What others are saying about No Red Pen - Writers, Writing Groups & Critique
It's good to be reminded that "the basics" about how to be in or lead a writing group really do exist AND they can be clearly transmitted. In NO RED PEN, a clear thinker and an incredibly organized writer takes us through all the steps. Every teacher of writing from high school through graduate school should have a copy of Vicki Hudson's very fine handbook. I found a gem in every chapter.
Eloise Klein Healy, Founder and Editor, Arktoi Books, www.Arktoi.com, www.eloisekleinhealy@mac.com
"Allowing others to read and critique your work is not something a writer should take lightly. This smart book will help you avoid potential pitfalls and ensure that you understand the process. It is a valuable tool for writers!"
- Stephanie Chandler, author of several books including The Author's Guide
to Building an Online Platform, www.StephanieChandler.com
"A good critique group should help you grow, not make you cower. Hudson has written a comprehensive guide to forming and maintaining a cower-free, supportive, honest, and enriching one. A must-read for anyone looking to start a fabulous writing group (or wanting to fix a broken one)!"
- Tanya Egan Gibson, author How to Buy a Love of Reading, www.tanyaegangibson.com
"Learning to give and to get a critique is an essential part of honing a writer’s work. In this short, easy-to-digest book, Vicki Hudson offers invaluable, step-by-step advice on how critique partners can respectfully offer feedback so the writer actually can hear it and put it to use. This book should be required reading for every critique group!"
- Nina Amir, author of How to Blog a Book, www.copywrightcommunications.com
No Red Pen - Writers, Writing Groups, & Critique
By
Vicki Hudson
Copyright 2012 Vicki Hudson
Smashwords Edition
All rights reserved. Except as permitted under U.S. Copyright Act of 1976, no part of this publication may be reproduced, distributed, or transmitted in any form or by any means, or stored in a database or retrieval system, without the prior written permission of the author.
This eBook is licensed for your personal enjoyment only. Thank you for respecting the hard work of this author.
Vicki Hudson
P.O. Box 387
Hayward, CA 94543
Cover by Joleen Naylor
Cover Photo by Vicki Hudson
Second Electronic Edition: February 2012
Dedicated to my mother -
Susan Elizabeth Durfee Hudson
Still writing, mom...
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
First and always, my mother who never ceased encouraging me to tell stories and keep writing from when I started writing stories soon after I learned to read until I lost her, soon after my college graduation.
Those special teachers that took the time to help me grow as a writer just beginning and didn't let academia crush the writing spirit - Elizabeth Worthy (3rd grade), Alma Anthony and Rhoda Radow (Nova H.S.), and my University of Florida Freshman English teaching assistant, Vicki (Thompson?).The two professors from my MFA program at Saint Mary's College of California who most inspired and challenged me, Dr. Rosemary Graham and Professor Brenda Hillman.
Elizabeth Pomada, Michael Larsen and Laurie McLean who have created a community where writers of all levels thrive.
San Francisco Writers Conference Colleagues Nina Amir and Amos White who have each contributed towards moving my writing forward.
Mary H. Webb for sharing wisdom of writing and life and so much more.
With appreciation for the encouragement and editorial expertise of Mary H. Webb and Tanya Egan Gibson. If any errors remain they are mine alone because I didn't pay attention.
Finally, my family who inspire and support me in all my endeavors and every day remind me what is really important.
No Red Pen - Writers, Writing Groups & Critique is intended for those writers looking for information on what to consider when forming or joining a writers' group and for writers seeking tools for critiquing work in progress. This is not a how-to book for writers' groups. There is no discussion of specific craft techniques. There are other books in the market that discuss finer points of writers' group administration and many that deal with craft. This book is intended to help the reader make informed choices in the marketplace of writing group workshops and provide useful skills for critique consumers. The act of entrusting one's written work and exposing that product of imagination, heart, and soul to the criticism of others is a risky and brave action by the writer and a privilege for the reader. No Red Pen - Writers, Writing Groups & Critique provides a toolbox for conducting a writers' workshop and recommendations for critique that fundamentally respects the writer and the work.
This small book was initially a germ of an idea from many conversations with friend and mentor Mary H. Webb while I was a member of her community college fiction writing class in Berkeley, California. There I was introduced to her Webb Three Stage Method for writing workshops Later, when I entered an MFA program, my appreciation for this method grew even stronger, as the workshop formula used in the MFA program seemed to me at times to distract from the writing process, ignore healthy boundaries between the participants, and fail to fundamentally respect the writing and the writer. One instructor allowed only positive criticism, shutting down any comment the instructor perceived as negative, a stricture that fundamentally stifled growth. MFA candidates at other institutions have told me about having similar experiences to mine when their workshops followed traditional techniques. Many described their experience as brutal and cutthroat, far worse than what I experienced at my institution. I knew from my time with Mary H. Webb that a workshop did not need to be that way. I knew that the work and the writer could be given specific and difficult critiques in a respectful environment that would encourage rather than discourage continued writing as well as provide positive, affirming feedback. I encouraged her to publish her method. She encouraged me to share what I had learned.
I've also been a member of different community based writer groups over the years and found that the drama and personal dynamics of varying individuals often distracted from the group critiquing honestly and effectively. Sometimes we just didn't really know what we were doing despite our good intentions. Sometimes individual agendas got in the way. I have taken part in physical groups that meet in a brick and mortar location and in virtual online communities. Both venues have value, and both have disadvantages. When choosing a group, the writer must know what is needed at the time and what her own limitations and threshold for participation as a group member are in order to make an informed decision when selecting what type of group to join.
