One of the greatest obstacles to becoming a better writer that I have observed is the matter of self-confidence. Self-confidence is a slippery thing: too much of it and it can take the form of pride (I don't need your stinking help) and too little of it can be a way to deflect criticism (I'm no good anyhow, I don't know why I bother to try). Both extremes create a barrier between the writer and critiques that might be used to strengthen the writing.
We tend to think of an ego out of control to be the swollen head "I'm better than you" variety. My experience is that more frequently an ego out of control will go the other direction, into a spiral of "I'm no good." An ego in balance is capable of doing a spot check with reality and doesn't take every critique as a slam against their self-worth.
I find myself less likely to offer critique for people who turn every comment into a personal affront. Frankly, I don't have the time to baby-sit their feelings. If I say, "this is unbelievable" I mean: "In my opinion, I personally don't believe this character, this scene is probable." I don't mean: "you are a crappy writer and a worse human being, and how in the world do you even justify the air you breathe?"
Critiques hurt mostly because a good writer IS emotionally invested in their characters and their stories. I try to approach the critiques given to me with this frame of mind: "Here is the opinion of one person. It is useful for me to see where they got off track from the story I was trying to present. Let me see if I can figure out a way to close up the gaps in my story so this sort of reader won't derail."
I think it's sad to see writers with a serious lack of self-confidence. If I could get only one thing across to every writer, it would be the importance of being able to take constructive criticism and use it as a tool to improve their writing. But don't let it define your sense of self worth. It's about the writing, not about you.
I feel the biggest thing of all is to be humble, don't expect anything, so when people do like your stuff its a total surprise, but your ready for the criticism. Personally though you must believe in yourself enough to know when the criticism is bad or good and just weigh that out in your mind.
It also comes down to who criticizes your work. My guidlines for criticizing someone elses work, is to first find the overall meaning and what their trying to get across, and tell them everything they do good; then I will go into what I felt they did wrong, while trying not to impede upon their style.
We have to remember that when someone writes something, they put their heart on the page, and more of who they are than they know; which makes their self confidence a shaky thing, and I believe writers should always encrouage each other, before they criticize the authors writing.
Yeah, just kind of going off what you said.
[This message has been edited by Grijalva (edited March 17, 2006).]
So, yeah, I DO agree with you that too much self-confidence is a bad thing, especially if you aren't willing to take in comments. So I'll try to be more careful...I didn't mean to sound so mad in F&F.
BUt I must say, its better than a lack of confidence. If you can't get confidence in your writing you might as well give up now.
I used to feel that way. I'm starting to learn that I can improve, bit by bit. What's my best today may not be quite my best tomorrow. But that can be a hard truth to digest, not because we don't want it to be true, but because it takes so much work.
After a while I began to see that I could do better. Always. I now get excited to hear what things my fellow writers see wrong in my work (sure at first my stomach sinks, but I get past it and get editing). I know I can't write a good piece without them. Because the truth is, no writer can just sit down a have it all come out perfect. there will always be issues that need addressing. Sometimes more then others. And what a satisfaction to send out that finished, polished (and re-re-polished) piece and finally have an editor take you seriously.
Plus, you don't want to be too self-confident because then you run the risk of catching the American Idol bug, which is that you think you are so good that you believe all people are wrong if they say something is wrong with your writing.
Just find a balance. Be confident enough to post a story on here. Take the "abuse" people deal to your story. Then thank everyone for their help. If you think they are wrong, keep it to yourself.
It's discouraging when comparing the success of someone's story against the lack of success of my own; especially if it's an amatur piece.
What's also discouraging is feeling like you're being left behind. For example, having the only resourses available to write is a pen and paper when you know you could do much more with a lap top or pc. That's one of my problems, for sure.
At any rate, I know I don't suffer from over-confidence when it comes to writing. I know there are those who are much better than I am and there always will be, no matter how much I improve. Yeah, that can be discouraging too, but it's the truth. There's always someone better out there.
Anyway, blah, all these things tend to get in the way of producing anything, really. Which is mostly why I haven't posted a story on here in a while.
Why don't I quit now? Well, I don't really know. Part of me likes to write and I'd love to get over or around those pesky problems I run into when I do write so I can write better and maybe, just maybe, one will be good enough to publish and not just garbage that I usually kick out there.
Now with critiques, I've taken the position along the lines of, "I'm actively interested in improving my work, so nothing that's said about my work can hurt me." It hasn't always been an easy policy to follow---and I certainly reserve the right to politely argue back, to dispute contentions, to explain misunderstandings, and to ask for clarification if I find the comments fuzzy and confusing.
As Elan pointed out above, you have to have the confidence in your writing to be able to tell which ones are actually helping you. Remember one thing though, no one writes perfectly. If some is telling you it's perfect and don't change a thing--they are probably not helping you to improve.
