Writers' Critique Groups: Tough vs. Lite

Writers' critique groups have their own personalities. Each writers' group is different, in ways hard to define, impossible to quantify (but I'll bet someone's working on an algorithm), and so fuzzy and shifting that you can't even point out examples of it without finding, seemingly, more exceptions than rule.

I'm in two critique groups, one I joined fairly recently, for children's book writers, and one I've been in forever, for science fiction and fantasy. The word that epitomizes the difference between the two groups, is probably "fuck", a word that's fairly common currency among the science fiction writers, both in writing and speech. Among the children's writers, I don't believe I've ever heard it (and I don't miss it a bit!).

That particular bit of ugliness, though, is loosely connected with some good stuff in the SF writers group. A better balance of the sexes, for one thing. And blunter, less hedged, criticism. And a different style of critiquing, and a different atmosphere.

Like this--

Children's story meeting:

         Author reads her story.

         There's a silence.

         Someone says, "What a cute idea!" Several other voices agree.

         Hesitantly, someone says, "But maybe--don't you think Gabriella would have noticed the dog before? Or did I miss it?"

Science fiction story meeting:

         Everyone has already read the stories. "Who shall we flay first?" says someone.

         The chosen author assumes a note-taking posture and remains silent.

         The person on the author's left checks his notes. "Well," he begins, "your hero's a jerk."

You can see the subtle difference in tone, there.

The sf writers use the Clarion method of critiquing. Everyone gets the story in advance, reads it, makes notes. Then, one at a time, each person discusses the story, while the author bites his or her lip and says nothing. When all are finished, the author gets a chance to speak (Explanations of obscure points are good form, defensiveness is not.) Finally, everyone hands their marked-up, annotated versions of the story to the author.

The first time I had a story critiqued in the sf group, eleven people said, "What happened with the nephew? I didn't get it." One person, two people, I maybe could have ignored. But eleven? Even my concrete head had to recognize a problem.

Critiquing is hard work in the sf group. You have to have something to say when your turn comes, and you'd damn well better have read the story or have a good reason why you didn't. And you've usually marked up your copy of the manuscript with notes and arrows and comments like, "I love this!" or "This is where I lost interest."

In the children's writers group, there's no homework. People read their stuff, and other people react. You can wing it, or even fake it--murmur agreement and pretend you're carrying your weight. It's friendly, not scary. People who dislike a story in toto usually don't speak at all.

Nice, but, on the whole, I think the sf group is more useful.

But I'm learning that the children's writers can be useful, too. Their carefully phrased comments may carry as much meaning as the blunter ones of the SF writers, if --

--if I can only learn to hear what they say! I do take notes of every gentle criticism. I do try to circumvent the part of my brain that wants to hear only the praise. But still...

Still, sometimes, I want to shout, "Just tell me! Is it derivative? Is it sappy? Is it boring? I'm a grownup; I can take it! Please, just tell me what you think!"

(You don't have to use that ugly word, though.)

The picture of the writing group is by Zack Hample, from ZackHample.com.