Self-Publishing Brutal critques.

[Jake E]

I've been listening to a podcast critiquing indie works recently.

Ménage à Typo

Ménage à Typo is a review panel focusing on the independent publishing space. Our series are listed below, along with each focus area. We approach critique with both mischief and good humor, while also enabling writers (and readers!) to better understand the elements of craft. The Hosts...

youtube.com

And while I found it extremely entertaining and educational, I wondered if maybe there was a point when critique can be too harsh.

What do Litopians think? Should we pull our punches a little or does that not help at all?

J

 

[MattScho]

When the point of a brutal critique is to make people laugh, entertain an audience, then it's not really doing many favors to an author. but it is doing some favors.
No one outside of Litopia, and the author's circle, will care, at all, for the author's feelings. Readers can be horribly viscious thugs. Agents and publishers can be worse. Typical readers, and that's what it sounds like the menage a typo is, will never pull their punches. All they care about is whether or not they enjoyed at some level the book, story, whatever, they picked up, maybe paid for but certainly spent at least some time with.
The true value of Pop-Ups, in my mind, was that writers got immediate, one glance, feedback.
We can think, that's not fair, if they only read to page 21 or hadn't misunderstood that particular line, they would have loved it. But that is not what readers do or should be expected to do.
They do not read for us. We write for them.
There are zero expectations we can put on them. Well, that we can put on them and expect them to meet.
Readers read, quickly, perhaps distractedly, with pre-concieved ideas about their world, and they snap judge based on that. If they aren't intrigued, most will simply drop and forget the book. A lot will see no reason not to burn it all down.
At the peak of my career, what I wrote was read by millions, sometimes tens of millions. 99.999999 percent of those never said a word. Those who did speak split not as evenly between those who loved the work (loved these folk, had one series that brought in more than 2000 notes simply saying thanks for writing this) and those who very literally wished me harm and death and illness and even sometimes all that for my kids. The rage was real and palpable.
Now, they were wrong to threaten to kill me and my kids.
But readers are often wrong.
Which brings us to harsh critiques on here. If we're serious about writing, harsh is good because harsh is what real readers are. Now, doens't mean harsh means smart or insightful, but that isn't what readers are, necessarily

 

[Jake E]

I definitely prefer it when people are harsh when giving feedback about my work. It helps me fix it and highlights where I need to put the work in.
I have to agree that readers are harsh, so it's better that feedback prior to publishing is at least as harsh, if not more so.

 

[MattScho]

Yeah, there's harsh with the intent to help, which is a good thing, and harsh just to be say something, which is not a good thing

 

[RK Wallis]

They do not read for us. We write for them.

So well put, Matt

Yeah, there's harsh with the intent to help, which is a good thing, and harsh just to be say something, which is not a good thing

100% this.

 

[Sarit]

So harsh readers, while it stings at first, can be very helpful once I put my ego on the side. But I find that most hard reviewers feel like they need to be hard to justify their status as a reviewer/arc reader and they don't say anything useful. Also I find, that reviewers are harder on Indies than trad pub--who might be more protected or those reviewers are afraid if they trash a S&S book, they will never be invited to review again.

 

[Aethalope]

Critique as feedback from an unhappy reader is one thing. It's something else to set up a YouTube channel, possibly with the aim of monetizing, to expressly tear an unprotected indie author to shreds. That's less critique and more exploiting certain audiences' love for seeing things destroyed.

There is so much money being made online by content creators bashing shows and movies, but at least they have studios and platforms to protect them.

 

[Pamela Jo]

If the critique shuts you down then it's not useful. One of my favorite old movies is "Please Dont Eat the Daisies." One of the MC's is a drama critic. (This is based on a real house and real people. The writers husband was a NY drama critic) He is told to be careful of the "downalator" where you start writing for your own applause and not for the benefit of theatre. What Matt said. That site is just a "downalator". Good feedback is an escalator.

Also what I learned from a book that researched how people become really good at stuff is that you have to hear what was right, not just what was wrong. And not in the way that we all kind of dismiss because we know what's coming and that's just the sugar coating. Like, "Mary Bennet plays piano well for an ugly girl." It needs to be more like a music tutor saying, "That note was perfect. Do it again."

 

[Sedayne]

I don't have time or energy to listen to this podcast, but I just played the introduction to hear them saying that they don't recommend that the author or their friends and family or fans of the author listen to their critique!

Intent is everything. And this podcast is expressly not intended for the author. The brutality of the critique is unlikely to be helpful in this case, and I stopped listening there.

But talking of critiques generally, I think critique of a published work, whether self- or trad-published, is very different to critiques of WIPs. Once you've finished something and published it, you're saying you're satisfied that this is the very best it can be, and you are ready for the world to read it. Whatever praise or criticism you get is out of your hands. (Although it might influence your next project or even if you'll write again.) You might even say that by putting your work out there, it's fair game. But good critics usually strike balance.

