Peer Review
A couple of months ago a woman asked me if I'd be interested in joining a writing group. Argh, I thought. Why make me say no? My tendency is to be like Annie in Oklahoma but as I age and petrify I've begun to see the inconvenience of it all. I hemmed and hawed for a minute or two and then I told her that I probably wouldn't want to do it.
"But why?" she asked. "I like to get feedback from other people."
"I don't know if I'd be looking for feedback or adoration," I said.
That seemed to do the trick. But it's not quite true: I know that I don't really want the feedback, and what compliments may or may not come forth mean just as little. The bottom line is that if I believe my book is good, I've done what I've set out to do whether or not anyone else agrees with me. Likewise, whether I get a compliment or an insult means nothing as to how I feel I did.
I can sing in a karaoke bar to local drunken acclaim or jeers, but unless Paula, Randy and Simon agree, it doesn't meet the goal and move me to the next level. Likewise I can write what I want how I want, but unless an agent or an editor finds it compelling, then so what?
Of course there's value in feedback; someone could very possibly point out something that doesn't work in the book. This is why we all have friends and family we foist these things upon. Unfortunately, there's too often a pervasive "be encouraging at all costs" mentality that positive feedback probably doesn't mean much. Negative feedback would probably be more helpful but if there were really something wrong, the writer should already know about it. If they don't, they're probably kidding themselves and wouldn't listen to the criticism anyway.
Clearly many people, especially those in writing groups, would disagree with me. I do think, though, that there comes a point that to write well you have to write with confidence, you have to write with an assurance that you have an idea of what you should be doing. Whether it works or not is a different question but if the writer can't answer it for himself, can he really fix it in himself?
"But why?" she asked. "I like to get feedback from other people."
"I don't know if I'd be looking for feedback or adoration," I said.
That seemed to do the trick. But it's not quite true: I know that I don't really want the feedback, and what compliments may or may not come forth mean just as little. The bottom line is that if I believe my book is good, I've done what I've set out to do whether or not anyone else agrees with me. Likewise, whether I get a compliment or an insult means nothing as to how I feel I did.
I can sing in a karaoke bar to local drunken acclaim or jeers, but unless Paula, Randy and Simon agree, it doesn't meet the goal and move me to the next level. Likewise I can write what I want how I want, but unless an agent or an editor finds it compelling, then so what?
Of course there's value in feedback; someone could very possibly point out something that doesn't work in the book. This is why we all have friends and family we foist these things upon. Unfortunately, there's too often a pervasive "be encouraging at all costs" mentality that positive feedback probably doesn't mean much. Negative feedback would probably be more helpful but if there were really something wrong, the writer should already know about it. If they don't, they're probably kidding themselves and wouldn't listen to the criticism anyway.
Clearly many people, especially those in writing groups, would disagree with me. I do think, though, that there comes a point that to write well you have to write with confidence, you have to write with an assurance that you have an idea of what you should be doing. Whether it works or not is a different question but if the writer can't answer it for himself, can he really fix it in himself?
posted by Rick Ollerman at 3:05 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home