I want to discuss reviewing.

I will do this both from the reviewers point of view and in terms of how we, as authors, should respond to reviews.

First, a look at how we review.
When we review, at least those of us with integrity, we feel we should help the author polish their work.
Sometimes we take a set of rules, the ‘how to write’ rules, and see whether a submission obeys these rules.
We see these rules in books on writing, we hear them in schools for writing, we hear them from other authors.
Sometimes we get a lecture within a review telling us of these reviews.
And, sadly, sometimes we take them all on board.

By doing this, we face a great danger.

We, both the authors and the reviewers, run the risk of trying to ‘improve’ submissions to the stage of destroying their individuality and character.

I have been as much guilty of this as anyone else.

As a reviewer, I tried to help an author ‘polish’ their work.
As an author, I went through a stage of taking on board all such criticisms and editing my work like crazy.

That was, until I went back and re-read one such edited story.
It had become uniform and soul less.

If the author wants to become a Barbara Cartland and just sell millions of books – then sure, write as though for the back of a cereal box.
If, however, they are writing because it is in their blood, writing with a voice they want to develop and express – then we must all accept that they will lose a percentage of the readers.

I suggest that then our job on Urbis, as a reviewer, is very different.

We should be trying to recognize the voice the author is developing.
Only when we have recognized this voice do we then go about trying to help them achieve what THEY are working towards.

We accept that an author can discard some of those writing rules.
I say some, we still have to ensure that they have good reason for breaking them.
I suggest that ‘obey the rules’ type of review should remain in the domain of reviews in newspapers and magazines.

Now, to discuss how we, as authors, should react to reviews.

As an author, we need to develop a filter. I will give an example based on my own experience.
With one of my stories, just one reviewer felt I had got it right. All others said I needed to explain things more. When I commented back to this reviewer stating that they were the only one to ‘get’ what I was saying, the reviewer came back with a very true reply.
‘So many people now are mentally lazy, they want everything spoon fed to them. Sometimes, a story works best if we do actually have to think about it.”

I still read all reviews, consider all suggestions, and still accept many of the criticisms. However, I now keep sight of what I was personally trying to achieve – and I make that my final arbiter.

To summarise.

Perhaps we all should look at such authors as William Burroughs, Samuel Becket, even J.D.Salinger. These people broke the mold and literature has become far richer because of them. I hate to think that any of us, in our over enthusiasm, kill the next innovator before they really even get started.

Interesting guidelines you are proposing. Sounds kind of hypocritical donja think?

Telling us not to follow “Tried and true” structures when reviewing but then creating your own “structure” for us to follow?

How about this…

If an author is an innovator when it comes to writing, then as long as they are still communicating a message cohesively, coherently, and engagingly, that should be what we should be concerned with. Same thing with someone who decides to follow the “tried and true” formula of writing.

When reading, a person doesn’t usually mind thinking – its what makes the classics so rich and time honored – I don’t think that is the problem.

The problem is that an author forgets sometimes that a reader does not come from the same background nor have the same knowledge base as they do. Nor does the reader have a window to the author’s world and mind. It is up to the author to bring the reader in, coerce them into the same level of understanding and perspective so that the message being relayed by the story is better analyzed and thoroughly understood.

A piece that is purposefully full of pretentious (sorry – strong) prose and high vocabulary can be a great one in theory, but what good is it if its readers can’t fathom it or get into it?

Have you read Marquez’s 100 Years of Solitude? I have and in Spanish as well. Trust me, I would not have had it not been assigned to me as a college assignment. But many hail it as a classic and a masterpiece. Why? If you ask me, I think because many are afraid to admit that it was a very hard read and very pretentious and academic – they don’t want to look stupid. Honestly, the book failed to communicate well to me. I had to read it 3 times in two languages in order to get anything out of it. Not good.

This reminds me of the story of the Emperor’s New Clothes. No one was willing to admit that the Emperor was nude out of fear until the honesty of an innocent and clear viewing child stated the obvious.

As for the writer’s you mentioned, I never was able to read them, never really got into them, but I suspect that they were able to be innovators because they knew EXACTLY what they were doing because they first mastered the tried and true methods in order to be able to “innovate”. Wouldn’t you agree?