I was honored in 2009 when Elizabeth Pomada and Michael Larsen, Co-founders and Co-directors of the San Francisco Writers Conference (SFWC), invited me to participate on a 2010 SFWC panel about critique groups and invited me back in 2011 and 2012. One of the handouts I created for those workshops was revised and developed and then sent out into the wild, finding acceptance for publication by The Writer, as an article "How to Give Good Feedback" in the May 2011 print issue and on its website.
What I learned from Mary Webb and her Webb Three Stage Method, and from my experience as a participant in differing types of writing groups has given me insight into what works and what, (at least for me and many of my peers) does not work as well. Bringing a piece of writing into a workshop is not license for other people to subject you to a brutal, critical process as a rite of passage. Workshopping a piece does not need to be a hazing ritual.
There are many ways to give feedback, and many ways to run a workshop or writers' group. Fundamentally, the choice comes down to what the individual choosing to join such a formal or informal group (program, workshop, or seminar) hopes to achieve in the process while ensuring that the process does not negate the effort of the work. The agreement between writer and critique provider (be that instructor or peer,) should include mutual respect for the work, the process, and the participants. A process that is destructive and hostile, that discourages rather than encourages is not a method that weeds out weak writers, just one that stifles those that often have had their voices muzzled in other ways as well.
Everyone has a story. No one else can tell your story. The process of creating, refining and ultimately releasing it into the wild that is publication in the world needs to be a respectful one. No Red Pen - Writers, Writing Groups & Critique is not an overview of writing groups - it is a manifesto for a different paradigm for workshopping and critiquing. No Red Pen - Writers, Writing Groups & Critique is a product of what I have learned along my journey and if it aids another emerging writing along the way, cool beans.
Chapter 1-WHY CRITIQUE GROUPS?
Why do writers join critique groups?
Writers join critique groups for a variety of reasons. The fundamental purpose in joining a critique group is to receive feedback on your work. The intention is to improve and become a better writer. A critique group can provide its members with far more than just feedback. The critique group provides the writer a family sized community of people fundamentally there for a common goal. This is the writer's support group. These are the people that follow and support her development. This is the cheering section that aids the writer onwards toward her goals. These are the trusted companions that journey together towards publishing and getting the work out in the world. The group is the writer's immediate network of colleagues that conduct the word-of-mouth marketing campaign when the work is in the world. These are the first members of the writer's social network that click on the "like" button, follow her in the social media world, and help her get exposure by including the writer's postings on their virtual presence in the that environment. A writer's critique group is the writer's team.
Why do writers quit critique groups?
Because they are not having their needs met. Like any team, family, or group, there are interpersonal dynamics. A writer can feel like no one "gets" her writing. A writer who experiences the feedback process as hostile will tire of feeling trashed and leaving the meetings with hurt feelings. The group may not be challenging enough. The group may give genuinely nice feedback, but if the writer feels that really tough issues are never addressed and that the work is not improving, the group time is not a productive investment. The group is just a bunch of individuals, and sometimes there are too many competing goals and expectations.
Why do writers not seek out a critique group?
Fear. The writer critique group is an acknowledgement that the writer seeks more than just putting words on the page. Joining and participating in a critique group is a huge act of faith that exposes individual vulnerability. No one likes to feel vulnerable and unsure. We have survival instincts that temper involvement in the unknown and risk taking when a possible outcome could be painful - physically, emotionally, or mentally. Some writers cannot make that leap of trust to join a critique group because they fear the unknown or anticipate discomfort at sharing the very personal product that is a writer's work.
Here is the bottom line: The work not being "liked" is not important. What is important is why a reader might not like the work. Answer the question "Why don't you like the work?" This gives the writer information. And information is what the writer needs to become a better writer.
Learn to give useful, effective information. Learn how to create a group that ensures respectful dialogue between readers and writers, in which members give each other useful, effective information, and you will have a critique group that challenges, supports, and enables the writer's journey to authorship. Learn how to deliver feedback so you may deliver the strongest criticism in a manner that ensures the writer walks away still feeling good about the writing and wants to continue on the journey. Have tools in your own toolbox that make you an effective member of a group, know what is needed to build an effective group from the start or to reassess a current group to improve its functioning, or be able to recognize when a group is more dysfunctional than productive.
What if they don't like it?
A good critique, even when it includes what could be perceived as negative criticism is not about if the reader "liked" it. A skillfully provided critique does not need to say, "I didn't like your story/poem/essay." (Not to say that hearing someone likes your work isn't nice to hear, because it is nice to hear, and there is a place for that in the conversation between critique reader and writer.) What a skillfully provided critique will include is some variation on "My response when I read your work was (fill in the blank). What didn't work is..." Or, "This is what caused my reaction of..." The skilled critique provider does not make the feedback personal even when including personal details of response. The skilled provider is able to see internally what is beneath the experienced response or emotion and explain in specific terms and language the experience or impact of the work. This gives the writer information that is useful.
Far more useful than:
"I didn't like it."
"I liked it."
Remember:
- A critique group is the writer's team.
- Writers leave when their needs aren't met, the experience is hostile, not challenging enough, or unproductive.
