Why Criticism?

A friend (you know who you are) of mine emailed me:

Here is a thought, to be a good editor someone needs to understand your work. As you have mentioned earlier, some people may not get your writing or meaning in other words. So how do you expect people who do not understand it, to give you a valuable feedback or insights? Sure they’ll catch small things like grammar, but I doubt they would impress you much with anything beyond that.

“How are you supposed to learn when you are not shown what you have done well? You are left guessing what is good and all you see is the bad.”

I tend to think along the lines that we can choose what we see. From this description of your work I take it that you think that you are fairly confident in your ability and performance, but also realize that there is a room to grow. Correct me if I’m wrong. Yet you say you do not know at the same time. It makes my thoughts go back to one of your very first posts, when you said that you are starting to look for answers more and more inside of yourself.

I replied to her in an email, but I believe I will elaborate here a little more.

The reason I look for "insights" from people that don't get my work is to gain perspective. What is it that they do not get? Do they not get it because of lack of background? Do they not get it because I was overly complex or simple? Did they not get because I explained it poorly or focused on the wrong audience?

It all helps me see what I am doing from another's eyes. I like to see how others interpret my work, to see if I was able to convey what was within my mind to them as I wanted to.

Also I want to know how to communicate to people that don't "get" it. Of course I am, above everything else, writing for myself. I write because I enjoy it, I like putting my thoughts, ideas and stories down for others to read.

But sometimes I want to share my ideas, and let people see something through my eyes. And if I can acquire the ability to let them see it, even briefly... well I think that that is just plain cool.

There is always, always, ALWAYS room to grow. To believe otherwise is to be a fool in my opinion. I believe there is always a little more that you can learn, a new skill to acquire and new experiences to gain.

I am looking to myself for answers, but I also want to understand others as well. I am not the centre of the universe... I am just the centre of my life.

And I'd like to learn a little about the others orbiting around me as I go about it.

What is it that makes others tick, how is it that they view me from the centre of their own lives?

Lastly, in the end the writing is mine. I define it, I create it, it is just plain mine. I have the choice to take what others give me in criticisms or not. I do not define myself by then.

I often use writing to clarify my thoughts, as I write it sharpens things that have been tickling at the back of my mind, having people tell me their opinions on strengths/opportunities of stories or posts can give me new ideas and concepts to play with as well. And also allow me to look at something in myself at a different angle.

This is the end of the post, I think I am about to go too far afield and I'm tired! :P

Criticism

After taking courses on writing, and completing the program I have come to realize that most people really don't know how to edit properly.

Oh sure they get typos and spelling errors, but they don't generally know how to improve on a phrase/piece or to tell you what is missing.

Added to this is that they don't know how to criticise.

By this I mean actually being helpful in what they say.

Generally, criticising has negative connotations for most people, since it implies that you have done something wrong.

Now in my writing courses what we were taught to do is this:

- What are the Strengths?

- What are the Weaknesses?

- What are the Opportunities? 

*** Do I have these right Dorian?

Opportunities are what most people ever hear except that it is all negative. Opportunities appear where there is generally a weakness in the piece or something that the reader/editor feels is missing. This can also include something that is not a weakness but something you think could improve or add to this piece if added or removed.

What you usually hear from people is what you did wrong. You rarely hear about what you did right.

For instance where I am working I handle about seven pages of newspaper. I catch many of my own errors within the writing after several checks.

But of course with this amount of information things fall through the crack. I am not an OCD personality type or anal, I am not that much of a perfectionist, but I do get a large majority.

My proofreader out of thousands of words find 2 to 10 things maybe a week that need correction. Ie neighbor vs neighbour or ".. vs ." 

And then all I hear about is the errors I have made. I do not mention to them that I have to go over every change they made to check that they are viable. Often they are corrections that should not have been done in the first place.

I get that it is important to be precise, and each time I do it I get better at it, less and less fall through the cracks.

But I dislike this superior, snobbish attitude these proofreaders get when I make an error. I do not go rubbing it in their faces when I catch them at an error, or when I see all the errors in the rest of the paper.

How are you supposed to learn when you are not shown what you have done well? You are left guessing what is good and all you see is the bad.

I am used to criticism, I was raised on it as a writer. I like it when people tell me what they like, where they think I should give more details, or what they feel isn't right or whatever else they feel about a piece I have written.

What I don't like is purely negative feedback, feedback I can't work with, feedback that makes you feel shot down as if all the work is shoddy crap.