Critique Groups and Writer Circles
Perhaps you got a taste of read-and-critique at a conference, or the idea
just intrigues you. Is it the thing for you and how do you find one? If you
can't find one, what do you do then?
We'll try and answer some of those questions. The first issue is whether or
not a writing group will work for you. That's a loaded question. The more viable
question is whether you will work for a group.
What is a read-and-critique group?
For those who've never participated in read-and-critique circle here's how it
works: All of the writers in the group show up in a prescribed place, each with
piece of material of limited length (2500-3000 words is a happy medium).
Hopefully, the group will have a leader who will run things, and pick who will
read and moderate feedback. Usually, the readers will have multiple copies of
their script and these copies will be distributed among the members. Once
distributed the reader then reads his/her material ALOUD to the group. Yes,
that's right you must SPEAK, talk, e-NUN-ciate. After the writer is finished,
the workshop leader either calls on respondants or they go around the circle
with each member of the group taking a few minutes to give their responses to
the material.
There's a lot at work here. Some people might automatically wonder—why
read aloud? Can't people read for themselves? I'll answer. NO. Why? Because
when you read it you will often say what you MEANT rather than what you wrote.
People who have the script in front of them will likely mark this for you.
Speaking aloud is a POWERFUL editing tool. I scream this all the time to people
trying to improve. If you stumble when reading it, then so will the reader.
There is a whole host of psychology involved in this process, not the least of
which is that you're self-consciousness around others making you REALLY sensitive to
your material and hence more critical. I always read to the group with a pen in my
hand because I invariably stumble over something I didn't catch.
Reading aloud also paces everyone. Some people read fast, others slow. So
when you're done, they're done so to speak. In experienced groups, they'll be
line editing as you read, so there may be some lag as they catch up.
So, that's the process; not too complicated. Any reasonable group of adults
can do it. All you need are participants. In my experience the perfect size is
eight to ten members. Ten minutes to read, ten minutes to critique. With slack
for breaks and readers that take a little longer, it makes for a three hour
session. Not too heineous a chunk of time for people with busy schedules.
The big rub is finding people. Writers who live out in the sticks
have the worst time of this. There just aren't any writers nearby. Best place
to start hunting for candidates is the nearest college or university in their
graduate and undergraduate English and Literature programs. Lots of times there
are collectives of students and teachers.
Networking at the big conferences can sometimes net you a member or two.
It's not uncommon for bookstores to sponsor groups as well. If you have any
locally or relatively local publication for writers, that's a good place to look
for groups (or advertise to create one).
The internet is always a resource. Haunting the online writer resources can
turn you up folks who live close to you.
Sad to say, some people are simply so geographically challenged that online
will be their only recourse. Maybe it's time to consider moving...
You've found a group—now what?
Congratulations, you've hit paydirt—or have you? A good group is
heaven, a bad group is misery. How often do they meet? Do they charge? Are
they organized? Is there a workshop leader and how good are they? These are just
a few of the questions you have to ask yourself. Another question is whether you
are ready to make the commitment. A group reaches its maximum effectiveness
when everyone is producing consistently, and the people get familiar with
each other's work. If you skip meetings and rarely read, you are doing both
yourself and them a disservice.
One of the big perks of consistency is that people can read novels, a
chapter a week. If everyone is there, they can follow the story in serial
installments and can then provide feedback on elements of plot, character
development and aspects like continuity. If you miss all the time, you will
always be lost and use up valuable time while the writer recaps what has gone
before.
So, you're ready to commit. What constitutes a good group? While it's
easy to quantify, it's probably better to enumerate bad groups. Identifying
why they fail or don't work makes you appreciate the aspects of a good
groups.
Types of Writing Groups
Anatomy of good group
A good group has a strong leadership, a rigid meeting
structure, and a core membership of four to six serious writers. The rigid
structure is necessary for longevity. If the group doesn't have it,
chances are it won't be around long enough to help you anyway. Turnover
rate should be mentioned here. How many people have come and gone under
the current leader's auspices? Are there a lot in a short time? This could
possibly indicate one of the problematic stereotypes mentioned above.
Another reason high turnover is bad is because books
aren't written overnight. If you read one chapter a week, nobody who's
heard the start of your book will be commenting on the end. This results
in all sorts of strange commentary that can only confuse you.
If you're writing short form this may not be as much of an
issue.
The leader. A group MUST have one. Anarchistic and
democratic groups tend to be ineffective unless the membership happens to
be extraordinarily disciplined.
