1. Galadriel says:

    Even if you’re not seeking critique, the same holds true. I know that if I want someone to read my stories, I’d be better off with an online friend who loves reading fantasy than my parents who rarely have time and , if they do, prefer modern realistic.

    • John Otte says:

      That’s very true. My father has yet to read anything that I’ve written. The same thing is true for my wife. They say they’ll read Failstate when it comes out. We’ll see. 🙂

  2. Kessie says:

    Alas, that’s sad to hear. A writing curriculum I read in my youth once asked, “Ask yourself if these characters would bloom better in a different garden.”
     
    You can still take your characters and ideas and just put them in a different story. A better story. I have a couple of characters who are great on their own, but I can’t come up with a story for them to save my life. I’ve tried various things, and I think I’m getting closer.
     
    I also have an entire 60k story that I’m going to scrap entirely except for one subplot, because the subplot was better than the entire rest of the story. (And maybe the setting, because I liked the world.)
     
    It’s just part of the growing process as a writer. I’m there with you, friend.

    • John Otte says:

      I’m getting a little ahead of myself here, but I haven’t completely given up on my story. Not just yet. I’ll explain more in two weeks, but your comments about taking the favorites and re-using them is a great point. Maybe I’ll speak a bit more on it next time.

  3. Maria Tatham says:

    John, I enjoyed this. You’ve done your work well in relating your experience, and in helping other writers.

    I did get a bit of a sinking feeling toward the end, wondering how my work is seen. But that’s okay. I’ve experienced a lot of those, just not recently.

    Thank you! 

    Maria     

  4. Fred Warren says:

    John,

    There’s a shoe left to drop in your story, so I don’t want to disagree too strenuously at this point, but the hierarchy bothers me a bit. It reflects an assumption that feedback from the publishing community is inherently superior to that from writers, which in turn trumps feedback from the public at large. I think it’s not so much that one is better than the others, but rather that they’re different kinds of information, and as you noted, it’s important to carefully discern your feedback and decide how to use it.

    Publishers can weigh-in on worksmanship, certainly, but their focus is marketability and risk management. This can become something like the “beer goggles” I talked about last week–they’re attracted to books that look like smash-hit novel X from last year. A mediocre story by a known author or celebrity with a guaranteed audience will receive a warmer reception than a masterpiece by an unknown. Many successful stories have been turned away by a long parade of publishers before they were found by one who recognized their potential and was willing to risk commitment.

    Writers are a great source for technical critique and information about what has and hasn’t worked for them in the past when dealing with agents and publishers. Writers are also readers, though I find they tend to enjoy and appreciate different qualities in a story than non-writers. They’re a niche market all to themselves.

    Publishers may be the gatekeepers (and self/indie publishing has undermined that role significantly), but non-writers are the ultimate audience, and the ones who will, in the end, decide whether or not your book will sell. If they love it, their support can overcome a publisher’s hesitancy toward an unknown writer. Of course, figuring out what they’ll like, before they know it, often seems like an obscure flavor of black magic.

    And with all respect and affection to the ACFW, color me not surprised that publishers/agents at their convention weren’t interested in a science fiction story. They were the American Christian Romance Writers not so long ago, and that worldview is still dominant in the organization and among their fellow-travelers, I think.

    I’d encourage you to not give up on that story, and when you think it’s ready, push off into the deep water, spread your net a little wider, and keep casting it out there until you catch something.

    • Maria Tatham says:

      Fred, you’ve added substantially to this discussion. Very encouraging! Yes, in the end readers will decide, that is, if you get by, or slip past, the gatekeepers; that is, if the Lord says, yes, that He wants your work out there, he wants people to read it. And, yes, it is a sort of black magic, peering into the future, picking up vibes, about what will please readers and succeed.
      Maria

    • Kaci says:

      I’d maybe go so far as to say “readers” need their own category outside “non-writers.”  Someone who loves books, theatre, and film will – or even dance, music, and art – will appreciate the end game even if it’s not their medium.  That’s a different place than someone completely removed from the storytelling world. Know?

