Different Types of Criticism: Post-Publication

A few weeks ago, I explained the different types of criticism you’ll run across as a writer pre-publication. Today, I’m explaining what you’ll face after publishing. I’m going to break it down a differently than I did last time, as you still receive bad and good criticism, I just want to elaborate on how to deal with it, and also the different kinds of places you’ll deal with it.

Post-Publication -

This is when the book has been published and is available either as an eBook, Audiobook, or Print book – after rounds of editing has been complete and it’s up for sale everywhere.

Reviews -

Bad Reviews: You’ll probably receive negative reviews from professional reviewers, unskilled readers, and everything in between. The absolute most important thing to remember post-publication is to not comment. Don’t comment on it at all. You’ll just make yourself look bad.

If you receive the review from a friend, co-worker, or just someone who has done the review for you and they are speaking directly with you via email or some other form of communication, thank them for their honest opinion. No matter what they’ve said or done or how bad the review – thank them.

Good Reviews: Pretty much the same rules apply no matter if the review is good or bad. Indirect review (i.e. Amazon or Goodreads review section, etc.) – don’t comment. Direct review – give thanks.

Regardless of if the readers liked the book or are just slandering your work or name (which doesn’t happen all that often), they put time into reading it and should be thanked for their time.

In Person – So let’s say we’re at a book signing or some other public event and a person who has read your book comes up to you.

Bad critic: They say it was a bad book or they didn’t enjoy it (I’ve only ever heard about this happening once, never experienced it myself, so it’s a rarity). Since it’s face-to-face you can’t actually ignore them… well, you could, but it would be almost as rude as saying something you might regret later. Just bite your tongue and say “I’m sorry” or “I’ll take that into consideration” or something to that effect.

Good critic: They say they enjoyed reading your work or similarly something positive. Thank them. Thank them for reading. Maybe even feel free to tell them about some of your other books.

You can begin to see a bit of a pattern in how to deal with things. If you’re a new writer, you can save these rules and use it as a cheat sheet that way you can stop and take a breath the next time you’re faced with criticism.

The Different Kinds of Criticism: Pre-Publication

When you’re an author, you’ll be getting plenty of criticism at every stage in writing. For a lot of aspiring authors, that’s a big part of what’s holding them back from getting their work off the back burner and out in the world. To cut to the chase, there are two main areas of criticism with books, and I’m going to explain them, and how to deal with them. This week, I’m going to explore pre-publication and in the next two weeks, I’m going to explore post-publication.

Pre-Publication -
This is when the book is freshly written and you might post it somewhere online for feedback (places like writing.com) or a writing group.

Bad Criticism: This is where people comment saying things like “This is bad. This is wonderful! I don’t like it. The characters are weak. The plot is choppy. The descriptions are wonderful!”
Why is it bad? It isn’t a helpful comment. It doesn’t point out what exactly it is that makes the character weak or why they think the plot is choppy. I’ve seen the “why” missing very often in a lot of criticisms, and good or bad, it just doesn’t give you anything to go on or prove that they even read your work.
How to deal with it: There are two different ways to deal with this, first, you can ask the commenter to elaborate on the “whys”. Secondly, you can just ignore it. Usually, if it’s a trusted commenter in my writing group, I’ll ask them to elaborate. If it’s a commenter online, I’ll probably just ignore it.

Good Criticism: Also called “constructive criticism”. This is where, good or bad, you have information about what you did right – and why – and what you did wrong – and why. "
“The character was weak because of all of the “telling” in the work, and also, you use a lot of crutch words.” This is the bare minimum for a good criticism.
Why is it good? It tells what’s wrong and gives you an idea of how you might fix it. It also is clear that the commenter is familiar with what they’re talking about, making them a valid source.
How to deal with it: This might sound like a no-brainer at first, but it’s a little more complex than how to deal with bad criticism. First of all, it’s a rule for me to not apply what I’ve learned with the new criticism unless I strongly agree with it or at least one other commenter says the same. This is because everyone has their own opinions, but if more than one person says that same, it’s more likely that others will also agree. So you may hold off on applying it to your work.
In terms of what you’re doing right, it will probably be a good idea to take note for future reference. It can be helpful in revisions and in your future writings to know what to add more of and what to do minimally.
Constructive criticisms can help you to learn about your habits, your weaknesses, and your strength. They’re really a necessary part of the writing process and – new writers especially keep in mind – NOT a bashing of your work. If you understand what kind of criticism you’re getting, then you’re better equipped to handle it.
Lastly, I would like to make sure you never bash someone for commenting on your work whether it’s good or bad criticism you’ve received, or even just an outright bashing. Never. Ever. Make a big deal of it. Best thing to do is ignore it.
Good luck in your writings! Any questions, leave them in the comments.

