How does your writing group work?
March 6, 2012 8:35 AM Subscribe
My fiction writing group is wondering if there's a better way to critique each others' pieces. How does your writing group do it?
This is how we currently do things:
Our group of about eight people meets twice a month (in person). Before we meet, one or two volunteers submit a piece by email. Other group members print out the pieces and write notes on them (some use Word's comments, some just write them by hand).
During the meeting, we sit in a circle, and each person in turn gives their comments. Usually, the writer doesn’t say much until everyone finishes, but sometimes there’s a conversation between the writer and the other members of the group.
It works alright, but we’re wondering if there’s a better way.
How does your writing group critique?
(And an additional comment: if you're interested in joining a writing group in Seattle, send me a MeMail.)
This is how we currently do things:
Our group of about eight people meets twice a month (in person). Before we meet, one or two volunteers submit a piece by email. Other group members print out the pieces and write notes on them (some use Word's comments, some just write them by hand).
During the meeting, we sit in a circle, and each person in turn gives their comments. Usually, the writer doesn’t say much until everyone finishes, but sometimes there’s a conversation between the writer and the other members of the group.
It works alright, but we’re wondering if there’s a better way.
How does your writing group critique?
(And an additional comment: if you're interested in joining a writing group in Seattle, send me a MeMail.)
In my experience, this is how it's always done. Could you let us know what about this process is striking your group as less-than-ideal or problematic?
posted by PhoBWanKenobi at 9:04 AM on March 6, 2012
posted by PhoBWanKenobi at 9:04 AM on March 6, 2012
"Writer doesn't talk until the end" is really the most efficient way to do it. In my experience, no good ever comes of a writer engaging in a back-and-forth during the critique.
posted by Sidhedevil at 9:04 AM on March 6, 2012
posted by Sidhedevil at 9:04 AM on March 6, 2012
My company changed the way we do job interviews and I think the changes apply to fiction critiques as well.
Each person giving their overall feedback on the work generally leads to lots of somewhat vague criticism that doesn't have a lot of impact for the writer.
Instead, assign each person a specific focus for their critique. So one person focuses on character development. Another person looks for cliches and overused phrases. A third person comments on dialogue. Etc. Etc. The assignments can be pulled from a hat at the beginning of each meeting, or you can assign depending on each person's critiquing strengths.
Doing it this way gives each writer a range of specific feedback that covers the whole work.
posted by missjenny at 9:14 AM on March 6, 2012 [3 favorites]
Each person giving their overall feedback on the work generally leads to lots of somewhat vague criticism that doesn't have a lot of impact for the writer.
Instead, assign each person a specific focus for their critique. So one person focuses on character development. Another person looks for cliches and overused phrases. A third person comments on dialogue. Etc. Etc. The assignments can be pulled from a hat at the beginning of each meeting, or you can assign depending on each person's critiquing strengths.
Doing it this way gives each writer a range of specific feedback that covers the whole work.
posted by missjenny at 9:14 AM on March 6, 2012 [3 favorites]
If you're looking for something new to try, I've been in a one-meeting workshop where everyone submitted something, and the discussion was about aspects of craft as they appeared in the stories overall. It worked surprisingly well.
posted by gnomeloaf at 9:27 AM on March 6, 2012
posted by gnomeloaf at 9:27 AM on March 6, 2012
I dunno from fiction, so this may not be relevant, but here's my experience with group feedback on anthropological and other academic writing:
*It's boring to listen to one person drone through a laundry list of critiques. Instead, usually one person points out a problem and others jump in to analyze it and suggest fixes; and then someone raises another topic for discussion. Repeat. (At the end, everyone hands in to the writer their marked-up manuscripts, so we can have a good discussion without worrying that our previous effort is wasted if we don't get to make each of our points at the meeting itself.)
*Back-and-forth with the writer can actually be hella useful, but only if it's about how to improve the next draft, rather than attacking/defending the original piece of writing, which is indeed pointless. Some tips for setting and maintaining this orientation:
-It can be good stage-setting to have the writer talk first: to say what they were trying to do in the piece, and what their current frustrations are, and ask for help. Getting some stuff off their chest pre-empts writers' self-justificatory tendencies, and orients readers to be constructive.
