True, but the main reason I seek out critiques is so that I can figure out what's unclear and fix it before I try putting it out for general consumption.

Oh, I understand that. Which takes us full circle, back to the "in the form of a question" response to feedback.

I somehow don't think that most people find feedback that's less than 100% enthusiastic easy to take; I'm not fond of it myself. Add that to the need to weigh a variety of takes on the subject - I'll hand a WIP out to anyone who wants to read it, up to and including my neighbour's basset hound - and you get a recipe for frustration.

edited because I am Queen of All Typos this evening. Fear me.

had to fight the urge not to "yes, but," but rather to say,----"You're absolutely wrong," because the whole point of Ch. 2 is that Anna is alienated and has built thick self-protective walls that even her closest friends can't get through.

So I tried to explain the story purpose and cultural reasons Anna wouldn't exactly bare her soul, and ----ask if there was a way to make her more sympathetic within that framework.

In my class I would want you to skip everything beyween the triple hyphens and get right to the question about making her more sympathetic. Why you made those choices and how you plan to have the work out the road don't enter into the problem at hand. You might even need less background explanation than you think.

In my class I would want you to skip everything beyween the triple hyphens and get right to the question about making her more sympathetic.

Huh. See, I don't get that. I don't understand it at all. If twenty people have no trouble with a character as written and one demands more sympathy, why is the writer obliged to concur?

If the writer is initially saying, hmmmm, I don't think she's coming across as sympathetic enough, tell me what you think, that's one thing. But why is the author obliged to assume one critic out of many is right, and rethink her story?

What am I missing here?

Why you made those choices and how you plan to have the work out the road don't enter into the problem at hand. You might even need less background explanation than you think.

I don't think so, for a case like the one I described. I feel like the only way I can get useful feedback from M is if I question her closely on why things aren't working for her. It's all that virgin reader issue described above. If I made every change she suggested, believe me, my stories would no longer be recognizably mine, nor would they be historical fiction of a quality I'd be willing to have my name on. But if I ignored everything she said, I'd miss out on some ways to strengthen my work and make it more accessible to people who aren't Big Damn History Geeks. And it's that clarifying discussion that helps me figure out what to keep and what to ignore.

From my novice point of view, I see a large distinction between justifying yourself and probing the reactions of the audience. I think the reflex of the former often blocks (unless it's "I wanted to do X -- help!"), and the latter can give rise to interesting angles and revelations -- which are perfectly ignorable.

Yes, indeed, Deb--first ALWAYS look for consensus, I think I said that earlier. One person's response could just be a quirk or a bad day. That's actually another reason for the writer not to explain--it's useless trying to change one person's mind. And I think I wasn't clear, Susan-- questions are great. Defenses are what I see as a waste of group time. It's the difference beween explaining and exploring. The first doesn't go over any new ground or lead to discoveries and the second one does.

From my novice point of view, I see a large distinction between justifying yourself and probing the reactions of the audience. I think the reflex of the former often blocks (unless it's "I wanted to do X -- help!"), and the latter can give rise to interesting angles and revelations -- which are perfectly ignorable.

Oh, I agree. Hence my dislike of "yes, but" when said writer has, herself or himself, asked for the information.

My question to Robin was about the weight of numbers, and also about why "assume the reaction is correct" is a matter of policy. Also a novice over here, remember, from the student perspective: I've never read any books on the subject, and never taken any classes. So I don't know, and I'm curious. Could we clarify? Robin's sounded like a teacher offering up a "no deviation from this rule" policy, and I want to know, am I misreading that? Because what if the one out of twenty in the audience reacts by saying "That scene needs one of the characters to die!", is the writer obliged to say nothing except take that as valid feedback?

I'm trying to figure it out, is what.

And I think I wasn't clear, Susan-- questions are great. Defenses are what I see as a waste of group time. It's the difference beween explaining and exploring. The first doesn't go over any new ground or lead to discoveries and the second one does.

NOW we're cookin' with gas! Thanks, Robin. Beautiful, and clear.

And I think I wasn't clear, Susan-- questions are great. Defenses are what I see as a waste of group time. It's the difference beween explaining and exploring. The first doesn't go over any new ground or lead to discoveries and the second one does.

Gotcha.

This should give us great stuff to discuss at our first meeting next month. Thanks, y'all.

Robin, I hope your profile addy's an active one. You have mail there.