- Fear keeps the writer from seeking critique.
- Respectful dialogue mitigates fear.
- Why someone doesn't like the work is important and useful. Liking or not liking is only interesting.
CHAPTER 2 - WHERE TO FIND A GROUP
In this age of information, there are countless ways to locate a writers' group.
Formal groups are often academic in nature, part of a program of study such as the Master of Fine Arts degree or an undergraduate creative writing course. There are hundreds of writing workshop programs that meet over a finite period of time with an established author. Many of such workshops or seminars are very well known and long running. Formal programs usually have an application process that requires a sample of your writing and a recommendation or reference from someone familiar with your work. Formal programs usually have a cost associated with participation. Often there is financial aid available upon application. Both the entry process and the financial aid process are competitive. Writing classes in person or via distributed or distance (online) learning are all viable avenues for writing development. These types of groups usually have a well established structure.
Informal groups are usually community based regardless of how community is defined. The group may meet in real time at a physical location or asymmetrically in a virtual or web based location. Members are recruited by word of mouth, advertisements in community or weekly papers, flyers at bookstores or coffee shops, or online via web page, Facebook or Twitter. There is usually little or no financial investment required of the writer who joins one of these groups. Established and successful groups may meet over years with little turnover of members. Entry when new members are recruited may have a semi-competitive element or the group may simply use an interview process or trial attendance period.
Writing conferences provide a wealth of networking potential and the possibility of meeting and connecting with other like minded writers who may know about or start a group you can connect with. Two resources for information on writing programs and writing events for formal writing workshops and seminars are The Association of Writers and Writing Programs (AWP) and Poets & Writers. Three particularly useful online writing communities are http://www.writing.com/, http://www.ladieswhocritique.com/, and http://www.sfwritersu.com/. There are many, many other genre and non-genre specific options online that include discussion and descriptions of writing resources for the developing writer. If a writer wants to join a group, the only challenge may be in finding the right one.
Remember:
- Two types of groups: Formal, often academic or seminar based with an application process and often financial investment required, and informal community based.
- Writing conferences, online resources, community papers, community bulletin boards are all places to find out about critique groups.
- Entry can be competitive.
- Some groups are long standing with little turnover or are designed for short cycles of work.
- Groups can be virtual/online or in person.
Fear is a huge reason why people don’t join a writers' group or seek out criticism, yet we know that feedback is essential to the writing process. Fear keeps writers from ever moving a manuscript from the drawer to the mailbox. Fear gets in the way. A writer venturing into the world of critique groups or returning after a poor group experience has a valid emotion when experiencing fear. Let's not belittle the power of fear.
Fear, however, can also be a friend. Fear is a little voice that taps you on the shoulder and says, "Psst, pay attention." Fear in a critique group is fear of failure; fear no one will like the writer, the work will be rejected, the people will be mean, the feedback will hurt, the process will be too difficult... There are many, many reasons to fear the unknown in venturing into a group of people, usually strangers (at least in the beginning) to whom the writer will expose her product of imagination or experience and hard work. One of the biggest fears an emerging or new writer has is that no one will like the work that has been labored over and poured out with heartfelt dedication.
"This is my heart and soul," the writer says, "Do you like it?" Meaning of course, do you like me?
For a writer that wants to improve, the first step is letting go of that fear. Recognize that the writing is not the writer's identity. The writing is not the writer's self. The writing is just words on a page that create an experience for the reader to share and immerse oneself within. The writing ( even when you are telling a story where you are the main character) is not about you, the writer.
Letting go, in any aspect of life, is just plain difficult. It is not like we have a little button to click in the brain, the Letting Go Button. Letting go is a huge psychological process. Like any skill developed over time, with practice, the skill of letting go becomes if not easier, then more streamlined, faster, unconscious in its effort.
Successful letting go requires acknowledgement that there is something to let go of. In terms of joining a critique group, the writer must make the movement from not being in a group to joining and participating in a group. When fear is the obstacle in the way of the movement, and that fear is not acknowledged, all manner of other reasons will manifest: - no time, don't know how, don't know where to find one, don't know what to do in one, the work isn't ready... If you really want to join a group, none of these issues is a true obstacle. Let's face it, "The work isn't ready." That is the whole point of the group, to help get the work ready! So, let's go back to fear and letting it go.
Acknowledge that fear is the problem in the way. If you can focus specifically on what you are afraid of, that may be helpful though it's not all that necessary at this stage. Notice how attached you are to that nice, comfortable fear? It's what you know, it's what you've been with for a while. Really, isn't that fear a little like a buddy you've had with you a long time, sort of your teddy bear for not doing things? Think about letting that fear go be on its own now without you. Oh, there, did you feel that - that little twinge of guilt? That reflex of loyalty to what you've always known?
Fear is comfortable. Fear can be cozy. Fear can be a good friend or a frenemy. You get to choose. Once you are aware of your fear, you get to choose what to do with the fear. Let it lead the way, or let it move to the background and while present, fear is not in control. Sometimes we take our teddy bears with us long after we have outgrown them just because it makes venturing out into the unknown easier. Eventually, when we are ready, we put the teddy bear away, on its shelf. You can do the same thing with that fear that gets in the way of joining a critique group.
"I'm afraid to join a writers' group." Good acknowledgement.
"I can be afraid and still join a writers' group." Now you have moved forward and started to let go.
What does fear the friend whisper to you as you move forward?
