As I am driving down out of Sardine Canyon, and contemplating the reactions my last thread on this subject generated, I tried to really clarify in my mind exactly how I felt about amateur group critique, and what value it had (if any) in the life of an aspirant writer. Very few of us (at first) will have access to professionals on a common basis, so amateur group critique is what we're stuck with; assuming one MUST go that route.

One annoyingly common meme I see is that all beginners MUST submit their work to the critique group FIRST, before putting it out on the market. That way, the group can spot the flaws, the flaws can get fixed, and the piece has a much stronger chance of selling than it originally did.

Or at least that's conventional wisdom.

I take the opposite view. Don't submit to the group FIRST, do it LAST. Or, at least, do it when the manuscript has accrued enough rejections and enough time has passed that you begin to wonder where its warts are. It didn't sell, so it probably has some. So instead of retiring the manuscript from circulation without comment, put it to the group. As a sort of literary post mortem.

You know the story is pretty much dead. Use the group to try and figure out what killed it. That way you have no worries about losing voice, because you don't necessarily intend to re-draft. You're already working on new material anyway. You want to know "cause of death" for the previous work, so that you can incorporate lessons learned into the new work.

My favorite coach in the NBA is Jerry Sloan. My favorite quote from him is, "Play forward." Don't dwell on the past. Don't dwell on what you should have done right in the game you just played. Examine what you did right, and what you did wrong, and apply this knowledge to the NEXT game. Because there is always a next game. And the next game. And the next game after that. And so forth. Jerry loves guys who can "play forward" and this philosophy is very much consistent with the Army AAR I talked about in the other thread.

So I apologize to those who might be saying, "Who is this Brad a--hole and why is he such an outspoken jerk?"

I'm a nice guy. Really. I just get blunt. Too blunt for polite company, sometimes. It's nothing personal. It's just when I feel strongly about something, I tend not to pick my words as diplomatically as I should.

For my part, I don't disagree with the "get it out the door" method, but I also like to have a couple of "fresh eyes" look at it. Sometimes they point out only small stuff, sometimes they ask a question that's answer--as Unwritten put it--sends ripples throughout the story.

I guess I've never had the "voice" problem. Sometimes people question the prose, if so, I look. I don't change the voice, just maybe clarify it. Any advice that I feel goes against the voice, character, or PoV I disregard. There are different levels of critiques, and sometimes the only value is a trouble-spot that the critiquer can't possibly identify, but the trouble-spot is usually valid. Any critiques I do, my sole intent is to help.

If I stop forward progression on a story, it is seldom the result of a critique so much as a thought that provokes me to change everything. If so, I get inspired and feel it's for the better.

My professional publication is a multi-restart. I liked one idea, but there wasn't enough to sustain an entire novel, so I tried again as a short story, but it still felt padded. As a flash fiction piece it just felt right, and I had to make a few changes for that to be smooth...but once I was satisfied, it flew. Of course the editor suggested a couple of samll changes, and I easily complied with all but one--which I did change, just took a different angle.

Anyway, Brad, as you said--and Anthony, though he was insulted--there are many writers and many paths to success. Some take the scenic route because it agrees with them better, some choose the well-worn path. Neither is wrong.

Finally someone to tick off the Hatrackers to get the heat off of me.

A wise idea to repost and retry your thoughts. And I suspect most of us don't think...

quote:

---

"Who is this Brad a--hole and why is he such an outspoken jerk?"

---

A critique site is full of outspoken jerks. We may have thought of you as pompous and preachy, but an a-hole? Come on now, give us amatuers a break.

You may put less value on a critique group as the majority of us. That's okay. However, if you are trying to sell your brilliant works of wisdom, I would like to point out you'll need readers. And a critique of amatuer writers are readers of Sci-fi and Fantasy first. (Hopefully your posts weren't a marketing tactic).

So if you're after finding out whether your soon-to-be Hugo-award-winning story is capable of attracting an audience, this is a good place to test it out. Face it, stroking some potential future readers is a good idea.

Or as another world conquering entity said...

Resistance is Futile

I rather like, though, that there are people at all kinds of levels here. I get to have a lot of different kinds of feedback, and I enjoy that very much. I also like feeling like I have contributed (even if it's just a bit) to someone's success.

I agree that there are writers who worry a piece to bits, until there's nothing left but some random combinations of words that someone else helped them write.

