Another way of looking at the logic behind The Squick Rule...

[amanuensis1]

Did you know that it's possible to hate, and I mean, hate your own writing and yet that does not mean that it automatically sucks?

I really didn't know this.

If I don't like what I've written, I assume that's because it's not good. How else should I feel? And yet, this is what I see: stellar authors telling me they hate their own stories until, maybe three months after they're written. A slab o'drabbles where I squee over one in particular and get told by the author, "I wasn't too sure about that one."

And I don't think they're doing this to get "tell me it doesn't suck" praise, I don't.

Which is why I think the Squick Rule--if you do any, "mine SUCKS" bitching before you post your drabble, you must later write something that squicks you, as punishment--on Drabble Nights is actually a good one, now that I think about it.

It seemed kinda unfair, at first, to take away my right to say, "Guys, this SUCKS and I know it and I'm posting only because those are the rules--I wouldn't inflict this on anyone otherwise." Because I'm really embarrassed to post something I hate (which of course means it sucks, see). And I post them, later, on lj, in much the same way:"These are what I came up with and I don't LIKE all of them and wouldn't be posting 3 out of the 4 here except the point is to show that I managed to come up with something at ALL."

Which is why I'm startled when someone tells me they liked one that I really didn't, and I'm left gibbering "You LIKED that one?" ever so impolitely at them.

I don't use the "I hate" = "it sucks" rule on other people's works. I've always tried to separate out "not to my taste" from "not good."

But I can't do that with my own fics, because it's been incomprehensible to me that I can write something merely "not to my taste." It's my own writing, how can I write something I don't like unless that means it sucks?

More importantly, if that doesn't hold true, how will I be able to recognize if it DOES suck?

It's mind-boggling. Mind-boogling, even.

So, anyway, I think the sentiment behind the rule is a good one. Because in Drabble Night, the spirit of the game is that you should post what you wrote. It's not that the group is depriving you of your right to dislike your own work--it's that you are being polite to the group by not putting them on the receiving end of an awkward, "this sucks sooo bad but here it is anyway." Which is generally an annoying thing to hear, and I honestly wasn't thinking about it that way. ("I did not post it because it sucked" is generally an acceptable sentiment. But "I posted it even though it sucked" raises hackles in the recipients--as in, then why DID you post it? If I liked it, despite what you say, does that mean I have no taste? So, it's polite to avoid hackle-raising your fellow drabblers, yes.)

Maybe it will be okay for me to say, instead of, "mine sucks," instead say, "I don't LIKE mine" or "I'm not sure if this worked; you guys will have to tell me." Worlds of difference, IMHO. ^_^

Comments

[spare-change.livejournal.com]

<333

I think concrit is a sign of respect. It's saying, "I have such a high estimation of your abilities that I think you can do *even better*." It means that you're reading critically and really engaging with what the author is trying to do. You're taking her seriously, rather than patronizing her by giving her a pat on the head and a cookie.

Praise can be useful as well, though. I think it was Amanuensis who said that it's important to focus on what the author does right, as well. Because both the reader and the author can learn from that.

I guess what this is really about is giving specific, detailed feedback. Which sometimes we just don't have the time to write, unfortunately.

But a lot of people don't see it this way. I recently knocked myself out to beta something for someone, and she never even replied back to my email, much less said thanks. -_-

[maeglinyedi.livejournal.com]

Praise can be useful as well, though. I think it was Amanuensis who said that it's important to focus on what the author does right, as well. Because both the reader and the author can learn from that.

Oh, yes, and that is what I meant to say. In my book, con-crit is pointing out both what you liked and what you think was confusing or could be improved. I would never send feedback consisting of only those things I would like to see differently. I always concentrate on what I really liked, and point that out, and then add one or two things that I think could be improved (besides any glaring canon errors, because I always point those out).

And I agree that sometimes you simply don´t have the time to write a long, detailed review. But on occasions like that it´s still not too hard to point one or two details out: I really liked your characterization of Snape, because......, but I think Harry´s response in scene so and so was a bit inplausible, because....

That won´t take up too much of anyone´s time, and still gives the writer something more to go on than just a simple ´I loved your story´.

And about the beta-reader...gah, that´s just rude. I could write a whole post about beta-readers, though. It´s hard to find good ones, and when you do, you should worship the ground they walk on. ;-)

*smooches Gina*

[spare-change.livejournal.com]

But on occasions like that it´s still not too hard to point one or two details out: I really liked your characterization of Snape, because......, but I think Harry´s response in scene so and so was a bit inplausible, because....

YES! I couldn't agree more.

Except that I haven't been doing that lately. *hangs head* Too stressed.

*irons hands*

And I don't beta anymore, as a rule. I've made great friends that way, but I've also wasted way too much time on it, for people who only resented or ignored my efforts. Not. Worth. It.

The best betas, in any event, tend to be the people you yourself beta for. Which is to say ... the wonderful thing about fanfic is that it emerges from ongoing conversations with friends, in which you're both engaged in the other's work. This is what makes fandom so special to me. The reciprocity!

[maeglinyedi.livejournal.com]

I only beta for friends, and I only beta for typos, plot and characterization. I do not beta for grammar, since I´m too insecure about the English grammar myself, and would be afraid to be correcting things that don´t need correcting. ;-)

I´m very lucky to have found a group of online friends who I can show my work, and ask them their honest opinion. We all do that; often we show each other parts of what we are writing, and everyone will point out typos and look at anything the writer might be insecure about. It´s great to have a constant sort of beta group, so when you´re not sure if something works, you just show them, and you´ll know in ten minutes. ;-)

And yeah, that is what makes writing even more fun, because you can talk about it with a bunch of friends, and help each other become better at it. :-)

[isiscolo.livejournal.com]

I think concrit is a sign of respect. It's saying, "I have such a high estimation of your abilities that I think you can do *even better*." It means that you're reading critically and really engaging with what the author is trying to do. You're taking her seriously, rather than patronizing her by giving her a pat on the head and a cookie.

Yes!

This is so true. Sometimes I worry that authors will not "see" this - nobody likes to be told that what they've just been slaving over still has problems. But if a story's actually bad (or even simply boring), I (and I suspect many others) don't send anything, positive or negative. Why bother? It's only those stories which are good that are worth concrit.

[spare-change.livejournal.com]

<33333333333333333 :D :D :D

I knew you would get this ... it's kind of distressing to be told that giving concrit is rude and insensitive, when concrit takes so much goodwill and thought and effort to accomplish. :(

Do you wanna come play in my treehouse? *drops down rope ladder, shyly* I've got Kool-Aid. And Oreos.