Rules for a Writers' Group

[anderclayton]

So when we get the group/forum/whatnot going, what are some rules for critiquing?

This is in response to this post:

Of course, the basic one is "critique the manuscript, not the author."

I also tend to be a gentle critic -- even stuff I hate, I try to find something positive about. (I have never even come close to getting the Grinch Award at Green Man Review.)

Maybe we should spend some time working on ground rules.

Bob

So I'd start the rules off with:

1. Critique the manuscript, not the author.



edited because I couldn't figure out how to spell "critiquing"

[anderclayton]

Also:
http://www.eaforums.com/forums/showpost.php?p=403950&postcount=37

Critiquing is certainly something I can do--provided we have ground rules ahead of time. One of the reasons I tend not to critique other people's work is because I give them what I consider a professional opinion only to discover that what they wanted was validation.

Now, I'm a very gentle editor (in terms of how I share criticisms) but I can also be very thorough.

I do give the sort of feedback that I would love to be able to receive.

I sort of like the ground rules that the Untitled Writers Group has:

http://leutheuser.com/writing/rules.html

Granted, most of them aren't practical for an online group, but I like the personality/feel that goes with it.
__________________
Bridgette

[rmthunter]

I'm thinking about it.

[Redlass]

I think we need to have some sort of rules about accepting critiques. Nothing will shut down critiques quicker than having them be responded to in a highly negative or argumentative fashion.

I think we have to agree that we will accept the critiques (which doesn't mean we have to agree with them) professionally and not snipe at the person doing the critiquing. This can be a very difficult thing for writers to do.

One of the things I do when I first receive an edit is to lock myself in my office and go ahead and argue with the words on paper. Then, when I've gotten out all my argumentative side, I look at it again, prepared to make the changes. Once my ego is sated and set aside, I usually see that the editor has done wonders at improving what I wrote.

[AuntieEmma[$]]

In the face-to-face groups and workshops I've been in, the general rule was that the writer whose work was being critiqued had to listen and couldn't respond until everyone had had their say. The idea was to prevent the process from getting sidetracked by the writer's natural tendency to want to argue and explain, with the result that the writer's attention wouldn't be focused on the critiques themselves, but more on his own reaction to them (or in a worst case scenario, as Redlass said, the whole discussion could come undone). So the basic structure was that the discussion would go around the room or table, and one person at a time would give their critique (based on what they had prepared beforehand) for a couple of minutes. After everyone had their say, the discussion would open up, and everyone, including the writer, could participate at the same time, and could talk about (and argue about) other people's critiques and comments, as well as about the story itself.

Not sure how to translate this into an online format. Maybe have a day for posting critques, and hold the discussion until everyone who is participating had posted theirs?

[rmthunter]

AuntieEmma said

Not sure how to translate this into an online format. Maybe have a day for posting critques, and hold the discussion until everyone who is participating had posted theirs?

I rather like that idea. I'm not sure how they do it at Scribe's, since I'm not eligible for critiquing yet, but that seems a sensible way to go about it.

Bob

[anderclayton]

I think you could separate these into "Ground Rules" and "Format" possibly. I think the format might be still a bit ambiguous. Are we just mailing everyone a copy of the work or posting it online?

Also has anyone talked to Amy about this stuff?

I like the idea that we should try to say at least one positive thing about a piece (from Bridgette's link). In general the groups I've been involved with have tended towards the positive side of things but I can envision the possibility of the totally negative group (and I have seen some pretty rough critiques before)

I like the idea of minimizing author involvement until a set time (possibly until others have all had their say). I'm not sure how feedback is going to work though in general. Are people just posting feedback after which others can then respond with I Agrees (or disagree or discuss further or whatnot) or is everyone just posting their own feedbacks which people then discuss with the author?

Ander

[rmthunter]

The link that Em posted earlier sets it up so that everyone has three minutes to comment on the MSS. The author has three minutes at the end. The only interruptions allowed are "I agree" and "I disagree."

I guess the way this might translate online is that people actually sign on to critique a piece; then you have, say, a week to write maybe a 200-240 word critique, unless the piece is so fabulous all you can think of to say is "WOW!" Then the author responds with quotes? Or perhaps the author could respond to each individually? And maybe we should suggest that the author take a day to think about responses? Just to get past the defensive/rationalization stage.