Hypocritical, no.

What structure did I suggest?

It is sophism to suggest that saying ‘look past structures’ is by itself a structure.

“The problem is that an author forgets sometimes that a reader does not come from the same background nor have the same knowledge base as they do.”
Every word we use has a history. Every phrase we use has a support cast of ideas. This is not just a country or cultural thing – it is a life experience thing.
One of the greatest problems when writing – be it fiction or non-fiction – is how to avoid being categorised because the reader has a different history.

In a lot of non-fiction, we bypass this problem by having a glossary of terms. Do you suggest we do this for fiction?

If I say, for instance, “Oh, I’m a socialist” – I know damn well this has a totally different contextual meaning in the US, the UK, Russia, Italy,
East London, West London. Do I interrupt my story to ensure EVERYONE knows my exact meaning?
Another example, in Malaysia ‘bungalow’ has a totally different meaning to the same word in the UK or the US. Do I stop my story and explain, giving architectural drawings, what I mean by a bungalow?
We would lose a lot of readers, and a lot of good writing, if we stuck by that.

You put up the type of rule I am opposing “cohesively, coherently, and engagingly”.

You say that you read Burroughs, Becket et al?
Do you say that there work should never have been published, have been rejected by a publisher?
Reading their stuff is hard work, sometimes almost a nightmare. One of Boroughs books I still cannot manage to wade through.
Yet, look a Herman Hesse’s ‘The Glass Bead Game” – it obeys all the rules, yet is also a labour of love to work your way through.
Being hard work to read is not necessarily a bad thing. I love “The Glass Bead Game” now.

Your analogy of the emperor’s new clothes is out of place.
The work HAS been written and published, they are not hard covers over blank pages.

It is more “Do you like Amani, Vivienne Westward or K-Mart”.
A matter of taste.

Let’s bypass all this bias by looking at a non literary examples.

Many, in fact the bulk, of art critics condemned fauvism.
“My pet cat could do better painting”
Many, in fact the bulk, of art critics condemned Picasso’s Cubism period.
“It is not art”
Yet, by studying these artist, we can discover that they started out in the traditional fashion. Then, ideas came to them to look at things from a very different perspective.
Now, their ideas have become part of the mainstream, they feed into art that s neither mainstream, fauvism, cubism, nor any other category.
And the art world is enriched by them.

Do you say that they should include a thesis with each painting to ensure every person in every culture can appreciate them?
Or do we suggest that people do the research themselves if they are interested?
I think the latter.

You look at writing as purely communication. Perhaps others see it more as art, using words instead of paint.
Yet you say we should straight jacket them into making their work “cohesively, coherently, and engagingly” acceptable?

My point was, and still is, it is the author’s choice what market, what message, and what comprehesion they wish to address.
It is our job to help them, not straight jacket them.
If we cannot do this, or do not want to, then change channel!
Skip and review something else.

With your last point. I absolutely agree! Hence my remarks about the Fauvists and Picasso.

Do you know for sure an author who’s work you are reviewing has not already mastered the traditional skills and are now choosing to ignore them?

I am starting to ramble, yet I will make one more point.
I collect records.
First Cassettes, then Vinyl, then CD and now DVD.
My collection is in the thousands.
Somedays, I pull out a record and it is one I hate. Or rather, had hated.
I play it.
Wow, how could I have hated that.
Because, when I played it last I wanted to hear guitar solos, but today I am in love with trumpets and saxophones. (Not really, I am using an analogy here, I love all types of music).
When this happens, I am so glad I did not exchange it as a trade in for something I then wanted to hear.

Words do indeed have different meaning in different regions, I agree. Therefore you are supporting the point I am making. An author needs to be aware of that in the case that another meaning may change the interpretation of their message. If so, all they need to do, is provide clues to the meaning they are using in the context of the prose work (we are omitting poetry in this discussion aren’t we?). Only to make sure that the reader does understand the full message.

