Edited to fix typo

TWICE!!

[This message has been edited by Cheyne (edited June 11, 2008).]

I've been in several over the years and this is the strategy that seems to work best:

1. Screen writers--not necessarily for their skill in writing but for their commitment, goals, and approach to critiquing.

2. Meet once a week or as often as possible.

3. Most important: Send work out to review ahead of time! The groups where you simply read excerpts at the meeting are difficult. Rather, if people are committed, they should be willing to submit (up to 10 pages or whatever) and come to the meeting having read the work and being prepared to give their critiques. I've found reading aloud just really doesn't give me time to formulate my comments.

4. Keep the meetings tight. There's tendency for people to socialize, which is fine, but you're there for a purpose--to crit work. If you're spending more time socializing than critiquing, that's a problem. If you're doing more than one person's work per session decide on how to divide up the time.

Other, perhaps less important stuff:

Agree on critting guidelines. Find out what people already know about critting and guide them to resources (critters.org has a great guideline)

Agree not to argue! Esp important for the person being critted. No qualifications about their work, no arguing back and forth with the critter. The work should stand as written. In one of my groups we came up with a nonsense word to call people on it when they started qualifying their work or arguing with critters. It worked because it was a ridiculous word and would help diffuse the situation when people started taking crits too personally.

When I've started a group I asked potential group members what their goals were and made it clear I was looking for writers interested in getting published only, and looking for people currently working on a novel. This eliminates aimless or hobby writers. Then I ask what they want out of the group to see if it's along the lines of what I want. Then I'll go through how I envision critting will happen. There are several good sources for guidelines, including OSC's Writing Sci fi and Fantasy (I think) and U. Le Guinn's Steering the Craft. Then we'll give it a go and see if the personalities work out.

When joining an existing group I follow much the same protocol. I ask what they're about, what their goals are, how they critique, and look for commitment and organization from the writers. Then I'll go to a meeting.

Even if all the elements are there, the personalities can still clash, so don't think too much on it if it just doesn't seem to work out.

A managable manuscript length or excerpt of 10-50 pages is on the hot seat for discussion from 15-30 minutes. It's a good practice to have at least two manuscripts discussed in a session. Taking a brief break between discussions is a good idea, too.

The writer reads a page or so passage from the manuscript. Then the floor is opened for discussion.

The writer is not permitted to speak during the discussion except when called upon to answer queries on points of fact. After the discussion period, the writer can ask questions, but not explain the story. If they didn't get it . . . Critiquing a critique is the worst case of bad workshop form.

Salient points for discussion are what works and what didn't work. The discussion is more user friendly when it's balanced. It's a best practice to begin with what works. Salient points should be substantiated by examples. Empty praise and shallow flattery are generally discouraged. The facilitator or another participant might prompt a direction for discussion or query a fellow workshopper for a more thorough or in-depth response when a simple compliment or statement is made.

Personal attacks are strictly prohibited and should be rigorously discouraged. It's brutal enough without making it personal. All comments must be directed to the story. For example, it's bad form to say "you did this, or that on page 5." Instead, make it about the manuscript under discussion, "The transition between scenes on page 5 jumped tracks." Offer suggestions on how to rework an awkward passage. "If a scene break was indicated by a blank line or a #, the proofreaders space character, the transition would be smoother. Avoid phrases like "It needs more something."

It's a good idea to have a shared lexicon of writerly terms. Plot, conflict, protagonist, setting, etc. If the group doesn't share one, it'll take up time to explain terms. Conversely, a facilitator would be well prepared to circulate a glossary of terms.

One valuable feature in the workshop paradigm is practicing New Criticism. See Wikipedia for a comprehensive breakdown on New Criticism.

Mechanical style, grammar, spelling, punctuation, and formatting issues are best marked directly on the manuscript rather than taking up precious workshop time to discuss. However, the first rule of copyediting is do no harm. The Chicago Manual of Style is the prefered arbiter of style for fiction writing.

