A book you would critique heavily if you could

[cacian]

I was just thinking about the fact that all writers in forums get their work dismantled shredded or taken to pieces. The idea that it is good for you and makes you a better writer. I am not so sure personally that is always the way forward. If one is to keep true to their personal feelings about writing one is to stick to the way they write and for others to read or not but without having to change a bit or anything of it.
It is an experiment worth taking. A writer can learn form their own writing without having someone else to do it for them.
Anyway the reason I mention this is because in the real world however outside the writing forums or the editor offices all of us are sold books to read on a daily basis without having to think oh well I should change this or that. In other words there is a story and we read it and do not think a minute about critiquing or changing the style. A book is a book and it is finalised and we are to read it as it is without prior critiques.
Is this good for us? is this the way forward to reading when writing is a totally different ball game?
So this brings to this: if you could critique or shred to pieces a book you read which would it be and why?

[islandclimber]

Cacian, you are kidding yourself if you think that each book you find in the bookstore has not been heavily edited and critiqued (with very few exceptions). Most of these writers have also had many critiques of previous failed attempts to get their work published, and they have learned from them in order to create something better. This ramble is ridiculous. A writer can learn from their own writing, sure, but one always holds some kind of bias regarding their own work; therefore, it is nice to have many outside opinions and criticisms of it.

Taking this forum for example, why on earth would anyone post their work for free on here if they did not want it to be criticized. That is the only point of the writing sections of this place, to ask for criticism of your work so you can improve. Not for each one of us to be hopelessly sycophantic and heap adulation on all the works on here that remain mired in the muck of mediocrity. Besides, even great works of literature are criticized by just about anyone. Go read reviews of classic literature on a site like goodreads or even amazon; you'll discover a number of less than favourable reviews for each one...

Aside from that, when a reader engages with a book and reads critically, isn't criticism exactly what we are doing, even if just in our heads? We're determining the value of a book for ourselves. Obviously, as a reader I cannot change an already published book, yet I am certainly reading critically and determining for myself the value of the work, the positives, the negatives, etc.

You've outdone even yourself with this thread. Depressing.

[cacian]

islandclimeber I speak from the heart and as an enthusiastic writer myself I think changes to things and routine and the way one view life is necessary.
Certainly the way I see it changes are for the better. I feel that writers are to critiques themselves first and when they are done others may read their work or not. It is important that one learns from their own on their own first if they are to discover who they as an expressionist with words.
Feedback is done when others read their pieces and decide whether it is for them or not. In other words the only changes that occur in any given piece of writing are the ones the writer himself desires or makes. Anything else is secondary. I feel this is crucial if we are to discover our own true style.

[islandclimber]

You're not really making any sense. I hope people aren't posting pieces of writing on here without first editing and trying to self-critique to some extent. If so, they deserve to have it ripped apart. However, if they have cleaned up their work as best they can, and they then post it on Litnet, they are obviously asking for more than just a read, they want an outsiders perspective on their work. If you finish a piece of writing and think it is perfect why on earth would you post it here instead of attempting to have it published?

I will put this briefly. If you post your prose or poetry here, you are asking for it to be evaluated (criticism both positive and negative)...

[cacian]

You're not really making any sense. I hope people aren't posting pieces of writing on here without first editing and trying to self-critique to some extent. If so, they deserve to have it ripped apart. However, if they have cleaned up their work as best they can, and they then post it on Litnet, they are obviously asking for more than just a read, they want an outsiders perspective on their work. If you finish a piece of writing and think it is perfect why on earth would you post it here instead of attempting to have it published?

I will put this briefly. If you post your prose or poetry here, you are asking for it to be evaluated (criticism both positive and negative)...

Apologies the above post was written hastily I amended it now.
What I meant nothing changes if we are to stick to the way the world of literature rules and that is under the thumb of the editor. I believe all the best pieces and all the thoughts and expressions are removed from books and we the reader only get to a shot of what any writer is truly is.
All the editing I believe is done by others for us and we get no words or choice over it. We read what we get given and that is the issue I have with it.
Whatever happened to freedom of expressions and writers expressing themselves in their stories the way they want.
The other issue is that one editor differs from another and so how do I know that what has been removed or taken is something I would have liked or preferred?
I think in a wold where freedom of choice and expressions is valuable one should be careful what one does and how one alters others people's work. After all paintings world not be paintings if they were to be told to be changed and altered.
WHat I am trying to say is that because we do not all agree and see eye to eye over a piece of writing one should not attempt to change anything until the reader has made up his or her mind.
Writing is trigger happy not a barricade to be trampled on and brought down like a Hadrian wall.
The same goes with child plays. Children are at their happiest when they play with other children and not sat in a classroom being bombarded with essays and homework. Writing I compare to child play it is unique and must be preserved.

[islandclimber]

This is absurd. Editors don't rewrite literature. They edit rough manuscripts, they catch errors in spelling and syntax and other such things that the author might have missed. Occasionally they suggest small parts be cut, or loose sections be tightened. They surely don't spell the death of creative freedom.

Have you read much post-modern literature? Pynchon, Burroughs, Krasznahorkai, DFW, Gass, Markson, Carter, Ackers, etc. Certainly, the existence of each one of these writers makes a compelling argument for creative freedom in the literary world...

You're talking nonsense. I have absolutely no desire to read unedited, poorly written tripe just because it's slightly more free in some incomprehensible way.