@Hitch and @Jack - one of the places where people often cross wires on this subject is the distinction between what a writer needs to do to get better and writing, and what is acceptable in actually published work. A writer has to write in order to learn how to be a better writer - it seems obvious, but many seem to miss it. That doesn't mean that everything a writer writes should be published (this isn't even true of the "greats"), and it certainly doesn't mean that anything they write should be published without first being suitably polished.
The fact that so many skip or skimp on the polishing step is why people may think that advising a person to just get in and start writing can be a mistake. But you can't learn the technical details effectively if you're not actually writing. This isn't a chicken and egg thing. The writing must be happening before you can properly appreciate the technicalities.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cromag
I[...] and sometimes they have a different vision of the story than I do [...]
|
This can be an interesting one to deal with. It is common for different readers to come away with different things from the same story. It's going to happen. So, sometimes, it is just a matter of acceptance - and can be very interesting to observe. BUT sometimes times it can indicate that you haven't done your job as an author, you haven't told the story you wanted to tell. In some situations the only way to tell the difference is to get more feedback from others.
I'd also add that the risk of getting feedback from fellow writers is that they are fellow writers. We want to tell the story as we see it, it's what we do, and it can sometimes be difficult constrain our feedback to the story the other person is actually telling.