"Pssst. Be safe. Take care of you."
What is the worst that could happen?
Complete strangers who have no obligation to say nice things, won't.
Mere acquaintances, who don't know or care about little me, will slice and dice my heartfelt story.
These strangers, the competition, the perceived experts will tear me apart.
Oh wait, not me, the work.
So what enables a writer to put her work out there for critique?
Simply, have good boundaries. Like just about every other situation in life, good boundaries in a writing group keep us safe, promote civility and provide guidance for interaction. This is the work and this is the person who wrote the work. The feedback is about the work, not about the person. Not liking the work is not equal to not liking the person.
Boundaries make it safe for fear to not lead the way. A good sense of boundaries in terms of your writing means an understanding of where you, the individual is, and where the writing begins. The individual has many facets and aspects of identity. The writing is a product of the individual's work, imagination and skill but is not the whole of the writer. Writers have a relationship with their writing and like other personal relationships, the lines can become blurred. Recognize that you, the writer, are not the product, the writing. Separate yourself from what is produced and it will be easier to hear criticism. You will not take the critique personally because you understand the critique is not about you.
Demonstrating a healthy relationship with your writing encourages healthy interaction with those who would offer critique. Have a sense of self that is greater than the writing. Now when you invite critique, you are not inviting criticism of self, merely feedback on the work. Your critique readers will appreciate that as it invites honest feedback that isn't limited by concern for the writer's feelings.
Freedom to give honest feed back is not license for abuse, disrespect or insult.
Remember:
- Feedback is important, yet fear can get in the way.
- Fear is powerful, yet fear is also good as it helps with awareness and self-care.
- The work is not the writer's identity, not liking the work and not liking the writer are not the same.
- Letting go of fear is hard and takes practice.
- Acknowledge the fear is the first part of letting go.
- Fear can be comfortable.
- Fear just wants you to pay attention.
- Good boundaries mitigate fear.
- Critique is not about you, it is about the writing.
- A healthy relationship with your writing encourages healthy interactions with the critique provider.
- Freedom for honest feedback is not license for abuse, disrespect, or insult.
CHAPTER 4 - THE CRITIQUE PROVIDER
Critique comes in several flavors. Critique as part of a group. Critique written on the page. Critique verbally. Critique done by the writer as part of the revision process. Fundamental to any critique is respect for the work. Respect for the work needs to guide all aspects of critique. If you have respect for the work, it will not matter how you feel personally about the writer. If you respect the work, you will have healthy boundaries as you critique the work and not let any personal issues that may exist with the writer migrate into the feedback about the work.
"But the writer wants me to like him."
Maybe so, but that isn't why the writer joined the group. If the writer just wanted to be part of a group for social interaction, there are far easier and less taxing groups one can join. The writer wants to become a better writer.
When you take part in a critique group, you give and accept an implied promise: We will honestly evaluate the writing offered. We will provide honest feedback. What is often missing from groups or workshops is the third pillar of the agreement: We will treat the work and the writer with respect regardless of the depth or type of criticism offered. A three-legged table won't provide much stability. Here is the fourth leg of the agreement: The writer is part of the process.
Remember:
- Foundation for any type of critique is respect for the work.
- Respect prevents personal issues from infecting the critique.
- Writers join critique groups fundamentally to become better writers.
- The promise: Honestly evaluate the writing, provide honest feedback, treat the work and writer with respect, and remember the writer is part of the process.
There are many types of groups or workshops for writing critique. Before getting to the method to use in the group, first determine what kind of group you want to be involved with.
Yes, back to boundaries also known as rules. If rules is too harsh a term, think of them as guidelines or agreements for how to function. Anarchy has its place in human endeavors, but if you want to have an effective group with reduced potential for drama and mayhem, consider a few guidelines.
Considerations when going into or forming a group:
WHAT SIZE GROUP
HOW OFTEN WILL EACH WRITER HAVE WORK READ/CRITIQUED
SUBMISSION LENGTH
FREQUENCY OF MEETING
LOCATION OF MEETING
GENRE SPECIFIC or MIXED GENRE
EXPECTATIONS
GOALS
GENDER, CULTURE, ETHNICITY
PHYSICAL VS VIRTUAL
CRAFT
CRITIQUE GUIDELINES
There are likely many other considerations that would be important to consider. If they are not covered in this list just add them to your own list of concerns.
What size group?
The group needs to be a manageable size so all members receive an equable opportunity to receive feedback. The giving of critique is the tradeoff for receiving critique so how often the writer will be on the receiving end is a fair concern. This is partially impacted by the process decisions: will every writer submit and read every week or will there be a rotation process? More specifically, the size of the group impacts how much time the group has. Think of time as a resource that fuels the function of the group. How much time do the group members have between group meetings to devote to the work of creating the critique? How much time is available for the meetings? How much time is there in each meeting for each group member to read or give feedback? Parse it out to help determine how large or small the group should become based upon the varying time demands.
How often will each writer's work be submitted to the group for critique?
In one model, everyone contributes a piece to be worked each meeting. The upside of this is writers have a stricter deadline for work to be brought in; the down side is the time available in the group for the actual process of delivering feedback is rationed more significantly. A second method uses a rotation process. Not all writers submit work for critique each meeting. The advantage of this is a greater amount of time for dividing both in terms of deadlines and for receipt of the feedback in the group meeting. Using the rotation model, there is more time to spend on each work considered.
