Writing is Not a War Zone

After reading the comments on Essay 5 "Writing is NOT a Safe Space," I wanted to clarify my argument. Though the reception was overall positive, I felt the nuanced heart of what I was trying to communicate was perhaps overshadowed by an either/or perception.

I don't believe Vocal would be improved by encouraging random strangers to give feedback on everything they read. Although my original piece did not focus on this, I did question whether the platform would benefit from transparent comments. I still think the answer to that is 'yes,' but I'd like to explain the subtleties more substantially.

Every person deserves respect and decency, simply by merit of their humanity. Therefore, I do not advocate anyone behaving like a barbarian towards anyone else. Writing may not be a safe space, each post being an exercise in vulnerability, but it's also not a war zone.

What I oppose is indiscriminate positivity; this position was the foundation of Essay 5. Positivity has a dark side. Because writers measure their skill against audience reception (reviews, comment sections, and social media), sole positivity presents an inaccurate picture of authorial skill. Many equate positivity with sincerity; however, the latter is by definition not indiscriminate. It relies on honesty and a lack of deceit. It is specific, deliberate, and genuine.

The written word takes on the quality of life when it's read, moving inside a reader's mind and imagination, changing thoughts and challenging beliefs. It even affects breathing and heart rate, raises goosebumps, causes tears, brings smiles. When writers get to see such sensations arise in a reader purely due to their words, it's a success like no other.

At the same time, writing can also die. Nobody wants this, especially not the writer. I just can't see how reading a bad review or unsolicited feedback would be worse than seeing one's work blip into silence, time after time, without knowing why. It is here that we see positivity turn dark.

Now, can criticism hurt? Can it feel like a personal attack? Be discouraging? Yes, of course. That doesn't make it any less important to experience, though.

Like I said before, I am not in favor of strangers giving unsolicited criticism. Not only will it not be well-received, this kind of feedback is often manifested as one-off critiques without any attempt at friendship.

I see two main contexts for giving feedback. Both are based on shared values. The first is workshops, where strangers gather to share notes on each other's work. Here, everyone values improving their work and their familiarity is irrelevant. The second context is founded on trust. Here, the writer will receive personalized and perhaps more kind feedback from a friend. Where a workshop might fall short on this individualized critique and simply not help the writer, familiarity can lead to the friend missing things due to a lack of objectivity. Although these drawbacks are different in each context, values were prioritized and the writer benefited accordingly.

Given how chaotic online spaces are, it's much harder to feel that feedback is given with any real care, as above. Much of it feels like it comes from complete strangers, even if people are familiar with each other. Why? Well, I think part of it is that we aren't writing according to our values and standards. Often, we write to please our audience. However, what if that audience doesn't actually align with our creative goals? If we want to improve and are only receiving praise, perhaps we need to broaden our audience. A good first step toward that end is to figure out what we believe, how we write/read, and what we expect from readers/fellow writers.

The exercises I created in Essay 5 are meant to unlock the self-awareness from which intentional reading and investment can flow. Once we know our values and standards, we'll naturally read accordingly. Such authors excite and inspire us and evoke sincere engagement and investment. Then as trust builds, feedback follows.

When we leave comments, we often follow a "give what we get" axiom, and because we get indiscriminate positivity, that's what we give. I want to challenge that to become "give what we want to get." Using sincerity, give the kind of feedback you envision receiving on your own work. Is it questions, praise, anecdotes, constructive criticism?

I'll end with this. I completely sympathize with not wanting to walk into a hurtful situation. I sympathize with protecting fellow writers. Given how insecure creative people are (myself included), positivity makes sense. However, there's a difference between bullies and critics. The former are not lurking behind every corner, so unless something is overtly malicious (or not human i.e., bots/spam), I'd much rather assume the best, use what I can to improve, and drop whatever remains.

If criticism ends up blindsiding and crushing us, I'm not sure why we'd want to be writers. Aren't we all knives at varying degrees of sharpness? Let's not grow dull on positivity.

A/N: Thank you for reading. I hope this helps clarify a few things. As ever, I welcome all comments!

Check out the rest of the Writing & Self-Empowerment Series below:

• Essay 1 — The Imposter Writer—Stop Doubting Yourself
• Essay 2 — Imposter Syndrome, Be Gone!
• Essay 3 — Workshops are Treasure Troves
• Essay 4 — No, Reviews are not Just for Readers
• Essay 5 — Writing is NOT a Safe Space