Haven't been blogging, because I've had a good writing streak lately, and time is of the essence. I always feel like I'll never have enough time to write the stories I want to, they always pile up. Had a company outing yesterday, so no chance for writing, got to catch up.
I'll be turning in my Critter's trade-off novel today. I got mine back, and my co-conspirator is chomping at the bit for her feedback. The problem is, I don't think she's going to like it. I'm going through it right now, and reviewing my comments to make sure that nothing's too harsh or mean. The fact is, the story is quite tedious. There's a lot of filler, and not much plot development. There's a lot of time trying to build suspense and scariness, but it's like trying to blow air into a balloon that has a big hole on the other end.
Which brings me to my question, is tact really that necessary in critiques, or are you just being a baby? In all the workshop sites I've visited, there's a lot about tact and etiquette when critiquing, and to do the opposite is a TOS violation. I'm afraid this person will be least of all disappointed and most of all devastated and crying in her pillow, when she finds out what I've said.
But seriously, writers need to toughen up. The publishing world is 99% rejection, and to take it personally is bad coping strategy. Lots of newbie writers are babies, and need constant patting-on-the-back. It's more work for a critiquer to sigh and grit his teeth and say "I think you should explain this part more" instead of "WHAT? WHAT? WHAT THE HELL IS ANYONE TALKING ABOUT?" It lacks the communication of the emotion of the reader, in how frustrated he is reading swiss cheese. I think the writer should know that, as more motivation for fixing the piece. If you want to be a serious writer, you need to learn how to distance your self from your work. They are not the same thing.