Deciding who submits when is as simple as a signup done at the beginning of a workshop cycle. The cycle spreads over a predetermined number of meetings. Upon conclusion, a new signup is generated. The rotation can also be determined by genre, alphabetical order, seniority or lack of seniority in the group, or random drawing of lots. Really, whatever method the group determines works for it. The key here is that the group decides on and agrees to a method for determining who will put forward work and when.
Time is an important resource regardless of the method used. For example, a ten person group that meets for three hours once a week, allowing for 15 minutes of administrative time on either end of the meeting, must divide 150 minutes between ten writers when all submit work at each meeting. That is 15 minutes of group feedback for each piece.. That works out to just about a minute and half of feedback per each of those nine people per piece. The numbers are not important, the formula is. Total number of minutes minus admin time, divided by number of writers submitting each meeting equals number of minutes available for each writer's work to be critiqued in the group meeting. Look at that as N(umber of total minutes minus admin time) ÷ W(riters) submitting each meeting = A(vailable) minutes for each writer's work during the meeting. (N÷W=A) Now, A(vailable) number of minutes for each work divided by R(eaders) equals I(ndividual) allotment of total minutes each reader has to deliver the critique. (A÷R=I) If the writer gets an opportunity to talk too, then R is constant to how many participants are in the group. When the number of submitters is smaller, the number of minutes allotted per piece goes up.
Two formulas very useful: N÷W=A and A÷R=I. If you consider length of time to actually read the piece, the numbers change again. Total available time (N) must be reduced to allow for reading.
Apologies to math geeks, the author was an English major.
What is the equable division of time for members of the group to receive fair and considered critique? Submitting once a month, every week, or once a quarter? What does the writer need, and what workload can the group sustain? Figure that one out and you have the answer for what is an equable division of time.
Length of submission.
This may not seem like a very crucial decision to make yet logistically, the length of the submission is a linchpin in the fairness foundation of the group. Everyone is busy. Everyone has lives and family and work obligations as well as maybe pets and hobbies and other organizations that meet and demand time. Time is a resource, and parsing out how much time is needed from a member both in the group and preparing for the group is important. Remember the implied promise is to honestly evaluate the writing offered. That requires some measure of investment of personal time so that the feedback offered is reasoned, considered, and well thought out. The work submitted must be read more than once and then carefully considered. Approach the work as you would want your work approached. In order to support that throughout the group, respect that everyone has a limited resource called time to give to the group in between meetings. How many pages can the group members be reasonably expected to read between meetings and provide useful, in depth feedback? The number of pages in a submission is impacted by how often and how many people submit each workshop cycle. Consider if five writers have work critiqued each group meeting and each writer submits twenty pages the week before their work is covered in the group meeting. That is one hundred pages of reading a week. If it takes you a minute to read a page normally plus several minutes to read critically, plus ten minutes to write a minimal critique - that is 90 minutes per piece. Or 7.5 hours each week to prepare critique for five members of the group. Do the math to figure out the logistics. Be reasonable - not too small a sample, not too large.
Frequency of meeting.
Weekly, monthly, quarterly - there are a number of factors at play with frequency of meeting. For the most part, a beginning writers' group will benefit from a more structured frequency of meetings, once a week or twice a month for example. Frequency should be determined by what the writers want or need and where they are in the writing process. Are you critiquing initial works? More frequent meetings would probably be a benefit. Are you critiquing finished drafts of complete works now in revision? Longer periods between meetings that support reading and working with larger pieces may be needed. If the purpose of the group is partly to provide the writer with a consistent structure that will both support and guide the writing, then frequent meetings are a good choice. Try once a week or every other week. Become acquainted with the demands of a writing group, of being part of a team of people that you depend upon and that depends upon you with the common goal of improved writing. What works for you? What enables you to devote the required time so that when you critique you provide reasoned, well considered feedback? Know what you can do and what your available resources are and determine the frequency based upon that.
Location of meeting.
Will you meet at someone's house? Will you meet at a local office space, someone's workplace, in a rented space (How will you fund that?) Will location rotate among members? Will you use a public space - a restaurant, bar, pub, coffee shop, a park? The environment of the meeting space influences the productivity of the meeting. If the meeting takes place in a public space, do you have adequate privacy to discuss writing that involves deeply personal issues? Is the noise level a distraction? Do people outside of the group recognize this meeting is closed to outside observers? Does every member need to purchase something in order to legitimize use of the public space? Is the physical environment too cold, too hot, or subject to the seasons? In a private space are there distracters such as dogs, spouses, kids? In someone's home, is there an issue of allergens (pet hair, cats, smoking)?
Consider that your writers' group is a form of workplace. The intent is be productive and improve a work product - the writing. Approach the location with the same intention you would have if creating a work related meeting. Find a place that is productive and supportive to the objectives of the meeting. Not to say you can't have fun at your meetings, but have fun that supports the objectives.
Genre specific or mixed genre.
Will the group concentrate on one genre or be a mixed genre group? There are advantages to either choice. A beginning group that is learning how to function as a group and learning critique skills may be better off with one genre in the group. Then all members have a common point of reference for what is being written. Science fiction writers, for example, will have the common ground of having read many of the same authors and will understand the commonly accepted parameters of the genre (the three laws of robotics for example) that someone unfamiliar with the genre may not understand. A group of poets will understand and speak the language of poetry's mechanics that might sound foreign to a novelist. Shared perspective creates a common basis for understanding, which in itself creates a starting point.