But what I hear you saying in these posts is to not workshop your stories at all. Send them out! Let the editor be the arbiter.

Well I read slush for an online pro-rate webzine and I have to say - Workshop your stories! At least to find the typos and plot holes big enough to drive a truck through. Learn the craft. Get better at it each time.

Don't workshop them to death. Don't second-guess yourself about plot direction, pacing, characterization, style.

Do fix grammar, poor or inadequate characterization, sluggish pacing, pacing that's so quick as to induce whiplash, typos--including the ones that spell check doesn't find because the word is spelled correctly but is simply the wrong word. Slips by all of us once in a while but if you have more than a few I'll think you're sloppy, don't care enough to check your own work, and I'll reject as a matter of principle. Lucky for everyone I'm just one of the staff readers and not the final say, but figured it was worth mentioning...

There are so few absolutes in writing, I have to say I don't agree with yours in this case.

I have an in-person writer's group that I really enjoy, even though I don't get much in the way of critique from them. They're a good bunch of people in varying states of publication and I look forward to our gatherings as a way to check in, get ideas on market, talk about the craft, and share in each other's triumphs. They're such an interesting bunch - a travel writer, a thriller novelist who makes his living via non-fiction writing (advertising/PR), an oral storyteller, an award-winning poet, a nuclear engineer, a software engineer/aspiring video game designer, etc. If nothing else, going to meetings gives me so much fodder for stories that it's worthwhile for that reason alone.

Not all writer's groups are created equal.

So are you here to just vent?

If a writer's productivity goes down, for whatever reason, he or she has only herself to blame. To blame it on others is to abdicate responsibility for oneself and one's actions.

If you're willing, we could help you learn to react to crits in a productive fashion and not be a slave to them. But if you're just here to vent, I'll say no more.

I spent 1995-1999 working on a lot of short fiction that earned me a lot of rejections. So from 2000 to 2003 I tried both virtual and in-person critique. Because conventional wisdom says you must, and because conventional wisdom says it can't hurt. Right?

Some of the things that became apparent.

1) Very few novices are any good at giving valuable advice, and almost nobody knows how to do it briefly. This is a major problem with e-mail or on-line critting, because so many people (apparently) get off on writing paragraph after paragraph of fine-tooth analysis that really doesn't tell me anything about my story.
2) People tended to develop a "gotcha" mentality, where if you criticized something about their work, they felt inclined to retaliate. This seemed to be a largely unconscious thing, but it got annoying very quickly because it seemed arbitrary and, again, told me nothing about my story.
3) People also tended to develop a "you scratch my back" mentality, which was the same problem, just reversed. Critters who endlessly praise are about as useful as critters who endlessly find fault. Ergo, not very useful.
4) Every group invariably creates one or more "hog" members who flood the group with their fiction at such a rate as to make parity difficult. Trying to keep up with these person(s), either by reading and critting their stuff, or by generating similar volume, is difficult or impossible; at least if you are a working adult who can't devote all day every day to the pursuit of writing. As a working adult with two jobs and a wife and family, I grew to hate the hogs.
5) People kept coming back with version after version of the same story. Past a moderately adjusted second draft, I really don't have time or energy to read the same thing over and over. And Lord knows I never expected this from other critters. But some group members persist in the belief that if they just keep revising, through iteration after iteration, somehow they will arrive at perfection and then (and only then!) would the story be "good enough" to put in the mail.
6) It got depressing, month after month, sitting in the crit stew. Endless critting, over and over, and nobody sold. Nobody even came close. Before long I just threw up my hands and got the Hell out, because it felt like a bad twelve-step program. This was as true of in-person critting as on-line critting. I got very little out of the combined experience, save enormous frustration and an overpowering sense of futility.

Now, I am willing to accept that maybe I just got some bad groups.

And yes, I am also willing to accept that nobody can force me to slow down or stop production.

I just felt so jaded and poisoned after the crit group experience that I swore I'd never do it again unless I was doing it at the feet of one or more professionals. Because trying to "learn" craft and prose and story from fellow novices felt a lot like trying to learn how to be a surgeon in a room filled with people who also want to be surgeons; but aren't.

I also got feedback from professional editors (perhaps the most precious of all pro-level rejections: the slip with actual advice and commentary on it!) that thoroughly contradicted what the crit groups were saying about the same piece. Stuff the group hated, would earn thoughtful responses from editors. Stuff the group actually seemed to like, got nothing but silent form rejection.

