How to Take Criticism
Apr. 22nd, 2013 03:17 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
ljwritesOne of the rewarding things about leaving reviews is the correspondence I get into with some of the authors. It occurs to me I've exchanged useful writing tips through these private messages, so I've decided to flesh out some of the advice I gave and make them available to those who don't feel like hacking into my FanFiction.Net private messages. I'll be naming names and linking fics in this post on the theory that fanfic writers are generally positive about exposure, but if you don't want to be linked tell me and I'll take the link down.
First off, I'll talk about that dark side of the giddy joy of writing: Critical comments and how to respond to them. I'm going by the assumption that you're interested in improving the craft of writing, so if your goal is solely to have fun and share some squee this post probably isn't useful. In fact I don't think you'll get much mileage out of any post about writing advice if your goal isn't to improve, and I say God bless you. There are so many better things to spend time on than staring at a computer screen figuring out arrangements of words. For the rest of you, here are words that are hopefully of some value:
1. Don't get defensive
As I said toloopy777, when an author defends herself against critical comments along the lines of "that wasn't what I meant" or a thinly-veiled "you read it wrong," I tend to back off because I understand that the author's focus isn't on learning about writing. That's not a bad thing at all (see caveat above), I just see a mismatch in goals and don't want to impose my focus on those who don't share it.
By this I'm not saying I have some incredible wisdom to impart on the craft of writing, nor that not having me in your hair is a devastating blow to your future as a writer. (In fact, arguably it's an overall good in many ways.) Rather I'm saying that a defensive stance toward critical comments in general is detrimental to the goal of improving any skill, including writing.
Besides, trying to explain why a critic is wrong comes close to invalidating your readers' perceptions. If a reader thinks your lovingly-crafted inspirational hero and heroine come across as rather selfish and shallow individuals, the courteous response is not "Well you read it wrong so shut up." The same is true no matter how politely you might try to word it. Maybe that's not the way you read your own story, but who says your reading is the last word just because you wrote it? The only way to enforce complete homogeneity in understanding is to never share your story, or alternately gain the ability to control minds (soon, my pretty, soon). If you do choose to expose your story to others and haven't perfected your mind control powers, it's best to accept that your story will generate multiple interpretations, including some that seem crazy to you.
In addition to the natural inclination of a story to lend itself to different understandings, there's also the possibility that you might have contributed to outright misunderstanding of your intentions. This is where criticism as a means to improvement becomes really valuable: Most writers may not be supervillains (I have my suspicions about Alan Moore), but you can in fact control reader perceptions up to a point through consistency, tight plotting, and attention to detail. This way you can maximize the chance that the interpretations of your story are the productive and interesting kind and not annoyance over Unfortunate Implications or desperate attempts to explain away plot holes. You as the author will usually be too close to your work to catch many such flaws, hence the value of reader feedback including those you don't want to hear. Especially those you don't want to hear.
Of course, "don't be defensive" is nowhere near the same as "the critic is always right." Quite aside from differing interpretations, readers might outright forget important details of your story or read things into it that weren't there. (Though again, you need to examine what you could have done to help them remember or understand. If your writing is accessible only to the smartest and most careful of readers, prepare to be misunderstood a lot.) Some readers have an agenda and may be determined to hate everything that doesn't fit their very narrow views of how things should be. Some may simply seem determined to tear you down. This is why Point 1 needs to go hand-in-hand with Point 2:
2. Not everyone will like your writing and that's okay
This is something I wrote to sohawkeward in a series of PMs we exchanged after one of my reviews for Finding My Way:
Just because someone tells you something doesn't mean it has to be true. We get educated about this when it comes to strangers with candy who tell us they need to take us somewhere to see Dad, but not so much when it comes to criticism. Maybe it's because so much of the early criticism we received was from authority figures who, for some unfathomable reason, were not overly eager to teach us to question their authority.
It's also valuable to remember criticism is evaluative, not factual, and validating or disproving it is possible only to a point. Sure there are some objective principles and standards in criticism--arguments should be based on facts and supported by logic, for one thing--but anyone who says her comments are totally objective with no subjectivity or taste involved is being about as truthful as the guy with the candy in his van. Less truthful, in fact, because there's a chance (though it's certainly not worth the risk of believing him) that the latter might actually be telling the truth.
