. The man who has never seen art will have a more natural reaction to the art, and will be able to better appreciate it for it's merits because he will not see it's faults. (Or, he will see it's faults but not it's merits.) Either way, he will have no preconceived notion of what "art" should be, and will be able to appreciate the individual piece for what it is on it's own.
Both views are, in my opinion, valid.
(Caveat: I think that reacting and responding to visual art is different than reacting and responding to written works. We see every day, and thus we have a natural eye for what we consider beautiful - whatever that may be. Writing, I think, is different - it's also why people seem to think it is easier to write than to draw or paint: we are not so naturally adept at processing it and therefore we think we can get away with more mistakes. This is another rant entirely.)
(I don't think the doctor/poet analogy works, by the way. They're completely different fields, and science and art are really very different things.)
Your essay(?) also seems to imply that people should not share what they have written for themselves, and I don't think this is true. Writing should be for yourself first - but the audience should be a very close second. What I mean is, write what you enjoy because you enjoy it - but keep in mind that you should do your best to write something other people might also enjoy, should you plan on sharing it with them.
(I fell into the trap of only writing what I thought other people wanted to read, and I am just now starting to pull myself out of it. I see the validity of your argument, but it can easily be misinterpreted as "if you'll enjoy it, it isn't good writing.")
I don't mean to argue or offend; I'm just thinking "out loud," if you will.
(I am now debating the relative merit of the critiques I have posted and wondering if they are any good at all.) |
_________________
「… the closer you get to the light // the greater your shadow becomes …」
» temporary hiatus while I go back to school and get settled in again
» enter the "fangirl project" competition & win fabulous(?) prizes! |
|
| Back to top |
|
PerforatedxHearts
shut up, i'm nanoing.
Novelist
Gender:
Age: 14
Joined: 06 May 2007
Posts: 387
Reviews: 115
Country: United States
166 Points
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 07, 2007 7:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| a freakin' men. |
_________________
"Video games don't affect kids. If Pacman had affected us as kids, we'd all be running around in darkened rooms, munching magic pills, and listening to repetitive electronic music." --anonymous/banner.
NANOWRIMO2008 |
|
| Back to top |
|
Snoink
Snuggly
Writer of Legend
Gender:
Age: 20
Joined: 02 Apr 2005
Posts: 8716
Reviews: 2137
Country: USA
1931 Points
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 07, 2007 7:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Actually, I think the art critic would have a better eye for art. I used to think that anybody who was trained on an art meant that he would become a sterile critic, but that isn't the case. What art critics have to go through is learning more about art, so that deepens your understanding with the art and all of humanity.
Much like the critical reader, the art critic can understand symbolism and metaphor and allegory. He can determine what kind of paints and such were used -- which can give us a big idea on how much the art meant to the artist and his patrons, as paints could be a very expensive, and he knows the history behind the piece, and everything else.
It's sort of like reading through "Invisible Man." You can say, "Oh, that's nice," and walk away OR you can actively participate in the story, reading through and beyond it. Though both viewpoints are acceptable, of course, one experience is richer than other, because it is based on world experience and the words, rather than just the words. |
_________________
"So, Obama calls McCain erratic. Well, I call Obama a squirrel." -- Rush Limbaugh
Video Critiques by Yours Truly.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
