Oh, absolutely. There's a big difference between "this passage makes no sense" and "don't ever use 'ly' adverbs." Me, I'm a firm believe in critiquing for all that I struggle with the overwhelm factor. And frankly it's just as overwhelming to have people love the piece as to have them hate it. It's just having so many perspectives that gets me, but then I also fall asleep at rock concerts because of the crowd ;).
However, when you are just starting out, before you gain confidence in your own voice, having people who have apparently been at this longer than you have tell you absolutes, like "no one ever writes in omniscient" for example, can set a writer back. And with that kind of setback, it can take years to undo if the writer doesn't realize just what happened.
With me, it was "that"s. I warped my sentences to avoid them because I was told never rather than use with care until my own father couldn't figure out what I meant :).
After a while, writers learn how to manage critiques, how to recognize the bias of the critiquer and when to accept and when to nod politely and walk away. But there is a dangerous time in between when a writer's natural voice can be harmed by criticism that follows guidelines as absolutes without stopping to listen to the voice and encourage it.
In my work as a copyeditor for Dragon Tooth Tales, I ran across one book in particular where the voice was haunting. I edited it to Dido and now whenever I hear a Dido song, I'm transported back into that story. But the author needed some help to really bring it out and to clear up issues with the story itself. Had the novel gone through many crit groups I've participated in, and with all the best intentions in the world, that voice would have been crushed. It doesn't follow the "norm," and in its rawer form, the strength required a keen ear to hear. But the editor who accepted the novel, and I in working with the author, were able to help the author bring that book out as it needed to be told. That's the risk of slavishly following these writing rules and of applying them with a sledge hammer instead of a carefully wedged chisel. Natural voices that are strong and evocative but don't follow the trends get slammed into "acceptable shape" and their unique aspects take years to rebuild.
On the other hand, not everyone has a talent for recognizing voice in the raw, so we have what we have. The writers who persist will muddle through and either stubbornly retain their voices (with, I hope, picking up a thing or two on the way) or will recover their voices once they gain the confidence to say no to suggestions that don't fit into their world. Those that give up will either come back later when they're stronger...or probably didn't have what it takes to be a writer in the first place. It's sad but true that the path to authordom is a hard, hot road with a ton of potholes.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
momijizukamori
Re: Writing Rules
Date: 2009-04-25 06:22 am (UTC)However, when you are just starting out, before you gain confidence in your own voice, having people who have apparently been at this longer than you have tell you absolutes, like "no one ever writes in omniscient" for example, can set a writer back. And with that kind of setback, it can take years to undo if the writer doesn't realize just what happened.
With me, it was "that"s. I warped my sentences to avoid them because I was told never rather than use with care until my own father couldn't figure out what I meant :).
After a while, writers learn how to manage critiques, how to recognize the bias of the critiquer and when to accept and when to nod politely and walk away. But there is a dangerous time in between when a writer's natural voice can be harmed by criticism that follows guidelines as absolutes without stopping to listen to the voice and encourage it.
In my work as a copyeditor for Dragon Tooth Tales, I ran across one book in particular where the voice was haunting. I edited it to Dido and now whenever I hear a Dido song, I'm transported back into that story. But the author needed some help to really bring it out and to clear up issues with the story itself. Had the novel gone through many crit groups I've participated in, and with all the best intentions in the world, that voice would have been crushed. It doesn't follow the "norm," and in its rawer form, the strength required a keen ear to hear. But the editor who accepted the novel, and I in working with the author, were able to help the author bring that book out as it needed to be told. That's the risk of slavishly following these writing rules and of applying them with a sledge hammer instead of a carefully wedged chisel. Natural voices that are strong and evocative but don't follow the trends get slammed into "acceptable shape" and their unique aspects take years to rebuild.
On the other hand, not everyone has a talent for recognizing voice in the raw, so we have what we have. The writers who persist will muddle through and either stubbornly retain their voices (with, I hope, picking up a thing or two on the way) or will recover their voices once they gain the confidence to say no to suggestions that don't fit into their world. Those that give up will either come back later when they're stronger...or probably didn't have what it takes to be a writer in the first place. It's sad but true that the path to authordom is a hard, hot road with a ton of potholes.