All that's just a long way of saying that it's much better to be in the business of improving your skill than the business of pleasing people. It is of course valuable to listen to critical comments, especially when they point toward issues with your craft, see Point 1. However, it's just as valid to disagree with the critic. The critic might just have a different interpretation, different ideas about good writing, or different tastes. It doesn't mean you suck as a writer, that she's a mean person who's out to get you, and it certainly doesn't mean you should be at the beck and call of everyone who says anything about your work.
Remember how I said Points 1 and 2 need to go hand-in-hand like cute little preschool sweethearts? The same goes for the behaviors they advocate against. I suspect that getting defensive about criticism is just the flip side of conflating "someone doesn't like something I wrote" with "there's something wrong with my writing/me." Defensiveness about criticism makes a lot of sense under this mindset: If you conflate your writing skill, or more accurately compliments about writing skill, with your self-worth, it's easy to be driven to shout down your critics or rationalize against them--even if you know, intellectually, that this doesn't help you. Despite some of our parents' and teachers' best intentions, it seems that telling us we're worthless unless we perform to their specifications actually hinders growth rather than fostering it. No, I'm not bitter about this at all, why do you ask?
So if criticism is neither a personal insult to be defended against nor infallible revelation, what's the best way to respond? That's really up to everyone to decide and mostly I'm cautioning against the extremes of "How DARE you question my greatness!" and "Yes yes, meesa is a worthless cobbler of words who worship at critic's feet." Still, I do have a few suggestions for those who want it.
3. Thank your critic
This may be the most self-serving piece of advice I will ever give. Still, let me rationalize it by saying that this isn't about agreeing with every piece of criticism (see Point 2 above) but rather getting in the right mindset for improvement which, if you remember, is the premise of the entire post. Also, obviously I'm talking about actual criticism about writing here, not abusive or rude comments that should be ignored, called out, or reported, as appropriate.
Whether you agree with the criticism or not, this person cares enough to read your work carefully and to put her thoughts into words. That is not trivial in a world where a million diversions and tasks are screaming for everyone's attention. So whether you say so or it's just in your head, I think it's important to come from a place of gratitude so that you can see the criticism as an opportunity for improvement, not an occasion to salvage your ego.
4. Acknowledge and work on flaws
As with Point 3, this can be done in direct communication or just to yourself. It's easier when the criticism is points out flaws, such as comments about slow pacing and--even better--specific elements that make the pace lag. It's not as easy when the criticism is the result of flaws in the writing, taking the form of gripes about some plot point or characterization not making sense.
In either case, say "yes" first to the critiques and "no" only later, after much thought. (For "no," see Point 5) This is to overcome the natural resistance to change. Most of us like to get comfortable and not have to go through he hard slog of change. Left on your own you're likely to gravitate toward comfortable stagnation, another reason feedback is so valuable, so assume first that the criticism is in fact a reflection of a genuine failure of craft on your part.
If the critique helpfully points out flaws in a straightforward way, look at those parts of your writing with a similarly critical eye. If there are complaints about the story but no analysis of what caused those complaints, and most reader comments will fall along these lines, think about why they had a less-than-optimal experience. Were there plot holes you forgot to close? Are you distorting characters or making them act irrationally to make your scenes workable? Are your personal biases showing in the story to its detriment?
These are all valuable questions to ask, and ones you might never have gotten around to if it weren't for these pesky comments. This is another reason critical comments are occasions for thanks, not for raising shields. Best of all, by spotting flaws in your writing you can get around to fixing them, whether for the current story or your future writing.
5. Accept the validity of different views
Sometimes, even after giving it some thought, you might not agree with a specific criticism. What the critic sees as a bug may be a feature to you, and you might still disagree with the critic's interpretation.
And that's perfectly all right. As discussed in Point 2, the critic isn't necessarily right about everything, and even the best criticism has some element of subjectivity. It doesn't have to mean you're wrong or the critic is a bad person. It only means you disagree.
Disagreement, however, isn't an excuse for invalidation, as discussed in Point 1. Maybe you think the critic's points are off-base, that she has been reading selectively or with a bias. Well, you know what? Most of the time it doesn't matter.
Everyone reads selectively and with a bias. We are not reading machines whose function is to parse every word without fail and return an accurate interpretation, whatever "accurate" means. Who's to say it means "agrees with the author?" Every reader brings her experiences and expectations to the text, and in the process creates her own connections, interpretations, and meanings.
Your story is, as Umberto Eco put it, a machine for generating interpretations. You can only hope that your writing has enough depth, unexpected turns, and links to the wider consciousness, that it lend itself to interpretations you never imagined. So no, you might not agree with your critic, but that doesn't make the critic's point of view invalid.
