Как четем критиката

[Кал]

Личен опит: На положителна критика към мои неща не мога да откликна кой знае колко. Евентуално мога да се закача за някакви наблюдения в нея и да ги доразвия - с някое анекдотче, или още едно парченце от айсберга, което е останало под повърхността.

Отрицателната задължително ми дава въпроси. И дори когато аз я отхвърля като пълно неразбиране/несъвместимост в подходите между критикуващия и мен - пак продължавам да си се чудя как да допрепипам текста, че да не се получава така. Тия случаи са страшно редки, впрочем. Обикновено всяка една негативна критика хваща нещо вярно, някоя истина (НБ! Да не се бърка с Истината ТМ, за която толкова много хора настояват... с тези ми е трудно да говоря, адски трудно ). А щом е уловила нещо - тя води до съответната промяна в следващата версия на текста. Най-добрият пример в това отношение е именно "Триптихът" (началото на Приказки за Юнаци...): той е преработван двуцифрено число пъти, последните 3-4 - след намеси на читатели. И сега пак ще бъде.

(Как ли? Ами ще разкарам едни описателни изречения в началото. Направо си се чудя как не ме е било срам да ги вмъкна там - и с какви очи разправям на писателите тука "Показвай, не казвай"... :/ И за бележките на Джаста мисля... въх тъз бг пунктуация. )

Всякаква критика ми е страхотно ценна. Най-малкото (и даже хич да не улучи Онова, Което Е Искал Да Каже Авторът ) - понеже ми разкрива какъв е читателят ми. Точно този, който е написал отзива.

(Лоша работа, т'ва. Някои от нас ползват текстовете си като огледала. Ами наслаждението? Где остана то, простичкото удоволствие от четенето? *смея се*)

[Trip]

Как четем критиката ли? Как я четем? Тя за четене не става. Критикът е бездушна гад. Да му е*а майката.

http://www.shadowdance.info/forum/viewt ... 504#258504

[Кал]

Днес е ден за кървене... м?

Има дни, има дни, във които си кърви...

П.П. А най-странното е, че именно Черно Слънце вчера ми прати разказ - съвсем различен от този, - който ми помогна да изригна от дупката, в която се свличах. Какво нещо е Космосът...

[Trip]

(((((((((((((

[Radiant Dragon]

Понеже следното четиво ми се стори много интересно и ЗНАЧИМО за всички пишещи хора, не се стърпявам и го пускам тук:

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DeathOfTheAuthor

Не успях да намеря точно място на темата/мнението, затова моля за модераторска помощ в случая, ако е необходима.

ПП. Сайтът по принцип е безумно полезен, според мен.

[Кал]

Ако четете на английски – долното е прелест (:

