N.R. Wick's Blog, page 11
April 27, 2011
Thesis Approved and Independent Publishing
It's been a while because I've been so busy with finishing my thesis. Speaking of which, my thesis has been approved and finalized and now I just need to send it off to a binder to have it specially printed for my school's thesis library. It's a really great feeling! I just have a couple of class assignments left and I finish at the end of May, but the important thing is the thesis and I'm finished. My last few assignments have to do with query letter writing and it doesn't really apply to me.
Why doesn't this apply? Well, my dear friends, the reason is because I am going to independently publish my work. Self-publish, for those who don't agree with the term Indie. No, I'm not crazy. No, I don't suck and can't make it in the traditional (legacy) publishing world. The point is that I don't want to try. Not yet, anyway. Maybe for my next book I might, but honestly I have a problem with the way that side of the book publishing world works. Some things just don't add up with me and I'd rather take it directly to readers. Additionally, there may be a higher chance to make a living by going this route. No guarantees but I'll take my chances.
With that said, I'd like to announce that Land of No Angels will officially debut in ebook format sometime in July, hopefully mid July. The print version will be available by the end of July, so there will be two formats. It's pretty exciting. I'm expecting to have contests and swag and copies of the book as prizes. It will be great fun, I think. The book cover should be ready sometime in June and I'll talk about that more as time goes on.
There we have it. It's a short post today, but I'm going to be having some Scrivener posts coming up soon because I haven't gushed about it lately.
Why doesn't this apply? Well, my dear friends, the reason is because I am going to independently publish my work. Self-publish, for those who don't agree with the term Indie. No, I'm not crazy. No, I don't suck and can't make it in the traditional (legacy) publishing world. The point is that I don't want to try. Not yet, anyway. Maybe for my next book I might, but honestly I have a problem with the way that side of the book publishing world works. Some things just don't add up with me and I'd rather take it directly to readers. Additionally, there may be a higher chance to make a living by going this route. No guarantees but I'll take my chances.
With that said, I'd like to announce that Land of No Angels will officially debut in ebook format sometime in July, hopefully mid July. The print version will be available by the end of July, so there will be two formats. It's pretty exciting. I'm expecting to have contests and swag and copies of the book as prizes. It will be great fun, I think. The book cover should be ready sometime in June and I'll talk about that more as time goes on.
There we have it. It's a short post today, but I'm going to be having some Scrivener posts coming up soon because I haven't gushed about it lately.
April 14, 2011
I followed. He followed.
[Note: This post was previously an article on NRWick.com, but due to changes in the way the website will be, I am reposting it here so not to lose it completely.]
I will be the first to admit how much I loathe first person narrative. The argument that first person brings a reader closer to the characters and events of a story or that somehow it makes the reader empathise more escapes me completely. More often I find myself reading a few sentences into a novel written in first person and by the time I near the end of those first few sentences my eyes have completely unfocused and I am no longer reading but gazing vacantly at the inky print.
Why does this happen? The reason is due to the way most first person narratives are written. So many of them are written like glorified lists of actions and self inserts. It always feels as though the narrator is listing off things that happen, even if they are "showing" and not just "telling."
Then, there is this bizarre concept that first person is not only more personal but makes the reader connect more with the main character. The idea that a reader can only delve into the dark depths of the main character's thoughts and feelings through the use of first person is a destructive one when so many stories are prone to obvious self inserts and lack of substance. A main character that is devoid of their own well developed characteristics and mannerisms in order to be a place holder for readers seems more like a marketing ploy rather than an acceptable writing device.
In addition to this, I always wonder how skewed the narrator's perspective of things are. It drives me crazy. If it's unclear, then I spend the whole time wondering why I should care or trust anything they say. If the author's point is to make the reader doubt the validity of the narrator's perspective, then there should be clear signs of this. That doesn't mean it needs to be 'over the top' or 'in your face.' Subtlety is acceptable, unclear is not.
