Some thoughts on writers' groups
As we are starting out all fresh and clear-eyed and ambitious in 2006, I know a lot of folks make resolutions to work on their writing. I believe that a great way to learn about taking, using, and giving valid criticism is to join a writers' group. A good writers' group will challenge you and motivate you at the same time; a bad one will suck the life from you and your writing.
I ran a "roundtable" discussion on writers' groups at the 2005 New England Crime Bake and thought I'd share a few of my ideas about what goes into making a successful writers' group work here. Mine aren't the only valid parameters and suggestions, and of course, Your Mileage May Vary. But if you are brand-new to the concept, this might give you a place to start. My friend, fellow mystery writer, and fellow Femme Fatale, Donna Andrews took on this subject in her blog ("On writers' groups") and you should check it out first. She's addressing what good group chemistry looks like, and what I'm tackling here is a list of some of the practical issues you should think about when you're joining or forming a writers' group.
1. Who can you get involved?
Check out other groups you may already be involved with, including your local chapters of Sisters in Crime and Mystery Writers of America. There might be groups or individuals where you work, at a nearby college, in writing classes that you're taking, and at writers' conferences. You could advertise, but you'd lose control over selection, and I think that you'd better really trust and like the folks if you're inviting them from work. You should ask where the other members are in their writing careers and why are they writing? Don't commit until you're comfortable with a group's chemistry. Shop around.
I think it’s best to think you can at least work with the people in your group. This doesn’t mean you have to be best friends or even think alike. It does have to mean that you all have to be dedicated to the same goals and have a general consensus of that should happen. My old writing group was full of very different people, all writing a variety of things, and it worked out great because of our wide range of perspectives and experience.
Another major caveat is to beware of people who seem to know it all, because sometimes they do and sometimes they are clueless wannabes who will destroy your work if you let them. Finding the balance between trusting your group's comments and trusting your own instincts is critical. You can get incredibly bad advice from people who don't know what they're doing (and think they do) or from people who do not really have your best interests at heart. Pay attention to your instincts.
2. Where can you meet?
The easiest place to "meet" might be in an online chat room. Someone in your group sets up the chatroom, extends invitations, and you email each other your texts before you all "meet" in the chatroom to discuss the work. The advantages are that you can send comments to individuals in separate emails (I'd save picky stuff like punctuation for this kind of aside), there's no travel, and you can critique in your pajamas, if you like. Disadvantages include not being able to hear ore see people reading, and that is important. You don't get the same kind of trust you get from looking someone in the eye or hearing the tone of his voice.
If you choose to meet in the real world, your group should consider meeting somewhere centrally located, near public transportation, and/or with lots of parking. If you have one permanent host, that can lead to turf issues and problems defining what the group is: Is it "Betty's group" and subject to her rules, or is it the group that meets at Betty's house? Rotating among houses is an option, if people are flexible. Neutral ground, like a library, a bookstore, a coffeehouse, or a community center means no "my ball, my game” syndrome. And groups can founder because someone tries to take it over, or it devolves to a coffee klatch or personalities, so opt for as democratic and ego-sheltering setting as you can manage. Writing and sharing your work is hard enough as it is.
3. When can you all meet?
This depends on everyone's schedules, but I think that between once and twice a month works out best, and the number of hours TBD. You'll need to consider vacations, holidays, and work and school schedules to get the best average for a meeting time. Your schedule also depends on the space you’re using, whether it's public or private.
4. What do you do at a meeting?
I personally would limit discussions about finding an agent/a publisher/an entertainment lawyer until you've got a complete (clean and edited) manuscript in hand. Yes, critique groups can be useful sources of industry information, but that can distract from the real purpose of your gathering (the writing itself) very quickly. Good writing in a great story has to be paramount.
Make sure everyone's had a chance to read the work before the meeting. You can opt to have the writer read a selection of it, as well, but you should have some familiarity with the work in question before you all get down to critiquing.
When you're critiquing someone's work, say something nice first. (In fact, most of my advice about critique groups is: Play nicely, dang it!) Just saying "I love it" or "I hate it" isn't criticism. A good critic can say whether a piece worked for them and why. Try to respond to the writing two ways, one as a writer, one as a reader. Read it, and react to it on that first reading. Use examples to show why works or doesn’t. Keep your comments off the personal level and realize there's more than one way to do things.