You know, when I first started out, my wish list would have been pretty similar to yours. Hell, I STILL wish I could have all 4 and 5 star reviews! I gotta say, that first bad review killed me. It was like being stabbed in the heart. I’d worked so hard on my big debut, spent money and effort on advertising and promo items…and on sending ARCs to reviewers…and then they tore the book apart. I. Was. Devastated. I even felt a little betrayed. I mean, if they’d just come to me first, I could have talked to them, explained why I wrote the plot this way or why I wrote the character that way…basically, I could have made them understand why their review was wrong. (Writing this paragraph made me cringe so hard.)
Several years and a many 1-star reviews later, I realize how incredibly young and foolish I was. Reviewers owe us nothing. Not a constructive critique, not a chance to explain ourselves, not a glowing review. They don’t even have to respect the book, the author, or the time and effort it took for us to write it. They took the time to read the book and write up a review, and for what? A free book? It’s a win for them if they LIKE the book, but if they didn’t, they just spent a lot of time slogging through a story they didn’t like when they could have been doing something better.
And so what if they didn’t like the book? Yeah, it sucks, but ultimately, your name is out there. Let’s say someone doesn’t buy your book because of that review. Later, they’ll remember your name but not the review. They’ll give your NEXT book a second look, because the name is familiar, even if they don’t know why.
As for the reviewer? Don’t send them your next one if you don’t want to. Or do what I do and send them the next one to show them that you really can write. Maybe they’ll like the new one. I’ve seen a LOT of reversals, people who hated the first book but gave the second one a chance and then they loved it. When that happens, it’s one hell of a reward. There’s nothing like that feeling of, “Hell yeah! I told you so!” But it won’t happen if you piss off reviewers, because they won’t give your next book a try.
And if their review really is super-snarky and “mean,” then the people reading the reviews will know that. But chances are that the review isn’t as bad as you think it is.
See, last year, I went back to that first bad review to see how much my perspective had changed. I was nervous, because that review really hurt. But when I read it again, I was shocked. Why? Because if I got that same review today, I’d be freaking thrilled. Seriously. That’s how NOT bad it was. It was 3 stars and critical, but compared to all of the 1 and 2 star reviews I’ve gotten since, it’s awesome. In fact, it’s positive enough that I’d say it’s closer to a 4 star review. And yet, 7 years ago, I thought it was a scathing bloodbath that was going to end my career before it even started.
Now, I understand that it’s ridiculous for anyone to tell you to grow a thick skin. You can’t just “grow” one. It takes time and a LOT of pain and scarring. Bad reviews hurt. Especially if they’re snarky or vicious or personal. I’ve had readers say I must be a terrible mother because of what I write. I’ve had reviewers say I’m trash and that my writing is trash, as well. Someone else said one of my books was derivative. I can’t tell you how many readers have said I’m going to burn in hell. One reviewer all but called me a racist. Those are the mild examples. I could go on and on, but if you really want to see the worst of them, they’re easy to find on Amazon.
I’d tell you not to read reviews, but sometimes you can’t help it, especially if the review is from a reviewer you sent a book to. Here’s the the thing: the reviewer is never wrong. I’m not talking about details…they may have gotten a fact technically wrong, but their interpretation of the story is never wrong (again, unless we’re talking about actual facts.)
Once you let the book go into the world, it’s no longer yours. Every word is open to interpretation. As an author, I strongly advise you to just let it go. If the reader read it “wrong,” then it’s very likely that you wrote the book in a way that left it open to “wrong” interpretation. And trust me, many reviewers do NOT take kindly to having authors trying to explain what they “meant.” If they want clarification, they’ll ask.
Just suck it up and take it as a lesson on what not to do in another book. I’ve got two books that I wish I could go back and tweak, just a little, because every now and then a reader will interpret something in a way I didn’t intend, and the reviews tend to be extremely harsh (Hell, I’m traumatized by the reviews, emails, and Facebook harassment I got for one book.) I truly think that in these cases, the readers are reading through a thick lens of personal sensitivity or bias that leads them to interpret my words in the way that they do, but the thing is, I could fix both items with just a couple of sentences. In these cases, the readers are not wrong, but neither am I. However, their interpretation is ultimately MY fault because I was not as clear as I should have been for those particular readers.
Now, if FACTS are wrong, reviewers really don’t mind being corrected. They want their reviews to be factually accurate. I will comment on reviews if they are factually inaccurate…although sometimes I let those go, too. Once, a reviewer made a mistake and claimed an event happened in the book that didn’t (they got two different books confused,) and that led to commenters really piling on the ridicule. But I was too afraid of the reviewer and the commenters on her blog to correct her. But generally, reviewers want to know.
There’s nothing wrong with asking a reviewer nicely to give you a heads up if the review is going to be negative (that way you don’t have to read it or link to it) or if you’ve got a promo planned at their blog. It’s awkward when the review is a bad one and then the next day you’re at the blog with a giveaway or something. But asking to discuss the review or asking for feedback is generally not a good practice.
I’m definitely not a believer in the saying, “Bad publicity is better than no publicity,” because honestly, I’m too sensitive for negative attention, but I assure you that reviewers talk, and if you leave a negative taste in their mouth on a personal level, it’s FAR worse than leaving them with a book they hated. Even if they don’t like one of your books, they’ll still give another of your books a shot, but if they don’t like YOU…they’ll never read you again, and they most certainly won’t respect you. Respect is earned, not by writing a book, but by letting reviewers do their thing how they want to do it. We don’t have to like those super-snarky, cutting reviews, but we have to learn to deal with them. Know where your line is…I don’t even respond to personal attacks anymore, unless they happen on my Facebook page or in an email. I will respond to incorrect facts or when someone accuses me of plagiarism or racism or something ugly, but otherwise, our books are fair game. (I’m also talking about reviews at review sites/blogs, not the general review at Goodreads or Amazon or something. Never respond to those unless you enjoy being the talk of the internet world…and there are people who really do thrive on that.)
We can wish for respect and nice reviews, but we have to face reality. Our books are not ours once they hit the marketplace, and a reader has every right to trash it, stomp on it, sacrifice it goat-gods, or whatever. It sucks, but that’s the game.
And keep in mind that reviews are, ultimately, not for the author. They don’t have to be constructive or nice. Reviews are for other readers. As a reader, when I see only glowing reviews, I don’t buy the book because I figure the reviews are all from uber-fans or family or hand-picked by-the-author reviewers. I made the mistake of buying a book like that once or twice, and the books turned out to be terribly written. It made me so angry, and I felt like I’d been scammed. Those authors are now in my “Never Buy List.”
So now I tend to read a few 5 and 4 star reviews, and then I move on to the 3 and 2 star reviews to get a more critical view of the book, because the things a reviewer might be critical of (too much sex, gay characters, asshole hero, etc.) are things that will make me pick up the book. You wouldn’t believe how many 1-star reviews I get for my Sydney Croft books that are screaming, “OMG, THERE’S TOO MUCH NASTY SEX!!!!), but then I hear from readers who say that those are the reviews that made them buy the book.