You say that writing is for art sake for some people. I guess that is a valid point. So you would not be adverse if I make a claim that chess is a high form of art as well? If you agree with that point, would someone who never learned how to play be wrong to disagree? Each discipline exists for a reason. I will not argue that you may see writing as art… I would like to believe that myself. But what good is any art if it cannot be appreciated by the audience because they simply don’t understand it? Yes, It may be true that an “artist” may be an innovator, and therefore force people to understand their work, but that takes a lot of time and a lot of people who would to be dedicated to analyze and discover the meaning of the innovations. Maybe that is what an Artist should inspire to, I don’t know. But I, for one, want to convey messages to my readers when I write and the majority of the time those targeted readers are the majority of the population . Not a select few that have that dedication and determination to understand the finer points of my work. My poems Kaleidoscope and from the ashes are two exceptions to that.

And what is wrong with Sophism? It is a valid school of thought. Don’t really need to answer. We could be debating that for years.

The analogy of the Emperor’s New Clothes had to do with people acclaiming things they don’t understand because they are in the belief that doing so would make them look good and not cause them any problems. Not the works written but the reaction of the audience to the works.

Hey, If you bought the music originally, you had to know deep down inside that something about it merit you having it in your collection. Maybe at one time you couldn’t appreciate it completely, but I doubt you failed to understand it at all. Do you appreciate it now because somehow you didn’t understand the notes, melody, rhythm, and beat when it came from horns before? I don’t think so. If a reader doesn’t understand the written words in front of him, yes they can do some research and struggle with finding out – and many do – but many would not. It is pretentious of the author to demand that their readers go out of their way to understand what the author is trying to say. I am paying for a book (for enjoyment – not edification) to understand life and to experience situations that I haven’t and may never experience – therefore it is the job of the author to make sure I do with relative ease and comfort.

Maybe you disagree. Sobeit.

That is what makes life so interesting.

We are drawing closer to mutual agreement here.
Some work is intended as a means of direct communication – and yes, not just non-fiction.
However, there remains the other type of work you are now acknowledging – work as art.
With the latter, let me expand on the merit of such work.
It comes in two separate stages:
a. The motivation of the creator. What drives them, what they are trying to achieve. So far, this can be independent of a reader or audience.
b. What the audience, or reader, gets from the work.

Many an artist, and several people I have exchanged ideas with on Urbis, believe this does NOT have to be the same as the artists motivation.
Those people believe it is a bonus if the author’s motivation and the reader’s interpretation match.
And many a buyer of art buys it simply because they like it – damn what ever it is about.
That is what I meant by some writing can be art using words.

My initial article was discussing how to avoid trying to knock this form of writing into a more ‘acceptable’ framework.
That was what I meant by making sure we understand what the writer is attempting. Not get their message, get what they are trying to do. Only then can we set the tone of our review to be helpful to them.

I agree with you fully if the author wants to convey a clear and concise message using fiction as the media, then we look for improving the use of those ‘rules’

Sophism is great fun. I indulge in it often, it is mentally stimulating and good practice for many things.
It is not, however, very useful if people are trying to reach an accord.
Sophism works best if we keep a sense of humour and can say “Well fuck it, I’m off to bed now”.

I understood your reason for using the “Emperer’s new clothes”, yet still say it is the wrong analogy.
The author is not a King, we are not forced to live in his kingdom, we can walk away and allow his belief to have zero effect on us.
And we do not have to pay the taxes to support payment of the ‘new clothes’, we simply do not buy the book.

I’d best explain how I buy music.
I find music ridiculously expensive if I pay full price – and when I do, I stick to people or styles I know I will like. This would make me miss opportunities to hear new stuff not on a radio station’s play list.
So, I go to sales, or to the ‘deletions’ rack, and pick maybe 10 CDs at random – usually at a total price still lower than one full priced CD. Sometimes selected because I like the cover, sometimes because I just like the name. I never know anything about the artists or the music.

5 out of the ten, my first reaction on playing them is “Hmm, OK”
3 out of 10, “Hell, that’s rubbish”
1 out of ten, “Maybe I have to play this a lot to see if it grows on me”
1 out of 10, “Hell, what a find!”

So, yes, I really do start out with no knowledge of what they are all about.
Sometimes, I also end up with no knowledge of what it was all about.
Sometimes I still like them anyway.

So, going back to reviewing work on Urbis….