Experienced critique group members may find a benefit in the differing perspectives that people writing in different genres may bring to their work. A poet may give a nonfiction writer an outstanding critique on imagery for example. The fiction writer may be able to effectively assist a nonfiction writer struggling with scene versus summary.
A disadvantage of a genre specific group is that a group can become too insular about that specific type of writing. A disadvantage of a non-genre specific group is that the group could be too disparate with the members all speaking different "languages" and not having their needs met because their group-mates are unfamiliar with the conventions of their genres.
Expectations and goals.
Going into the group, the writer must have some level of self awareness about the group's intended purpose (goal) and its anticipated outcome (expectation). Does the writer just want people to read the work? If so, a readers group where writers come and read may be more appropriate. Does the writer want a social group? If so, look elsewhere or look for a social writing group. A social writing group is more about fellowship than the process of improving the writing. The writing is really just a reason to justify getting together because for some reason, members can't just say, "Hey, I want to hang out with writers, talk writing, tell stories, maybe share work all just for fun with no actual goal." That is a social writers' group, where critique is not the main function. Does the writer want feedback with the intent to improve and better the piece and the writer's craft? That person will make a good critique group member.
When interviewing for a group, remember the interview is a two way process. The group interviews prospective members; the potential member interviews the group. Clarify the expectations. What does the group expect from its members? What does the writer want from the group? Does the writer expect assistance with achieving writing goals such as getting a piece published, completing a novel or poetry collection, or attaining an agent? Does the writer want support with marketing, and platform building? Is there an assumption that if a member of the group reads publically, the group will show up? Will the group Facebook, Twitter, and blog about members who are attaining publishing and authorship goals? Or, are members there just for the critique, leaving the rest to other facets of the writers' lives? Does the group expect certain agreements (established expectations) from its members?
Group agreements establish a fair playing field for everyone participating. These are the group boundaries - things like number of pages submitted, standards for format, and participation expectations. Honoring boundaries creates a respectful environment. Establishing group expectations ensures that everyone knows what the boundaries are. It is important to identify the parameters the group (team) will operate within. For example, if the group does not establish page limits for submissions, then the reading process becomes unsustainable. Some might submit ten pages; others thirty pages. Do the math - if ten writers submit at the weekly meeting and they all submit twenty pages, that is two hundred pages each each week. Time is the resource that fuels the process, and if writers abuse that resource, then the quality of the critique is reduced. If there are no limits, then eventually the writers who make an effort to submit pieces that are workable in limited time frames will be resentful of those that submit mega-pieces and expect the same level of in depth critique. Consider the sustainability of this week after week.
Expectations for format: This should be a no brainer, yet there are always those that push the limit. Really, use double spaced lines on pages with one inch margins all around. That is the professional standard for submission. What about font? Twelve point standard, such as Times New Roman or Arial. Why do any different with your critique group?
Participation - If you submit work to be read, then you must read and critique work by others too. There are no free rides in a critique group. Members are on an expedition together. The price for passage is time invested in providing fair and honest critiques. In return, the writer journeys towards improvement by receiving critiques from the rest of the group.
Process: The group has an established means for conducting its process. Members agree to follow the process. What happens when members fail to follow the agreements? What is the process for leaving the group or being left by the group? Reduce drama with clear communicated expectations.
Bottom line: What parameters does the group need its members to agree to that will ensure a respectful, productive, effective group? Define them. Communicate them to everyone. Get everyone's agreement. Whether you decide on them as a group or have them decided upon by the individual who starts a group, in the end, the group must decide to adopt and accept them. As an individual interviewing for the group, find out what those expectations are before committing yourself. If the group can't identify a key process and its foundation of operation, its agreements, then it might not be the group that will give you the best experience. Look elsewhere, or start up a group if needed.
Gender, culture, ethnicity.
Are the members of the group all the same gender? A women's writing group or a men's writing group? What about the transgender writer? Do you want a mixed group? Do men critique differently from women, straight men from gay men? One type of group may create a safer environment for some writers, while for other writers this group fails to provide much needed feedback due to its homogeneity. A writer may need a more restricted membership at one stage of the work than at later. The writer must determine what components in terms of gender, culture or ethnicity will help or hinder her development and choose a writing group accordingly. The selection is not in stone. As the writing develops, the writer's skill at craft and critique develops, and her level of security and safety in terms of being part of a group develops. Seek out or create what you need when you need it. Be honest with yourself about the type of readers from whom you can't really hear feedback from right now regardless of how skillfully it is provided. For instance, if you're writing a memoir about child sexual abuse, maybe having a person the gender of that abuser in your group will hinder your process. Maybe not. If you're writing a novel based upon the south Miami drag queen camp culture, maybe having to explain the cultural references to straight males would hinder your process. On the other hand, maybe it would give you insight into where your writing needs improvement in order to be marketable to a larger segment of the reading population.
You're writing a collection of poetry that speaks to the immigrant experience of a minority faith group in the United States. You're writing a collection of essays about women's combat experience in the middle east. You're writing short stories focused upon foster care.
You're writing... You can be writing about anything. Some members of a mixed group may not "get" the experience. At different stages of your process, it may not feel safe to be in a group with others that don't reflect at least in some way your own experience. If that is true, then pick a group that mirrors what you need so you can be a fully functioning part of the group. When you are ready, move on to wider, more inclusive groups because everyone has a perspective that could be useful in critique.