In general, the parlimentary procedure for informal meetings as laid out in Robert's Rules of Order should be the guiding principles for procedural processes. Whose turn it is, who has the floor, who can interrupt a speaker who has the floor, etc.

The mss should be exchanged ahead and an agreement set up on how the critiquing will be done. While I prefer to have a group concentrate on plot and character problems, that might not be everyone's preference, especially for people who are newer to writing. This is the kind of thing that should be discussed and agreed upon.

It would be helpful, it sounds like, for your group to have at least one member who is experienced and could give some guidance or you might want to look for an existing group if this one doesn't work out for you. Sometimes you have to go through several to find one that's a good match and that's nothing to feel bad about.

quote:

---

I almost hope for the demise of the regular group.

---

Become the guy that organises the meeting and...

Make a rule that people can only attend if they bring at least 1000 words of new material. They will stop coming after a while...

OR

Tell people individually that the meeting is at so-and-so restaurant on whatever night (send each person to a different restaurant on a different night) yet make sure you turn up with the teacher at another restaurant. Then you can go, "Yeah, they have a real lack of commitment--how can I grow when they starve me of nutrients?" He should then make the solid offer...

I am here to help...

quote:

---

On a positive note, The teachers from the class, who kindly lead our meetings, have offered to let me join in on their writng group if ours fizzles out. Their group consists of several published writers in a number of genres and they meet every second month.

---

Can I just come and join that one too?

I just hate the thought of wasting my free time at something less than useful. After all, that's two hours I could be spending here at Hatrack

Oh well... I'm mucho busy these days, and doing less and less writing

I just got back from my "critique group" and if I hear on more "That was fabulous" or one more "Beautiful, that was just perfect" I am going to scream! The sweet people in my critique goup need to look up the definition of critique in the dictionary. You all have spoiled me for decent society. (That's a compliment) I honestly almost walked out.

A really good critique group can be invaluable, but so can a single "wise reader" who is well-trained.

quote:

---

I just got back from my "critique group" and if I hear on more "That was fabulous" or one more "Beautiful, that was just perfect" I am going to scream! The sweet people in my critique goup need to look up the definition of critique in the dictionary.

---

And meanwhile, your experience with the 80 yr old participant might be one example of how writer's groups are useful in non-obvious ways.

Mine isn't much of a critique group. They actually officially call themselves a "writer's support group." It suits me, though. I sometimes get critiques from them, the written ones are better than the oral ones. I think people really fear giving you honest feedback to your face. The way I have broached this with the group is to talk about a part of the story I *know* has a problem, a passage I'm having trouble with, a character motiviation that isn't solid enough, a backstory that I haven't really thought through. If I talk about a problem I'm having with the story people are very willing to jump in, roll up their sleeves, and help me address if. If I just read...well, then there we are.

We have a poet in our group who I think is looking for more critical feedback, but I don't have the ability to evaluate poetry, I just don't know it that well. So, instead I'll offer to him whatever I did notice, so that he knows what worked. He happens to use a lot of really descriptive and tangible language, so I mentioned that tonight and I think that was appreciated.

Meanwhile, a new guy came and read a (far too lengthy, sigh - he didn't listen to the group leader's guidelines and then just kept reading!) passage from a WIP of his and I broke the ice with the other members by suggesting to him that he needed to learn about "show, don't tell." and then gave an example of how to show one particular thing.

I ask for help brainstorming sometimes, and that gets me something.

But then I also get to spend 1.5 hours every 2 weeks in the company of a really eclectic group of people complete with personality tics and behaviors, authorial voices that I can almost pick out if we were to trade papers and read blind. In fact, I think I will mention that to the group leader as something to do when we do our informal summer gathering outside of the regular group meetings.

Just how much critiquing are you offering to do?

Off the top of my head, see The North Carolina Writers' Network at http://www.ncwriters.org/