Online critique groups

Status
Not open for further replies.

HollyB

I don't know why I have a compulsion to post in otherwise quiet forums, but here I go again.

My first story was posted today in Critters - it's an online SF/F critiquing group (I believe a few AW posters hang out over there, too). I'm feeling a bit nervous about it... Does anyone have any advice or thoughts on putting your work through the juggernaut of a critiquing group?

Thanks!
 

Stephenie Hovland

I just joined a real life critique group, but have received some comments through e-mail and so on.

My advice would be to not get defensive right away (if you can manage that!) Sit back and read it, not trying to defend yourself. Study the comments and your piece again and then get away from it. The ideas will wrestle in your mind for awhile and eventually they'll sift themselves out. Some of what you want to defend will be ready to leave the story, and some criticism that you thought was harsh will seem just right.
 

veingloree

I revise the story carefully, post. Collect all the comments together and see what they agree on and what seems helpful. I always thank the critter specifically and say their comments helped -- even if they didn't really. And try to return the favour when their stuff comes up. My favourite critique group is critiquecircle.com, although critters is also good. My in-person group spend to much time gossiping to critique much, but that's fine too.
 

Andrew Jameson

Co-incidentally enough, *I* just joined Critters recently (the first critique group I've been in), and my first story was posted for critique this week also (I swear! It's true!) So I'm probably not the right person to turn to for advice on surviving critique groups, but I'll tell you my perspective.

I've been lurking in the Critters newsgroup off-and-on for the last month, and it seemed to me that the concensus, even among long-time members, was that having people critique your story was a nerve-wracking experience, kind of equivalent to having people tell you how ugly your new baby is. Advice pretty much mirrored what Stephenie and veingloree already said.

I guess I'm a little bit different, though, because I'm not sure what all the fuss is about. I mean, sure, I'd love it if everyone told me how great my story was, and how I'm the next Hemmingway. That is, I'd love it if it were true.

But it's not. I know it's not. And that's why I joined a critique group. I want to know what aspects of my writing are up to snuff, and what aspects need improvement. I fully expect I'll receive some positive comments and some negative comments. Hopefully a reasonable balance, so I can rank-order the areas where I need improvement

So I guess the question is: what are you looking for out of the critique process? For me, I'd like to improve the story I submitted, yes, but I'm more interested in improving my writing as a whole. So the critique process, and the prospect of getting negative feedback, doesn't really bother me. Much :) .

PS: I've got three critiques in my inbox so far; two of which I'd characterize as leaning positive and one of which I'd characterize as leaning negative. *But* I'd say that all three are valuable, both with suggestions for improvement, and simply as a tool to gauge other people's reaction to what I wrote.
 

Maryn

Accepting Critique

Critique can be scary if you take criticism of your writing as criticism of yourself. So remember, it's not.

And if it is, then the person doing the critique doesn't know how to offer anything useful. It does no good to tell an author seeking to improve that "This story's stupid and I saw the ending coming." What's useful is "This story needs more complexity--maybe a subplot involving the sister?--and the foreshadowing on page six was so strong that I guessed the ending."

Online critique comes from both people who know what they're doing and from beginners who are clueless and sometimes tactless as well.

Generally, any flaw noted by two independent critics is something worth looking hard at. If multiple readers are confused by the ending, or by what you meant on page 17, then you probably need to clarify.

If you receive critique from the same people more than once, you will soon learn whose input is genuinely valuable and who just doesn't get it. You'll learn who's demanding and usually right, who gives praise only when it's deserved, who knows grammar and punctuation inside out, and who'll catch every small mistake in fact, who makes you feel that you'll do better on the rewrite, and who's willing to bounce ideas around. These, obviously, are the people who you want to court, because their efforts, and your own, will vastly improve your writing.

There's no need to be defensive, or to explain anything, when and if you receive negative critique. The rule is to keep your mind open, judge the specifics of what each critic said, then decide for yourself whether the criticism is valid and warrants change.

In the end, of course, the writing being critiqued has to stand on its own. Whether your critics like you, or know how you struggle and against what odds to create a story, has no relationship to whether that story is flawed. (Good people sometimes write godawful stories.) Good critique, online or in person, is about the writing.

Maryn, 12-year critique group veteran
 

HollyB

Accepting Critique

Great advice, everyone. Thanks!

Speaking of which, the other thing I'm planning to do is write thank-you emails to my critiquers. If they took the time to read my story and more time to write some comments, then certainly common courtesy dictates a thank-you!