[Radiant Dragon]

Ето какво аз мисля по повод съдържанието на горния пост:

And so what if they didn’t like the book? Yeah, it sucks, but ultimately, your name is out there. Let’s say someone doesn’t buy your book because of that review. Later, they’ll remember your name but not the review. They’ll give your NEXT book a second look, because the name is familiar, even if they don’t know why.

Това за пръв път го чувам(чета). Аз лично се водя по първото впечатление: ако прочета нещо от даден автор и го определя като боклук, повече не чета от същия автор. (Правя изключения, но рядко.)
Затова пък по-внимателно си подбирам какво да чета.

I’d tell you not to read reviews, but sometimes you can’t help it, especially if the review is from a reviewer you sent a book to. Here’s the the thing: the reviewer is never wrong. I’m not talking about details…they may have gotten a fact technically wrong, but their interpretation of the story is never wrong (again, unless we’re talking about actual facts.)

Това си е баш Death of the Author.

We can wish for respect and nice reviews, but we have to face reality. Our books are not ours once they hit the marketplace, and a reader has every right to trash it, stomp on it, sacrifice it goat-gods, or whatever. It sucks, but that’s the game.

Тук вече изобщо не съм съгласен. Няма такова нещо като "face reality". Ако на даден читател не му харесва дадена книга, окей, негово право. Обаче rampant троленето, грубото, ad hominem ръсене на простотии и разказването на "свободни съчинения" са неща, които аз не толерирам и ще пускам flame war атомни бомби на поразия, ако един ден се случат на моето творчесто.
Уравнението е просто - ако искаш респект, трябва да дадеш. Читателят с нищо не е длъжен - да. Авторът обаче - също.

And keep in mind that reviews are, ultimately, not for the author. They don’t have to be constructive or nice. Reviews are for other readers. As a reader, when I see only glowing reviews, I don’t buy the book because I figure the reviews are all from uber-fans or family or hand-picked by-the-author reviewers. I made the mistake of buying a book like that once or twice, and the books turned out to be terribly written. It made me so angry, and I felt like I’d been scammed. Those authors are now in my “Never Buy List.”

Този абзац описва една от причините принципно да не чета ревюта, освен ей така за сеир, защото ревюто в крайна сметка е преди всичко едно мнение - като това на всички останали. Това не значи, че дадено ревю не може да ме грабне, но предпочитам да базирам преценката си или на анонса на книгата (което вече по-рядко го правя, защото все по-често не отговаря на съдържанието), или да участвам в някаква дискусия с човек, прочел книгата и тя/той да ме убеди/откаже чрез споделянето на личните си впечатления. (Да, това означава, че читателят е по-добре да е човек с близко до моето мислене - иначе може да има разминаване на интерпретациите/възгледите, т.е. "Уау, гледай го колко як е този герой, съвсем като нас е: проблеми в ежедневието, скрити комплекси, страхува се и тн.!", а междувременно аз си мисля "Пффф, поредния протагонист-полуидот, създаден, за да обслужва комплексите на съвременните поколения...")