This is not to say that there is a lack of well written novels in first person. I know there are; I read one about a week ago. Stephen King's novella The Mist is written in first person. Had I known beforehand, I may not have picked it up despite my adoration for Stephen King. (Yes, that is the depth of my irritation for first person narrative.) However, the amazing thing is that while The Mist is in first person, it wasn't distracting and it didn't FEEL like first person. I did find myself wondering why the story was even in first person rather than third because it was written in a way that flowed as well as third person, but used the words 'I' and 'my' in place the words 'him' and 'his.' Not only did I not mind the first person narrative, I actually enjoyed it.
It was then I discovered that I don't loathe first person; I loathe first person that is written this way for the sole purpose of attempting to connecting with readers. With this understanding, I bring myself to the dilemma of which narrative to use in my new WIP. Normally, I wouldn't give it a second thought. I'd write it in third person and never look back. Even as I write this, I'm annoyed by the notion of considering first person. But the main character of my WIP is telling me her story and I am merely writing it down as a novel just as Stephen King wrote down David Drayton's story in The Mist. Do I go against my instincts to write in third person, even though I know that if I write in first person it will have a third person feel, or do I follow my instincts and write in a way that I don't particularly care for?
I will be the first to admit how much I loathe first person narrative. The argument that first person brings a reader closer to the characters and events of a story or that somehow it makes the reader empathise more escapes me completely. More often I find myself reading a few sentences into a novel written in first person and by the time I near the end of those first few sentences my eyes have completely unfocused and I am no longer reading but gazing vacantly at the inky print.
Why does this happen? The reason is due to the way most first person narratives are written. So many of them are written like glorified lists of actions and self inserts. It always feels as though the narrator is listing off things that happen, even if they are "showing" and not just "telling."
Then, there is this bizarre concept that first person is not only more personal but makes the reader connect more with the main character. The idea that a reader can only delve into the dark depths of the main character's thoughts and feelings through the use of first person is a destructive one when so many stories are prone to obvious self inserts and lack of substance. A main character that is devoid of their own well developed characteristics and mannerisms in order to be a place holder for readers seems more like a marketing ploy rather than an acceptable writing device.
In addition to this, I always wonder how skewed the narrator's perspective of things are. It drives me crazy. If it's unclear, then I spend the whole time wondering why I should care or trust anything they say. If the author's point is to make the reader doubt the validity of the narrator's perspective, then there should be clear signs of this. That doesn't mean it needs to be 'over the top' or 'in your face.' Subtlety is acceptable, unclear is not.
This is not to say that there is a lack of well written novels in first person. I know there are; I read one about a week ago. Stephen King's novella The Mist is written in first person. Had I known beforehand, I may not have picked it up despite my adoration for Stephen King. (Yes, that is the depth of my irritation for first person narrative.) However, the amazing thing is that while The Mist is in first person, it wasn't distracting and it didn't FEEL like first person. I did find myself wondering why the story was even in first person rather than third because it was written in a way that flowed as well as third person, but used the words 'I' and 'my' in place the words 'him' and 'his.' Not only did I not mind the first person narrative, I actually enjoyed it.
It was then I discovered that I don't loathe first person; I loathe first person that is written this way for the sole purpose of attempting to connecting with readers. With this understanding, I bring myself to the dilemma of which narrative to use in my new WIP. Normally, I wouldn't give it a second thought. I'd write it in third person and never look back. Even as I write this, I'm annoyed by the notion of considering first person. But the main character of my WIP is telling me her story and I am merely writing it down as a novel just as Stephen King wrote down David Drayton's story in The Mist. Do I go against my instincts to write in third person, even though I know that if I write in first person it will have a third person feel, or do I follow my instincts and write in a way that I don't particularly care for?
April 5, 2011
How to Handle Deadlines
Deadlines are one of those things that are necessary and important but can sometimes make you feel rushed and suffocated. No matter if you work at home for yourself or in an office building for someone else, deadlines are an integral part of business. It's much more difficult to get anything finished without some sort of deadline because your mind rationalises the importance of projects based on their due date and their rewards. For example, are you more concerned about a 3-day project due tomorrow, or a 3-day project due in two weeks? What if the latter project is of higher value than the former? I'd bet you are still more concerned about the project due tomorrow.
