The* Cardinal Rules for Writers' Groups

[naomi_jay]

*And when I say "the" I mean "my."

So, I broke my own number one cardinal rule for writers' groups last night. I said the words I don't normally read this sort of thing, so...

I personally consider this the last thing you should ever say before starting to give a critique. Back in the day when I was a poor little student in Liverpool, experiencing critiquing for the first time as part of my degree, I submitted a piece of writing that opened with an angel discussing Lucifer's fall from Heaven. One person in my group started her critique by saying I don't normally read anything with religious content because I am very religious and it usually offends me.

And I was like, okay, that's fine.

And then she said, so I didn't read this.

And that was her critique.

And I was like, okay, that's not fine. That's actually really unhelpful. I understand that people have their personal preferences in reading - as well they should - and I understand that people have difficulty with certain topics or genres for whatever reason. I, for example, would struggle to enjoy anything with a "fated to mate" central concept. But if someone submitted something like that for critique, if they had the guts to put their work out there for people to tear apart, if they had the desire to learn and improve their writing - then I firmly believe you should always do them the courtesy of reading their work and offering feedback.

Because I also firmly believe that everyone who wants to write, should be encouraged and helped to do so. Now, look, not everyone who puts pen to paper (or fingers to keys) is going to be a bestselling author. They might not even ever be a published author. But so what? If they have a passion to write, what right does anyone else have to dismiss their efforts?

That's why, after having my own efforts dismissed without them even being read, I decided I'd never use the I don't normally read this... line in my own critiques. I decided that even if the piece submitted was a genre I hated or never read, I'd still do my best to offer some constructive advice. Sure, I might not know much about space operas, for example, but I know about characterisation and worldbuilding and grammar and plotting, so I can still give feedback on those things, right? And hey, who knows, I might decide that this particular space opera has made me want to read some more. *shrug*

And yet, last night, I heard myself weakly saying those very words to another member of my critique group. Now, I want to be clear - I did my best to offer her constructive feedback. I pointed out what I felt were the weak areas and also (I hope!) the strengths. We had a bit of a to-do in the middle of my critique over a certain description that I found silly, but apart from that, it was pretty civilised. So why the hell did I finish my critique by offering up this lame-ass excuse?

Well, actually, I'd been worrying about this piece all day. I'd read the piece and knew it didn't work for me, I didn't feel any emotional connection to it, and I was really very worried about what I was going to say when my turn came to give feedback. And after listening to another member of the group rip the piece to shreds, I felt even worse about my less-than-glowing feedback. After all, other people in the group did like it and were keen to see more, which just goes to show how subjective writing is anyway. So I felt the need to offer up some caveat, some piece of reassurance that yeah, I struggled with it, but no, that doesn't mean everyone else will feel the same. Possibly I was trying to justify my own negative feelings to myself, but I also wanted the author to keep trying and not get knocked back by the negative critiques, but take heart from the positive ones.

Writing is a lonely and scary business at times. If you want to have a crack at doing it professionally, even more so. There's a lot of doubt, rejection, waiting, and pain involved. If you're successful, there's still a lot of doubt, rejection, waiting, and pain involved, and you can add a load of pressure and anxiety into that mix too. That's why I believe anyone who wants to write should be encouraged. Anyone who wants to improve should be helped. We're all in this together, guys.

For what it's worth, my other cardinal rules are 1) If someone else has already made your point, there's no need for you to rehash it in excrutiating detail again and 2) Never say I just rewrote this line for you... You're more than welcome to tell me a line didn't scan or flow for you, but please don't rewrite it for me in your style. I just find that rude.

Anybody else got any crucial rules for writers' groups?

Comments

[muninnhuginn]

Actually, I find the "I don't normally read xxxx,..." where xxxx tends to be a genre or sector thereof very useful. If I use it, it's to indicate to anyone I'm reviewing that I might not be entirely au fait with the conventions and tropes, that I maybe won't spot cliches and commonplaces. It's an admission of my own probable ignorance. (I'd do the same if I were asked to critique something in French, say, too: it's not a statement of lack of interest, but a warning that I'd be less able to spot typos and grammatical infelicities than I might be in English.)

If someone uses the phrase when (heaven forfend) they read my stuff, it gives me a clue about how a more general (and/or resistant) reader might react.

I have made the statement and I've almost without exception come to the conclusion--and stated it--that I've been privileged to have my horizons broadened by being led out of my reading comfort zone. After all, I wouldn't have read any urban fantasy without such an opportunity ;-)

But I think that's the point: being given the opportunity to review and constructively comment on someone's work in progress is an immense privilege. Folk who expose their work are being brave and generous: I do just as much learning from what I review as (hopefully) the writer does from the comments they receive.

I cringe (hopefully not visibly) when folk offer their own suggested rewrites.