By all means say ‘This sentence makes no sense, I don’t see how it fits in”
or “That sentence is way too long, I can’t catch my breath reading it”
Or “I have no idea what you are trying to achieve”.
But, again, I ask – no lectures on what writing should be. No “Learn the rules, then re-write all of this”.
Sure “I do not like this structure”, “I don’t understand what you are saying” etc.
Not “You have little grasp of how to write”.

It may be pretentious, but that is their choice, and they may be aiming at an equally pretentious audience.
We have to respect their choice.

Thanks for the explanation of how you buy music… it is much how I buy books (lol).

I find myself appreciating your points and can grudgingly agree with them. Although, do allow me the occasional, Develop your characters better, or add conflict, or there is no resolution, or the dialog is stilted…. :)

Isn’t the real life exchange of ideas so much easier than conveying ideas in a book.
We can discuss and clarify what we mean.
Poor old authors have to try to get it all in at one shot. lol.

I note we are both a bit hypocritical in a way.
I assume we both want to earn money from our writing, yet buy books at discount!
I console myself with the idea it is the publisher’s/distributer’s expense accounts that suffer and not the artist. lol.

I remember a moment on another website, when I stopped dead, reviewing. It occured to me that I was looking at a piece of art and actually TELLING the artist how the art would look better

some other way

What clicked into my head, at that point was

LEARN TO SEE IT THE WRITER’S way…

not yours

and THEN help him.

And chuck the fucking rule book. Rule books are there for the writer and the writer alone. THEY know what they want to say, so let them say it…

and see if you can HEAR what it is they say.

NOT what you want them to say, got it? Good.

laugh That made complete sense. laugh

Heather

Problem is that if the artist “speaks” in a manner that makes it hard for his audience to “hear”... what good is his “speech”?

I can only help if I understand.

I can help a chessplayer who doesn’t speak English or Spanish because we understand the language of the game.

I cannot help a writer who speaks and writes in Chinese because we can’t communicate.

Can you?

Personally, I’m tired of spending two hours giving a writer a thorough review of their work, breaking it down for them in a neutral way (I never tell someone they suck, even if they do) and then having them try to “get even” with bad reviews back at you. When I re-read my reviews, I think every point is still just as valid (though detailed) as it was when I wrote it because I actually read every word and examined every nuance of the work. Feel free to look at my reviews and see if I’m way off the mark. I mean, come on people, do you want the straight dope or are we children? Are you here to improve your writing to make it publishable or readable or to be deluded that you are naturally gifted? The rule, as Jay always said, is leave the ego at the door. Makes me wonder why I bother putting that much work into a review, when I can easily slide by in 10 minutes with a cursory commentary (with just enough detail to be passable).

I also read your comments avedis. I agree. When I cite a rule in a review I go one further. I will say what that rule is, how it operates, why it creates a problem, and how breaking that rule can work. Perhaps that’s going too far and makes the writer’s head spin.

Suggestions? Should I just let these writers live in their fantasy? Not point out all the ways it could be improved?

Well, that’s my rant.

loves rants. Agrees with cdnsurfer and his right to review as he does. Understands his frustration. Nods in sympathy. Shakes head in despair. Points to many of his reviews and sighs.

Yes, yes, yes. If we were all Philip Roth or Jincy Willett or Bill Bryson and folks didn’t like our reviews, I think we’d have a genuine beef. But we are usually anonymous voices with no credentials to back up our advice. I get lots of weird advice (overuse of pronouns, for example, in a first-person narrative story – I went and read one of the reviewer’s stories, and it was written pretty much in the same style as mine with the repetition of the pronoun “I” nine times in the first paragraph). Then there are the reviewers who mean well but forget that the rest of the world took that creative writing class 20 years ago too, in which we learned to avoid the use of “be”, never write a sentence in the passive voice, beginning-middle-end, etc. I’m reading Bryson’s The Life and Times of the Thunderbolt Kid right now. Brilliant, funny, poignant, dirty. Wonderful! Except of course for his flagrant use of the be-verb. I put it down. I just couldn’t keep reading. Imagine that! In one particular paragraph, he uses the be-verb 14 times, and there was also a passive sentence there too. Also!

Oh dear me. My point (I use the colon here to avoid the be-verb): mediocre writers might improve their writing with these creative-writing-101 tips; great writers just roll their eyes and write what’s on their minds in a way that their gut tells them to do it. Yes, and then we find their skeletons hugging their manuscripts in their one-room, trash-filled NY apartments.