What happens if you are not given a clear deadline? Well, I had a lot of experience with this in my old job. The setting was fairly relaxed but my job was integral to the company. I wrote all of the website and marketing content (and sometimes wrote articles for the company's ezine), created marketing graphics, flyers, brochures, etc. and I filmed, edited and compiled video... among a number of other things as well. I did this primarily on my own with very little, if any, supervision and the workload was hefty. It was important for me to know which projects were of top priority and which were not, but I rarely had this luxury, and I was rarely given a set deadline.
In a perfect world, you would work together with other members of your team to write up a calendar and have a clear plan, but often times this doesn't happen. Instead, you are stuck making your own calendar. Try to prioritise your projects by the ones you feel are most important. If you know they are time sensitive, then be sure to take that into consideration. The only problem I find with doing this is that sometimes it makes me lazy. I'm a big time procrastinator when the pressure to finish on time isn't there because no one is depending on me at that moment. It gets even worse when I'm working on something I don't like to do (like making seminar power points! UGH!).
Right now, I've been making writing calendars to organize when I need to have my writing projects finished by. Since I'm a procrastinator, it's been a major help. For the most part, I've been on schedule. Not only is it something I'm passionate about, but it's something I want to make a living off of, so I need to be very disciplined if I want to make it work.
INTERACTIVE: How do you handle non-existent deadlines and/or work you don't care for?
What happens if you are not given a clear deadline? Well, I had a lot of experience with this in my old job. The setting was fairly relaxed but my job was integral to the company. I wrote all of the website and marketing content (and sometimes wrote articles for the company's ezine), created marketing graphics, flyers, brochures, etc. and I filmed, edited and compiled video... among a number of other things as well. I did this primarily on my own with very little, if any, supervision and the workload was hefty. It was important for me to know which projects were of top priority and which were not, but I rarely had this luxury, and I was rarely given a set deadline.
In a perfect world, you would work together with other members of your team to write up a calendar and have a clear plan, but often times this doesn't happen. Instead, you are stuck making your own calendar. Try to prioritise your projects by the ones you feel are most important. If you know they are time sensitive, then be sure to take that into consideration. The only problem I find with doing this is that sometimes it makes me lazy. I'm a big time procrastinator when the pressure to finish on time isn't there because no one is depending on me at that moment. It gets even worse when I'm working on something I don't like to do (like making seminar power points! UGH!).
Right now, I've been making writing calendars to organize when I need to have my writing projects finished by. Since I'm a procrastinator, it's been a major help. For the most part, I've been on schedule. Not only is it something I'm passionate about, but it's something I want to make a living off of, so I need to be very disciplined if I want to make it work.
INTERACTIVE: How do you handle non-existent deadlines and/or work you don't care for?
March 17, 2011
What I Learned From the First Draft of My Thesis
Last week, I turned in the first draft of my thesis, which is also my first full length novel. The feeling was amazing! Not only had I finally written a full novel at 63,000 words (I intend to revise it and get it up to about 70,000), but I had finally completed a longer piece. While I've written plenty of short stories, I've never finished a full novel and it's a completely different beast.
First, a little background on my thesis: I am writing a novel for my MFA creative thesis. It's a young adult novel in which I wrote the first 26,000 words last year and the remaining 37,000 words during the entire month of February and the first week of March. What is really telling about this information is that I actually wrote the bulk of those remaining words in about 2-3 weeks. I had a tight schedule and could not afford to not finish the book before March 7th.
One of the things I learned throughout this first draft is the importance of outlining. I could not have finished without some sort of plotting before hand. Did I stick to the outline? Haha, not at all. I mean, the "outline" (which was really a list of plot points) was originally written ten months ago, and changed a lot over the course of working on the book. But, it was a place to start and I had a vague idea of how it needed to go. Once I realized the novel was deviating, I started revising the plot as the story continued. This worked, for the most part, and at times I even had to plot out individual chapters.
