On concrit

[indri]

This is an expansion of some comments I made on rahirah's journal earlier today.

Just to be absolutely one hundred percent crystal clear: I welcome concrit.

Writing concrit is a skill. It takes practice and is often time-consuming. So of course I'm grateful whenever someone takes the time and effort to concrit my work.

One doesn't have to be a good writer of fiction to be a good writer of concrit, although the two skills are related in that both require good reading skills. There are great editors, reviewers and critics who never (or seldom) write fiction of their own. These people are invaluable.

Accepting concrit is a skill. I've experienced this most strongly in my professional life as a scientist: it took me a long time to learn how to read comments from peer reviewers on my submitted journal papers. Half of the time I think, has the reviewer even read my paper? Has (s)he got some bizarre personal agenda or a genuine but irreconcilable point of view? I have to dismiss those comments, at least in the short term. But I have to pay attention to comments from those who seem to understand what I was aiming for and who make suggestions that will improve my paper. I curse those people at first, because it means more work, but then I love them. They help me become a better person.

I don't often write concrit. I don't think I'm particularly good at it and I'd rather spend my fanfic time writing fanfic. I don't feel that I'm failing some fannish obligation by not writing concrit (or even giving much feedback). I prefer to contribute to this community in other ways.

But I am very grateful to those who contribute by writing concrit or feedback.

So -- concrit me at any time. Comment in public on my LJ or email me in private. Use your real name, use your online nom-de-plume or say you're "Someone Wearing a Hat". I don't care. Thank you for your constructive criticism.

Comments

[http://users.livejournal.com/peasant_/]

Writing concrit is a skill. It takes practice ... Accepting concrit is a skill.

Well said. Something that I think is all too often forgotten in the kerfuffles about concrit. Everyone seems to assume folk spring forth fully formed both able to give/not give and receive/not receive crit in a fixed state.

One doesn't have to be a good writer of fiction to be a good writer of concrit, although the two skills are related in that both require good reading skills.

I agree that a good concritter needn't be a good writer - as you say, it is to do with reading ability, not writing. However, I disagree that one has to be a good reader to be a good writer. It presumably helps, but speaking as a poor reader I hope I still manage to be a good writer. As such I think my concrit, when I give it, (and it is bloody hard work so I always reserve the right not to) will tend to concentrate more on matters of craft than the sort of fine points about perception that a good reader will pick up. The results are actually two rather differnt beasts, hopefully still both of use to the recipient but in different ways.

[indri]

I must confess that I cannot conceive of you as a "poor reader". You must be judging yourself against some lofty Olympian standard. Being able to spot "matters of craft" can only be done if you're reading carefully. There may be some aspects of a text that you find easier to pick apart than others; but that doesn't make you a poor reader!

[http://users.livejournal.com/peasant_/]

Well I never spot metaphors or subtext or themes or any of the stuff that the swarms of literature grads in the fandom can seem to see with one eye closed. When I read a story I tend to just disappear into the plot and anything that you might describe as happening on the meta level has got to be extrememly obvious for me to notice it. Unless I am purpously reading with an intention to concrit or beta, and even then I struggle. But instances of bad craft - clumsy plot construction, or word use for example - I will notice as I go along.