It's a good idea to keep track of who’s been reading what and when. Make sure everyone is contributing equally, not just showing up when it’s their turn to be critiqued. Keep a record, if you have to.
I think it's important to take turns and limit time on individual responses. Some folks are naturally chattier or more agressive or shyer than others. To be fair, consider using a kitchen timer. Remember, you can always give the person a marked-up copy of their paper, with your other notes, after your time is up.
Reading your work aloud to the group is a great idea, as it can demonstrate the difference between what you're trying to do and what is actually happening in your text. You can also catch boring, clunky, or unsuccessful writing in your own work. But if you read aloud (in addition to previewing hardcopy, which I think is vital), limit the number of pages read or the time allowed for reading, to leave time for responses.
A couple of devices can help maintain order and maximize what you get (and give) in a critique session. By making the writer whose work is under discussion a “Dead Author” (meaning, she can't respond during the discussion of her work, because, she's, well, dead), this forces the writer to listen to the criticism without coming up with excuses or explanations. The writer can respond at the end, ask how to overcome problems, indicate what she was going for and ask how better to do it.
Then there is the “Masking Tape of Truth,” where an item is passed around to keep people speaking in turn, one at a time. While this can be cumbersome, it helps prevent the conversation from getting sidetracked, the writer can respond to one person at a time, and it can be used to gag overeager critics, if necessary. I'm kidding. No, I'm not. Yes, I am.
I ran a "roundtable" discussion on writers' groups at the 2005 New England Crime Bake and thought I'd share a few of my ideas about what goes into making a successful writers' group work here. Mine aren't the only valid parameters and suggestions, and of course, Your Mileage May Vary. But if you are brand-new to the concept, this might give you a place to start. My friend, fellow mystery writer, and fellow Femme Fatale, Donna Andrews took on this subject in her blog ("On writers' groups") and you should check it out first. She's addressing what good group chemistry looks like, and what I'm tackling here is a list of some of the practical issues you should think about when you're joining or forming a writers' group.
1. Who can you get involved?
Check out other groups you may already be involved with, including your local chapters of Sisters in Crime and Mystery Writers of America. There might be groups or individuals where you work, at a nearby college, in writing classes that you're taking, and at writers' conferences. You could advertise, but you'd lose control over selection, and I think that you'd better really trust and like the folks if you're inviting them from work. You should ask where the other members are in their writing careers and why are they writing? Don't commit until you're comfortable with a group's chemistry. Shop around.
I think it’s best to think you can at least work with the people in your group. This doesn’t mean you have to be best friends or even think alike. It does have to mean that you all have to be dedicated to the same goals and have a general consensus of that should happen. My old writing group was full of very different people, all writing a variety of things, and it worked out great because of our wide range of perspectives and experience.
Another major caveat is to beware of people who seem to know it all, because sometimes they do and sometimes they are clueless wannabes who will destroy your work if you let them. Finding the balance between trusting your group's comments and trusting your own instincts is critical. You can get incredibly bad advice from people who don't know what they're doing (and think they do) or from people who do not really have your best interests at heart. Pay attention to your instincts.
2. Where can you meet?
The easiest place to "meet" might be in an online chat room. Someone in your group sets up the chatroom, extends invitations, and you email each other your texts before you all "meet" in the chatroom to discuss the work. The advantages are that you can send comments to individuals in separate emails (I'd save picky stuff like punctuation for this kind of aside), there's no travel, and you can critique in your pajamas, if you like. Disadvantages include not being able to hear ore see people reading, and that is important. You don't get the same kind of trust you get from looking someone in the eye or hearing the tone of his voice.
If you choose to meet in the real world, your group should consider meeting somewhere centrally located, near public transportation, and/or with lots of parking. If you have one permanent host, that can lead to turf issues and problems defining what the group is: Is it "Betty's group" and subject to her rules, or is it the group that meets at Betty's house? Rotating among houses is an option, if people are flexible. Neutral ground, like a library, a bookstore, a coffeehouse, or a community center means no "my ball, my game” syndrome. And groups can founder because someone tries to take it over, or it devolves to a coffee klatch or personalities, so opt for as democratic and ego-sheltering setting as you can manage. Writing and sharing your work is hard enough as it is.
