At a recent meeting of our writers group, a new-comer read two essays. The first one was on the importance of writing and writers to our civilization. The second was on, to put it bluntly, the moral bankruptcy of a civilization that places the role of entertainment above all other pursuits, and that writers, who don’t strive to deliver something more improving than diversions, are really part of the problem. Unsurprisingly, the first essay was well received and the second was deemed insulting and an attack on writers. It made me wonder if our responses were more a reflection on our view of ourselves as writers than on the content of the essays.

While I thought both the essays were pretty good, I felt their actual information content was relatively low. Which, now that I think about it, is pretty much what one expects of a thousand word or so essay. Admittedly, there is a role for those who cry out in alarm when they see their civilization going to hell in a hand basket. But I will be so petty as to complain that there is an even more important role to be played by those who give constructive criticism. Which brings us back around to how we should have responded to both essays. OK, to be fair, at least one of us did ask about what his intent was in writing the essays and who he thought his audience was, but it wasn’t me. It’s taken me a few days and some thought to bring me to a place where I can make constructive criticisms. Which boil down to: fewer words and more content. (Advice that I will be the first to admit that I struggle with.)

So where is the rant in all this (if it doesn’t already feel like one)? It lies in the tendency that we, as writers, seemed to hold ourselves in such low esteem as to worry that we only produce fluff to entertain the masses. How many of us at the table simply stopped with being insulted that we were labeled contributors to the decay of our civilization, when we should have simply moved on and said, “Well, there is something to what you say, but it is only part of what I do as I writer. I am also a crafter of stories, someone who uses words to not only entertain, but to elucidate and provide insight into the human condition. I am confident in this role and will critique these essays without rancor.” That is what I would have liked to have said at the time, but, alas, I only felt a vague sense that I wanted to say something more.

Unfortunately, as a writer’s group, we failed. We let ourselves be distracted by the content of the essays and rather than critiquing, we focused on criticizing. A number of us said, both at the time and later, that it was arrogant (or worse) to read an essay to writers that equates “entertainment” with “decay”, and implied that if, as a writer, you aren’t doing something that is more than entertainment, then you are contributing to that decay. I understand, even sympathize with this response, but I have a problem with the notion that our new-comer’s purpose was to insult us as writers (or as Americans). Perhaps he was naive and socially inept in how he presented his work, but, insofar as I can’t really know what his intent was, I have to assume he was there for feedback and critique. It isn’t as if his thesis was morally or socially objectionable. As a group we have dealt with difficult moral and social questions more equitably. If you were, say, to replace his references to writers with references to painters, would we have felt as insulted? Or insulted at all?

I am not proposing that we should divorce our feelings as a reader from our critiques. Our visceral responses to a piece are just as important, if not more important, than our intellectual responses. But I believe that we should be able to step back from our emotional responses and examine them as part of an overall critique and provide feedback that acknowledges our prejudices. We need to be comfortable in saying “I’m not your audience” (with the implied addition of “so take what I say with a grain of salt”).

Oh, one final thing that needs to be said. Pure and simple entertainment, while incapable of putting a meal on the table for the masses, does provide a degree of happiness. Which is a good thing in and of itself.

– Fritz.

Link to the wiki version.

Related posts:

1. Writers’ group report
2. Who is the best short story writer? (Good question. Anyone know?)
3. Wanted: Genre Writers’ Group
4. Writers’ group report
5. Submitted “All You Quantum Zombies”

This entry was posted on Friday, January 8th, 2010 at 1:38 pm and is filed under AAAWG, Critique, Critiquing, Rant, Wiki Article, Writers' Group, Writing. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.