The Encouragement of Writers
After working the California Writer’s Club booth (sponsored by Long Beach for the Mid-Wilshire and West Los Angeles branches that are forming) at the West Hollywood Book Fair, I just wanted to touch base on how writers encourage one another. It’s not always as a critique partner, sometimes it’s as a cheerleader, sometimes as a coach, and sometimes as the very important devil’s advocate (such as the discussion of whether to self-publish or not). Sometimes it’s just as a listener as someone works out a character or storyline while you feedback ideas. Other times it’s to lend a shoulder if a professor or teacher or someone else has been insensitive and heavy handed in their criticism (professors are the worst – no matter what they teach – I swear. Not all, but many, just think they have all the answers and that their way is the only way. I wouldn’t make it through school these days, I’d get too pissed off at the instructors to make it through class).
But we do encourage each other in many ways that include more than just being a “Rah-rah” circle. As thinkers and writers we need all those different forms of encouragement. We need the brusque motivation from the devil’s advocate just as much as we need the gentle hug from someone who’s helping us to keep going. All the elements are needed to keep us vibrant and on our writing path.
And sometimes that encouragement can come from completely nonwriterly sources. But if you aren’t open to it, you won’t see it. The important thing is to take heart and keep moving. Keep trying. Keep the lines between you and yourself and the universe open and flowing.
Follow @rachelvolivier
Tweet
on October 4th, 2007 at 5:14 AM
You’re absolutely right – there is a time and place for ALL the many different kinds of support and encouragement. But… I personally *love* the “Rah-rah” circle best!
on October 4th, 2007 at 6:36 AM
Yeah, the “rah-rah” circle sure makes things feel better, that’s for sure. Especially when you’re discouraged!
on October 12th, 2007 at 8:19 AM
Most of us belong to a critique group of some sort or another. Most often, critiques seem to run along the lines of “this didn’t work for me, that was poorly done and you missplaced four commas.” Now, this is useful, of course, but it is still deflating. While “rah-rah” cheerleading doesn’t help you find mistakes or bad writing habits, it can help you endure that necessary (and ego bruising) criticism.
I belong to Critters and after I’ve critiqued a story, I often go back to read other people’s critiques of it. I’m often amazed by the total lack of tact, but I’m also occasionally surprised when someone gushes praise over a story that I found very weak.
The bottom line is I now know enough to be impressed with anyone who is willing to see their writing through to completion and suffer the ego beating that comes with letting an editor see it. They get my “rah-rahs” not so much because they need it (even though they do), but because they deserve it.
on October 14th, 2007 at 10:35 PM
But a true critique INCLUDES the good with the bad, at least the way I was taught. The person critiquing the story is ALWAYS to be respectful and bring up the good stuff first. Compliment what does work in the story and then go on to what doesn’t work. That’s what you’re supposed to do. If the people critiquing your work are NOT doing that, then find different CPs.
on October 16th, 2007 at 7:35 AM
You’re right, of course. I certainly try to bring up what I liked in a story when I critique. With Critters, you get whatever you get, and that usually includes a mixed bag of useful critiques and not-so-useful critiques.
In fact, the very first critique I got on one of my own stories said it was brilliant and compared it to Huxley and Orwell. Of course the very next critique ripped the same story to shreds. While I could certainly admire the insight and perceptiveness of that first critique (who am I to argue with someone who thinks my story is brilliant? lol), I really gained more from the painful critique.
The ideal formula is “I liked this and this, but this part didn’t work as well.” Ultimately, there are still a lot of critiquers who focus solely on the negative. They’re well intentioned, but they feel the only way to help you is to find things that are wrong. This leads to what I call the “Protagonist’s Shoes Syndrome” where the critiquer questions details that would never occur to a casual reader (like “What color shoes was the protagonist wearing?” I’m all for painting a vivid picture for the reader, but some details are simply superfluous and get in the way).
There are so many different views and approaches that responses can be very confusing. I’m dealing with a story right now that I thought was good. I ran it through the critique group and it got almost universally good responses. I fixed what minor quibbles were mentioned and sent it to “Writers of the Future”, where it got Honorable Mention (which basically means “It doesn’t suck, but we rejected it anyway”). It’s now made the round of magazines where it has not only been rejected, but rejected quickly. One editor said the World Building was weak, which was interesting because almost every critique praised the world building (I went back and looked).
So… You really CAN please all of the people some of the time – as long as they’re not editors!
on October 16th, 2007 at 9:37 AM
Thank you for sharing that story! It encourages me actually as I have a similar thing going on. And that’s part of what I mean. You can get encouragement (or discouragement) from everywhere you look. You sharing that story encourages me to keep trying with mine.