3. When can you all meet?
This depends on everyone's schedules, but I think that between once and twice a month works out best, and the number of hours TBD. You'll need to consider vacations, holidays, and work and school schedules to get the best average for a meeting time. Your schedule also depends on the space you’re using, whether it's public or private.
4. What do you do at a meeting?
I personally would limit discussions about finding an agent/a publisher/an entertainment lawyer until you've got a complete (clean and edited) manuscript in hand. Yes, critique groups can be useful sources of industry information, but that can distract from the real purpose of your gathering (the writing itself) very quickly. Good writing in a great story has to be paramount.
Make sure everyone's had a chance to read the work before the meeting. You can opt to have the writer read a selection of it, as well, but you should have some familiarity with the work in question before you all get down to critiquing.
When you're critiquing someone's work, say something nice first. (In fact, most of my advice about critique groups is: Play nicely, dang it!) Just saying "I love it" or "I hate it" isn't criticism. A good critic can say whether a piece worked for them and why. Try to respond to the writing two ways, one as a writer, one as a reader. Read it, and react to it on that first reading. Use examples to show why works or doesn’t. Keep your comments off the personal level and realize there's more than one way to do things.
It's a good idea to keep track of who’s been reading what and when. Make sure everyone is contributing equally, not just showing up when it’s their turn to be critiqued. Keep a record, if you have to.
I think it's important to take turns and limit time on individual responses. Some folks are naturally chattier or more agressive or shyer than others. To be fair, consider using a kitchen timer. Remember, you can always give the person a marked-up copy of their paper, with your other notes, after your time is up.
Reading your work aloud to the group is a great idea, as it can demonstrate the difference between what you're trying to do and what is actually happening in your text. You can also catch boring, clunky, or unsuccessful writing in your own work. But if you read aloud (in addition to previewing hardcopy, which I think is vital), limit the number of pages read or the time allowed for reading, to leave time for responses.
A couple of devices can help maintain order and maximize what you get (and give) in a critique session. By making the writer whose work is under discussion a “Dead Author” (meaning, she can't respond during the discussion of her work, because, she's, well, dead), this forces the writer to listen to the criticism without coming up with excuses or explanations. The writer can respond at the end, ask how to overcome problems, indicate what she was going for and ask how better to do it.
Then there is the “Masking Tape of Truth,” where an item is passed around to keep people speaking in turn, one at a time. While this can be cumbersome, it helps prevent the conversation from getting sidetracked, the writer can respond to one person at a time, and it can be used to gag overeager critics, if necessary. I'm kidding. No, I'm not. Yes, I am.
Some people say you should only give the feedback the author is looking for. I’m not sure about this, because I think that honesty in a response, on all levels of the writing, is important. Make sure you’re not just focusing on grammar and punctuation; I strongly think that’s something to be left on written notes, so you can focus on more important responses in your meeting.
There may be writers of all skill levels in a group or at a particular meeting, and I think you can learn a lot from reading and responding to someone who’s still got a lot to learn. Teaching him can help clarify your own thoughts. Maybe he has a skill you haven’t got and need to learn. I can't overemphasize the importantce of patience. You'll need a lot of it, as a writer.
Finally, remember, this is YOUR BOOK, not a group project. The opinions of the others might be helpful, but you’re the one who has to claim responsibility for the book at the end, so make sure you love every page of it.
posted by Dana | 2:26 PM
4 Comments:
Dana, does it matter if it's a writers' group for all genres of writing, or is it best to find one that is for mystery writers only?
Hi Julie,
I think a group with people writing a variety of genres can teach you a lot about writing a good mystery, which is really just good fiction with a particular set of expectations (e.g., at the very least, a crime will be committed). Just keep in mind that some folks might not feel able to comment on mysteries if they don't read or like them. But someone who doesn't know mysteries can respond to things like character development, pace, tension, etc., too. It depends on the individuals in the group. For some new writers, a group of other mystery writers might be the most comfortable starting place.
This information on writers' groups is very helpful. I actually was at your roundtable at the New England Crimebake and taking the information back to the group really helped to reinforce that we actually were doing the right thing. (surprise!) I've copied this section and will distribute it to the group members at the next meeting.
Thank you
Andi Stoehr
Hi Andi!
I'm glad it helped. The roundtable really got me thinking about what needed to be in place for a group, and everyone's questions helped me clarify my thoughts. The chemistry of groups is always different, and really, vitally important.
Post a Comment
<< Home