I was forced to conclude that peer group critting at the novice level was a colossal waste of time, and it was years before I gathered the pieces of my writing mentality back together and began typing up fresh prose. I promised myself I'd never, ever, ever allow myself to go through that kind of devolving, crazy-making experience again.

Yet, the conventional wisdom persists. Everyone swears by the group crit. Everyone says its a must for all novices.

I dunno, all. Can anyone who has actually been published at a pro level step forward and share experiences or advice that sheds good light on this?

That can be a problem at Hatrack but, in my experience, not a serious one. If someone gets too verbose with one of my stories, I just skim for their useful observations.

When they say, "I did not understand the walloping whumper" they're right, they didn't. But it's up to me to decide whether to explain it further, or leave it as is.

When they ask how there are telephones in a society that has forgotten electricity, I think, "Good question. I need either to explain it or give them tin cans and string."

When they tell me how to fix something, I consider carefullly what it is they're really trying to say.

Most crits I get at Hatrack are helpful one way or another. The odd one that isn't, or is too verbose, gets quietly and politely filed--just in case it later turns out to be helpful after all.

2) People tended to develop a "gotcha" mentality, where if you criticized something about their work, they felt inclined to retaliate. This seemed to be a largely unconscious thing, but it got annoying very quickly because it seemed arbitrary and, again, told me nothing about my story.

I have not experienced this at Hatrack.

3) People also tended to develop a "you scratch my back" mentality, which was the same problem, just reversed. Critters who endlessly praise are about as useful as critters who endlessly find fault. Ergo, not very useful.

I have not experienced this at Hatrack. What praise I've received has been encouraging, so much so that I certainly submitted two stories to markets earlier than I otherwise would have done.

4) Every group invariably creates one or more "hog" members who flood the group with their fiction at such a rate as to make parity difficult. Trying to keep up with these person(s), either by reading and critting their stuff, or by generating similar volume, is difficult or impossible; at least if you are a working adult who can't devote all day every day to the pursuit of writing. As a working adult with two jobs and a wife and family, I grew to hate the hogs.

Hatrack has an open attitiude towards critiquing obligations, more of an honour thing than demanding everyone crits everything. While some people use the Fragments areas more than others, you're not obligated to read or crit anything. If you regard anyone as floding the group, you're free to ignore them and it's easily done.

5) People kept coming back with version after version of the same story. Past a moderately adjusted second draft, I really don't have time or energy to read the same thing over and over. And Lord knows I never expected this from other critters. But some group members persist in the belief that if they just keep revising, through iteration after iteration, somehow they will arrive at perfection and then (and only then!) would the story be "good enough" to put in the mail.

I haven't seen that often at Hatrack, maybe one or two revisions at most. (If I saw it, I'd either comment that enough is enough, or quit critting that story.)

6) It got depressing, month after month, sitting in the crit stew. Endless critting, over and over, and nobody sold. Nobody even came close. Before long I just threw up my hands and got the Hell out, because it felt like a bad twelve-step program. This was as true of in-person critting as on-line critting. I got very little out of the combined experience, save enormous frustration and an overpowering sense of futility.

Not true at Hatrack. See Hatrack writers in print:
http://www.hatrack.com/forums/writers /cgi/forumdisplay.cgi?action=topics&forum=Hatrack+Writers+in+Print&number=12&DaysPrune=45&LastLogin=

I've personally gotten much out of the "amateur" crit process--encouragement, insight into what works in my stories and what doesn't, better writing style, etc, etc. Most of all, perhaps, my confidence has been increased by this experience, not flattened. Mind, one or two crits I have received could have demotivated me, because they were unkindly put; I've learned to ignore the odd oaf and concentrate on crits from people I respect.

I'm sorry you've had bad experiences in the past and hope that at Hatrack you'll enjoy giving and receiving constructive crits and encouragement.

We have several informal things going on that help writers through from concept to market:

Critting first 13s helps us write engaging openings--and, in fact, to write the whole thing in an engaging way that keeps the reader turning the page from the first few lines to the next, and the next, ...

There are flash and sudden fiction contests from time to time to help us discover new story ideas and hone our craft.

There's the Ready for Market challenge, to help us get stories polished for market. And there's the Race, for that final encouragement to quit the critting and revising loop and submit it.