It's different with a WIP because different writers need different things. A brutal critique might push one writer to their best and another to give up. When a bunch of writers get to know each other, they know how far they can push one another. Or if the writer says to the group 'let me have it; I can take it,' you know to be brutally honest. Whereas with a newer member, it's probably better not to scare them off on the first crit.

But however brutally honest we are and however much we want to push each other to our best, I believe in compassion when the goal is to help and support.

 

[Sedayne]

That site is just a "downalator". Good feedback is an escalator.

Yes, absolutely this.

 

[MattScho]

So harsh readers, while it stings at first, can be very helpful once I put my ego on the side. But I find that most hard reviewers feel like they need to be hard to justify their status as a reviewer/arc reader and they don't say anything useful. Also I find, that reviewers are harder on Indies than trad pub--who might be more protected or those reviewers are afraid if they trash a S&S book, they will never be invited to review again.

As a former, occassional, book critic for a newspaper*, I can say that there really wasn't any pressure to trash anything or not to praise anything. The pressures were 1. get it down quickly (the reason I stopped) and 2. not to base a review just on gut feelings, but to back up your points. I got paid to crtique by a couple different book section** editors. One was a pretentious twat who found that the only really good books out there had first been praised by the NYT book section or The New Yorker. Now, he was an idiot, but at least he was a consistent idiot and at least he thought he was being honest and forthright and stuff. His critiques were based on his massive insecurities about being exposed as a fraud, but there was no pressure on him to be that way. It's not unlike the problem with slush pile readers, there is no penalty for saying no, but there can be for saying yes.

*for our young readers, newspapers were these very large pages made from squished dead trees and every day filled with a selection of the news of the community, nation, world, from crime to politics to sport (hmmm, thse all seem connected) to weather and business. They were delivered every day to a front stoop or front desk, of your home. You often see them in old movies, like from way back in the 2000s.
**The book section was a number of these large pages devoted to the reviews of books. Typically it was published once a week, on a Sunday.

 

[MattScho]

But talking of critiques generally, I think critique of a published work, whether self- or trad-published, is very different to critiques of WIPs. Once you've finished something and published it, you're saying you're satisfied that this is the very best it can be, and you are ready for the world to read it. Whatever praise or criticism you get is out of your hands.

There is a reason the cliche in art criticism (books, plays, concerts, etc) is to never read your reviews. there is no point in second guessing what's already over (from your perspective).
One of the great quotes about reading the critics is from PG Wodehouse, when he explained "The critics complained about my last book by saying I'd merely dusted off an old plot by using new characters. I think this time I've foiled them. I'm using the old characters, as well."

 

[Pamela Jo]

It's different with a WIP because different writers need different things. A brutal critique might push one writer to their best and another to give up. When a bunch of writers get to know each other, they know how far they can push one another. Or if the writer says to the group 'let me have it; I can take it,' you know to be brutally honest. Whereas with a newer member, it's probably better not to scare them off on the first crit.

But however brutally honest we are and however much we want to push each other to our best, I believe in compassion when the goal is to help and support.

I only disagree with the word "compassion". I dont think it is the right one.
But we all have to remember horses for courses. I can't really enjoy a romance because they are not my joy. But I can give an opinion on whether the character is appealing. Or whether the ending is too abrupt. But it will be just that. An opinion. Which is all we get back from a query. The success of books like 50 Shades show how opinions can be wrong. I still think 50 Shades is badly written and boring so for me a failure. But it made millions. And it got a lot of people horney and that was the authors intent.

When giving feedback we have to keep in mind the writers intention and what is success to them.

I think we do have to be careful of giving "participation trophies" just as much as have to be careful of "downalating". For me I'd rather have feed back like. "This character really made me like her/him." Rather than "The swallow building its nest was nice, but...." Dont give me "compassion" give me something better. A view from outside my head that focuses on something I'm missing in the way colleagues and teammates do.

 

[Pamela Jo]

"It's not unlike the problem with slush pile readers, there is no penalty for saying no, but there can be for saying yes."

THIS, so this. Whenever we get a no from an agent or publisher ... THIS. When you start thinking about self-publishing you have to start weighing the same consequences. It does change your perspective.


*for our young readers, newspapers were these very large pages made from squished dead trees and every day filled with a selection of the news of the community, nation, world, from crime to politics to sport (hmmm, thse all seem connected) to weather and business. They were delivered every day to a front stoop or front desk, of your home. You often see them in old movies, like from way back in the 2000s.
**The book section was a number of these large pages devoted to the reviews of books. Typically it was published once a week, on a Sunday.

Shitfaced Meth O


Matt, now you are going to have to explain what a bird cage is...