The biggest thing I learned from this first draft was my ability to focus and get work done. With typing directly into Scrivener, I could write about 1500-2000 words a day if I really focused and used the timer method. However, in the last two weeks of working, I still had about five chapters left to write at about 16,000 words. What saved me was hand writing these chapters. I discovered that by writing these chapters by hand, I was able to write twice as much (between 3000 and 4000) in less time. Sure, afterwards, the hand-written work had to be typed up, but it didn't take very long to do so. In the end, it worked out better this way.
Whether writing the story by hand brought me back to my childhood where I'd hand write stories every minute of my free time, or whether I was just less distracted by hand-writing because I was away from the computer, there is no way to tell for sure. When I wrote on the computer, it was necessary to keep Apimac Timer open and do "word sprints" with myself. Write for ten minutes straight with no distraction, then screw around for five minutes. It worked really well for a while, but on the days where I was feeling lazy, those five minutes of screwing around turned into fifteen minutes, then turned into forty-five minutes. It's much easier and works much more efficiently to do sprints with other people, but I know the timer method is good for me when I don't feel like hand writing.
Now, before anyone freaks out that I wrote a book in such a short time, don't worry. I'm still going to be editing and revising it. My thesis mentor should have her notes back to me some time next week, then I'm spending a week or so fixing the first draft (it will make the draft at v1.5) before I send it out to beta readers for more feedback (still have to find me a couple betas). The final version is due at the end of May, I think, so I will have all of May to rework the trouble areas.
I'm sure there will be more posts on my thesis/first novel journey since there is much more to learn, but this is it for now. I really learned a lot about my process and about how to write faster and more efficiently. There is no reason to let your "inner-editor" stop you from just telling a story, and I won't lie, there was some bad writing in my first draft. But I remembered there will always be time to go back and fix it, and didn't waste my time worrying about it.
First, a little background on my thesis: I am writing a novel for my MFA creative thesis. It's a young adult novel in which I wrote the first 26,000 words last year and the remaining 37,000 words during the entire month of February and the first week of March. What is really telling about this information is that I actually wrote the bulk of those remaining words in about 2-3 weeks. I had a tight schedule and could not afford to not finish the book before March 7th.
One of the things I learned throughout this first draft is the importance of outlining. I could not have finished without some sort of plotting before hand. Did I stick to the outline? Haha, not at all. I mean, the "outline" (which was really a list of plot points) was originally written ten months ago, and changed a lot over the course of working on the book. But, it was a place to start and I had a vague idea of how it needed to go. Once I realized the novel was deviating, I started revising the plot as the story continued. This worked, for the most part, and at times I even had to plot out individual chapters.
The biggest thing I learned from this first draft was my ability to focus and get work done. With typing directly into Scrivener, I could write about 1500-2000 words a day if I really focused and used the timer method. However, in the last two weeks of working, I still had about five chapters left to write at about 16,000 words. What saved me was hand writing these chapters. I discovered that by writing these chapters by hand, I was able to write twice as much (between 3000 and 4000) in less time. Sure, afterwards, the hand-written work had to be typed up, but it didn't take very long to do so. In the end, it worked out better this way.
Whether writing the story by hand brought me back to my childhood where I'd hand write stories every minute of my free time, or whether I was just less distracted by hand-writing because I was away from the computer, there is no way to tell for sure. When I wrote on the computer, it was necessary to keep Apimac Timer open and do "word sprints" with myself. Write for ten minutes straight with no distraction, then screw around for five minutes. It worked really well for a while, but on the days where I was feeling lazy, those five minutes of screwing around turned into fifteen minutes, then turned into forty-five minutes. It's much easier and works much more efficiently to do sprints with other people, but I know the timer method is good for me when I don't feel like hand writing.
Now, before anyone freaks out that I wrote a book in such a short time, don't worry. I'm still going to be editing and revising it. My thesis mentor should have her notes back to me some time next week, then I'm spending a week or so fixing the first draft (it will make the draft at v1.5) before I send it out to beta readers for more feedback (still have to find me a couple betas). The final version is due at the end of May, I think, so I will have all of May to rework the trouble areas.