    • John Otte says:

      These are all great points, Fred, and I don’t disagree with you at all.
      And I understand what you’re saying about ACFW and their rather . . . well, romantic focus. Would it help if I outed the industry insiders who critiqued my story? It was Jeff Gerke, Steve Laube, and Andy Meisenheimer, all three of whom are very sympathetic to the speculative fiction genre. Thing is, all three of them zeroed in on the exact same problem, something that the writers overlooked or said wouldn’t be that big of a deal.
      Perhaps I’m extrapolating too much from my one experience, but I’ve often seen the exact opposite trend when it comes to criticism from industry professionals (i.e. “Well, what does s/he know, s/he’s just an editor.”). I suppose the difficult thing to do is find the right balance and know if the advice is good.

  5. Stuart says:

    I can totally feel where you’re coming from, John.  The original story & characters that spawned my world of Sauria will never see the light of day in it’s original format (weaponized pogo sticks & skateboards? really?)… Though perhaps one day I’ll get to tell that story revisioned within the world of Sauria as published. I hope your original story can see the light of day eventually too, even if it isn’t isntantly recognizable.

    As far as guaging feedback, the number one trait that a person must have in order to give appropriate critique and advice is a strong understanding of your audience and your goals.

    If you’re writing pulp sci-fi, and your goal is to write the best pulp sci-fi book you can, then you can listen to a literary writer or historical editor for some feedback, but will it carry as much weight as someone who is steeped in the field of pulp sci-fi, even if they are just a reader?

    Of course if your writing is pulpy and you’re striving for literary, the pulp critiquer will be less helpful than someone of a literary bent.

    Critiques and advice from almost anywhere can help us become better writer’s of course, but it must always be filtered based on if the source is helping you get toward your ultimate goal both artistically and practically.

    I look forward to seeing where part 2 of this series goes.

  6. What Fred said! Seriously, I decided to comment  because I wanted to sort of stand up for the views of non-writers. Fred said it all beautifully, but here are my additional pennies. Readers may not be able to explain what technical writerly thing made them not like a book, but they can sure say what they’ll enthusiastically recommend and what author they’ll never, never read again. In other words, their opinions are valuable, necessary, and should be helpful

    In our little Openings feedback, the central question is, Would you want to read more of this one? It’s the same questions editors at a particular conference answered in one of their workshops. But readers can answer that one too. The difference will come in the “why or why not” part. Editors can tell you precisely what they’re looking for. Readers may or may not be able to nail it down.

    What a writer needs to know, though, is how both those groups see his work. Editors need to be the first buyers, but readers hopefully are the greater audience. Consequently, I’m hoping we can invite a lot of readers over on Monday to give feedback to the randomly selected Openings. Editors and agents are welcome, too. And yes, other writers. We are on different places, and some will have more expertise to share than others.

    I don’t think any feedback is wasted, but as Fred said, it’s important to know how to evaluate what we hear.

    Becky

    • John Otte says:

      My goodness, it seems that I’ve stirred up a bit of controversy. 😉
      You know, I agree with what you say here too! Perhaps I overstated my case a little. Sorry, folks! I’ll do better in the future.

      • Not controversy, John, discussion. You got us thinking, and that’s always a good thing! 😉

        Becky

      • Fred Warren says:

        Hurray for controversy! And thanks for sharing this, John. It’s a topic well worth talking about.

        Would it help if I outed the industry insiders who critiqued my story? It was Jeff Gerke, Steve Laube, and Andy Meisenheimer, all three of whom are very sympathetic to the speculative fiction genre.

        Hmm…that may be, as we say here in the land of Oz, a horse of a different color. I’m curious to hear about the problem they found in your story, and why this persuaded you to set it aside.

  7. Paul says:

    I think it is important, if possible, to hire an editor who has been in the publishing business who can give you feedback on the project.  It increases your chances of getting the project published by informing you of all the problems that you, and almost every other writer and some would-be editors, cannot see.

  8. Maria Tatham says:

    John, it’s not that you didn’t do well–not at all! It’s just that posts are the start of a discussion.

    Steve Laube declined to represent me, but gave me good advice about the naming of my fantasy realm.

    Maria  

  9. John, I thought it was a great post and brought up some good questions. Each group in your pyramid provides a specific type of critique:
    Readers-are they interested in your story? Because if the story isn’t interesting, then who cares how well it’s written?
    Fellow Writers-ideas on how to improve your story and encouragement.
    Editors and Agents- generally they provide deeper insight and can help a writer take his/her work to the next level.
     

What do you think?