My own rule (taken from when I was training as a tech. author) is never to use red pen for comments as it looks too much like a teacher's corrections on a piece of schoolwork.

[naomi-jay.livejournal.com]

Yeah, red pen is terrifying!

I think yours is a better way of looking at the "I don't normally read..." issue. I've generally found it to be a polite way of saying "I didn't like this," or something similar. But then I still carry a grudge against the lady from Liverpool, lol.

[jongibbs.livejournal.com]

If there's a place for mockery, it's not in a verbal or written critique.

Great post!

[naomi-jay.livejournal.com]

Thanks!

[alex-beecroft.livejournal.com]

I'd agree with MuninnHuginn. I would use it to mean "I don't normally read this and therefore take my criticism with a larger pinch of salt than usual. I don't know the tropes. If you've done something I don't like, but you know it's like that because of the conventions of your genre, then you know in advance that my criticism is down to my ignorance." That kind of thing.

Also I've often used it to mean "I normally hate this stuff, but yours is so excellent that I actually enjoyed it!" (Which, as a compliment, seems to have met with mixed reactions.)

[dwg.livejournal.com]

Back in my uni days, my tutor used to advise the method of "kiss, kill, kiss," for critiques, which was to find sometihng good, then go with the bad, and end on a positive note.

I have a lot of trouble with that method, mostly because there are some stories where the only good part is that they end. It's a struggle to find something to say about those, and I always worry because if I try too hard, it's like the author's going to know I'm being disingenuous. On those types of stories, I usually wind up writing a very polite, "thanks for letting me read this, I know you put a lot of effort into it."

Usually, I have a big disclaimer that no matter what I write in a critique, it's just my opinion and these are just suggestions. The author is free to implement or ignore them as he/she sees fit, because ultimately it's still their work.

[katherineokelly.livejournal.com]

Thirding the agreement with MuninnHuginn. I appreciate the disclaimer if someone who never reads SF/F is critiquing my SF/F work. I gave the same disclaimer before critiquing a military SF in a writing group because I would never pick up a military SF for my own enjoyment, and it's important for the author to know that. If I found the work boring, it's probably because my eyes glaze over when I start hearing military terminology that readers of the genre might find pulse-pounding and fascinating.

"I normally hate this stuff, but yours is so excellent that I actually enjoyed it!" (Which, as a compliment, seems to have met with mixed reactions.)

I gave this compliment to the writer of the military SF and he seemed to understand and take it positively. I mentioned that I don't normally read the genre, that it's because it's usually dry and plot-heavy while I prefer character-centric stuff, then I praised him on his writing for pleasing me with his characters. (Those more familiar with his genre would be better judges of how he was doing on plot)

[katherineokelly.livejournal.com]

she said, so I didn't read this. And that was her critique.

And I was like, okay, that's not fine...if someone submitted something like that for critique, if they had the guts to put their work out there for people to tear apart, if they had the desire to learn and improve their writing - then I firmly believe you should always do them the courtesy of reading their work and offering feedback.

I think this author's particular case, she made the appropriate choice. It's not the same at all as disliking a genre or hating a concept like "fated to mate"; for a person of faith it's intensely more personal than that.

To a person for whom spirituality is an extremely important facet of their lives, I think the comparison is more akin to a gay person's intimate connection to their gayness or a black person's identity related to their blackness... Then reading a piece of fiction that sheds gayness/blackness in a horrifically negative light and blames all the world's ills on "those n****s" or "fags." I certainly wouldn't blame a person of those minorities to abstain from reading and commenting on such a hateful piece of fiction, and I wouldn't blame a person of faith from abstaining from reading something that slams their faith or their god in an equally vitriolic way.

It's something the atheist or secular writer doesn't understand. They see God as something that doesn't exist, so they have no qualms about writing horrifically defamatory things about Him.

But to those of us who see God as our Father, it's as painful on the eyes to read this hateful blasphemy as it would be to read a piece of fiction defaming our own earthly Mums.

I could honestly listen to someone berating me and hating me personally for an hour and shrug it off more easily than I could shrug off someone hating and shredding God. I don't think atheist and agnostic writers understand that.

I wouldn't expect a rape survivor to punish herself by reading a graphic rape scene, either. Sometimes, refusing to review is totally appropriate.

[blythe025.livejournal.com]

The one rule that came to mind is one you said: Don't rewrite the text. It's really not appropriate.

[naomi-jay.livejournal.com]

I agree with most of what you say, and I certainly see your point on the religious aspect. I do feel that in a committed critiquing group, you should at least make the effort to read something before deciding it's offensive or inappropriate. I don't want to harp on about this particular lady, but she didn't read anything of my submitted piece, and I would at least have wanted her to read past the mention of Lucifer and then decide it wasn't for her. (For the record, not that it matters, but I wasn't writing anything blasphemous or anti-religious).

Anyway, thank you for offering your view!