I'm sure there will be more posts on my thesis/first novel journey since there is much more to learn, but this is it for now. I really learned a lot about my process and about how to write faster and more efficiently. There is no reason to let your "inner-editor" stop you from just telling a story, and I won't lie, there was some bad writing in my first draft. But I remembered there will always be time to go back and fix it, and didn't waste my time worrying about it.
February 15, 2011
Focused Writing
I can always tell when I have a tight deadline and a lot of work to do because I seem to post a lot of blogs, tweets, and facebook statuses when I'm stressed out. (I also seem to get a lot of cleaning and errands done during this time.) I've been working on my MFA thesis, which also happens to be my YA novel, because I have to finish the first draft by March 7th. I'm at about 40,000 words and would like it to be around 65,000 by the time I'm done. So, I have about 3 weeks to write 25,000 words. This actually wouldn't be an issue, but I'm a procrastinator and I've been struggling a bit with my process and getting words out.
For almost a week, I wrote only 600 words. In my defense, I was doing other things as well, like working with my thesis mentor to finalize my schedule and reading list, reading a book from my reading list, and playing video games with my Husband. So, this week started and I panicked. Only 3 weeks left and I was writing too little. With the thrill and cram-sessions of NaNoWriMo gone, and no useful way to continue word sprints, I decided to try a few new things.
The first thing I did was start chapter nine by hand. The entire chapter was written by hand in the end and it's going to be about 4,000-4,500 words long. doing this gave me the opportunity to keep myself away from distractions on the computer and was a nice change of pace for once. The second thing I did, was to set my own word sprints. I'd set Apimac Timer (a freeware timer for macs) for 10 minutes at a time. In those 10 minutes, I would write without interruption, then stop and take a break for 5-10 minutes TOPS. Sometimes, I'd be on a roll and not want to stop, so I'd continue passed the 10 minutes or reset the timer. But if I was in a distracted mood, I'd stop working for five minutes to allow myself a break and to keep my focus.
Surprisingly, this method works wonders for me. I wrote about 1,300 words in two hours, and half of that time was spent actually writing. The day before, I spent 5 hours trying to write and had only written 500 words. My brain starts to see Timer Time as "Getting Down To Business" Time and I focus.
For chapter 10, which I'm starting tonight after husband goes to work for a 4 hour shift, I will try to type it up using my timer method. I'd like to hit 2,500 word tonight (about half the chapter), but I know I type slower than I hand write, so I'm not sure how it will compare. I want to see if I can still maintain the same level of focus whether I'm hand writing or typing.
Well, that's all I have to say on the subject for now.
-N.R. Wick
[READER RESPONSE] What method do you use to get the max amount of writing done in the amount of time you are given to work? Do you have any useful tips to share?
Note: This entry has been cross-posted to my personal Live Journal blog.
For almost a week, I wrote only 600 words. In my defense, I was doing other things as well, like working with my thesis mentor to finalize my schedule and reading list, reading a book from my reading list, and playing video games with my Husband. So, this week started and I panicked. Only 3 weeks left and I was writing too little. With the thrill and cram-sessions of NaNoWriMo gone, and no useful way to continue word sprints, I decided to try a few new things.
The first thing I did was start chapter nine by hand. The entire chapter was written by hand in the end and it's going to be about 4,000-4,500 words long. doing this gave me the opportunity to keep myself away from distractions on the computer and was a nice change of pace for once. The second thing I did, was to set my own word sprints. I'd set Apimac Timer (a freeware timer for macs) for 10 minutes at a time. In those 10 minutes, I would write without interruption, then stop and take a break for 5-10 minutes TOPS. Sometimes, I'd be on a roll and not want to stop, so I'd continue passed the 10 minutes or reset the timer. But if I was in a distracted mood, I'd stop working for five minutes to allow myself a break and to keep my focus.
Surprisingly, this method works wonders for me. I wrote about 1,300 words in two hours, and half of that time was spent actually writing. The day before, I spent 5 hours trying to write and had only written 500 words. My brain starts to see Timer Time as "Getting Down To Business" Time and I focus.
