I'm pretty sure there is a thread already made about this topic... but all searches I've tried to pull up threads on critiques, reviews, and feedback keep coming up with threads in the Workshop or "no results found" so I'm making a new one to share some thoughts: In the thread that may or may not exist, I remember discussion of worst critiques received, best critiques received, fears/anxieties/frustration over amazon reviews, etc. I recently read an interview with Ta-Nehisi Coates (Between the World and Me, We Were Eight Years in Power, and The Water Dancer) by The Amistad and this part on criticism stood out to me: Amistad Staff: How do you interpret criticism and is there a point at where an author’s failures are legitimate? Coates: I probably, in my most healthy, I don’t interpret it all. Public criticism, I think, can’t help you. I’m not saying criticism can’t help you. By the time something is being publicly criticized, from my perspective this is what I’ve learned through discipline and practice, the thing is done. The thing is alive and it’s out in the world. If I’ve done it right, there have been many many rounds of private criticism. Many rounds with people who I respect and whose words and criticism I need and value. I really put it through the ringer. I’m not saying criticism shouldn’t exist, I not saying people shouldn’t review and criticize, they very much should. Like my girl said, “I said what I said.” It’s pretty much done at that point. Criticism isn’t for the writer. I think it’s for other people. I think it’s best for other people and their interactions with the work. At its best, that’s what you’re doing. What do you guys think of the underlined sentiments, and the answer as a whole?
I think it stand well and true for finished work. However, the writer can still take on the criticism for future works, there is no rule against that (I think). If for example their style is highly cirticized, they may opt to change it for their next project. Or stand firm and become appreciated in time? For unfinished work, criticism can be the golden key to advancing your text in a positive manner. But yeah, once done, it should be done. Once published, it can of course go through revision like we've seen with some criticized texts that depict racism.
As Coates noted, a published book has already undergone extensive criticism from respected people whose comments have been duly considered and/or acted upon. Post-publication public criticism is generally produced to boost the reputation/ego/career of the person offering the criticism. It may be sincere criticism, it may be accurate critcism, but it isn't particularly useful to the author.
So, when I work with an editor who is paying me, I'm like putty. I thank on just about every suggestion and carry it out to the best of my abilities. They always say I have the final say. But what if I just did everything they said without actually giving it any thought? That's what I do. And that's when I quickly learned how invaluable working with an editor is. Is that feedback? Or criticism? I want to be easy to work with, and I've learned to trust the process. I don't think the two are the same, but I also feel I have experienced both from working in the short fiction scene. Sometimes a publication will have nice things to say about a story they are ultimately rejected. I suppose this is feedback. But I've gotten horrible personal rejections that were quite long. I found some of them insulting that went to me as a writer and not the story I had sent then to consider. Other times I just felt, well, they were wrong. This is criticism. I also think who is giving the advice or feedback matters. I used to get feedback from someone reading every single thing I wrote, but I don't really do that anymore. It is a little nerve-racking to have been the only eyes on something before it goes to an editor. But I sort of feel okay about it. I'll listen and consider some advice, but what good is criticism? That's a serious question. What good is criticism?
Semantics alert. Critical analysis is definitely not for the author. It ends up being a work of its own, with its own commentary. Once there was a thread where one member posited that reviewing (his fashion was crit. analysis IMO, which I still enjoyed reading) was the best kind of workshop feedback. I don't agree. Criticism, on the other hand, is arguably useful for an author. It has to be filtered, and evaluated with the proper degree of perspective. Focus groups are a great example of criticism received incorrectly. "I didn't like that ending; it made me uncomfortable." "Okay, ending's bad. Need a happy ending, more explosions, no one dies. We'll fix it in post." Somewhere, some place, people forget that good art can cause a negative emotion. On top of that, the creator also needs to understand that a poor reception from outside her target audience is usually a good thing. Being distinct and worthwhile means that certain people like it and certain people don't, otherwise it's compromising for bland denominator appeal, like oatmeal or plastic surgery.
Amen. If I care about how a piece of writing makes me feel -- positively or negatively -- it means it was good writing.
While I want the reader to have an emotional reaction of some type. For the most part leave the emotions out of a critique, unless it is along the lines of couldn't connect with the characters, or this section fell flat. I want to know if there are perceived errors in the works internal logic, plot holes I missed, etc.