-Opening reader responses should start with a sincere compliment, even if it's only "great font!". For bonus points, frame subsequent critiques as ways to play up, or remove obstacles to, the strength mentioned in the opening compliment. ("I felt like your chosen font's graphic, expressive qualities really encouraged a 'show, don't tell' approach, so it was a little disappointing not to see more of that in your writing. For example, in this passage, instead of X you could Y ..."). It's crazy how much this trick helps writers settle down and listen.
-If someone doesn't read the text the way the writer meant it, the writer should NOT tell the reader why the reader is wrong. The writer should THANK the reader for alerting the writer that something needs to be rewritten in order to avoid misinterpretation. Writers who forget this norm should be choked off and reminded.
posted by feral_goldfish at 9:55 AM on March 6, 2012 [2 favorites]
*It's boring to listen to one person drone through a laundry list of critiques. Instead, usually one person points out a problem and others jump in to analyze it and suggest fixes; and then someone raises another topic for discussion. Repeat. (At the end, everyone hands in to the writer their marked-up manuscripts, so we can have a good discussion without worrying that our previous effort is wasted if we don't get to make each of our points at the meeting itself.)
*Back-and-forth with the writer can actually be hella useful, but only if it's about how to improve the next draft, rather than attacking/defending the original piece of writing, which is indeed pointless. Some tips for setting and maintaining this orientation:
-It can be good stage-setting to have the writer talk first: to say what they were trying to do in the piece, and what their current frustrations are, and ask for help. Getting some stuff off their chest pre-empts writers' self-justificatory tendencies, and orients readers to be constructive.
-Opening reader responses should start with a sincere compliment, even if it's only "great font!". For bonus points, frame subsequent critiques as ways to play up, or remove obstacles to, the strength mentioned in the opening compliment. ("I felt like your chosen font's graphic, expressive qualities really encouraged a 'show, don't tell' approach, so it was a little disappointing not to see more of that in your writing. For example, in this passage, instead of X you could Y ..."). It's crazy how much this trick helps writers settle down and listen.
-If someone doesn't read the text the way the writer meant it, the writer should NOT tell the reader why the reader is wrong. The writer should THANK the reader for alerting the writer that something needs to be rewritten in order to avoid misinterpretation. Writers who forget this norm should be choked off and reminded.
posted by feral_goldfish at 9:55 AM on March 6, 2012 [2 favorites]
I did four years of workshops, and I like this advice the best:
Instead, assign each person a specific focus for their critique.
posted by KokuRyu at 10:52 AM on March 6, 2012
Instead, assign each person a specific focus for their critique.
posted by KokuRyu at 10:52 AM on March 6, 2012
In my script group, the person to be read sends out their work a week ahead of time. During that week members read the submission and type up their notes, which they then bring to the group meeting. Then everyone goes around and says what they thought was working, and then what they thought needed work. The author doesn't speak during this time, but takes notes. Then when everyone's had their turn to speak, the author gets to ask questions, etc of the group as a whole, and then we have about 45 minutes of just plain discussion.
It works great!
posted by np312 at 9:33 PM on March 6, 2012
It works great!
posted by np312 at 9:33 PM on March 6, 2012
I'm in a fantastic writing group. We do pretty much what you do, but we hired a professional to facilitate.
He is a writer himself, and a professor at a local college. He tries exercises on us that he'll use in his classes and gives us exercises that have previously worked well for him. He sends us readings. He has a perspective we all lack.
(We also each write a 100-word piece for each session. It's fun and lets us play around with a tiny, risk-free work.)
posted by booth at 8:22 AM on March 7, 2012
He is a writer himself, and a professor at a local college. He tries exercises on us that he'll use in his classes and gives us exercises that have previously worked well for him. He sends us readings. He has a perspective we all lack.
(We also each write a 100-word piece for each session. It's fun and lets us play around with a tiny, risk-free work.)
posted by booth at 8:22 AM on March 7, 2012
« Older How can I find the right career, settle down, and... | The Best Vintage Store You Don't Know About Newer »
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by cmoj at 8:50 AM on March 6, 2012 [1 favorite]