Writing vs editing/critiquing

[hiddenself]

I was just listening to an NPR interview with James Wood, the senior book editor of the New Republic, who is also an author, with two published books.

He said that he believes that he can write a pretty decent novel or essay but that he's also very "suggestible" to criticism. He said that if he reads a piece criticizing his book (eg, that it's overwritten or has too much nostalgia or something of the sort), he thinks 'But of course, that's right' -- essentially, being a little too uncertain about his writing (in terms of specifics, at least).

He was then asked whether his critiquing has or will change in view of his having become a writer and having received his share of critiques. He responded by saying that it might follow that he'd become more mellow but that he doesn't think that will happen to a large extent. He followed that by saying that he has a certain way of viewing literary works and that's his quide and unlikely to change much by his own experiences at the other end of the stick. He did say, however, that he regrets certain harshness of his in the past and that he will try to become a little softer (I suppose in style rather than substance?).

He was also asked about the hypothetical situation when, after he has written a negative review, the target writer's reaction is 'Hey, what does he know? Look at HIS book. If he knows best, how come and HE can't do it?' That was funny. Wood said that certainly that's bound to happen now that he's published and that to a certain extent it will "undermine his authority as a editor/critic." He said that when you're not published there's always the potential (that you could do actually do as you preach), but once you've put something out there, you're open to such personal comparisons and attacks. But he also said that critiquing and writing are two "different processes" -- presumably requiring different skills and personality.

Just thought it was quite interesting stuff from someone who is thought to be quite good at this.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

I heard the start of the interview but had to get out of the car before they got into the good stuff.

Being a critic is not the same as being the "reverse" of a writer any more than being a gourmet automatically makes one a great chef.

I empathize with Woods on everything you've quoted above. I think I'm a better critic than I am a writer, and I know that the two things happen in different parts of my brain, so to speak. Knowing that a sentence is hopelessly clumsy doesn't mean that you know how to fix it. Knowing that a plot is contrived doesn't tell you how it should be reconstructed.

On the other hand, submitting a story for criticism does provide you with the humbling experience of what it's like to be criticized, and I have changed the tone of my critiques since I've started submitting my work.

---dr.M.

 

[bridgeburner]

I'll have to check the archives for that inteview, it sounds interesting. It seems to jibe with my personal experiences, as well. I'm a much better editor/critic than I am a writer.

I imagine the judges who gave Nadia Comaneche her perfect 10s were better at seeing the perfection of her handsprings than turning any themselves.

It's not a question of which skill is more difficult or more important. As the good Doctor pointed out they're different skills --not two sides of the same coin.