(One of my basic premises here being that if you have to explain what you were doing, you didn't do it right, but you're going to want to defend yourself anyway. It's like being told your child is ugly.)

The problem with e-mail is that it's either one-on-one with no real group input, or you have to put together an e-mail group, which can get unwieldy -- can you imagine the e-mails flying back and forth with people commenting on comments, all of them going to five or six people and those five or six responding?

I haven't talked to Amy -- I didn't want to do that until we actually had a group -- but I still think we should have a private forum for critiques and for reader groups. The discussion forums, I think, anyone can join in. How does anyone feel about a waiting period before people are admitted for critiques? At Scribe's it's six weeks as a regular poster before you can put something up for critique, which makes a certain amount of sense -- they do it to avoid people just barging in a plopping down something for comment and then disappearing. (Those of us in the founding group, of course, get to submit stuff for critique immediately.)

Bob

[anderclayton]

I wasn't suggesting having the whole group on e-mail. Just the initial manuscript. That way there definitely wouldn't be a problem with any sort of publishing online and it might be a bit more convenient intially. Shrug. It was a thought anyhow.

Ander

[rmthunter]

That certainly simplifies matters. Yeah, that makes good sense -- I like that idea.

Bob

[anderclayton]

Hmm...

Here is another set of rules from an online writing group:

http://www.critters.org/rules.html

They have a no objections to criticism rule (clarification but not objection). Personally I've mixed feelings about it. On one hand I don't exactly care if someone objects. On the other, it might make a difference in critiquing other stuff by the same author.

Ander

[anderclayton]

Actually the critters thing has a couple of interesting essays on critiquing diplomacy too.

[rmthunter]

http://www.critters.org/whathow.html

I'd add this one to our rules -- it's the "How You Say It Page," which I find excellent. (Pity we didn't have something like this for the Soapbox.) It also has links to the others you mentioned.

I think you are right: we really are talking about "ground rules" and "format."

OK --

Under "Format" I suggest:

We will critique completed short stories, poems, completed articles, chapters or sections of novels, sections of scripts or one-act plays. Pieces for critique should be in the range of 5000 words or less. We can do longer pieces if the group agrees, but let's keep it within reason -- a 5000 word story runs about 15 pages of manuscript, double spaced.

For chapters of novels, the author should provide at least a rough outline of the full work along with the chapter in question, or enough background to give the critiquers a sense of where the chapter fits into the story.

Do we want to get into critiquing full novels? Is anyone there yet? That's going to require special arrangements.

Pieces are e-mailed to members or posted on our someday-to-be-achieved restricted forum. Actually, the more I think about it, the more I like the idea of e-mailing the pieces to the group.

One week is allowed for submission of critiques.

Critiques should be posted in a thread under the title of the piece.

Critiques should run at least 200 words (that's not really a lot) and no more than 500 words -- brevity is the soul of wit.

Authors wait until all critiques are received before responding. (We may need a sign-up list to be sure who is critiquing any given piece.)

We can set up separate reader groups for informal comments on manuscripts. What we are looking for there is not a formal critique on the craft, but a sense of how a reader will react.

Under "Ground Rules":

This is all about constructive criticism. We are here to support each other and to learn from each other. Keep that in mind.

It is assumed that we all proofread our work before submission and we know the rules of English usage. (Assuming we are going to be dealing with MSS in English.) It is assumed also that the piece is ready for a critique -- this is what you're holding up to scrutiny, and "I'm still working on that part" is not going to fly.

It is also assumed that we are not going to be nitpicky about commas and such unless it really affects the reading of a passage. That's a personal style issue. (Besides, I really, really hate people messing with my punctuation.)

Don't make excuses for your piece. If you have to do that, it's not ready.

Critique the manuscript, not the author.

Act like an adult.

These are critiques, not love-ins. If you have something good to say, great -- do it. If you have a criticism, say that too (but see next rule). I maintain that to learn, you not only have to know what you are doing wrong, but what you are doing right.