Като цяло, схванах духа на, ъъ, посланието (не мисля, че форматът е класическа статия), което в духа на Кубрат Пулев казва "Продължаваме напред!" (силна мисъл мжд, обаче обстоятелствата я осмехотвориха), но иронията е в това, че госпожица Ione можеше да го напише "по-добре". <--- Мнението ми като читател.

[Кал]

Eclipse, a user on Alora Fane, wrote about developing a 'rhino skin' in response to harsh (and unfair) criticism.

I write. Short stories mostly. And most of the feedback I get from people--even my close friends--is resounding silence. Now, this can be extremely demotivating: I'm not writing for myself, and I'd rather be doing more productive stuff if my writing doesn't reach, or touch, anyone.

I also teach creative writing, and one of the first things I tell my students is: Each piece of feedback you receive reflects the attitude of a single reader, at a particular point in time. It's not a universal truth. It's not even about your piece; it's about their perception of it. If it's constructive and it resonates with your own aesthetics and intentions, take it. If not, thank the person for taking the time to read your piece. It's still better than resounding silence ... yes?

I don't want to build a rhino skin. I've found it deadens my creative sensitivity. (It's like trying to avoid pain at any cost: it makes you incapable of feeling joy either.) I only want to be aware that art is a subjective process; and a dialogue. We cannot meaningfully talk with everyone (hi sharra ;); then why expect that everyone could appreciate our creative efforts?

[Кал]

That's true, and a good point... but to be honest, I only meant to use 'rhino skin' as a metaphor for resisting negative feedback that isn't constructive.... not for feedback as a whole. In fact, I rather like constructive criticism, it helps me improve and get better, think about things harder before bringing them out there or posting them.

And yes, silence can really hurt, especially when if you see this silence from more than one person.

My point was, do not resist ANY feedback, even the most 'destructive'. Take it as a reflection of the critic rather than the critiqued; and be grateful for their time.

'Resistant' often transforms into 'callous', which can become the bane of any creative person. I'd much rather hurt than feel nothing at all.

P.S. Also, sometimes I ask the authors of such 'destructive' critiques how they'd improve the piece. And sometimes the dialogue turns constructive. :)

[Кал]

Lately I've tried pushing my limits a bit more, writing some short stories in my spare time. As an artist, if nobody comments on my pictures I don't mind so much as long as I feel satisfied with my work. I'm aware of my shortcomings and my place in the perspective of progress. For writing it's different.

Unlike pictures where you can leave things up to interpretation, words are straightforward. With every word it feels like I am baring myself to the outside world, wide open. (...)

I can see where you stand. Been there, sometimes still am. :)

If you let me add another piece to the puzzle, consider this: are words really straightforward?

Just this week, I had about half a dozen written conversations involving more than a dozen different people, where everyone misunderstood me (or somebody else) at least once. (Yeah, it was one of those weeks. :/ )

Most sentences can be interpreted in five or ten or twenty different ways, depending on the reader's mood, cultural background, linguistic facility, personal experience, etc, etc, etc. And a whole story? It may get as hairy as a picture ....

(I'm sure not everyone here will interpret my last sentence in the same way. Did anyone actually visualise a hairy picture? :D )

With so many possible interpretations, I feel enormous relief and gratitude when someone actually gets me. It's always a Yipee!!! moment. (And another reason for loving this site. Most of you seem to be getting me easily. Or at least haven't made fun of my silliness. ;)

[Кал]

Сибин Майналовски написа в Goodreads отзив за „Групата от ада“ на Снеж. Ако отзивът имаше по-инакво естество, щях да го пусна в общата ни тема за книги.

Сега пускам само коментара си към него (понеже в Goodreads може и да се изгуби безследно – а такъв „критически подход“ заслужава увековечаване ;):

Майналовски?!...

(Добре, че се срещат хора, които разбират какви са ти проблемите с текста. Иначе бих се усъмнил дали говорим на един български.)

В прав текст: това е най-тенденциозната „критика“, която съм виждал. Дори от тебе. С всяка следваща точка ми се засилваше усещането как се напъваш да се хванеш за нещо. Напъваш се. Напъваш се...

Ако продължа още, и до изследване на боксерките ще стигнем. :D Но няма смисъл. Очевадно е, че си си бил навил на пръста да кажеш някакви неща за книгата, казал си ги, развеселил си няколко души: 100-процентов успех. Разговор за самата книга никога не си възнамерявал да водиш. Какво да го мъча и аз...