 

[MattScho]

A good critique should be an attempt to point out issues that a reader might have, and suggest directions that might avoid the issue(s). As PJ notes, it's nuttin'but opinion.

 

[MattScho]

"It's not unlike the problem with slush pile readers, there is no penalty for saying no, but there can be for saying yes."

THIS, so this. Whenever we get a no from an agent or publisher ... THIS. When you start thinking about self-publishing you have to start weighing the same consequences. It does change your perspective.


*for our young readers, newspapers were these very large pages made from squished dead trees and every day filled with a selection of the news of the community, nation, world, from crime to politics to sport (hmmm, thse all seem connected) to weather and business. They were delivered every day to a front stoop or front desk, of your home. You often see them in old movies, like from way back in the 2000s.
**The book section was a number of these large pages devoted to the reviews of books. Typically it was published once a week, on a Sunday.

Shitfaced Meth O


Matt, now you are going to have to explain what a bird cage is...

What goes above a newspaper?

 

[Sedayne]

I only disagree with the word "compassion". I dont think it is the right one.

Maybe not fitting in this context, but it's something I try to live my life by. (Possibly a throwback to my monastic days; it stuck even if the religion didn't.)
I do believe there is room to be kind in critiquing - not everyone's-a-winner-participation-trophies, but being careful not to devastate someone who is just finding their way.

 

[Jake E]

I always worry when giving critiques. I feel like I'm always too harsh, but I've never revelled in it. I don't enjoy being negative about someone's hard work. But a large part of me feels like it's necessary.

 

[Sedayne]

I always worry when giving critiques. I feel like I'm always too harsh, but I've never revelled in it. I don't enjoy being negative about someone's hard work. But a large part of me feels like it's necessary.

I think being conscious of this helps strike the right balance.

 

[MattScho]

Maybe not fitting in this context, but it's something I try to live my life by. (Possibly a throwback to my monastic days; it stuck even if the religion didn't.)
I do believe there is room to be kind in critiquing - not everyone's-a-winner-participation-trophies, but being careful not to devastate someone who is just finding their way.

Yeah. I try to view Mr. Rogers as my spirit animal. When we're at our best, we're helping people.

 

[Pamela Jo]

Yeah. I try to view Mr. Rogers as my spirit animal. When we're at our best, we're helping people.

But Mr Rogers would tell you if your shoes are untied and then he would help you with the bunny ears. All I'm saying is giving feedback in the Litopia context is different than when a 5 year old gives you their drawing of a family holiday and it looks like this.

On Litopia you are obligated to give your real first opinion-just without being an arse. After all knowing how it hits those who probably arent your readers is stil valuable. Maybe you say. Eureka! That was exactly my goal. It's like my Guardian film test. If they like it-I'll probably hate it.

 

[MattScho]

That is spectacular, PJ. You are correct, as well.

 

[E G Logan]

As a former, occassional, book critic for a newspaper*, I can say that there really wasn't any pressure to trash anything or not to praise anything.

Me, too. Also I had a pretty free hand to pick my books, from within specific categories. But I have a strong suspicion things are different today.

 

[Hannah Faoileán]

Critique of writing or anything: Always use the shit sandwich technique = something genuinely and constructively nice about the work (there's always something to praise, to boost morale) + something that needs fixing (the what, the how it made you, the reader, feel, but not the actual fix because that's your voice not theirs) + something else genuinely nice.

 

[Pamela Jo]

Critique of writing or anything: Always use the shit sandwich technique = something genuinely and constructively nice about the work (there's always something to praise, to boost morale) + something that needs fixing (the what, the how it made you, the reader, feel, but not the actual fix because that's your voice not theirs) + something else genuinely nice.

I generally dismiss the nice because this technique is so formulaic. Maybe that's just me.

 

[MattScho]

I generally dismiss the nice because this technique is so formulaic. Maybe that's just me.

Shit between two slices of shit is not a great sandwich. To be fair, neither is shit between bread, even great bread

 

[Pamela Jo]

Shit between two slices of shit is not a great sandwich. To be fair, neither is shit between bread, even great bread

Maybe leave out the shit and the bread and just give honest reactions?

 

[Hannah Faoileán]

Maybe leave out the shit and the bread and just give honest reactions?

There will always be something that's honestly nice.

 

[Pamela Jo]

There will always be something that's honestly nice.

To me if you HAVE to find 2 nice things for the sandwich... you've already skewed away from first reaction. And I want first gut reactions like from a reader. The "HAVE to find nice thing" rule just feels like a participation trophy to me. But again may be just moi. Reading the returned edit from Cleqrwater Editing that I paid for, I like that Eamon says this note gives the reader insight to what happens later- maybe add a little more, Or I totally got lost to who was speaking here and it's important info, figure out how to make this clear. And this is totally a shoutout for https://clearviewfictionediting.com/