Physical verses virtual.
With the ease of the internet, there are far more venues for writing groups now than in the days before virtual existence. Physical groups have their own advantages: being in the same room itself lends towards civility. Perhaps one could argue you have a better chance of getting to know each other. Those that have deep relationships with online friends however, may argue about that. Going to the meeting gets you out of the house - a very attractive enticement to the stay-at-home mom who wrangles a toddler every day. (Adult conversation, WOOHOO!) Human contact and interaction have value. Looking the writer in the eye, and seeing the body language as the work is read or critiqued provides information to the writer. A disadvantage is that the group meetings have to be physically accessible to all members of the meeting within reasonable commute distance from home or work and be in an environment conducive to the work. The internet can support the physical group. E-mail can be used to distribute work to be critiqued before the meeting or to maintain communication between meetings. The group can create a website that highlights the work of the group members, post the schedule of events, or readings, and announce calls for new members.
A virtual group, be that in a simulated environment where avatars interact in a virtual space or over the web of the internet does not require that everyone is within a reasonable commuting distance. Cyber writing groups may have members from anywhere in the world. Juggling time zones for meetings might become an issue, but then again the whole concept of the "meeting" comes into question. Use a discussion board to post work and critiques. Schedules can be posted for the review periods, when to post critique, and when the writer interacts with the critique.
Numerous writing oriented online communities exist where work can be posted and feedback received. The community itself will usually have its own guidelines for how to interact and what is expected from its participants. This can open your work to a large population of potential reviewers. Be conscious that just as in small groups, not everyone will be skilled at critiquing. Assess for yourself what the value of these groups is to you. Within these communities, there may also be means for establishing smaller, more selective groups. Certainly, this is something worth exploring if online is the way you want to go..
Craft.
What are the expectations regarding craft and craft development in the group? Will the group concentrate solely on reading work and providing critique, or will the group also provide for development of craft? Will some meetings include development work: Writing prompts, discussion of craft, or study of examples of craft; or will created work and its critique be the sole focus? What is the writer's expectation: Do you want a group that helps develop craft with a more hands on, experiential method (prompts, study) or develops craft via receipt and application of what is learned from the critique of your work? Join the group that meets your craft expectations.
Critique guidelines.
How do you critique as a member of a group verbally and on the page, or when doing a self critique for revision?. Fundamentally, this is where civility and respect must be paramount. Honest feedback must occur that is fairly considered and rendered with respect. When done right, then even the hardest information the writer might hear is delivered in a manner that is not threatening. The writer must feel good about writing, about continuing the endeavor even after hearing that the work that has been labored over so long and hard has significant issues that prevent it from being effective. There are many ways to accomplish critique, many ways to workshop writing. Is there a right way or a wrong way? Fundamentally, if the process of critique causes the writer to no longer want to write, that method is not a healthy procedure for it fails to respect the writing and the process that brought the writing into existence.
Remember :
- What kind of group do you want? What considerations are important to you?
- What are the boundaries, agreements and expectations?
- A group that can't articulate its agreements and expectations is ripe for mayhem and misunderstanding. Group agreements establish a fair playing field.
- What is the group's intended goal?
- Interviewing for a group is a two way process.
- If the process causes the writer to no longer want to write, that method is not a healthy procedure.
- N÷W=A and A÷R=I. If you consider length of time to actually read the piece, the numbers change again. Total available time (N) must be reduced to allow for reading.
Group Process-
After numerous writers' groups, writer retreat workshops, academic writing programs (to include the MFA) the best method this author has experienced is Author and Playwright Mary H. Webb's Webb Three Stage Method. "The Webb Three Stage Method is designed to protect you as a writer and as a human being while giving you the very best constructive criticism that other writers can provide. Human beings tend to cling to the negative statements made about their work when that work is very close to their heart, mind, or soul. And what other kind of work is worth the amount of time and effort invested in writing?" (Webb)
The Webb Three Stage Method takes time to learn well. It takes practice. But once mastered, it is an exceptionally flexible tool and a virtual guarantee that in discussions about people’s writing no one will sustain permanent psychological damage, be emotionally scarred, or give up the writing life because the critique experience is damaging or the individual fails to thrive as a writer. The Webb Three Stage Method when utilized in a group ensures that both readers and the writer, have a voice. Information is gathered, communicated, and supported.
The following description of the Webb Three Stage Method based in part upon Webb's handouts and assumes the reader reads her work in the group. This method works equally well if the reading occurs outside of the group meeting. Reading in the group is the preferred method.
Being able to listen to the language while the work is read aloud with the intended emphasis and intonation that the writer gives her work is very useful. If you are hearing a work for the first time, make notes when words, phrases, or lines catch your attention so you can read them back to the writer later. Take notice of your emotional responses and jot them down with reference to where they occurred or specific lines that take hold of you. When something takes you out of the immersion of the journey, take note so you can mention that to the writer later.