We all give the advice we deem appropriate, and that’s OK . . . to a point. But when you find yourself repeating the same advice over and over and over again, shouldn’t you ask yourself whether a great thinker would give the same advice?

I just opened American Pastoral to a random page and read a few paragraphs. Feel free to do this with any serious writer (not the type of writer who went to the creative writing course with you), and you will see that the advice some reviewers give here is simply not that valuable.

I agree DC. I don’t do the whole, go read Strunk and White, Swain, Burroway, Gardner, because it’s pointless. Well, not anymore. I never attended English Lit classes in school either. In fact my short lived English major career ended right quick in first year.

As a friend of mine says, it’s all about “voice”; but I say, it’s all about “story”. Either the narrative is interesting or it isn’t, and the rules books are all about helping the voice or story. I generally work my reviews to focus on elements of storytelling instead, which leads to longer reviews but a chance to focus in on more important features of the “story”. Technique issues arise but are not the focus of the review, nor is grammar the focus either. I look for ways to suggest improvements to the elements of story—character, plot, setting, theme, etc. I think that’s more useful for the writer to think about. So, if you read my reviews you’ll see they are specifically tailor to that particular piece of writing. Not some generic, show don’t tell. It takes alot of time and effort to provide a comprehensive review of somebody’s work, and I think the amount of credits I receive is small compared to the amount of work involved.

I have no general issue with “to be” verb or passive voice, so long as it’s serving the story, but when it’s obvious that the effect is to mute “voice” and negatively affect the “story”, then it has to be pointed out.

I’ve also taken the view that reviews are not the gospel. It’s just one person’s opinion of what they see upon a critical review of the material. I always take it in that light. I also note when an issue comes up over and over. However, for the most part I don’t really post or review much anymore except to test something out. I also know the type of reviews and reviewers I’m looking for to help me improve.

I have a 100% success rate placing fiction and about 75% success rate placing poetry. Some paid, some not. All my credits are over the past 10 months. I have some idea where my work falls in the grand scheme of things (not to sound arrogrant, because believe me I need lots of work). I’m always surprised when someone takes my work because I think it still sucks…but you have to stop editing at some point and just submit it. Get it out of your life.

I’m also “use” to reviewers in the groups I’ve been involved in tear my work apart limb by limb, so I start seeing mechanics and flow. I take the view it’s the effort and attempt to really look critically at the work that I value, because then somebody can objectively spot things I’m not seeing upon my closest edit. I never accept everything a reviewer says, and often disagree with their comments. It’s still useful information even if you get one “small” nugget from the pile.

I’m looking for bigger picture advice, the stuff that’s going to help me collect a few awards. All my efforts now are to win a few awards, so I can sell my ongoing (still writing the first draft) novel to a publisher. However, generally, I accept whatever someone wants to give as a review, as long as it’s not intentionally biased or completely devoid of “effort” (not constructive).

My view on that. ;-)

Hi cdnsurfer,
Of course I agree with you and wasn’t referring to you in particular (actually not at all). I just looked through about a 100 of your reviews trying to find a review of my work. Why aren’t you reviewing my work (stomps foot . . . several times)? I see that you don’t review humor in general. Are you ignoring us?

You are indeed the type of Urbis user who could help less experienced writers with things like query letters. I’m single-handedly (it would seem) submitting enough letters for this category to become one.

How dare Bryson use all those be-verbs? Didn’t he take creative writing 101? I’m appalled at his audacity to spit in the face of unpublished professors. And how about this horrid example, “It was the best of times; it was the worst of times”. A passive, telling (not showing) sentence using be-verbs. How did THAT guy ever get published? (Puts hands on hips and rolls eyes.)

hmmm

Maybe the publisher , never took the 101 creative writing course lol

I was once told by a retired acquisitions editor from Random House that agents and publishers have an MTV attention span. Don’t confuse them with long sentences and big words. Keep it simple. He wasn’t talking about my query letter; he was talking about my fiction. Oh, well, I said, then fuck them. I’m not going to start writing Mary-had-a-little-lamb formulaic crap for the herds of DaVinci Code readers.

