As An Afterthought

[queenoftheskies]

Regarding my earlier post about writing problems I still needed to work on.

Why does it still bother me?

BECAUSE I LET IT.

That's the reason. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out, huh?

So, I guess maybe I have to take this problem by the horns like I did the other problems and face it head on?

Comments

[madwriter.livejournal.com]

I used to think that it was odd when writers said not even to read your good reviews. It made more sense when they added that it could inflate your ego. But I also realize now the unspoken reason of "Wow--they really liked my story...What if I never write one good enough to publish there again?"

[queenoftheskies.livejournal.com]

Oh, wow. I never even thought of that. But, it makes tons of sense. It would increase the pressure to perform, wouldn't it?

[madwriter.livejournal.com]

Hopefully I haven't given you a new worry...:) But yes, it does add a bit to the pressure (if you think about it too much, which I try not to), and it makes you feel a little--well, odd when you get a rejection from a place you've already sold to before.

[kimberlychapman.livejournal.com]

Yeah, if you can take it by the horns and face it that'd be cool...just don't beat yourself up if that doesn't work easily. Sometimes these things are bothersome because we're humans.

Definitely try to let it go, but please know that if it keeps bugging you, you're just normal. :)

[queenoftheskies.livejournal.com]

Thanks. :)

In some respects, I think I'm doing better with it. I can explain to myself why people say things if they don't read my genre or aren't well-informed. And, let those slide off some now.

It's just the people that make comments because they think they know EVERYTHING that bug me the most, I think. I don't feel like I know everything and, for a while, I felt like everyone knew more than I do.

But, you know what? Even if they know more about writing and marketing and publishing than I do, I still know my story and what I'm out to accomplish better than they do. I have to stick to that.

[madwriter.livejournal.com]

>>It's just the people that make comments because they think they know EVERYTHING that bug me the most, I think. I don't feel like I know everything and, for a while, I felt like everyone knew more than I do.<<

Are they also receiving critiques? If so, and they know everything, why?

[kimberlychapman.livejournal.com]

Because some people are just oh-so-much-better than the rest of us, and feel the need to tell us so on a regular basis. *shrug* I guess people with petty little egos sometimes need to inflate themselves by bashing others.

I've noticed that some of the writers most prone to being overly critical of other writing are those who suck the most themselves. :)

It's one thing to provide honest critique and say, "I think you left this plot point dangling and as a reader I find it unsatisfying" or "I liked character X but when he did this one thing, I felt it was out of character and you didn't fully explain why he'd do something so incongruous, so if you fleshed that out I'd like that part better" or other stuff like that, because that stuff helps a writer improve the overall story. I've been caught cheating my way through a heavy part more than once and had test readers/editors force me to tell the story better in those parts. Nothing wrong with that.

But when people are all like, "you'll never publish this because *I* didn't like it because the ending was not how I wanted things to come out" or "your entire style is off-putting to *me*" then I'm tempted to ignore them. Actually, nobody's ever said that stuff to me but I've seen it on boards to other people...which is pretty much why I stay away from author boards. :)

[madwriter.livejournal.com]

>>But when people are all like ... "your entire style is off-putting to *me*" then I'm tempted to ignore them.<<

I'll admit to saying something to the gist of that once or twice before--more tactfully, I would hope--but I always follow it up with "So I don't think I'm the right person to critique this, because I'm not sure how objective I could be and that wouldn't be fair to you."

There have been stories I simply couldn't read, but I'll be the first to say that this doesn't make it a bad story--all it means is that I just had trouble getting through the writing style. Perfect example of this is Christopher Rowe's story "The Voluntary State": I had to slog my way through it, and now it's up for a Hugo. It was obviously a very intelligent story...but the style was off-putting for me personally.

But anyway, that's a bit of a digression. I was about to say "I wonder how these not-in-a-good-way brutal reviewers would feel about equal treatment", but I don't need to ask. I've seen it. They get huffy, they get defensive, they essentially tell me that I am utterly missing their brilliance and subtlely. I think these are the same folks who believe they can't publish anything because of some grand conspiracy against new writers.

[kimberlychapman.livejournal.com]

but I always follow it up with "So I don't think I'm the right person to critique this, because I'm not sure how objective I could be and that wouldn't be fair to you."

Which is entirely sensible and fair. :)

They get huffy, they get defensive, they essentially tell me that I am utterly missing their brilliance and subtlely.

Indeed. I can take bad reviews as long as they're legitimate. The bitchy little reviews on my Amazon page are not legitimate...they arrived right after a fight I had with some folks online, and over a year after the book was out of print and pretty nigh impossible to get. They echo each other and say nothing concrete that indicates they read the book.

But when folks have given me legitimate, fair, honest criticism, I welcome it. Any good writer does. The sucky writers pick on people and can't take anything in return.


I think these are the same folks who believe they can't publish anything because of some grand conspiracy against new writers.


Oh there is. It's against sucky ones. Well, for the most part...there are definitely sucky ones that get through the filter. :) Makes one wonder just how very sucky the nasty types must be, eh?

[madwriter.livejournal.com]

I edited two online (paying) zines--I don't need to wonder. :o

[kimberlychapman.livejournal.com]

Ah, my condolences. ;) Does the brain damage repair itself over time or linger permanently? My beloved editor lady seems to feel more of the second from some of the things she's seen. She does have deliciously painful stories to share, though. :)

[java-fiend.livejournal.com]

<<

[Error: Irreparable invalid markup ('<it's>') in entry. Owner must fix manually. Raw contents below.]

<<<It's just the people that make comments because they think they know EVERYTHING that bug me the most, I think>>>

This goes back to a conversation you and I had a while ago... but do you think it's possible that when you say a person who thinks that they know "everything," you may possibly be putting an emphasis on it that isn't really there? The tone of what a person is saying is often lost in the great world of cyberspace and if we're in a particular frame of mind, we can take things wrong sometimes. I've done it all to often and when I confront a person about it, they're shocked to learn that I've taken it that way.

So is it possible?