4 ms·

I've been a member of a writing group a couple of times very early in my career. My spouse was in one quite recently. I have very mixed feelings about your comm

I've been a member of a writing group a couple of times very early in my career. My spouse was in one quite recently. I have very mixed feelings about your comment. In my experience in the arts, specifically music, photography, and writing, good artists are good artists because they know all of the detail and nuance of their work and they continue to be dicks to themselves. A good artist is never happy no matter what they create or what the reaction is, otherwise they would stop improving. Beethoven once famously played a piano recital so poignant that many in the audience were weeping. When finished, he stood up and laughed at them for being so simple-minded and easily manipulated. Of course, that's just a broad generalization, and there's no excuse for being a dick to others. (Unless they ask for it). I think, however, it draws in stark relief the central question in your comment: are writers' groups for encouragement or improvement? You mentioned a bit of both, but to my untrained ear that sounds like a recipe for mediocrity. Being just motivated enough to produce various works of art that most people in your social group would never criticize to your face? That's not a personal goal. So I think we're back to the topic of this essay, editors. Editors are there to negotiate what the author wants to do with how the world at large can consume it. They're not there to create or give their own voice. They're there to assume the role of author and advise them what needs to happen for others to better consume the art they make. I had a friend once who loved taking pictures, as I do. We were mods on a local forum and both of us loved sharing our pictures. (This was in the early blogger days) Eventually news and politics started taking over, so we both left. He went on to do his own thing. I'll never forget what a mutual friend said about him: he just wants people to praise his pictures. Nothing else really matters. He ended up making a bit of a living doing just that. He never became famous but he understood that it was the social praise he was chasing and not the art. I consider a lot of the stuff he did cartoonish but it worked for him. To your point, he became good enough for his social group to be praised and talked about, but no more. My best editors have always been both inside my head and brutal. They knew where I was going and they weren't shy about redlining the shit out of my text to help me get there. That hurt my feelings a lot and another person might have given up. I found it transformative. ymmv

voidhorse 6y ago
Thanks for your comment! You have some great points. >In my experience in the arts, specifically music, photography, and writing, good artists are good artists because they know all of the detail and nuance of their work and they continue to be dicks to themselves. A good artist is never happy no matter what they create or what the reaction is, otherwise they would stop improving. > are writers' groups for encouragement or improvement? You mentioned a bit of both, but to my untrained ear that sounds like a recipe for mediocrity. Being just motivated enough to produce various works of art that most people in your social group would never criticize to your face? That's not a personal goal. Totally, that's where the "but honest" part comes in. I still have the drafts this group looked at and they are well decorated with both comments and proofreading/editorial marks. I think the distinction come in in how you communicate these things. There's this sort of mythos around "the artist" which stems from this "artist as genius/artist as madman" figure that people tend to use as justification/an excuse for a lot of bs and bad behavior in the arts. For example, a lot of artists tend to ape other artists when they first start out. One could and should call them out on this, but it's about how you go about it. You could be a total asshole and tell them their art is worthless, it's just an imitation of X, maybe they should go home, etc. etc. Or you could express the same thing while giving them some kind of encouragement, such as "it mostly seems to pull a lot of elements from X, but I want to see more of you in the piece, perhaps take another look at aspect Y of your work, as it seems more genuine--can you amplify it, can you go deeper on it?" etc. When I'm critiquing someone's work, I try to constantly keep in mind that my job is to basically do what you are saying the duty of a good editor is--I have to see where the person is going not where they are at, and I have to do whatever best helps them get there. For some people that might be negative reinforcement, "this is worthless, etc." but in my experience for the vast majority of people that isn't the best way. Most people do much better if you tell them what's wrong in a neutral way and help keep them eager by letting them know what's actually working in their piece. Sure, that may mean they don't have the character of a Beethoven, but most of us aren't going to be epoch-defining artists--and I think you should always try to measure an artist in the context of pushing their own oevure forward instead of holding them up to some ridiculous detached standard of "the greats" you happen to admire (which will result in cheaply imitative art anyway, and which is what this individual was doing w/ Gordon Lish).

voidhorse 6y ago

Thanks for your comment! You have some great points. >In my experience in the arts, specifically music, photography, and writing, good artists are good artists because they know all of the detail and nuance of their work and they continue to be dicks to themselves. A good artist is never happy no matter what they create or what the reaction is, otherwise they would stop improving. > are writers' groups for encouragement or improvement? You mentioned a bit of both, but to my untrained ear that sounds like a recipe for mediocrity. Being just motivated enough to produce various works of art that most people in your social group would never criticize to your face? That's not a personal goal. Totally, that's where the "but honest" part comes in. I still have the drafts this group looked at and they are well decorated with both comments and proofreading/editorial marks. I think the distinction come in in how you communicate these things. There's this sort of mythos around "the artist" which stems from this "artist as genius/artist as madman" figure that people tend to use as justification/an excuse for a lot of bs and bad behavior in the arts. For example, a lot of artists tend to ape other artists when they first start out. One could and should call them out on this, but it's about how you go about it. You could be a total asshole and tell them their art is worthless, it's just an imitation of X, maybe they should go home, etc. etc. Or you could express the same thing while giving them some kind of encouragement, such as "it mostly seems to pull a lot of elements from X, but I want to see more of you in the piece, perhaps take another look at aspect Y of your work, as it seems more genuine--can you amplify it, can you go deeper on it?" etc. When I'm critiquing someone's work, I try to constantly keep in mind that my job is to basically do what you are saying the duty of a good editor is--I have to see where the person is going not where they are at, and I have to do whatever best helps them get there. For some people that might be negative reinforcement, "this is worthless, etc." but in my experience for the vast majority of people that isn't the best way. Most people do much better if you tell them what's wrong in a neutral way and help keep them eager by letting them know what's actually working in their piece. Sure, that may mean they don't have the character of a Beethoven, but most of us aren't going to be epoch-defining artists--and I think you should always try to measure an artist in the context of pushing their own oevure forward instead of holding them up to some ridiculous detached standard of "the greats" you happen to admire (which will result in cheaply imitative art anyway, and which is what this individual was doing w/ Gordon Lish).