On Staging Critique

I'm noticing a couple of trends about format.

One group asks that writers send out an electronic copy of their work for critique in advance of the meeting so that everyone can take their leisure reading and commenting on the text in electronic format and print a copy (with comments) for the writer for the meeting. This format is quick and efficient, and it saves the writer from having to decipher arcane handwriting or obscure comments (you have unlimited space in the electronic world with which to scribe your thoughts). But, the down side is that trading electronic (semi-permanent) copies of your work with strangers (and not only strangers, but other WRITERS) implies a level of trust that is disquieting.

Another group gets around this trust issue by requesting that writers bring enough copies of their work for each attending member so that each member can annotate the copy during the meeting session. At the end of the session, the annotated copies are returned to the author for consideration. However, each of these tends to have the author read the work out loud during the session. This feels like a wasted exercise to me. Not only is it intensely distracting when you are trying to read and make comments in the often poorly spaced margins (requirements to format are not always followed, and double-spacing is not a guarantee), but time is wasted as the author reads aloud what can be a 7, 8, or even 9 page excerpt double-spaced. Few people read more slowly than someone who reads aloud at a reasonable pace. I am, unfortunately, one of those people who reads aloud exceptionally fast, but this is not conducive to real-time editing. This is further complicated when ten reviewers are present and each is tempted to spend five, ten, sometimes even as much as twenty minutes pontificating on each and every grammatical mistake, dialog quirk, and comparison to some other story they have read in the genre.

There must be a compromise between these. I haven't found it existent, but I would like to. This is not to say I am ungrateful for the format of these groups. Far from it. They are wonderful. But, like various literature, each one has its good things to add. Each one has its quirks.

So, some suggestions, to pull from the best

• Hardcopies for each member during the meeting, comment them, and give them back to the author (good)
  
   
• Timed discussion for each member, if you have 10 people, 15 minutes per person per work only gives you time for one work in 2.5 hours. Plan accordingly. This may not be needed for smaller groups (5 or less) who can afford the time for a less formal discussion (like 4 hours on a Saturday)
  
   
• Meet often enough that everyone has fair time. If you have ten members, and only three get to read in each session, but you only meet twice a month, each person is really only going to get to get critique once every six weeks. That's sad if you have prolific writers.
  
   
• Have the author send a brief summary (with any background information that may be relevant) of what the readers need to know for the meeting. This should include any background story summation, notes about world or plot critical to understanding excerpts, and what the author is hoping to get from reviewers (I would like to review the dialog, I would like to review the flow, I would like to review the characterization, etc.)
  
   
• Don't have the author read aloud unless it's a dialog exercise, or if it's poetry where the way that it is spoken becomes significant. If it is a dialog exercise, strip out everything that isn't dialog for the read through. There's no need to focus on the exposition if you're trying to suss out the talk flow.
  
   
• If you are the group organizer, don't assume that it is ok to supersede someone else in the queue because you have a deadline. Ask the group. The group is nothing without the participation of the others. Consider sending your work to others for critique offline instead.

On Giving Critique

It's easy to focus on the negative of writing, but don't forget to comment on the good things, too. If you can't say anything about the prose, plot, or grammar, at least commend their chutzpah for showing up, sharing their heart and soul, and having the creativity and stamina to come up with it and Write It Down.

Likewise, don't gush about the good things and ignore the ways a work could be better. There is almost always something that can help the author be better - even if it's suggesting a possible market the writer might want to submit it to.

Don't take it personally if a writer does not utilize your critique. It's your job to offer it, their job to decide if they want to use it. If it's great critique, and they don't take it, it's their loss, right? As a reviewer, don't be afraid to let it go.

Debate can be healthy, and it can lead to good revelation about a character, a plot, a world. But, don't let a healthy debate devolve into a contest of which person is Right. There are many ways to skin a cat, and many ways to write a story.

You are not the only one there to review. Keep your comments short enough out of consideration for others that you do not dominate the discussion. Write 400 paragraphs of notes if you want, but ask if they are relevant to the writer or only to you. Comments about what you thought of when you read something are nice, but unless those types of comments are directed towards practical advice, you might want to wait for the author to ask you for those thoughts.

On Receiving Critique

You don't need to use every bit of advice that your reviewers provide. However, if you find that you are unwilling to accept any of the advice your reviewers provide, even when that advice is consistent across the members of your circle, you should take a moment to re-evaluate two things.

First, are you sharing your writing with the right group of people? If you are addicted to writing sci-fi slash fiction, and your writing group is comprised solely of people who enjoy writing light real-life drama based on bible verses and the Lifetime Network, you're probably going to have difficulty finding appreciation in your audience. But, more importantly, if you don't have respect for their taste in writing styles, plot flow, dialog, and other elements of writing that should be able to stand in criticism outside of the theme, you are in the wrong group.

Second, are you too closely attached to your work to vet it with other people? Are you unable to let go of your favorite line, or your favorite plot idea when others suggest it might not be as good as you think? Is it because you don't respect the opinion of your circle? Do you disagree with them because you feel like they are worse writers than you, and therefore have less relevant opinion? Why are you bringing your writing forward to a group if you are not, really, willing to make changes based on their suggestions? Are you seeking self affirmation, or ideas on how to improve your creative work or writing?

Don't be afraid to let go. If you aren't willing to take the advice, take a look at why you are in the group, and take a look at why you can't accept the advice. This isn't to say that you should take every bit of advice you receive and incorporate it in your writing. But, if you find that a majority of the advice is information you completely discount, you may need to find a new group or learn to let go.

Go to multiple groups and look for trends in the advice across reviewers and groups. If you see trends in the advice that are coming up, accept the advice and consider very carefully making a change. Ask questions to get more details about WHY the reviewers feel the way they do. This is more revelatory than the actual findings. No matter how much it might hurt you to admit that your baby (the piece you spent 400 hours perfecting) isn't as perfect as you thought it is, reality can be a harsh mistress. Be willing to hear her when she barks your name.