С продължение-пояснение:

За да не звуча все едно просто се заяждам: Аз нямам нищо против негативизма – стига да мога да науча нещо от него. Тоест да има поне щипчица конструктивност, от типа „X беше ужасТ, не можеше ли да стане Y?“. И се опитвам да намеря тая щипчица дори в най-злите отзиви, които съм виждал. Барем следващия път си подобрим резултатите.

Но тук търсих, търсих, търсих нещо, което поне малко да ми подскаже какво Y е трябвало да стане... Търсих. :///

... И се сетих в коя тема да се преместя. ;)

Spoiler

Иначе да се кълвемЕ, го можем всички... :D

Не, бре, Сиби, разликата между тебе и мене е, че в писателството аз още се уча, докато ти нямаш накъде повече – постигнал си съвършенството.

А приликата е, че понякога и двамата имаме нужда от хапченца. :D

Хихихи...

Впрочем като каза платени редакции – ако си търсиш такива, аз не взимам скъпо. И не бих те оставил да се червиш с изречения като „Мама помърмори малко, когато го донесох у дома, но когато обещах, че ще се грижа за него и никога няма да й се наложи да му „слугува“ (неин израз), възраженията й се стопиха“. Неумишлено повторение, излишни думи, ненужни обяснения в скоби. Може и да се преподреди/раздели на две изр. за по-гладко четене.

... Какво, какво? Ти не се червиш, ами си го харесваш на 100%? Е, извинявай, че ти се бъркам тогава.

[Кал]

Стивън Ериксън за пореден път преобръща масите... така де, перспективите:

The Author as the Living Dead

(...) Under the vast umbrella of postmodernism, personal interpretations have egalitarian virtue. The text is neutered of intention at its source (the author), to be dismantled and reassembled at leisure. If the author writes: “The shirt was blue,” the literary critic can now assert that line to mean the shirt was red, or there was no shirt at all, but a shirtless person made blue by the fierce winter wind. And if that sentence was not anchored to any character’s point of view, but rather to that of an unseen omniscient narrator, well, clearly that narrator wasn’t the actual author, but a voice generated by the novel itself, which sprang into creation like a toadstool on a pile of dung in the basement.

As with all art, in other words, the creator ceases to be relevant and the audience is made eminent.

You might think I’d be fine with that. By this means am I divested of all responsibility for what I write. What a relief. Just as I no longer have any say in how a reader interprets (or feels) about anything I write, the only thing that binds me to their expectations leaves the field of literary criticism behind and ventures into the crass world of consumerism, popularity, and publishing, since these market forces will decide if I am or am not a successful writer. When I wrote “The shirt was blue” I could not possibly have expected a reader to interpret the shirt as being red, or no shirt at all, and even if I had an expectation that a reader would read that sentence in one way and one way only, that’s no longer relevant.

De-contextualizing a work of art is the gentle injection that puts it to eternal sleep. No longer any risky vivisection awaiting the examiner. Just flat out, stiff-as-a-board-body dissection. Here the limits can be decided upon, the parameters clearly defined, the self-as-audience raised on the highest pedestal. It’s a postmodernist’s wet dream.

(...) There was a time when writers (especially writers) were expected to mostly stay in their garrets. Beyond the occasional book launch or signing tour, not much else was expected of them. Just quietly go about the business of writing stories and mailing them off to the publisher. Job done. That general silence, or moody reclusiveness depending on how extreme the self-isolation happened to be, kept the game running, hand after hand, chips flying.

Then the times changed. New technology started dragging us authors out front and centre. We were asked to actually speak, to comment on things, to have opinions, to answer questions from fans. The beliefs and worldviews and attitudes of the author became part of the discussion, in addition to those published stories and novels. A divide began to form, one that wasn’t (isn’t) easy to navigate for the writer. Fans wanted answers and explanations. But literary scholars want silence, the silence of the dead. Alas, the internet makes no distinction in terms of its audience and the availability of information.

The education system (at least in the West) at all levels, remains true to its established post-Barthes paradigm in terms of the theory of literary analysis. But no-one’s waiting for it to catch up, and as long as it holds to the dead-author paradigm, it can’t. It never will.