If criticism seems inaccurate or even insulting, doesn't it deserve to be refuted? Maybe, if it really leaves out major parts of the story (that you took adequate steps to reinforce to readers), or uses honesty as an excuse for discourtesy, you might want to set the record straight. Nevertheless, the line between calling out distortion and invalidating reader perception is a thin one except in extreme cases.
I think in most cases you can get out of the need to defend yourself by adhering to this last piece of advice:
6. Remember that you are not what you write
I recently linked an article about singing choir where the author, very insightfully I think, said "Singing is nakedness." He went on to discuss how there is no separation between singing well and worth as a person, since in singing the instrument is you yourself and there isn't a division between the skill and the person.
I think writing has a similar quality of nakedness, an embeddedness in the very person. This may have something to do with the privileged position we give to verbal intelligence, a problem with the education system and society at large. We assume that someone who expresses himself well in words is smart, the flip side being that being unable to express yourself well verbally means you're, well, not. Or less.
Even setting aside the unfair and damaging weight given to verbal intelligence, the progression from "effective verbal expression" to "smart" skips a crucial step. Just because a person has good ideas doesn't mean it'll come across effectively. I mean, have you tried to read an academic paper recently, operative word being "tried?"
So if you find yourself conflating writing with intelligence or creativity, and that in turn with your self-worth, there's a nice buffer to put between writing and intelligence/creativity: Writing skill. It's not something you have or don't have, but something you can improve with specific steps, hard work, and sound principles. Intelligence and creativity are outside the scope of this article, but for an insight on such so-called "innate" qualities as well as skill you might want to check out Dr. Carol Dweck's work on mindsets.
Honest criticism will help you in the goal of improving your writing, and does not mean you are a) stupid, b) worthless, or c) will never write well. If you really can't handle it, it's best to stop pretending that your goal is to improve: You want to be told that you're good writer, which is in not in any way the same thing as writing well.
Not wanting to improve your writing is, as I have said, a valid choice to make. All that's important is to be honest about your choice, whichever it is. If you really do want to improve, you have to be able to take criticism and I hope this article has been of some little help to you.
First off, I'll talk about that dark side of the giddy joy of writing: Critical comments and how to respond to them. I'm going by the assumption that you're interested in improving the craft of writing, so if your goal is solely to have fun and share some squee this post probably isn't useful. In fact I don't think you'll get much mileage out of any post about writing advice if your goal isn't to improve, and I say God bless you. There are so many better things to spend time on than staring at a computer screen figuring out arrangements of words. For the rest of you, here are words that are hopefully of some value:
1. Don't get defensive
As I said to
loopy777, when an author defends herself against critical comments along the lines of "that wasn't what I meant" or a thinly-veiled "you read it wrong," I tend to back off because I understand that the author's focus isn't on learning about writing. That's not a bad thing at all (see caveat above), I just see a mismatch in goals and don't want to impose my focus on those who don't share it.By this I'm not saying I have some incredible wisdom to impart on the craft of writing, nor that not having me in your hair is a devastating blow to your future as a writer. (In fact, arguably it's an overall good in many ways.) Rather I'm saying that a defensive stance toward critical comments in general is detrimental to the goal of improving any skill, including writing.
Besides, trying to explain why a critic is wrong comes close to invalidating your readers' perceptions. If a reader thinks your lovingly-crafted inspirational hero and heroine come across as rather selfish and shallow individuals, the courteous response is not "Well you read it wrong so shut up." The same is true no matter how politely you might try to word it. Maybe that's not the way you read your own story, but who says your reading is the last word just because you wrote it? The only way to enforce complete homogeneity in understanding is to never share your story, or alternately gain the ability to control minds (soon, my pretty, soon). If you do choose to expose your story to others and haven't perfected your mind control powers, it's best to accept that your story will generate multiple interpretations, including some that seem crazy to you.
In addition to the natural inclination of a story to lend itself to different understandings, there's also the possibility that you might have contributed to outright misunderstanding of your intentions. This is where criticism as a means to improvement becomes really valuable: Most writers may not be supervillains (I have my suspicions about Alan Moore), but you can in fact control reader perceptions up to a point through consistency, tight plotting, and attention to detail. This way you can maximize the chance that the interpretations of your story are the productive and interesting kind and not annoyance over Unfortunate Implications or desperate attempts to explain away plot holes. You as the author will usually be too close to your work to catch many such flaws, hence the value of reader feedback including those you don't want to hear. Especially those you don't want to hear.