I think there is a danger of falling into a feeling that one has to satisfy all one's crits before submitting: somehow one has to build one's self confidence and avoid the trap. There's also a danger of getting into a thing of talking about writing instead of doing it, and trying to impress with writerliness instead of a decent story. These are traps for each of us, as individuals, to avoid, and perhaps help each other to spot. One way to do that is to learn whom to listen to, and tolerate the rest.

While I've only been writing fiction for a short while, I've been writing technical stuff professionally for decades. I've learned that no matter how good I get, there are always times when what I wrote ain't what some people read: I can always be misunderstood. So I think KayTi's right when she says that one should always workshop stories, just to find where they're badly wrong. It's quicker than waiting for a rejection, more effective than a form rejection, and a good way of making sure one submits one's best work for publication.

That does not mean satisfying every comment. I have some comments to the effect that the reader hated or did not understand the ending--and that's okay. If a story arouses strong feelings, maybe it's a good story despite being despised.

Cheers,
Pat

[This message has been edited by TaleSpinner (edited September 19, 2008).]

I will admit that my own experiences of in-person critique groups were similarly bad (and also bad for other reasons), which is why, at least for the time being, I've given up on them. That said, my time here on Hatrack has been invaluable. Though I very rarely submit work for critique (mostly owing to the slow pace I write at most of the time), I learn so much from the discussions here and from reading the critiques of others' work in F&F as well. The key thing to that learning, though, has been an openness and willingness to learn from it all. You have to have that before you can learn from this place.

So, all that said, I have to ask you this, Brad. If you have so little respect and use for group critiques, why are you here? Why did you join Hatrack and why are you posting here? You must have had a reason, but it looks to me that it isn't to get advice from us, given your own stated opinion. What is it?

I didn't realize Hatrack was a nexus for peer crit until I'd already arrived.

And then, of course, I'd shot my mouth off. Like running into a room full of Red Sox fans and yelling, "Go Yankees!"

Well, welcome here. I hope you are able to take something helpful away from this place. As I said, it's been very helpful to me.

quote:

---

And then, of course, I'd shot my mouth off. Like running into a room full of Red Sox fans and yelling, "Go Yankees!"

---

I've generally been of the school-of-thought that you send it out to market first, get a rejection or twelve...then you pass it on to some writing friends for commentary...and then, unless you learn something specific that will really improve the story enough to send it out again, you pick up what you learn and make the next one better.

On the other hand...

When I was involved in Internet Fan Fiction, I also got involved in their critiquing circuit. There, I'd send some of my things off for comments first and then send the final version out for posting. I think I learned a lot that way, too.

The first is what type of critiquers are you looking for? It seems that Brad has definitely been in critique groups of writers, not simply readers. While I understand how hard it is to find someone willing to read who is not a writer, and give unbiased, and good feedback, it is also useful if you can find such readers. They don't get all tied up with the writing side, and usually see the story clearer.

Another type of critiquer is the fellow author, which unfortunately, we're all aware of. The problem with critiques from this group is that the story gets trashed, sometimes for no good reason. As alluded to earlier, part of the cause of this is that the critiquers are not on the same level as the author.

If an Author has reached the point in their writing where they have found their voice, and know how to communicate their stories to the reader, then the only thing left really is the story elements, like plot and character. Basically, does the story work and why, or why not. Critiqueing an author's style when they've reached this point is pointless and counter productive. Unfortunately, if you do not have authors on your level or above critiquing your work, this is the kind of critique you will often receive.

I think the main reason for this is something someone else also posted earlier. Authors learn from critiquing as much as they learn from being critiqued, and the newer the author, the more they're learning. Unfortunately this doesn't usually help the author very much, since the critiquer is the one doing the learning. The useful things from a lower skill level critique though, are the same as from a higher level one. Does the story work, and why or why not. Of course, if there's none of that in there, then the critique is useless to the author.

quote:

---

Sometimes they point out only small stuff, sometimes they ask a question that's answer--as Unwritten put it--sends ripples throughout the story.

---

That Unwritten can be so profound. It's nice to know someone is listening. My kids certainly aren't.

I think this statement should encompass the heart of this debate. I have at times felt like Brad, that certain critics are looking too hard for something wrong. However, I always appreciate it when someone gives me feedback, positive or negative. I don't always bow to every suggestion, but I find it rewarding to question what I have written using someone elses viewpoint. I always know what I mean, at least I think I do. But this might not always be clear to others.

