So, I knew my Chapter 1 would be tedious last night, but i was still surprised that everyone asked that it be, instead of a Chris McCandless-style solo exodus to the wilderness (which is how the thing starts), a fast paced action thriller.
Put another way, the things that were requested in the next re-write were to introduce more dialogue (there is some, but the guy is alone), put him in the city instead of in the wilderness (?), and similar.
Put yet another way, it felt like the group was succumbing to group think, where each person's writing should hew more closely to every other person's writing.
To be clear: the feedback is invaluable and I will use it.
But: Question: Do writing groups become tunnel-visioned ... and come with their own set of biases? Along the lines of "Group think"?
My instincts are yes, that this is human nature, and I am curious if you would agree or not. Again, the feedback from the critique group was valuable and I am OK with bias (especially because it is a different one than my own.) I'm just curious if that might happen in these critique groups.
I mentioned my chapter 1 here yesterday.
Answer
Do writing groups become tunnel-visioned ... and come with their own set of biases?
I believe they do, just as part of human nature. There are many studies on this regarding the outcome of focus groups, and in psychology: How 9 actors can convince, by consensus, a single test subject that his eyes are lying to him. It actually has been shown to have serious consequences in wrongful jury convictions. (By recollections of the jury that found an innocent person guilty).
You are facing the same kind of focus group. A friend of mine in advertising does filmed focus groups for radio and TV commercials, and he says there is always somebody in the group that people will start to look toward to see if they are going to speak. Sometimes a person with good or interesting observations, but usually a bit of a bully that is just expressing a strong opinion with certainty, interrupting people, making jokes about their observations, whatever.
That's human nature. Any community of people that interact a lot is going to come to a "norm" they adhere to and then lean toward it. About what is "good writing", what is a "good twist", what is "good dialogue".
You can see it now, amateur critics on line reviewing and trashing Stephen King or Dan Brown or JK Rowling for their terrible passages or scenes. Well I'd wager King and Brown and Rowling disagree, and obviously the public has decided to give them a few billion dollars for their efforts.
A camel is a horse designed by a committee. Not only that, but they are pleased with how much they've improved upon the horse.
If you want to write horses instead of camels, study horses: Best selling authors.
+1 to Mark for using such a group to become a better writing critic. I would add another step: While you do that, apply your critiquing skills to existing best selling authors, you can buy their work for 25 cents in the used bookstore. Then realize they've made millions, so if the rules you are learning about how to critique are making them look bad: It is almost certainly your rules that need to be refined or toned down, not the bestselling author. Because clearly it isn't keeping King or Brown or Rowling from producing killer entertainment, and clearly people don't care if they end some sentences with prepositions, or use vulgar American comma rules instead of the British rules, or whatever.
Stick to advice from the people you aspire to emulate. I know you cannot ask them questions directly, but if you take notes on their work as you read it, you can try to find where they have answered it by example.
No comments:
Post a Comment