I am sort of oblivious at times, particularly when it comes to my attitudes. I don't often realize how I'm coming across or how the other person reacts. I don't filter a lot of what I say, nor gauge it for best response, as I consider that to be a disservice to people - no one gains anything when you walk on eggshells.
I don't deny that I'm a skilled writer, and that I know a lot about the technical aspects as well as stylistic aspects of the craft. While this occasionally leads me to feeling a certain level of superiority, I believe it earned -- I've been doing this awhile, and I'm good at it -- what I disagree with is that there is therefore created a sense that other people are inferior.
This is not a contest. There is no prize for being the best. (You cannot even argue that a Pulitzer makes you the best, because there are many awards available.) Just because I am good at this, and perhaps better at this than you are, in no way does that translate to you being stupid or a bad person.
Yes, there are writers and coaches WAY WAY WAY better than anything I could ever hope to be. People who teach different methodologies, different material and in different ways all exist. This variety of writing professionals is also not a contest -- John Grisham and I don't fight each other for a trophy. Different schools of thought exist, and I have mine, they have theirs.
There is a bit of a reputation that I call things "crap", and fuel some great "god" complex because all my writers (in my group) allegedly spend all their time agreeing with me. This is most often said by people who have not been a part of the group or by people who received comments they did not agree with.
My group does not spend all it's time agreeing with me. I can point to many pieces that include such comments as "WTF?" and "This isn't like you, are you okay?" We are all serious-minded about our comments. If something is not working, we say so.
Jumping to the extreme point of view that we only say bad things is wholly erroneous, because we're also very good at saying what's right.
The problem seems to come when people have this idea that in order to say what's bad, you MUST say what's good. This softens the bad, and creates a hand-holding experience which is not actually constructive. Perserving the "feelings" of a writer (who said writers have to be tissue-paper thin-skinned?) over improving the writer is not what my group is about. If you write something and it isn't good (meaning it lacks proficience thematically or technically or possesses structural errors and/or is wholly unclear, lacking in point or evocative attraction to the reader), we say so.
If you come to group and what you write is clear and concise, but all you've missed is a semi-colon (meaning there's way more good than bad), we say so.
Whatever is good or bad about the piece is said. Absent from this is a sense of personal condemnation -- I do not berate you as a person because you shifted tenses in the ninth paragraph. Also absent from this are weak, unconstructive criticism -- none of us say "It's good" and then move on. We say it's good, and then develop specific things that we found good. I may like the dialogue and Andrew may enjoy the description of the room.
My only request for people giving critique and feedback is that none of it be extreme. Avoid the "It's good" or the wholesale "Never write again, burn your keyboard." I leave it up to the individual to determine what specifically they say aside from that.
I find it both naive and foolish to think that there be some sort of extra merit or condition given to feedback, as if you have to balance bad things with good. Sometimes, things are good without bad bits and vice-versa. What matters is whether or not the writer improves because of what you said.
Note: WHAT you said, not HOW you said it.
I have neither the time nor inclination to mince words and find the best way to tell you something. Time is a precious commodity in a group of 12+ that takes almost 3 hours a night, so there is little reason to find the "best" way to tell you something.
You know what the "best" way is: Pure truth, backed up logically and cogently.
So if you bring me pages of drivel, where your plot is non-existant and your characters dry, I will say so. One of the others may say its the best thing ever. Which one of is right? We both are.
Even though this is not a matter of right and wrong (although people will try and make it such for the sake of their understanding), we're both right because we both spoke the truth.
Let the sum of the feedback GUIDE (not dictate) revisions. Do not just tally the "6 for, 7 against" but examine the whole scope of all the feedback to see if multiple people came across the same elements. And even then, it's still up to you as to whether or not you do anything about it. There are many people who write, and then come to group, and then the next month they write something else. No effort is made for publication, no concern is given to personal response on feedback. If I tell Mary that she shifted tenses on page 2, and she's been doing it for the last two months, I'll let her know that it's a habit, and here's how to break it.
My suggestion on how she break that habit is just that: A SUGGESTION. She can choose not to listen, she can choose to pay attention. I'm going to give my feedback either way.
I feel as though I rambled, so here's a summary:
1. My group is not my cult of personality.
2. When giving feedback, we speak our truth, unvarnished and clearly.
3. Feedback is at best a list of suggestions, not mandates.
4. If you need your negative feedback packaged with good feedback, I suggest you reconsider why you need packaging like that
5. Feedback about what you write IS NOT feedback about you as a person.
If I'm a jerk, then call me a jerk, but I might be a jerk who can help you write a story that turns into a book that goes on shelves.
Might be time for a new nickname
ReplyDelete