Old Things

Have you ever walked through a swapmeet or yard sale and noticed things from way back when, or other unidentifiable objects that are obviously not from your time?

Recently, I've noticed quite a few old things cross my path lately. For one, an old coffee maker, which - get this - has no buttons! This amused me to no end, and still does. I've no idea how old it actually is, I'm guessing it may be a 1960-80 model, but it still works quite well. I couldn't figure out how to make it work, but I've seen it in action. It has a switch on it, and a little mini-clock to set the timer.

Today, I noticed wall clocks, and I realized oddly, that there are a lot of inventions created in the 1900s that we don't really need anymore. Who needs wall clocks to tell the time when we have cell phones constantly at our side with the correct time? The same with digital clocks. It seems every piece of electronic device now has a clock, and I don't remember the last time I had to search around just to find out what time it was.

Rendering clocks, unnecessary.

I was watching my brother shread cheese today as well, and something about that made it seem incredibly old fashioned. Cheese is preshreaded now. We but it in bags, not blocks... well, unless you enjoy slaving away in the kitchen. I almost rendered blocks of cheese unnecessary, then I thought of my favored encheladas and marked that off my list of "Too Old". Shreaders/graters could be made invalid though, as we have all those nifty electronic gadgets to shread and gunk for us. So I added them to the list.

I had a laugh about those old dial-phones earlier with a friend of mine. Here's my post from Facebook - "Oh no, don't start on the old phones! I look at my shiny, touchscreen phone now and can't even begin to comtemplate how slow texting would be on one of them dial things!" Who, in the 1930s, would have thought there would be a such thing as a "Smartphone"?

How about the days when a TV was a TV, no HD (High Definition) or SD (Standard Definition) labling? SD TVs - and the SD movies that rode in with them are on the "Too Old" list.

Cameras that have film in them - like the kind my grandmother still uses (how amazed she must have been when she found out it was a waterproof camera!) - has also been added to my list. We use digital cameras now...

What's next? I'm quite eager to get rid of snail mail. The world isn't quite ready for that yet, but we recieve all our letters from family and friends, our bills, everything really, via email - for free nonetheless. I'll be happy to get rid of this form of communication from the castle ages. Get rid of the USPS blue boxes on the street corners. It's weird.

No books in print. This does bring a touch of sadness to me. But this is something that definitely will happen, and is fast approaching. It is in the interest to the environment - and saves on the bookshelf space issues as well. eReaders are here, and they're not leaving, the creation from B.C. is - print books.

What is ready to go now?

What can't you wait to see go extinct in the future?

Beat the Heat with a Baseball Bat

Growing up in Arizona, if there's one thing I know, it's how cruel and unusual the desert can be. Right now, the summer is getting into full swing - and not just in the southwest.

So, pretty much everyone I talk to claims that the humidity kills 'back east' and is nothing compared to AZ's heat - even my father who was born and raised back there. And yes, admittedly, we are lucky 80% of the year with horribly dry weather, which makes frying more of a possibility than melting. BUT! With monsoon season approaching in little over a week, I do feel the need to clear up that it isn't this way for the other 20% of the year. I'm talking about an average of 109 degree temperatures plus enough humidity to melt a turtle.

I did some research a few hours ago, and did find that the average humidity percentage for Arizona is 56% - that's the average for the whole year. So, it isn't quite 70% humidity or even 60% as I previously guessed, but it's probably more than most people would think.

But let's combine those infamous 112 degree temperatures with that 56% humidity.

Now how about that 'back east' weather? Their average temperature in summer is 80 degrees. Their average humidity percentage is 80%.
So, by looking at the statistics, both pretty much average out to being equally horrid and filled with a bunch of ick. The difference is 30 degrees more or 30% more humidity.

Now, the question is which is worse? What you can handle?

The heat or the humidity?

*Note: My vote is to move to Alaska during summer seasons... btw... so I'm like... Switzerland.