the best defense
I'm not sure where the meme came from that I was 'offended' by the criticism of my story opening on Evil Editor's blog. Apparently I am egotistical and thin-skinned as well, or at least so the anonymous commentor who has been following me around over there tells me. In actual fact I think that if you read my responses to what were some pretty inane criticisms you'll be hard pressed to find anything offensive about them besides the point than that I did not immediately embrace all the commentors' suggestions.
In a later thread, and this seemed to raise even more hackles, I encouraged another writer to "ignore the inevitable nitpickers" and keep writing because I had enjoyed what this person had written and would like to see more. Well, it appears that "the inevitable nitpickers" do not like to be ignored. So, now I am thin-skinned, egotistical, easily-offended, etc. OK, fine.
But if I am to be easily offended, here's what really offends me: "writers" who, in lieu of success in their own writing, find pleasure in putting down the work of others, ignoring good writing and instead fretting about comma placement and preposition. Not only are these people missing the forest for the trees, they are doing so out of an attitude of immense condescension. Does that irritate me, does that get under my skin?
Hell yeah.
That's why I suggested Orson Scott Card's "wise reader" approach. It avoids the pitfalls of having Joe Writer try to play editor. It focuses on whether or not a story is clear and engaging and doesn't get hung up on grammar.
Grammar is easy. My word-processor automatically corrects gross grammar errors. For the more subtle stuff, I can run my manuscript by one of a couple of friends who are skilled at editing, or get out the trusty Chicago Manual of Style. Editors don't expect perfect manuscripts - that's why they're editors. What they expect is what I always harp on, competent writing and a good story. Sure, if your incompetence with the written word is glaring and eggregrious they will read no further, but this really hasn't been an issue on the large majority of the "New Beginnings" that have been submitted to Evil Editor. Like me, most of these writers passed high school English.
The funny thing is, even after saying all this I actually did make some substantial revisions to my own opening. Again, I didn't rewrite the entire thing so that it now takes place in first person or research horses and what scares them (news flash: arrows can make noise and scare horses). But I realized that I was trying to convey a lot of information in a couple sentences and that it might (and did) confuse readers. Clarity is something I always try to work towards in my writing. And yes, BuffySquirrel, you finally convinced me that there were to many had's in the second paragraph and I took steps to eliminate those.
Anyways, once I'm completely satisfied with my revisions I'm going to post them up (along with a lengthier excerpt) and you can decide for yourself if I'm on the right track here.
Peace.
In a later thread, and this seemed to raise even more hackles, I encouraged another writer to "ignore the inevitable nitpickers" and keep writing because I had enjoyed what this person had written and would like to see more. Well, it appears that "the inevitable nitpickers" do not like to be ignored. So, now I am thin-skinned, egotistical, easily-offended, etc. OK, fine.
But if I am to be easily offended, here's what really offends me: "writers" who, in lieu of success in their own writing, find pleasure in putting down the work of others, ignoring good writing and instead fretting about comma placement and preposition. Not only are these people missing the forest for the trees, they are doing so out of an attitude of immense condescension. Does that irritate me, does that get under my skin?
Hell yeah.
That's why I suggested Orson Scott Card's "wise reader" approach. It avoids the pitfalls of having Joe Writer try to play editor. It focuses on whether or not a story is clear and engaging and doesn't get hung up on grammar.
Grammar is easy. My word-processor automatically corrects gross grammar errors. For the more subtle stuff, I can run my manuscript by one of a couple of friends who are skilled at editing, or get out the trusty Chicago Manual of Style. Editors don't expect perfect manuscripts - that's why they're editors. What they expect is what I always harp on, competent writing and a good story. Sure, if your incompetence with the written word is glaring and eggregrious they will read no further, but this really hasn't been an issue on the large majority of the "New Beginnings" that have been submitted to Evil Editor. Like me, most of these writers passed high school English.
The funny thing is, even after saying all this I actually did make some substantial revisions to my own opening. Again, I didn't rewrite the entire thing so that it now takes place in first person or research horses and what scares them (news flash: arrows can make noise and scare horses). But I realized that I was trying to convey a lot of information in a couple sentences and that it might (and did) confuse readers. Clarity is something I always try to work towards in my writing. And yes, BuffySquirrel, you finally convinced me that there were to many had's in the second paragraph and I took steps to eliminate those.
Anyways, once I'm completely satisfied with my revisions I'm going to post them up (along with a lengthier excerpt) and you can decide for yourself if I'm on the right track here.
Peace.
posted by braun at 7:38 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home