For chapter 10, which I'm starting tonight after husband goes to work for a 4 hour shift, I will try to type it up using my timer method. I'd like to hit 2,500 word tonight (about half the chapter), but I know I type slower than I hand write, so I'm not sure how it will compare. I want to see if I can still maintain the same level of focus whether I'm hand writing or typing.
Well, that's all I have to say on the subject for now.
-N.R. Wick
[READER RESPONSE] What method do you use to get the max amount of writing done in the amount of time you are given to work? Do you have any useful tips to share?
Note: This entry has been cross-posted to my personal Live Journal blog.
January 20, 2011
The Writing Workshop: Coping With Criticism
I was going over the critiques from classmates in regards to two chapters I submitted for workshop. Since I have to do a revision for these chapters and I have to go through them thoroughly, I thought I'd write a blog about the process. Keep in mind, this is mostly in regards to critique in a workshop or beta-reader type setting.
When I first turn in something for critique, the feeling of nervousness and excitement fill my body. I'm always worried that they might think I'm an idiot or that my writing sucks. It's scary turning in work for a workshop, but it's necessary. For my class, everyone has to read and critique whatever you post and by the end of the week, turn in a 250-700 word critique and there are about 15 crits in the end.
This time around, I screwed up. I submitted two chapters, both near the middle of my book, and one of them was in the same setting as a previous chapter. Why does this cause a problem? Well, first of all, posting chapters in the middle of a book are difficult to critique because there is no way to know if the chapters before or after answer questions posed within the chapters presented or if they fit well with the rest of the story. The worse issue is that critiquers may get bogged down with details they can not imagine because they are not described in the current chapters. For example, I submitted chapter 7, which is a second half within the same setting as chapter 6. If my characters come back into a room in chapter 7 that I've already described in chapter 6, then it makes sense that I would not re-describe that room. However, for those who are coming in at chapter 7 and don't know what the room looks like, they may get tied down with comments like "this needs more detail" or "I can't visualize this". For the most part, my classmates were able to push past these. Who can blame them if they weren't able to? But, I suppose, the major reason I bring this up is because of frustration when reading critiques.
How does the writer handle critiques? In a perfect world, we'd embrace them with love and and an open mind, but this is not a perfect world. How many of you have read through a critique only to go "What the hell are they talking about! They are crazy!" or "That scene is perfect!"? If you have never raged about a critique, no matter how right or wrong the critique may be, then you're either delusional or a literary genius.
It is not uncommon for one to get angry about critiques, even good and helpful ones. There is nothing wrong with that, and don't let anyone tell you different. However, the problem starts when you can't push past the anger, get over it, and analyze what has been said in order to better your work. Seriously. They are there to help you. Don't let your bitterness keep you from listening to good advice. So, if you want to yell at your computer screen about how stupid the crit is, do it. Just remember that you know they are probably right and you'll have to fix it, and remember how thankful you will be when your work is better because of it.
Here's how I deal with critiques:
After I get critiques, I read it over (more so skim). I roll my eyes a lot and rage about anything they may have said that makes me wonder if they even read the same thing I wrote. (It's happened before. I got a crit telling me that I had to be careful with writing about vampires since the industry is saturated with them... only, I was writing about demons... animal like demons that didn't suck blood, sparkle, or even, in many cases, talk. I mentioned this many times. How could they have missed this?) However, usually I'm just annoyed about things I disagree with.
Once that's done, I give it a week or two without looking at my chapters or the critiques. I don't even think about them. I work on something else, go to the beach, have a latte. Whatever I want. Once it's time to come back to them, I read through them carefully and make a list of everything I agree with, and everything that I may not agree with but should probably take a second look at. For example, if I get three or four comments saying that I need to describe something clearer, I will put it in my 'agreed' list. But if I get only one or two people who didn't seem to catch a small detail, I may put it in my 'concede' list so I can go back during the revision stage and see if I agree or disagree.
It's funny because often times I will agree with what's been said. Not always, but it happens a lot, even if I was annoyed by it in the beginning. On occasion, I will change something out of anger at a comment and will end up liking it a lot more than before. There really is no way for me to explain how I choose what to fix or how to fix it. It's somewhat innate. You feel your way through it and see if people respond well to it. This is not to say that you should listen to every single comment and change it to conform to what the critiquer wants.
