Monday morning blues

[eimarra]

I'm in the doldrums today. Just got a crit back, with some good catches and a lot of good feedback. I'm just frustrated because I feel I miss so much on my own. I've seen authors post on FM to the effect that using crits excessively is depending on a crutch -- a real writer needs to be able to edit her work into shape because she won't always have the luxury of sending something off to beta readers who will take their time with it.

And I'm worried because I know I'm nowhere near that level. I keep thinking I'm getting better at this -- everything from the mechanics of varying sentence length and rhythm to having more than the obvious layer in the story. But then I find out I'm still failing on so many levels.

My number one problem? I think I've made the protagonist's motive clear, or think that the root cause of the MC's behavior isn't important to have down in so many words. But even when I think I've spelled it out from the beginning of the story, my readers tell me they don't understand why X does Y.

I can't imagine giving up writing, but right now, at this moment, I'm really wondering if I'll ever be good enough.

(/end feeling sorry for myself)

Comments

[eimarra]

I don't think I'm trying to rewrite my story to suit everyone else. As I said above, it's mostly frustration that I'm not getting better yet. I'm a plot-driven writer. You might have noticed with Diamond -- most of the weaknesses were with the characters, who they were, why they were acting as they were. I knew them, knew what they did, and what happened next, but showing who they are is tough. And that's true of most everything I write -- showing why people do things is a weakness, and one that just won't go away. So I edit and revise and rewrite and get crits that still show me weak and edit more, and I was just feeling really down about it yesterday.

Little better today, but I still have that "I should've gotten this by now" feeling going on.

[bonniers.livejournal.com]

Oh, no, I don't think you're doing that, either. My point was that unless you're getting to that point (you're the only one who can judge), good critters are not just helpful, they're critical to producing a good story.

I hear you about the part of writing that just won't improve. I now recognize plot when I see it, though it has only a tangential relationship to what my characters are doing. (Joey looks up innocently. "Oh. You mean this story is supposed to be, like, going somewhere?") I've been working hard on it for close to ten years now.

And I wouldn't say your characters are weak, either. It's because they are good that a critter can see ways to make them better, clearer, more motivated, more conflicted. If you look at some of the stuff that gets posted in Roving, you'll see what I mean.

--bonnie

p.s. and weak characters can be fixed. If you don't have a plot to begin with, it's a lot harder to add it in. But I'm getting there.

[eimarra]

I thought Joey's story was going somewhere -- to the end of his life, eventually. Or you mean as in having plot arcs and conflicts that get resolved (or deepened) along the way?

[bonniers.livejournal.com]

I meant the plot arcs and conflicts and stuff. Joey does have a sort of framework like that, but it keeps getting lost in a tangle of everyday relationships and just general stuff.

It's like you pointed out with "City, in the Mist" -- I tend to have conflict, then resolution, but never a climax.

--bonnie