whinge alert
Sometimes I really hate Authonomy.
I get loads of messages asking me to back people's books who are "near the editor's desk." Sometimes they aren't that near, but if they are, I am usually willing to oblige. Unfortunately, those people don't really want comments, just the backing. A couple of days ago, I received one of these, with the bold statement that if I back her book, I would receive 3 backings in reply. She was close to the ED, so I read the beginning of her book.
Unfortunately, I didn't like it. Although it was grammatically accomplished, it read like a newspaper ... but just snatches of articles. Perhaps, she was trying to hook me by not quite giving enough information to make clear what was happening. The language she used, however, drove me away. Rather than an occasional pause for atmosphere, she stuck an adjective in front of almost every important noun. Rather than providing focused description, she gave a single-word description: young seismologist, red-rimmed eyes, vigorous clapping and consenting nods. In spite of the copious amount of descriptive words, none really described anything or anyone. It was driving me nuts, so I gave up after 4 chapters. If I hadn't read the pitch, I still wouldn't have a clue what the book was about at that point.
Okay, so I read something I didn't like. Then I did something I shouldn't have done. Basically, I'm a prick. If someone wants me to read their work, I'm going to give them an honest opinion of it, and I'm not going to back them just to get backing in return. Fair enough?
I wrote my comments as briefly as I dared, trying to sound constructive.
Today, I received the response. She said that she read two chapters of my novella, and basically dumped on me, saying, "You lack the details and narrative voice needed to pull this through. The characters are not endearing and neither is the plot."
(Does she work for Publishers Weekly?)
Interesting. I wonder if she writes the same two sentences to everyone who doesn't back her. There was certainly nothing specific to my story. At least 95%+ of those who have commented on it say just the opposite, that the plot is gripping, and they really like my protagonists as well as the details of the murder and the bookshop. Several have even been hooked enough to read the whole thing.
People like her make me not want to comment on people's writings, not just at Authonomy where it is just shallow back-scratching, but other places, even the WritersCafe, where it's mostly juvenile cheerleading.
Am I unique for wanting to read honest, constructive opinions? Am I mean and cold-hearted for giving them? I want to get better at writing, but maybe I am alone, or perhaps those that post their wannabe best sellers on Authonomy (etc.) are already perfect, and I should just genuflect in their wake.
I'm so not worthy....
I get loads of messages asking me to back people's books who are "near the editor's desk." Sometimes they aren't that near, but if they are, I am usually willing to oblige. Unfortunately, those people don't really want comments, just the backing. A couple of days ago, I received one of these, with the bold statement that if I back her book, I would receive 3 backings in reply. She was close to the ED, so I read the beginning of her book.
Unfortunately, I didn't like it. Although it was grammatically accomplished, it read like a newspaper ... but just snatches of articles. Perhaps, she was trying to hook me by not quite giving enough information to make clear what was happening. The language she used, however, drove me away. Rather than an occasional pause for atmosphere, she stuck an adjective in front of almost every important noun. Rather than providing focused description, she gave a single-word description: young seismologist, red-rimmed eyes, vigorous clapping and consenting nods. In spite of the copious amount of descriptive words, none really described anything or anyone. It was driving me nuts, so I gave up after 4 chapters. If I hadn't read the pitch, I still wouldn't have a clue what the book was about at that point.
Okay, so I read something I didn't like. Then I did something I shouldn't have done. Basically, I'm a prick. If someone wants me to read their work, I'm going to give them an honest opinion of it, and I'm not going to back them just to get backing in return. Fair enough?
I wrote my comments as briefly as I dared, trying to sound constructive.
Today, I received the response. She said that she read two chapters of my novella, and basically dumped on me, saying, "You lack the details and narrative voice needed to pull this through. The characters are not endearing and neither is the plot."
(Does she work for Publishers Weekly?)
Interesting. I wonder if she writes the same two sentences to everyone who doesn't back her. There was certainly nothing specific to my story. At least 95%+ of those who have commented on it say just the opposite, that the plot is gripping, and they really like my protagonists as well as the details of the murder and the bookshop. Several have even been hooked enough to read the whole thing.
People like her make me not want to comment on people's writings, not just at Authonomy where it is just shallow back-scratching, but other places, even the WritersCafe, where it's mostly juvenile cheerleading.
Am I unique for wanting to read honest, constructive opinions? Am I mean and cold-hearted for giving them? I want to get better at writing, but maybe I am alone, or perhaps those that post their wannabe best sellers on Authonomy (etc.) are already perfect, and I should just genuflect in their wake.
I'm so not worthy....
Comments
Subscribe
Visitor counter
Blog Roll Centre
Blog Hints
22 Comments
Apparently, they are change the system over the next few months. I hope that's an improvement.
