Back again to why I write, but along a different tangent this time. I belong to a couple of online critique groups. They're not the first I've belonged to, I even joined a couple before I ever knew what writing.com was. They are the only two I've ever stuck with, though.
All workplaces have their own culture. It's a combination of work-enforced values, and the personalities of the people who work there. Usually one lends itself to the other until they blend together and become a pretty pile of mud. The blending happens because if you don't agree with the company values and don't get along with your co-workers, you probably won't be there very long. And it has to be as a whole, not just one or two people you like. At least, that's the way it works for me. It's the reason I'm still honeymooning with New Job and wondering how I ever survived at Old Job.
Critique groups are the same. The group-enforced culture is the series of rules that determines who gets critiqued how and when. And then there's the other members. You don't have to write in the same style, voice, or genre of the rest of the group, but it does help if you all get along. To me that means feedback and constructive criticism is delivered and received in a way that benefits both parties. Everyone has a different method of voicing their opinion, but if one person consistently rubs another the wrong way with their feedback, even if it's meant 100% in the spirit of helping, it's not going to be well received. It becomes wasted time on the part of both parties.
Wow, that was really convoluted and hard to say. I should get a copy editor for my blog. *shouts at woman in next cubicle*. Hmm...she's not in yet...oh well.
So these two critique groups I belong to...the culture is helpful to me. I stay because I like the people, I like the feedback I get, and I feel like it's all helping me grow. And no, not all of it is glowing praise with no suggestions for improvement. In fact, very very little of it is.
A couple of days ago, the discussion came up about whether we as writers let our characters drive us, or whether plot is all-important. I usually fall on the character side of the argument. I write to give my characters a home. But it's not quite true. Both have to be there for me. I don't think of a character one day and say "What would Arthur do?" I think of a character and say "What would Arthur do if buldozers were waiting outside his house to demolish one morning so they could build a bypass?"
Character and plot intertwined. Of course, the answer in this case is obvious. His friend Ford Prefect would come along, stall the buldozers, take Arthur to the pub, and then give him a towel. But if I hadn't absentmindedly stolen the plot from a different novel, the answer might not be so obvious. I pick the place, I pick the character, I like them run rampant with each other.
What does this long rambling tangent have to do with why I write?
Something tells me I'm getting off-topic a little here. *tries to straighten things out*. I do all of this in my head. I picture the entire scene, I let it play out, and then I force it onto paper so I can read it and revel in its glory. And if it were up to me, it would stay in that form forever and I'd wince at some of the bad wording, but love the story all the same.
But since I like seeing my name in print, it's not all up to me. It has to be edited, revised, made comprehensive for anyone else who might read it. Which is where the critique groups come into the picture. AND (my final point), I had a revelation this morning after getting a fantastic critique from someone. Their feedback is the reason I write beyond the first draft. If my critique groups aren't interested enough to read it, the general public probably isn't, and I never edit it. The stories I don't get any feedback on sit and wilt on my hard drive, and rarely see the light of day unless I just love them so much that I think they're almost perfect in their first incarnation. (None of which has been published to date, despite my affection for them).
Apparently, a portion of my desire to create is tied to whether or not people are appreciating what I've already created. Feedback = motivation for me. No feedback = stare at a blank page and growl at half-formed ideas.
Probably not the most efficient way to go about things, but it's not like it's a conscious thing (or at least, it wasn't until this morning). I suspect I'm not the only one who feels this way, but I don't know...how does feedback (or lack thereof) impact your desire to write?
All workplaces have their own culture. It's a combination of work-enforced values, and the personalities of the people who work there. Usually one lends itself to the other until they blend together and become a pretty pile of mud. The blending happens because if you don't agree with the company values and don't get along with your co-workers, you probably won't be there very long. And it has to be as a whole, not just one or two people you like. At least, that's the way it works for me. It's the reason I'm still honeymooning with New Job and wondering how I ever survived at Old Job.
Critique groups are the same. The group-enforced culture is the series of rules that determines who gets critiqued how and when. And then there's the other members. You don't have to write in the same style, voice, or genre of the rest of the group, but it does help if you all get along. To me that means feedback and constructive criticism is delivered and received in a way that benefits both parties. Everyone has a different method of voicing their opinion, but if one person consistently rubs another the wrong way with their feedback, even if it's meant 100% in the spirit of helping, it's not going to be well received. It becomes wasted time on the part of both parties.
Wow, that was really convoluted and hard to say. I should get a copy editor for my blog. *shouts at woman in next cubicle*. Hmm...she's not in yet...oh well.
So these two critique groups I belong to...the culture is helpful to me. I stay because I like the people, I like the feedback I get, and I feel like it's all helping me grow. And no, not all of it is glowing praise with no suggestions for improvement. In fact, very very little of it is.
A couple of days ago, the discussion came up about whether we as writers let our characters drive us, or whether plot is all-important. I usually fall on the character side of the argument. I write to give my characters a home. But it's not quite true. Both have to be there for me. I don't think of a character one day and say "What would Arthur do?" I think of a character and say "What would Arthur do if buldozers were waiting outside his house to demolish one morning so they could build a bypass?"
Character and plot intertwined. Of course, the answer in this case is obvious. His friend Ford Prefect would come along, stall the buldozers, take Arthur to the pub, and then give him a towel. But if I hadn't absentmindedly stolen the plot from a different novel, the answer might not be so obvious. I pick the place, I pick the character, I like them run rampant with each other.
What does this long rambling tangent have to do with why I write?
Something tells me I'm getting off-topic a little here. *tries to straighten things out*. I do all of this in my head. I picture the entire scene, I let it play out, and then I force it onto paper so I can read it and revel in its glory. And if it were up to me, it would stay in that form forever and I'd wince at some of the bad wording, but love the story all the same.
But since I like seeing my name in print, it's not all up to me. It has to be edited, revised, made comprehensive for anyone else who might read it. Which is where the critique groups come into the picture. AND (my final point), I had a revelation this morning after getting a fantastic critique from someone. Their feedback is the reason I write beyond the first draft. If my critique groups aren't interested enough to read it, the general public probably isn't, and I never edit it. The stories I don't get any feedback on sit and wilt on my hard drive, and rarely see the light of day unless I just love them so much that I think they're almost perfect in their first incarnation. (None of which has been published to date, despite my affection for them).
Apparently, a portion of my desire to create is tied to whether or not people are appreciating what I've already created. Feedback = motivation for me. No feedback = stare at a blank page and growl at half-formed ideas.
Probably not the most efficient way to go about things, but it's not like it's a conscious thing (or at least, it wasn't until this morning). I suspect I'm not the only one who feels this way, but I don't know...how does feedback (or lack thereof) impact your desire to write?