Of course, "don't be defensive" is nowhere near the same as "the critic is always right." Quite aside from differing interpretations, readers might outright forget important details of your story or read things into it that weren't there. (Though again, you need to examine what you could have done to help them remember or understand. If your writing is accessible only to the smartest and most careful of readers, prepare to be misunderstood a lot.) Some readers have an agenda and may be determined to hate everything that doesn't fit their very narrow views of how things should be. Some may simply seem determined to tear you down. This is why Point 1 needs to go hand-in-hand with Point 2:
2. Not everyone will like your writing and that's okay
This is something I wrote to sohawkeward in a series of PMs we exchanged after one of my reviews for Finding My Way:
You always have to account for the possibility that I'm an unnecessarily critical crank. Not being facetious here: So what if I don't like it, that's my problem and my opinion shouldn't dictate your writing. There are plenty of folk I respect whose criticisms I acknowledge but don't reflect in my writing, partly because of time and energy constraints but also because I don't expect everyone to like every aspect of what I write. Sometimes people point out problems that I agree are serious, in which case I take the time to make edits including dumping and rewriting thousands of words. Otherwise I thank the reader for their opinion and move on. I always hope my criticism is helpful, but it is by no means the last word and I reserve the right to be wrong.
Just because someone tells you something doesn't mean it has to be true. We get educated about this when it comes to strangers with candy who tell us they need to take us somewhere to see Dad, but not so much when it comes to criticism. Maybe it's because so much of the early criticism we received was from authority figures who, for some unfathomable reason, were not overly eager to teach us to question their authority.
It's also valuable to remember criticism is evaluative, not factual, and validating or disproving it is possible only to a point. Sure there are some objective principles and standards in criticism--arguments should be based on facts and supported by logic, for one thing--but anyone who says her comments are totally objective with no subjectivity or taste involved is being about as truthful as the guy with the candy in his van. Less truthful, in fact, because there's a chance (though it's certainly not worth the risk of believing him) that the latter might actually be telling the truth.
All that's just a long way of saying that it's much better to be in the business of improving your skill than the business of pleasing people. It is of course valuable to listen to critical comments, especially when they point toward issues with your craft, see Point 1. However, it's just as valid to disagree with the critic. The critic might just have a different interpretation, different ideas about good writing, or different tastes. It doesn't mean you suck as a writer, that she's a mean person who's out to get you, and it certainly doesn't mean you should be at the beck and call of everyone who says anything about your work.
Remember how I said Points 1 and 2 need to go hand-in-hand like cute little preschool sweethearts? The same goes for the behaviors they advocate against. I suspect that getting defensive about criticism is just the flip side of conflating "someone doesn't like something I wrote" with "there's something wrong with my writing/me." Defensiveness about criticism makes a lot of sense under this mindset: If you conflate your writing skill, or more accurately compliments about writing skill, with your self-worth, it's easy to be driven to shout down your critics or rationalize against them--even if you know, intellectually, that this doesn't help you. Despite some of our parents' and teachers' best intentions, it seems that telling us we're worthless unless we perform to their specifications actually hinders growth rather than fostering it. No, I'm not bitter about this at all, why do you ask?
So if criticism is neither a personal insult to be defended against nor infallible revelation, what's the best way to respond? That's really up to everyone to decide and mostly I'm cautioning against the extremes of "How DARE you question my greatness!" and "Yes yes, meesa is a worthless cobbler of words who worship at critic's feet." Still, I do have a few suggestions for those who want it.
3. Thank your critic
This may be the most self-serving piece of advice I will ever give. Still, let me rationalize it by saying that this isn't about agreeing with every piece of criticism (see Point 2 above) but rather getting in the right mindset for improvement which, if you remember, is the premise of the entire post. Also, obviously I'm talking about actual criticism about writing here, not abusive or rude comments that should be ignored, called out, or reported, as appropriate.
Whether you agree with the criticism or not, this person cares enough to read your work carefully and to put her thoughts into words. That is not trivial in a world where a million diversions and tasks are screaming for everyone's attention. So whether you say so or it's just in your head, I think it's important to come from a place of gratitude so that you can see the criticism as an opportunity for improvement, not an occasion to salvage your ego.