What is happening to our world? It’s really depressing to think that we’ve gone from Virginia Woolf to Dan Brown in just a sixty years. But then Virginia Woolf never had to send a query letter to an agent, did she? She self-published everything she wrote. She was also moderately wealthy and “a bit” unconcerned whether Tracy down the pub understood her prose (we have so much in common). I’m sure if she had to write a query letter explaining what The Waves was about (plot??), she’d kill herself . . . again.

There are so many issues that have popped up in 60 years. For one, people don’t read as much as they used to because they are getting their entertainment from tvs and movies. I also believe there is a moderate amount of dumbing down of the general population (I’m not saying everyone) because so many do not read for pleasure or information anymore. A third issue is there are many more aspiring writers than before, and most cannot write. I don’t understand this particular phenomena since there is a lack of readers. Whatever the reason may be, it bogs down the publsihers making it nearly impossible for anyone to be published. I agree with DC on the killer query letter, but publishers had to go that route because of the volume of mss.

As a writer, I sometimes wonder if people don’t understand my stories because of a lack of psychological insight or if it’s because I am lacking in how I present it. This would be important to know because if it’s the former but I think it’s the latter, I might end up dumbing down my work to the point it becomes formulaic crap, which makes me cringe to my very core.

Hellbunny, never dumb down your work for the masses. That doesn’t work for either you or your audience. What I’ve found that works is “layer” your work instead. With several layers you can appeal to a wider audience, making sure that the basic story and structure is easy enough to be read by the Dan Brown Fan Club and Sewing Circle on reading day, but then go down, so that those who can understand and appreciate complexities can pick up those threads too. I like to think of it as having at least 5 or 6 ways to tell the story, while the narrative itself is simple enough that a 16 year old will get it. I once wrote a piece that was basically a woman having a mid-life crisis at surface, but it was really a vehicle for exploring Sartre’s existentialism. And that is how I think. The basics are the “theme”, which is an examination of self, but the story’s narrative is a simple story about a woman having a mid-life crisis.

As far as the query stuff goes, well, we’ll see when I get there. I’m tempted to float something now. I have been working the “room” the other direction, I’m afraid. I have developed good acquaintances with several NY Times Bestselling writers I’ve met online (curiously enough), who enjoy my work well enough to review it, and then I am hopeful that their assistance will help me crack the gate. To me, an agent is an agent. Show me what you’re going to do for me. Remember, they’re hungry too, living off of commissions.

Weaver, the problem is, there just aren’t enough monkeys yet…. ;-)

DC, I’ll try to get to your work. I remember when there was only one category for “fiction” here, now there are so many there are lots of categories I’ll never get to. I promise to stop by humour, just for a laugh! Cheers.

No wonder people don’t read as much now if the authors are looking down on them just because they don’t share an interest in Greek myths or Satres extentialism lol. And no I have not a clue about that last one, though I do have a small amount of awareness of the Greek myths lol. Storys contain morals which can teach , but if too complicated, Mary doon the pub will not understand it, those that all ready understand it, Well, do they really need that lesson again?.

I agree with cdnsurfer 100 per cent. Very good approach to writing fiction.

When I read a book, for example, Octavia Butler’s Wild Seed, Orson Scott Card, Ender’s Game/Ender’s Shadow, Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings, I read it at many levels. I read it for story, entertainment, educational, thinking, philoshophy, and many other things… But I know many others that read them at one or two levels. That is up to the reader. A story teller does just that – tells a story. But a really good story teller tells a story that will appeal to broader audience because the story is being appreciated by people on different levels. That is all Cdnsurfer is saying. His work has many levels, It has a surface, a middle and a deeper level that will appeal to a certain type of reader.

Ender’s Game is about a boy saving the world on the surface. In a middle level, it is a story about a child inner struggling against outside and inner struggles. In a deeper level, it is a story about the fear of the unknown/different and our reactions with dealing with it.

There are other levels in this book, hence it being very popular and an award winner. Mary doon the pub may like the book because of the first level story line. Bob the sewer worker may like the story more for the second level story but enjoys the first level as well. And Albert the school teacher may really be hung up on the third level, but equally enjoys the other levels or not. Doesn’t matter either way. A story is told and understood.