Critique is the presumption of authority, and every critique goes through the filter of how that person thinks the story should be written. The writer is the final arbiter of what works. That being said, critique should address strengths as well as weaknesses, and that's something we as critics need to remember.
[This message has been edited by Spaceman (edited March 18, 2006).]
In the year I've belonged to Hatrack, I've seen this issue of lack of self confidence/defensiveness over critiques come up over and over again.
I guess what I'm trying to point out is that a hyper-sensitive response really has nothing to do with the process of critique, it has to do with the writer's confidence in themselves. Critiques are aimed solely at the writing... no more, no less. From what I've seen on Hatrack, the vast majority of us, and certainly the better writers are very clear about that fact.
When a writer chooses to take a comment made about the WRITING ("This sentence/story is confusing/not believable/poorly executed") and twist it into a comment about themselves ("You think I'm a crappy writer") it creates an artificial barrier that no one can get around. It's projection... "I feel uncertain about my skill, so I interpret every comment made by others as a confirmation of my low opinion of myself."
I have a friend who belongs to AA, and they have a saying about being "terminally unique." Most people are ego-centric; they see the world through their own eyes and experience. It's hard for people to think beyond their own world/experience and realize that other people come from a completely different point of view. Like my story about walking my dog and encountering people who let their dog wander off the leash because THEIR dog is friendly, not realizing their dog is not the center of the universe or that other dogs in the universe may NOT be friendly.
I find this concept of ego-centric thinking interesting enough that I'm trying to work some of it into my current WIP. Conflict happens mainly because people suffer from a sense of "terminal uniqueness"... a belief that "everything that happens is about me." Character growth happens when the character realizes there are other forces shaping events, in short, when they move beyond the awareness of "me."
We HAVE to be in a different mindset when we ask for advice. If we offer one of our darlings up for critique, and get back advice that strikes hard, perhaps it's because the critic is pointing out a weakness in our writing that we already knew was there.
_________
I had a feeling.
quote:
Remember one thing though, no one writes perfectly. If some is telling you it's perfect and don't change a thing--they are probably not helping you to improve.
If you find yourself reading a story and you get lost in it to the point where you don't even see the words on the page and at the end you come up gasping for air, it is perfectly legitimate to post that the story is perfect as is and to send it out right away. Granted, the chances of that are slim, but it has happened to me while reading other people, and to some other people while reading me.
I could take almost any published story and critique the snot out of it and find lots of nitpicks, but I feel at the end I'm only doing myself a disservice. Sometimes it's nice to enjoy a story as a reader rather than a critiquer. And if you begin reading a story in critique mode but despite your best efforts you slide into reader mode for the duration, to me that says the story was a success.
I also belong to another writer's forum, where we do believe that it is possible to read a story and not find anything wrong with it. If I ever got a critique that said don't change a thing, I would feel pretty good.
The other type are the critters who love your story because they aren't able to find the nits. The latter group isn't helping you to improve your writing. That is why I suggested that you should build relationships. Sometimes, recognizing which people to believe is the greatest challenge.
The problem with dropping into reader mode is that your mind will gloss over the issues you might otherwise have caught. In that case you are doing the author a disservice because they asked for a critique. If someone asks me for a critique, I'm going to "critique the snot out of it and find lots of nitpicks" because that's what they asked for--unless of course they ask for something else in particular.
I think you can usually tell the difference between people who aren't skilled enough to spot errors and those who can, because those who can usually point out what they DO like and why, whereas the others just say "I don't see anything here to comment on."
quote:
If you find yourself reading a story and you get lost in it to the point where you don't even see the words on the pageand at the end you come up gasping for air, it is perfectly legitimate to post that the story is perfect as is and to send it out right away.
I'll agree with this statement with only one qualification. This has never happened to me, and I don't understand how it is even possible. I'm not denying that some people do get caught up in stories to that extent...I just don't know how. It's like claiming that you got so caught up in a peice of musice that you didn't hear any of the notes...I don't deny that it happens to some people, but I cannot understand how that could happen to anyone, and it never happens to me.
If you're the kind of person that can do that...can honestly be deeply moved by a story you're reading to the point that you can't even consciously percieve the words on the page, then it's fine to admit if a story affected you that way. But if you're not, then don't pretend to be. It is never helpful to lie in your critiques, either way. If you can't honestly find anything wrong, then don't claim you did just to look clever. If you honestly did, then don't claim you didn't. It's very simple.
Though I am usually giving more general view- the am I hooked vs I didn't like this sentence structure. Thanks for the encouragement.
quote:
Of course, I can't say what benefit there is in honesty, I've gotten precious little reward out of it. It's just one of those things that you're supposed to do anyway.
I have always appreciated your honesty, Survivor, both in critiques and in general message board banter. I know that's little reward for the effort, but it's what I've got to give. Thanks. But yeah, I know what you're saying.