4. Acknowledge and work on flaws
As with Point 3, this can be done in direct communication or just to yourself. It's easier when the criticism is points out flaws, such as comments about slow pacing and--even better--specific elements that make the pace lag. It's not as easy when the criticism is the result of flaws in the writing, taking the form of gripes about some plot point or characterization not making sense.
In either case, say "yes" first to the critiques and "no" only later, after much thought. (For "no," see Point 5) This is to overcome the natural resistance to change. Most of us like to get comfortable and not have to go through he hard slog of change. Left on your own you're likely to gravitate toward comfortable stagnation, another reason feedback is so valuable, so assume first that the criticism is in fact a reflection of a genuine failure of craft on your part.
If the critique helpfully points out flaws in a straightforward way, look at those parts of your writing with a similarly critical eye. If there are complaints about the story but no analysis of what caused those complaints, and most reader comments will fall along these lines, think about why they had a less-than-optimal experience. Were there plot holes you forgot to close? Are you distorting characters or making them act irrationally to make your scenes workable? Are your personal biases showing in the story to its detriment?
These are all valuable questions to ask, and ones you might never have gotten around to if it weren't for these pesky comments. This is another reason critical comments are occasions for thanks, not for raising shields. Best of all, by spotting flaws in your writing you can get around to fixing them, whether for the current story or your future writing.
5. Accept the validity of different views
Sometimes, even after giving it some thought, you might not agree with a specific criticism. What the critic sees as a bug may be a feature to you, and you might still disagree with the critic's interpretation.
And that's perfectly all right. As discussed in Point 2, the critic isn't necessarily right about everything, and even the best criticism has some element of subjectivity. It doesn't have to mean you're wrong or the critic is a bad person. It only means you disagree.
Disagreement, however, isn't an excuse for invalidation, as discussed in Point 1. Maybe you think the critic's points are off-base, that she has been reading selectively or with a bias. Well, you know what? Most of the time it doesn't matter.
Everyone reads selectively and with a bias. We are not reading machines whose function is to parse every word without fail and return an accurate interpretation, whatever "accurate" means. Who's to say it means "agrees with the author?" Every reader brings her experiences and expectations to the text, and in the process creates her own connections, interpretations, and meanings.
Your story is, as Umberto Eco put it, a machine for generating interpretations. You can only hope that your writing has enough depth, unexpected turns, and links to the wider consciousness, that it lend itself to interpretations you never imagined. So no, you might not agree with your critic, but that doesn't make the critic's point of view invalid.
If criticism seems inaccurate or even insulting, doesn't it deserve to be refuted? Maybe, if it really leaves out major parts of the story (that you took adequate steps to reinforce to readers), or uses honesty as an excuse for discourtesy, you might want to set the record straight. Nevertheless, the line between calling out distortion and invalidating reader perception is a thin one except in extreme cases.
I think in most cases you can get out of the need to defend yourself by adhering to this last piece of advice:
6. Remember that you are not what you write
I recently linked an article about singing choir where the author, very insightfully I think, said "Singing is nakedness." He went on to discuss how there is no separation between singing well and worth as a person, since in singing the instrument is you yourself and there isn't a division between the skill and the person.
I think writing has a similar quality of nakedness, an embeddedness in the very person. This may have something to do with the privileged position we give to verbal intelligence, a problem with the education system and society at large. We assume that someone who expresses himself well in words is smart, the flip side being that being unable to express yourself well verbally means you're, well, not. Or less.
Even setting aside the unfair and damaging weight given to verbal intelligence, the progression from "effective verbal expression" to "smart" skips a crucial step. Just because a person has good ideas doesn't mean it'll come across effectively. I mean, have you tried to read an academic paper recently, operative word being "tried?"
So if you find yourself conflating writing with intelligence or creativity, and that in turn with your self-worth, there's a nice buffer to put between writing and intelligence/creativity: Writing skill. It's not something you have or don't have, but something you can improve with specific steps, hard work, and sound principles. Intelligence and creativity are outside the scope of this article, but for an insight on such so-called "innate" qualities as well as skill you might want to check out Dr. Carol Dweck's work on mindsets.
Honest criticism will help you in the goal of improving your writing, and does not mean you are a) stupid, b) worthless, or c) will never write well. If you really can't handle it, it's best to stop pretending that your goal is to improve: You want to be told that you're good writer, which is in not in any way the same thing as writing well.
Not wanting to improve your writing is, as I have said, a valid choice to make. All that's important is to be honest about your choice, whichever it is. If you really do want to improve, you have to be able to take criticism and I hope this article has been of some little help to you.