The leader needn't be a published author, but an authority
the members respect. Someone who is capable of keeping things running
smoothly and restricts criticism to the technical merits of a writer's
work, not the subject material addressed in the piece. If they are a great
editor or critic (the two are definitely not synonymous), that's a bonus.
The leader's most important trait will be their ability to maintain group
cohesiveness.
The leader should have the ability (and courage) to weed
out undesirable members. Optimally they should have a broad acceptance of
writing genres. Diversity is healthy and educational.
As important as the leader, is a membership of differing
skill levels. If nobody is turning out publishable material it's
difficult to know when someone reaches that plateau. At least one person
should be experienced, otherwise it's simply the blind leading the blind.
Remember, education does not necessarily take the place of experience.
I've been in the presence of degreed English teachers who didn't know what
point-of-view was. Experience is knowing fiction writing,
how to critique it, how to make it better.
If you're building a group and don't have a qualified
person to run the collective, consider charging show-up dues and enticing
a local author into running your group by paying them from the weekly
collections.
Fees have another effect on a group. People who are paying
cash tend to take the work more seriously. If a member is really committed
to the art they'll pay for the schooling. Where there's commitment, you'll
find professional level talent.
Critique. If you're forming a group, it's absolutely
essential to know how to do constructive criticism. You may
think you do. Do the others? Does the leader? Make rules. Four suggested
ones are:
- Limit reading and critique time to 15-25 minutes. This
is enough to read about 2500 words and have 5 minutes of comments. Reading
the work aloud is slower and more clumsy but it reveals a great deal about
the clarity and readability of the piece. Try it before you knock it.
- The workshop leader should make his/her remarks last
for the sake of critique tone. The members of the group are less likely to
speak their own mind if the authoritative leader disagrees up-front.
- The writer cannot defend the work (or even talk) while
it's being critiqued. He/she may have a few moments after comments are
finished to explain (not defend) what he/she was trying to do. The reasons
for this are manifold. Foremost being that it speeds the critique process
up.
- Listeners (Critiquers) should coach all of their
comments in terms of positives. What was good? Rather than pointing out
something didn't work, suggest instead what would improve it. If possible
write all your remarks down. The writer who receives them will be happy for
it.
If the group you're in doesn't use some of these. Think on
trying to implement them. These tend to be the most essential to smooth
functionality.
Revisiting The 'Is It For Me' Scenario
The people who best benefit from groups are focused on the art of writing;
not on the writing itself. Groups are not for the thin-skinned or faint-of-
heart. This is true of even the best writing collective, because
eventually they will tell you what you need to hear. A good group will
admonish your mistakes gently until the day comes they lay the word on
you. Maybe you'll be ready, maybe you won't.
The truth can be devastating.
The ones most adversely affected are the writers who do
not distance themselves from the work. Once written the literature must
stand on its own merit. If you don't have anymore attachment to it than a
photograph, then comments can't hurt it or you. Allowing yourself to
become attached to it in any way is to invite the idea that criticism of
the work is directed at you.
Do NOT allow yourself to fall into this. This goes toward online circles as
well as personal critiques.
Criticism is subjective. Eventually there'll be someone in
the audience who happens to find your one sore spot, either intentionally
or not, and lay into it with both barrels.
I've seen the tears when someone's babies (those
cherised oh-so-beautiful lines of aesthetic prose) get shredded into cole
slaw. It's ugly. If all you're looking for is kudos— stay away from a
group. To quote Stan Lee of comics fame, 'Nuff said?
Let's assume now that we've pared down our group seekers
to only those folks with inch-thick skin and a determined attitude. These
are the individuals that flourish in a group environment. It's not
necessary to have those attributes at the start, but it's best to plan on
building them. Regardless of the group joined, you will take a few shots
to the head before you get out of the ring.
No writer is born perfect. Everybody stumbles, and even
the best turn-out a stinker or two during the long haul.
Know what else?
It's good for you.
A nice stern reality check keeps us honest. There
are some best-selling authors who could use a few upper-cuts to make them
get back to basics and start writing like when they were hungry.
Getting the most out of a group.
Okay, you're in a good group but you want the most bang
for the buck. The best thing with a writing group is to remember the nine
laws of writing collectives: Distance, Chronology, Taste, Skill,
Prevalence, Style, Genre, Property and Pertinence.
- Distance: Once completed, your written material
should be as a photograph. Make yourself numb. Care about it, but only as
a piece of art to improve. Treat critiquers as people all wishing to
help
you improve the art. Often there's too much of your art and they'll
suggest heavy pruning. In the long run it's only their opinion.
