Listen to constructive criticism

I recently had a very interesting (not in a particularly good way) conversation with a writer who had benefited from the Romantic Novelists' Association New Writers' Scheme. This is a fabulous, fabulous scheme; writers are selected on the basis of the quality of their writing and they receive a free critique on their novel from an expert, worth several hundreds of pounds if they were paying a consultancy. Everything I've heard about the RNA scheme is excellent and places are highly valued. I also know from my work for Pen2Publication just how hard giving such feedback is and how difficult it is to give hard-headed, honest advice on a topic which is inevitably somewhat subjective.

So, what's my problem?

Well, I heard this writer say to another one on the scheme, "Do listen to the positive feedback but take the negative with a pinch of salt." She might have said "ignore", but the meaning was clear.

My hackles rose. She continued by explaining that the person giving her feedback had said lots of positive things but had suggested that x and y should be changed, but that she'd actually got a publishing deal and x and y were retained. Therefore, the person giving the feedback was wrong.

Oh goshy goshy gosh. And feckity gosh all over again.

Where do I begin?

Imperfect books get published, yes? Not that I'm saying this writer's work was imperfect - I've no idea and I have no time or desire to find out. But, the fact that a knowledgeable person gave an enormous amount of time to offer an honest opinion and highlighted a wart or two, and that a publisher decided to offer a deal even with the wart, and even admired the wart, does not mean that the opinion was wrong or that it should have been ignored rather than properly considered. You wrote some something with warts and it got published? How is this news? Warty stuff often sells.

I do agree, and always say to my clients, that you should only effect changes when you agree with them. Certainly, if after careful thought you really believe that a suggested change wouldn't work or be right, you shouldn't make it. But my point is only this: that the fact that an expert made a suggestion and that another expert disagreed, does not make the first expert wrong. After all, most writers have had a book rejected that then went on to become published. It does not make the rejecting publishers wrong. It just means they didn't like it or didn't know how to sell it.

Any writer who dismisses the negative but laps up the positive had better be ready for the negative reviews of her book which will come.

I have had books published. Some of them have won awards. Some of the ones that have won awards have had yuckity reviews. Some of those reviews I (try to) ignore because I don't value the opinion of the giver, BUT if someone says something positive and negative, how on earth could I justify believing the good but not the bad?? If I value someone's opinion I cannot only value it when it suits me. That doesn't mean I have to kow-tow to it but it does mean I should not dismiss it out of hand as this writer seemed to, and to dismiss it so disrespectfully. For a start, the critique opinion seeks to give you the best chance of publication, about which there are no certainties.

It is incredibly important to decide WHOM you believe, perhaps more than WHAT you believe. True, you can't believe everything, but you cannot only believe what suits you.

This was the mark of a new writer, who was rightly excited to be published, and for that I forgive her. I wish her well in her journey, and I hope she learns how to listen to negative and positive and to understand the value of professional feedback, especially when it honestly suggests improvement, not just dismiss it as wrong.

There is no right or wrong, only best guessing.