I have had critics tell me or someone else that a story is changing tense when it's not or using passive structure when it's not. I do not shout, "Foul! You're wrong!" What I do is look at what I've written and see what made the critic say this. Sometimes I find it is true or at least confusing, other times I dismiss it.

I try to question everything. I am the ultimate skeptic, but I love science fiction and fantasy - a cognitive dichotomy. I don't necessarily agree with everything that is stated here. I have not completely bought into the whole 13-line thing. If the words on the page engage me, I personally do not need a hook to continue reading. What do I mean by "engage"? I look at word use, flow, meaning, syntax, and story. Any of these could engage me - some more than others.

quote:

---

And when it comes to amateur critique, I obviously have some very strong feelings and opinions. Mostly because I feel like my participation in amateur critique is part of the reason my production plunged in the earlier part of this decade. It got so bad I almost gave up. And I wasted a lot of time producing next to nothing.

---

The problem seems to me isn't in the critique, it's in over-reacting to it. One of the biggest hazards I see with young writers is that they take the critique personally, like it's a comment on what a crappy writer they are and that they should just give it up. You HAVE to be able to separate your confidence in your ability to TELL a story from the story itself.

Granted, some people are tacky when they review and personalize their comments. Not everyone has skill at offering critique. A balance is important between "I like this passage because..." and "this doesn't work for me because...."

You have to sift the wheat from the chaff... if the critiques are not offering valuable comments, then find a new critique group.

quote:

---

FYI, D.W.S. weighs in:

---

You secretly have a shrine to this guy, don't you?

I found some of his advice contradictory. He started an amateur crit group...and all of them are now published. How does that support his claims? Always looked to more experienced professionals...how do they get to be experienced? Frankly, there is a writer out there that will back every method described.

I don't necessarily agree that you shouldn't have anyone look a manuscript over and help clean it up. Sure, if they are trying to tell you how to write it, instead of pointing out weaknesses in the plot, typos, trouble spots from pacing or phrasing (they didn't understand the writing), there is a problem. But, that's not the case, here. Nobody here has told anyone to stop and back up--and I have never received "I don't like aliens, I like Unicorns and Elves". The closest to that is : I don't like horror, so I wouldn't be a good critiquer. And, that's helpful. Mostly what I've seen is:

• Typos pointed out.
• Trouble spots (in phrasing)
• Cliché Alerts.
• Pointing out plot holes
  

There are always some nits (personal items), but are usually labeled as such.

If you look at every crit as law, you'll never get anywhere. But if you look at trends, it'll make you smoother. I, personally, appreciate everytime someone catches a typo, cliché, plot hole, or trouble-phrasing--of course, maybe what helps is, I only send out first drafts. Once I polish, I'm done. I don't change the voice...because I'm a stubborn @$$ (in case you haven't noticed).

Say what you will, show all the links and authors you want, but I've improved by leaps and bounds since I've been at Hatrack (and Liberty Hall), and have been professionally published since. So, I'm not going to drop what I'm doing until it stops me from getting anything done.

Good luck to you. I hope you find you method; which is a hope I have for us all...

First, I take them all into account because, although some of the writers may be new, since they're at Hatrack they're probably representative of my target (F&SF) audience--and they're articulate.

Second, I let their comments sit for a while. Sometimes they make more sense when I have some distance from the work, and can see what they're really saying. Sometimes I look behind what they say the problem is, to the root problem that caused their comment.

More profoundly: I read a while ago a piece by Stanley Schmidt in Analog, where he said that strong stories generate strong reactions, both positive and negative.

In reviewing crits of some of my stories recently, I've noticed that certain aspects get praise from some, bemusement from others, and outright dislike (they're too polite to say they hate it) from a few. I'm actually happy with that, because if the story is strong enough to rouse strong feelings of dislike--for example, for a character's views--it will raise similarly strong feelings of empathy in those who agree with the views expressed.

Another example: one reader said she although she liked a story she did not understand it. Others got it. So I'm planning on making it no clearer in the revision, because I like the idea that it somehow bewitches. I suspect that, if she really did like it, sooner or later she'll figure it out and I hope that will be more satisfying.

Accepting strong dislike and not making a story likeable for everyone; leaving a story clear for some and bemusing for others--these are just two of probably many ways of making the most of crits without becoming a slave to them.