Remember that how you comment is really part of your critique; make suggestions, don't point fingers. Also, read this: http://www.critters.org/whathow.html

In case someone should submit something that in your opinion has no redeeming qualities, take a pass -- but notify them or us that you won't be critiquing it. (I don't really expect that to happen here, but we all hope that this will continue and grow, right?)

Stick to objective criteria. If there's something you personally object to or find difficult to deal with, state that qualification clearly in your critique.

We are working on the craft of writing. Comments about the content of the piece are marginal at best, and should be thought through very carefully before being expressed (see previous rule), and should be expressed only insofar as they affect the quality or interpretation of the piece. This is not the Soapbox. If you find something morally or politically objectionable about the piece to the extent that you can't make a reasonable comment (a reasonable comment would be: "Can you support this statement with facts? It is not clear whether it is personal opinion." for a nonfiction piece), take a pass on that one. If there are broad categories in which you don't feel you can make objective comments, let us know about it. (How do we feel about erotica?)

Authors, of course, reserve the right to ignore any suggestions.

Please offer comments and amendments.

Bob

[AuntieEmma[$]]

The link that Em posted earlier

Nope, that wasn't me. The only link I've posted on the Articles Forum threads was to the Amazon listing of John Gardner's The Art of Fiction -- which I think is such a good book that I'm going to post the link again . ;-)

I haven't read this whole thread yet, but just one comment on something I noticed:

Something quoted in the post above said

Stick to objective criteria. If there's something you personally object to or find difficult to deal with, state that qualification clearly in your critique.

There is no such thing as objective criteria when it comes to writing and reading (except for fact-checking non-fiction). I think that's really important to keep in mind. It becomes very apparent in a large groups, but can be overlooked or forgotten in small groups -- but it is important to remember that critiquers are just describing their experience as readers,and that reading is an extremely personal and subjective experience.

In fact, dealing with being critiqued IMO eventually comes down to figuring out what do you do with conflicting advice?

For example, my experience in large critiquing groups was that if I received a critique like this ....

hypothetical critiquer said

The story did nothing for me. The situation was absurd, the characters wooden and unbelievable. Sorry, but I'm afraid you just need to toss this out. There's no way to fix it -- there's nothing there worth fixing. I did like the line on the top of page 7 about the "potato bugs," though. That was very funny!! Maybe you can use that line in some other story.

... then I would inevitably ALSO receive a critique like this:

Another hypothetical critiquer said

That was the story of my life! I cried for an hour. You expressed things that I've always known, but was never able to say. Thank you, thank you, thank you!!! You are so wonderful! I will buy every book you ever write! I cherished every single word of your story, and wouldn't change a thing. Oh, there was one little thing. That line about the "potato bugs" on the top of page 7? That was crude, and it clashed with the beautiful delicacy of the rest of the story. So just take out that one little line. Otherwise, don't you dare touch a thing!!

I swear, this kind of thing ALWAYS happened, at least in large groups. In small groups, it may not be as apparent just because of the law of averages -- a handful of people might tend to agree about things more, just by chance alone -- which, in the case of critiquing, may give the illusion that what they are saying is based on objective criteria. But that's a dangerous illusion to believe in. It's not only the source of many pointless arguments and unnecessary hurt feelings, but it also mischaracterizes and, I think, trivializes the rather strange and magical relationship between writers and readers.

[rmthunter]

Must have been Ander's link.

See, I'm taking your examples as subjective responses. As in anything having to do with human beings, the boundaries are blurry, but there are certainly objective criteria on which you can base your remarks. I'm thinking in terms of questions such as:

Are the characters' motivations realistic and if not, are they somehow justified?

Does the plot grow organically out of who the characters are, or does it seem contrived?

Is the setting realistically portrayed? (I.e., is the universe believable?)

For science fiction: Is this a reasonable extrapolation? If not, does the author justify it in some way? "The sad state of Terran accomplishment in the area of genetics was due largely to the assassination of Prof. Emiius Dartwith in the middle of the 21st century by the Pure Body League. Consequently, the colony world of Newgene took the lead in this area so that major investment was directed there and not to Terran efforts."

Those are the kind of criteria I'm suggesting.