Also, there are times when I get conflicting critiques. In those cases, I will leave it with the majority and go with my instinct. Always go with your gut. If everything inside you is saying to keep something you have, then keep it. If you can, find a way to amend it so you can keep what works and clear up what might not work. It's hard coping with criticism, but keep in mind that they are meant to help you.
When I first turn in something for critique, the feeling of nervousness and excitement fill my body. I'm always worried that they might think I'm an idiot or that my writing sucks. It's scary turning in work for a workshop, but it's necessary. For my class, everyone has to read and critique whatever you post and by the end of the week, turn in a 250-700 word critique and there are about 15 crits in the end.
This time around, I screwed up. I submitted two chapters, both near the middle of my book, and one of them was in the same setting as a previous chapter. Why does this cause a problem? Well, first of all, posting chapters in the middle of a book are difficult to critique because there is no way to know if the chapters before or after answer questions posed within the chapters presented or if they fit well with the rest of the story. The worse issue is that critiquers may get bogged down with details they can not imagine because they are not described in the current chapters. For example, I submitted chapter 7, which is a second half within the same setting as chapter 6. If my characters come back into a room in chapter 7 that I've already described in chapter 6, then it makes sense that I would not re-describe that room. However, for those who are coming in at chapter 7 and don't know what the room looks like, they may get tied down with comments like "this needs more detail" or "I can't visualize this". For the most part, my classmates were able to push past these. Who can blame them if they weren't able to? But, I suppose, the major reason I bring this up is because of frustration when reading critiques.
How does the writer handle critiques? In a perfect world, we'd embrace them with love and and an open mind, but this is not a perfect world. How many of you have read through a critique only to go "What the hell are they talking about! They are crazy!" or "That scene is perfect!"? If you have never raged about a critique, no matter how right or wrong the critique may be, then you're either delusional or a literary genius.
It is not uncommon for one to get angry about critiques, even good and helpful ones. There is nothing wrong with that, and don't let anyone tell you different. However, the problem starts when you can't push past the anger, get over it, and analyze what has been said in order to better your work. Seriously. They are there to help you. Don't let your bitterness keep you from listening to good advice. So, if you want to yell at your computer screen about how stupid the crit is, do it. Just remember that you know they are probably right and you'll have to fix it, and remember how thankful you will be when your work is better because of it.
Here's how I deal with critiques:
After I get critiques, I read it over (more so skim). I roll my eyes a lot and rage about anything they may have said that makes me wonder if they even read the same thing I wrote. (It's happened before. I got a crit telling me that I had to be careful with writing about vampires since the industry is saturated with them... only, I was writing about demons... animal like demons that didn't suck blood, sparkle, or even, in many cases, talk. I mentioned this many times. How could they have missed this?) However, usually I'm just annoyed about things I disagree with.
Once that's done, I give it a week or two without looking at my chapters or the critiques. I don't even think about them. I work on something else, go to the beach, have a latte. Whatever I want. Once it's time to come back to them, I read through them carefully and make a list of everything I agree with, and everything that I may not agree with but should probably take a second look at. For example, if I get three or four comments saying that I need to describe something clearer, I will put it in my 'agreed' list. But if I get only one or two people who didn't seem to catch a small detail, I may put it in my 'concede' list so I can go back during the revision stage and see if I agree or disagree.
It's funny because often times I will agree with what's been said. Not always, but it happens a lot, even if I was annoyed by it in the beginning. On occasion, I will change something out of anger at a comment and will end up liking it a lot more than before. There really is no way for me to explain how I choose what to fix or how to fix it. It's somewhat innate. You feel your way through it and see if people respond well to it. This is not to say that you should listen to every single comment and change it to conform to what the critiquer wants.
Also, there are times when I get conflicting critiques. In those cases, I will leave it with the majority and go with my instinct. Always go with your gut. If everything inside you is saying to keep something you have, then keep it. If you can, find a way to amend it so you can keep what works and clear up what might not work. It's hard coping with criticism, but keep in mind that they are meant to help you.
