thanks. I read the first one. it appears to be a long winded definition of what criticism is in general. while I would call the author an academic, I see no reference to the value of either receiving critique or that of practicing it.
From the article you read:
Constructive criticism is judgement given for the purposes of: (a) offering receivers external views of their performance to compare with self oriented views of their work; (b) helping the receiver recognize or interpret ways to improve past performances and/or ways to improve on future attempts; (c) demonstrating to receivers that their efforts merit judgment [as opposed to being ignored or distorted]; (4) showing genuine interest and appreciation for a receiver's effort; and (5) being encouraging, affirming, and supportive for the purpose of building confidence.
The above are ALL ways critique assists writers to become better. I believe that was your question.
i'm interested to know what the great writers think and have said about it, I believe that would be a far better barometer.
For you it may be - for me, the receipt of testimonials regarding how our critiques have helped writers improve their work in addition to scholarly articles is more than enough. Actually, "Thank you for your honest critique" is enough.
For every quote from a writer denouncing critiques I can provide an alternative praising them via their mentors. Most of the greats had them and appreciated their mentorship. So we can do the bible-verse exchange if you like.
see, the fact that critique is essentially a business for you and Johnny albeit a side business it would put your opinions on the subject in the 'vested interest' category. wouldn't you agree ? more power to you if people pay you for your opinion. I certainly wouldn't. I don't see either of you are in any way qualified. that said, I don't see anyone on this site qualified enough to ask for money for their opinion.
No; I would not agree with that because we do not solicit membership. On the contrary, we donate to it. We have our website published just as many do - the fact that we offer critique is irrelevant. It's what we do whether you think we are qualified, genuinely assist, or not.
"we are the same except in regards to critique. That does not make us elitist either. The podcast IS awesome - but so is what we do."
way i see it, Webmiss gave the podcast a compliment. you gave yourself one. like you've both been doing throughout this thread. note the absense of anyone interjecting with even a paltry "yes, I have grown through the opinions of Av and Blaze" ..not one.
So you think people should jump in and take sides? Is that what you are saying? Because I don't. They don't have to jump in this thread - they thank us for our critiques on this site ( some just today, even! ) - they have provided testimonies to our contributions regarding their writing. I don't expect them to reaffirm here.
This may come as a shock to you, Craic, but some people do not wish to become embroiled in a debate. They don't need to - we have the proof of how they feel.
And as far as Webmiss, I think she quoted Johnny and told him she appreciated his suggestions when they came from a good place. And this one did despite how it was perceived. He was not judging the current critique group. He was stating a fact, as I subsequently relayed to the Webmiss in my response. He was genuinely attempting to suggest something which might prove an incentive for people to critique.
no doubt what you're doing here is a servise to writers, but its a tiny fraction of what they/ we need for growth. that's why i said you both value/ rate your opinions too highly
I in no way inferred that critique was the be-all way to improving writing, but it is a HUGE part of it. Whether you are an "Oxford scholar" or self-taught - learning is required. And no man is an island. We all need each other.
You are really good at cherry picking from my responses and strawmanning by inference, Craic. However, I will give you huge credit: you don't hide comments or threads for personal reasons. And you don't ban people for disagreeing with you or making you feel small.
I attribute that to enough self-confidence that you refuse to allow others to make you feel small. That perhaps you realize someone's opinion of you is their business and a reflection of themselves, not you. And perhaps, just perhaps, you enjoy good spirited debate.
Well, we can agree we're the same in those respects, at least.