A lot of it is in interpretation, but one of the reasons for a critique is to get some feedback on how people are going to react to what you wrote. The two examples you cited really have very little, if anything, to do with critiquing, in my opinion, so you're left in the position, for example, with the first critiquer, of going back and saying, "can you point to something specific?" or just dismissing the comments. With the second critiquer, you are in an analogous position, but you are wondering what you did right. I'm trying to avoid that.

Conflicting advice? "The author, of course, has the right to ignore any suggestions."

[anderclayton]

Maybe "concrete" might be a better word than "objective"? Shrug. The idea can be expanded a bit if it isn't really clear what the intent of it is.

I'd say that to a certain degree you can give helpful advice/criticism without it falling into the concept you are talking about. I mean the fact that someone "likes" a character would be helpful even if it is only based on feelings.

Ander

[AuntieEmma[$]]

Maybe "concrete" might be a better word than "objective"?

Yeah, that makes more sense to me.

For me, though, if I did this, I probably would want an Ebert-and-Roeper-like thumbs up/thumbs down, liked it/didn't like it, it was great/it sucked judgement. (One of the reasons I gave up writing was because I thought I did ok with the details, the craft, many of the things that people might call "concrete" (or what they might, IMO less accurately, call "objective"), but STILL the things I wrote, for the most part, sucked. It was like nice body, no soul. That was very, very frustrating to me. So what I would need to deal with, if I do decide, which I haven't yet, that I want to attempt to deal with all this again, is the thumbs up/thumbs down is the friggin' thing worth reading or would your time be better spent doing something else kinds of questions.)

Which may be exactly the kind of thing that some writers would most NOT want to hear in a critique group. So, here's an idea I just had for writing-group rules. Credit for this idea should go to Bob -- I'm basing this on something he had said -- unless I'm distorting what he said, then the blame for the idea should go to me.

The idea is that each writer can specify what kind of feedback he or she wants. One writer could say, "I'd like concrete comments about technical aspects of craft, please. I'd especially like to know if you felt the relationship between Cinderella and her oldest stepsister was clear, and if you have any suggestions for making it clearer." Another writer could say, "So waddaya think? Does it suck?" And another could say, "I'm looking for support and encouragement." Another could say, "This is based on my early-childhood traumatic abusive relationship with my teddy bear, so please be kind and compassionate in your comments."

[anderclayton]

AuntieEmma said

So what I would need to deal with, if I do decide, which I haven't yet...

Join us AuntieEmma. Embrace the Dark Side

Ander

[AuntieEmma[$]]

anderclayton said

Join us AuntieEmma. Embrace the Dark Side

Ander

Heh. Thanks. I'm thinking about it. (Edited to remove whiney self-absorbed melodrama.)

[AuntieEmma[$]]

I was just thinking, maybe I should scratch that post above (3 posts up) about how everyone should specify what kind of feedback they want. I have a feeling I'm making things more complicated than necessary.

The critter's rules are ok, except that, as mentioned above, I have a problem with calling for "objective" criticism. I think doing so causes more arguments and more hurt feelings, rather than less. When you're dealing with subjective opinions, you can take them or leave them (and, since you can't please everyone, you're going to have to do both). But when a subjective opinion is presented as "objective," then you have no basis for ignoring it, unless you argue your way out of it. (I'm not sure if I'm being clear here.)

Taking one of Bob's examples -- "Are the characters' motivations realistic and if not, are they somehow justified?" -- in my opinion, that's a question that can NOT be answered objectively. What seems realistic to one person may seem bizarre to another. It may have a lot to do with their own experiences and the experiences of the people they've known. That's one reason reading is so subjective -- the reader is building a "dream" as they read, based on what the author has written but also based on their own experiences and memories. It's a collaborative effort between reader and writer. One reader's experience of a book is going to be different from every other reader's experience. There's just no way to be objective about that.

It's like if somebody illustrates a book. The characters in the illustrations never look anything like the way that you had imagined them. Does that mean that the illustrations are, objectively, "wrong"? The question makes no sense. If you tried to critique the illustrations "objectively," you would probably end up in pointless arguments where the artist would feel compelled to defend her choices as the "right" ones.