please remove

[AwkwardlySet]

Ouch.

I think that's a bit over the top, but I won't say you're totally wrong. About three names instantly popped into my head, so there's examples in your favor.

But there's a few guys here to who I'd classify as thin skinned and defensive as well.

Takes all kinds, and we have all them kinds.

I can admit I was partly teasing with this statement but I can also say that is the impression I formed over time. There are touchy guys here for sure but percentage-wise speaking, I'd say women win this contest easily. And there is no way I'll be naming anyone. I am playing with fire as it is

 

[lovecraft68]

.......and, suddenly, the thread went in a whole new direction!

I think I know what you're saying, and I think I agree with lovecraft: there is no shortage of overreacting self-professed men here, too. I don't even think the OP is necessarily overreacting... yet.

To complete the AH pattern, they have left the bar, but we, the peanut gallery, continue to prattle on.

 

[Bamagan]

Or? Maybe it's about being self-centered enough to just not care about that critique.

Hence the disconnect: a critic might be very well-intended, and could well be aiming to help a writer get better... but if that writer isn't interested in getting better, it's all going to go pear-shaped.

Perhaps this has already been mentioned elsewhere on the thread, which I only glossed over, and if so, apologies for the repetition. There's another reason one might ignore criticism, especially particularly negative criticism, which I would argue is perfectly valid.

There are many different ways one can improve their writing and/or storytelling, and some of those ways may be mutually exclusive, at least in the context of improving any given individual piece of work. There is often little to be gained from advice given by someone who is starting out from a position of not liking the subject, style, tone, or other basic characteristics of a piece of work (which I think is what @StillStunned was getting at above). Implementing their suggestions might make them like the story more, but it doesn't necessarily make the story better, and might often make the author and current fans like it less (which probably contributes to at least some of the defensiveness and affront taken in such cases). In the case of professional editors, and in some cases professional reviewers, they're generally looking for ways to improve the marketability of a work (and might well be correct within their purview), which may or may not have anything to do with the 'artistic' value of the piece, and in some cases may be directly opposed to it.

So, tl;dr, I think there's a certain logic to giving more weight to the opinions and reviews of people who already like one's work. There's a reasonable chance that such advice would lead to future works or revisions that both parties like better, since they started out in accord, and there are enough writers and readers out there that 'categorical specialization' doesn't hurt anyone. Some people are simply not interested in superhero movies, for example, and trying too hard to get those people to 'come around' is effort that could probably be better spent servicing one's existing fans.

Heh heh, 'servicing fans', heh heh.

 

[AwkwardlySet]

Perhaps this has already been mentioned elsewhere on the thread, which I only glossed over, and if so, apologies for the repetition. There's another reason one might ignore criticism, especially particularly negative criticism, which I would argue is perfectly valid.

There are many different ways one can improve their writing and/or storytelling, and some of those ways may be mutually exclusive, at least in the context of improving any given individual piece of work. There is often little to be gained from advice given by someone who is starting out from a position of not liking the subject, style, tone, or other basic characteristics of a piece of work (which I think is what @StillStunned was getting at above). Implementing their suggestions might make them like the story more, but it doesn't necessarily make the story better, and might often make the author and current fans like it less (which probably contributes to at least some of the defensiveness and affront taken in such cases). In the case of professional editors, and in some cases professional reviewers, they're generally looking for ways to improve the marketability of a work (and might well be correct within their purview), which may or may not have anything to do with the 'artistic' value of the piece, and in some cases may be directly opposed to it.

So, tl;dr, I think there's a certain logic to giving more weight to the opinions and reviews of people who already like one's work. There's a reasonable chance that such advice would lead to future works or revisions that both parties like better, since they started out in accord, and there are enough writers and readers out there that 'categorical specialization' doesn't hurt anyone. Some people are simply not interested in superhero movies, for example, and trying too hard to get those people to 'come around' is effort that could probably be better spent servicing one's existing fans.

Heh heh, 'servicing fans', heh heh.

There are arguments for and against your position. Those who like one's work could be biased in their criticism because of it, and those who dislike the work could do the same with the opposite motivation, conscious or subconscious.
The thing is, we fling this term "improving" quite often around here without setting any criteria of what it implies. Surely, for one to improve in some area, there should be some objective criteria about what it means to be good in that area. There are certainly some criteria about what makes good writing regardless of one's style. If something is defined as objective criteria, then it doesn't matter who is doing the critique. But once we delve into criteria that belongs to a particular style, your argument becomes perfectly sound. Those who like the style are far more likely to give meaningful feedback.

 

[onehitwanda]

 

[StillStunned]

Alright, own up! Who ran three times widdershins round the sybian to summon Wanda?

 

[onehitwanda]

Alright, own up! Who ran three times widdershins round the sybian to summon Wanda?

Ask not for whom the Sybian buzzes...

 

[StillStunned]

Ask not for whom the Sybian buzzes...

Ask only: "Want me to turn it up?"

 

[StillStunned]

Four pages, I suppose this thread was due for derailing.

 

[onehitwanda]

Four pages, I suppose this thread was due for derailing.

Well, all the usual suspects are gone; I guess someone has to do it.

 

[StillStunned]

Well, all the usual suspects are gone; I guess someone has to do it.

And what else is there to do on a Saturday night in July?

 

[onehitwanda]

And what else is there to do on a Saturday night in July?

Watch the rain, obviously

 

[StillStunned]

Watch the rain, obviously

Lucky! I don't have any rain to watch. Just cats hunting the smells drifting over from the neighbours' barbecue.

 

[StillStunned]

I also just wrote a snippet for the "party from the past" writing exercise thread. Now I want to write a story set in Restoration England.

 

[Voboy]

Surely, for one to improve in some area, there should be some objective criteria about what it means to be good in that area.

I wouldn't want objective criteria for anything about writing. That would mean we're basically doing AI. It'd mean it would be possible to learn a specific formula or set of practices, then paint by number.

Eww.

This is why I think improvement is subjective, based on what the writer is trying to do... and why I think it's optional.

And what else is there to do on a Saturday night in July?

The Olympics are on...?