- Chronology: (This one applies to long form mostly)
People have lives of their own. Even if your group meets every week there
will be memory fallout about the different pieces of literature being
read. Take into account and look for remarks that come from someone
forgetting what came before. It can color the critique, in some cases
majorly. Especially if someone forgets the chapter where a character is
introduced or any other important event ensues.
- Taste: If you are writing something that makes
everybody uncomfortable, I don't care how disciplined the
critiquers are, the feedback will be colored. Reading something for shock
value is infantile, don't do it. Take into consideration the sensibilities
of your co-writers. If you don't, it can only serve to have ears blocked
to whatever you read. A waste of your time and their time.
- Skill: A remark really bugged you. Consider
the source. Is person X a better writer than you? How good are their
instincts? Do they have a good ear and eye for your kind of writing. Do
you like their material? If you consider their skill to be superior and
their remarks usually pertinent, then however painful their point might
be— think about it. Don't do anything about it. Simply think
about it. If you decide to go with it later, fine.
- Prevalence: Somebody makes a point about a
subjective aspect of your work— for example: pacing. Your group has 10
people present. A concensus results in four people having a problem with
it, the other six, including the leader, don't. What does it mean? It
means that forty percent of an audience could feel that way about
that aspect. That's key to remember— you are playing to an audience, the
listeners represent the public who might pick up your material and read
it. Do the four people who have the problem, always have trouble?
Do they represent a group of people who would never read your
material? The more people who agree on a point about your work, the more
weight you should give the remark.
- Style: The flavor and voice of a work is your own.
Style can have a way of irritating a percentage of your readership (and
listeners). If you pick a narrative voice or story telling technique that
could be abrasive, warn the listeners ahead of time. Don't let them hear
it cold. If they still have problems with it... Think about it.
- Genre: The general rules of fiction apply to
everybody. Each genre may have its own special rules, but the basics still
apply. Point-of-view, passive voice, distancing, tone, story, voice...
they apply across the board. Nobody is sacrosanct. Nobody. The guy with
green-skin and pointed ears, the axe murderer, and the flouncing bodice
ripper all have to be characterized using the same story-telling
techniques. All genres are created equal. The comment— "I'm not
qualified to remark on that"— is baloney. All genres have
recognizable story elements that share common ground. Constrain your
remarks to that and there won't be problems. If the rest of the group does
too— better still.
- Property: When all is said and done it's your
story, remember that. All the remarks on the planet can't force you to
change it. Don't feel harried or attacked. It's only opinion. Only
if you feel it will improve the work should you change it. If you're not
sure, save the original and make the changes on a duplicate copy. Read
it— if it doesn't work for you... forget it. It's your story.
- Pertinence: The person that sits in the corner
really seems to like your work, but he/she's always coming up with these
off-the-wall nit-picks. Things about editing, a character's clothes,
manners, etc. Do you care? The nit-picker who comes up with valid nits is
definitely to be heeded. Especially editing points. Never annoy an
editor— fix it. Authenticity details are great for your work too. Keep in
mind, too much detail will bog things down— but a dash here and there is
great spice. Weigh the relavence of the nit-pick, note it and give it
thought. Can't hurt to think about it. In the end the nit-pickers are your
friends— who's more picky than an editor seeing your script for the first
time?
These general rules primarily help you to keep things in
perspective. By and large, a group that is well established is much like a
machine. You put material in one end and you get feedback out the other.
Discounting the occassional clinker, the resulting remarks will always
have the same bias, tone, and philosophy of the group.
A computer rule called 'GIGO' applies to writing groups;
Garbage In Garbage Out. Like a machine if you give them something outside
their parameters chances are the result will be less than satisfactory.
Listen to everything but learn to heed the voices who best
represent your own thinking. Make sure that those in agreeance are truly
helping you to improve and not giving you strokes. Some members will never
be on your wavelength. Don't shut them out— sometimes that obtuse angle
results in a viewpoint that reveals something important.
At the base of everything, the writing group is there for
support. That support will inevitably encourage you to be more productive,
and help you to prioritize your writing endeavors. Beyond the support, are
simply just great friends and acquaintances to be had. Something of great
value that goes beyond mere monetary and time concerns.
In this section we talked about writing collectives, the good, the bad, and
how to make the most of them. Some people are simply not cut out for a group but
I'd like to think they are a minority. There is some behavior modification and
some learning involved to be effective, but that's what writing is about—
learning and expressing. By and far they are valuable part of a productive
writing lifestyle, that involves healthy interaction with people likely to
become good friends and acquaintances. In the next section we'll tackle the
ugly truths of publishing industry and what it takes to get published.