Not my scene. I'd rather have honest feedback, I know I'm not good enough yet and I'm going to struggle to become good enough if all I get back is "This is fantastic! You're such an accomplished writer! Loved it! Back mine?"
Steve give them your opinion and fuck em if they don't like it, in fact find out where they live and throw a huge melon through their window, see how they like that, maybe a volley of parsnips and jam a swede inside their chimney! That'll learn 'em.
And could anyone please tell me what a noun and an adjective is...I really don't know.
Norman - a noun is the name of a thing:
street
pig
happiness
Anne
Parliament
moon
an adjective is a word which describes a noun:
long street
pigs are big
happiness may be unbelievable
hilarious Anna
dysfunctional Parliament
big yellow moon
Gary
Steve, if I may call you Steve, you're not unique in that way, and I don't think you're mean. My own much-used line when inviting criticism is: I believe that the realistic path to self improvement lies through negative criticism. I don't want people being nice about my writing to be nice to me. If there's something wrong with it that I can't see, then I need telling, so that I can do something about it; learn and get it better, hopefully. Blowing sunshine up my arse won't help me improve.
However, this is one of the rare examples of when Confucius's Golden Rule doesn't work so well. (The other is if you're into S&M). At the same time as wanting people to be honest and as brutal as necessary with my work, I recognise that writers are a particularly sensitive group. Some can't take even the slightest negative criticism without going to pieces. Some can take a bit, but it demotivates them. Some need all the positivity and lift they can get, because they are too hard on themselves; sometimes without good cause.
So I can take it, but I find it hard to dish it. I'll be honest in a frank way with someone who makes it clear to me that's what they seek, and convinces me that it would be good for them. But if I'm critiquing the work of someone I don't really know, I tend to go for balance, but wording the negative bits very carefully, and with lashings of positivity/encouragement.
Authonomy? A big waste of time and effort from my perspective. More politics than writing. And by that I mean the politics of rubbing people up in a manipulative way and guilt-tripping those who try to retain integrity. There are genuine writers on there - it seems you are one - but all are tarnished by the majority who are selfishly seeking the quick route in. The lazy path to faux success. How can anyone have any faith in anything that is written about work on there?
I've had a look at a few other sites as well since joining the Word Cloud. Booksie has the numbers, but the average standard of writing on there is appalling. In the end, the only place I've found where I can get genuine help from writers who are better than me is right here. But it's not perfect in that respect. Most Cloudfolk are too damn nice.
However I would be incensed to read - "you lack the details and narrative voice needed to pull this through." Who the F*** gives her the expertise to make that comment? If it was Hemingway, ok, but not an aspiring writer.
"The characters are not endearing and neither is the plot."
OK, I could live with that - my characters have clear behavioural problems - and my plot is dark. Some people like that, others don't.
And that's the problem with critiquing - as the other Steve pointed out - the fragile egos of writers. In my own experience I have learnt more from a few months with WC comments than a lifetime of report writing - and I'm comfortable with it.
My only 'complaint' is that the critique section is being inundated with fantasy writing - there must be a moral there somewhere!!
Oh what a rush!
OTOH, there have been successes - people who have been picked up as a result of being there. Ironically, they were not necessarily the ones who were at the top of the list.
The Cloud rocks as a direct result of the ethos of its founder: no hidden agenda, lots of mutual support.
Stephenterry, I think what I meant about focused character description was actually saying something about the character's appearance or other characteristics. In the novel in question, the author seems to think that the "Congolese member" tells us something about the person speaking. In the next paragraph, a Congolese woman speaks. Is it the same woman? Who knows? Even one of the main characters is a young seismologist in the first paragraph. A few later, he is referred to as having red-rimmed eyes. Later, he gets a name, I think ... well, even after four chapters, that was all I knew about him, and I wasn't even sure that all that description was about the same person.
I agree that I hate it when an author breaks off narrative to describe someone or something in detail, but a small amount can help the reader to create an inner picture of the action.
Fragile egos? I can take constructive criticism, even complete disagreement, but the first writer in question said nothing specific to my story and the second was just picking holes in one small scene just to get back at me. He had nothing positive to say. That's something entirely different.
On a positive note, I read a couple chapters of a book yesterday, that I would happily go out and buy if it were published. (And that particular author liked my novella, too! Before I reviewed his.)
You disappoint me, where is the description of the melon smashing through the lounge window? and comes to rest in the fireplace as the smoke billows into the room from the chimney which is now blocked by a swede! And as the angry homesteaders rush out to confront you we receive a graphic description of them being cut down by the volley or indeed volleys of parsnips.
Emma: Thank you now I know (Don't tell my sister in law!)
I haven't decided whether to post anything new there yet.
Click here to sign up now.