STAGE ONE – After the writer reads her work, the rest of the group makes positive statements about it ONLY. If you have no positive statements to make about the piece of writing, remain quiet. But if you learn to listen really actively, to try and imagine what the writer concerned was trying to say, you may find that your mind will open up and you will appreciate new ways of writing, new insights. Language should also be discussed during Stage One. When a writer hears another person repeat sentences, written images or lines that the reader liked particularly, those sentences or lines become deeply implanted in the writer’s mind. This leads to the development of a distinctive voice and style of one’s own. The critique providers are speaking to the writer, not about the writer or the writing as an inanimate object. Speaking to the person rather than with the writer as a fly-on-the-wall observer invites a degree of civility that is often missing when the writer is not part of the process.
STAGE TWO – The writer has an opportunity to seek specific information. The writer now asks questions of the rest of the group. This stage is essential for effective criticism. You MUST be responsible as a writer when you submit work for consideration and critique and prepare your own questions in advance to ask the workshop or critique group. If you fail to do so, do not be surprised when you get very little effective constructive criticism. This is where the writer can channel some of the critique towards what matters to her most. You may ask anything – about the end of the story, language, plot, sequencing, rough transitions, or whatever aspect of the work you have produced you may be struggling with, feel unsure about, or about which you just want specific input. The important thing is to have at least one or two questions prepared in advance because the process of critique is a partnership between the writer and the critique providers.
STAGE THREE – This stage is also indispensable for effective and constructive criticism. During this final stage of the group process, members in the group make UNSOLICITED constructive critical suggestions. In other words, they are not responding to the writer’s questions. These are the comments that come directly from the reader's experience and are unrelated in any shape or form to the writer's experience. These comments MUST be made carefully. The interests of the writer submitting the work for consideration are still being protected. Stage Three does not give a blanket permission to be vicious and nasty.
If you are saying things in a way that you would not like them said to you, then you are definitely failing to provide critique in a respectful manner. Civility, respect for the writer and the writing is paramount here. So learn to phrase things carefully with respect for other writers. Do not skip this stage just because it takes time to learn to do it well. Do not forego this stage because it is difficult or demanding in terms of your skills as a member of a group. Concerns you might want to raise will include: plot, rough transitions, dialogue, the balance of scene and summary, falling out of point of view, superfluous characters, faulty sequencing or pacing, to list only a few. Discussion of technique is appropriate in Stage Three. Anything that relates to craft is useful in Stage Three. Anything that caused a response in you that created a sense of "didn't like" is what you need to dissect so you can get at the issue beneath the surface rejection. This is the important information for the writer. Not that you didn't like the work. Rather, why did you dislike the work? What made you uncomfortable? What made you angry?
In Stage Three the potentially negative information is communicated. It may be that your response is "personal" in a way that has nothing to do with the craft and is thus irrelevant to the writing. What is relevant is that you had an emotional response. If this is so, than Stage Three will also allow the writer to understand this. If you communicate in a respectful manner, then the negative connotation of criticism is removed. What you communicate is just information for the writer to consider in order to improve the piece. The information is not an attack on the writer or a devaluing of the work.
A word about language -
The language you choose when giving a critique is important. Words such as cliché, trite, hackneyed, politically correct, politically incorrect, isms or stereotypes are labels that are defined differently by different people. When used, they may do incalculable damage to other people. They are shortcuts that fail to define why a word, phrase, or characterization creates an obstacle in the writing. These words are common in our culture, yet have different meanings to different people based upon their different experiences. They are shortcuts that fail to provide any real information for the writer precisely because they have different meanings for different people. They are code for discomfort or anger or a diverse experience of response.
What do you really mean? Instead of using code words, define what you are trying to express, what is beneath the easy label you are applying. Do that, and you provide useful information. Do the hard work of defining that emotional response in you, the reader, so the writer has accurate, specific feedback.
Don’t ask someone if what they read/wrote "really happened". It is irrelevant and none of your business. If the author wishes to "confess" that the work is autobiographical, that is her prerogative. The reality of the experience created on the page is not pertinent or needed in order for a reader to create an effective review or critique of the work. So don't waste your own and the group's precious time with an irrelevant and rude comment such as, "Is this true?"
In short, being an artist does not give you license to be petty, eaten up by jealousy or vicious. Being writers, we have room to express ourselves which is a extravagance. Use it with intention. If you take the time to learn and apply the Webb Three Stage Method, the process will reward you well with effective criticism conducted in a respectful manner that encourages continued writing while improving craft and the eventual product, the writing, the work produces.
Individual Process -
Perhaps you are not in a formal writing group but have one of more writing friends who ask you to occasionally read and comment on their work. Or maybe you want greater skill in self-critique so when you revise your own work, you are more productive and effective with your own revisions. The same skills apply, and you can follow a similar process when giving an individual critique as when part of a group. Adapt the group process to the individual effort.
Remember:
- The Webb Webb Three Stage Method is designed to protect the writer while providing the very best constructive criticism.
- Stage One: The group makes positive statements only. You are speaking to the writer.
- Stage Two: The writer asks questions about her concerns with the work. This is part of the partnership between writer and critique provider.
- Stage Three: The group makes unsolicited (not based upon writer questions) constructive critical suggestions.
- Civility matters especially in Stage Three when potential "negative" information is delivered.
- The personal response to the writing is unimportant, the emotional depth of response is useful.
- Language is vital. Code words have different meanings so say what you mean, define your response.
- Avoid ist, isms, and other labels.
- "Is it true?" is unimportant and no one's business. Don't ask.
- Use your license as an artist to express yourself with intention.
Download this book for your ebook reader.
(Pages 1-29 show above.)