The Paradoxical Critiquer

Being an aspiring writer, hanging-out, cyberspacially-speaking, with other green-fingered wordsmiths, I come across a lot of crap writing.

And not just from my own fingers!

Sometimes it has been known for other aspiring writers to commit heinous crimes against the craft of story. Laboured beginnings, nonsensical middles, unexpected, but not satisfyingly unexpected, endings. Terrible punctuation, cliched characters, incorrect formatting. Protagonists who are whores to the plot. Protagonists who aren't part of the plot. Bad science. Awkward pacing. Dialogue from Victorian England when the setting is downtown Tokyo. Adverbs! And the list goes on.

What you swiftly realise is that this writing lark, this incredibly simple process of placing one word after another (and all the words are in the dictionary! as Mark Twain famously said), is anything but simple. Danger lurks on every page, in every paragraph, in every bleedin' line and word! Being aware of the utter hardness of good writing is enough to make most potential writers mutter, somewhat self-deceptively, 'Oh, I'll write that book/scene/paragraph tomorrow/next week/when I retire'.

However, all this difficulty is all well and good, and as it should be. The journey is as important as the destination, and boy, learning to write is some journey! And I speak from the foothills of the craft. So, seeing bad writing, from myself and others, doesn't make me angry or depressed (well, only sometimes), as it makes some. No, it makes me inspired knowing people are making a crack at something very difficult.

What does make me wonder though is how much bad writing doesn't get flagged as bad writing by other aspiring writers. From some of the critiquing circles I've been involved in, I've often been astounded to find that writing, that by many standards can objectively be considered poor, is heralded as a great shining example of good fiction.

I know some people don't take criticism well, and the standard line is that all feedback should be presented in an amiable way....but....sometimes a spade should be called a spade. If a person is serious about writing, they should encourage feedback on the areas of their writing that are rough. And critiquers should make the main focus of their critique what doesn't work for them. Of course, highlighting good practice is important to let writers know where their strengths are, but highlighting bad practice is so much more valuable.

I have a couple of theories about overpraising critiques.

1. Critiquers aren't reading the stories as readers.

Reading and writing are completely different skills. As many critiquers also write, they often bring their writing-head to the table when they read. Unconsciously, or perhaps even consciously, they read the story thinking how they would write it---and since they aren't great writers they might find a lot of agreement in the choices. What I've learnt is that critiques come in two parts. Response and advice. Reader response is something everyone can give, and is by definition, always true. Reader advice is a whole other kettle of fish....be wary!

2. Critiquers aren't well read.

I get the feeling many aspiring writers have a style, an author, or a sub-genre they want to imitate. In their reading they've not pushed themselves to discover stuff outside their comfort zone. That's their prerogative. However, without an awareness of how good literature can be, and what makes it good, they will never be able to put it into their own work, or see it in others work. This is something I have direct experience of---I'm not a voracious reader. I average about thirty books a year, plus short fiction---and can honestly say I do not 'get' some award winning stuff---but I believe that if I become a better reader I will become a better writer. I really believe being a great writer comes from being a great reader---reading widely, and reading with thought. Literature doesn't exist in a vacuum. It is an ongoing dialogue between a culture and itself.