(Andrew, we'll have to compare notes at the end of the week! :thumbs )
 

HollyB

Accepting Critique

Maryn wrote:

"If you receive critique from the same people more than once, you will soon learn whose input is genuinely valuable and who just doesn't get it."

Maryn and others, do you think that having a stable group of critiquers is more valuable that the random attention you get from an online group like critters?
 

wwwatcher

Accepting Critique

I have posted two stories on critiquecircle.com and my third one is coming up soon.

The first one was difficult. It felt like they took a machete to my story and wanted me to rewrite everything about it. critiquecircle automatically prompts you to send a thank you letter (and you critique the critiquer).

I sent polite thank you notes to all and fumed for awhile. Then the comments started sorting themselves out a little. Putting it aside for awhile and letting it sort itself out for a day or two definitely helps.

By the second story I was already starting to get to know some of the critiquers and the critiquers were starting to get to know me. (It was hard because their bios don't always let you know enough about the person critiquing.)

Now I'm starting to realize that they are probably a cross-section of the readers out there - every writer's market audience so this is great experience for any writer. I am already beginning to see the stereo-type critters that you would be able to see on any critboard. The ones that like to read, the ones who are published, those who are published but not in your genre, the teachers who want to teach writers, the young people starting out, those who critique and don't submit, those who critique and are still too afraid to submit, etc.

I'm learning to know about me as a writer, too. When something they say feels wrong in my gut, they're probably wrong. And sometimes they do point out the things you need to get rid of and are holding onto as well. These are the things that take two days for you to wrestle with.

I'm having fun with it.

I can already see that all the advice given here is sound.

Take Care,
Faye

I'm having fun with it.
 

Maryn

Stable Critics vs. Ever-Changing

HollyB asked: "Do you think that having a stable group of critiquers is more valuable that the random attention you get from an online group like critters?"

Oh, definitely, and by a huge margin. It's like movie critics--I know the tastes and small biases of the guy who writes for the local paper, and the people who write for Time, and Roger Ebert--but when a stranger raves about some new movie on TV or in print, I can't tell if he's a moron who loves every movie released until I know how often his opinion is right. (Meaning, matches my opinion.)

Online critics may have no qualifications. Many cannot or do not write themselves. Others do, but write poorly. Some can't distinguish good writing, or proper punctuation for that matter, from bad. Some may use criticism as a means to venting frustration with their own efforts, or how they're received when they attempt to sell their work.

Some critical input isn't worth anything, unfortunately. If I'm writing a vampire novel and people complain about the blood, or erotica and people want less sex, how valuable could their input be? I've also found it rare for online critics to be thorough.

In my years with the same group, I learned that Person A (unnamed, because some of these people may be members here) tends to give praise where it's barely deserved and can't see flaws other than typos, Person B thinks everything should be written the way she herself would have written it--as a somewhat dry Romance, Person C operates on a different wavelength and almost never 'gets' my work, Person D cracks a mean whip over tension and pacing but tends to skip over important details and also doesn't get it at times, Person E sees themes and knows which scenes can be left in the dust but it too easy to shock, Person F knows human nature so well he can find mistakes in character development or actions, and so on.

[Recently the group divided, so I'm limited to D, E, and F.]

So I think that a stable group of critics bringing their known strengths and weaknesses to the process is preferable to criticism by whoever happens to pass by.

Maryn, hoping this helped some
 

Jamesaritchie

critique group

"Does anyone have any advice or thoughts on putting your work through the juggernaut of a critiquing group?"

Yeah, don't do it. I don;t know many successful writers who became successful by listening to the opinion of others where their writing was concerned.

Most pro writers have one or two trusted people who give their stories "idiot reads," but this isn't the same thing at all as a critique group. Especially an online critique group.

Agents and editors want original, creative writing. They want writing done from the unique perspective of a given writer. It's who you are and how you think and how you write that will make for successful fiction. No good story was ever written by committee, especially when that committee is made up of epople who can't write well enough to sell their own fiction.

Trust yourself, and trust your writing. If you have no talent, all the critique groups in the world won't help. If you have talent, the rarest thing in the world is a critique group that won't harm you.

If your fiction is anywhere near professional quality, you'll receive truly helpful advice from agents and editors. If it isn't, no critique group can make it so.
 

Euan Harvey

Re: critique group

>"Does anyone have any advice or thoughts on putting your work through the juggernaut of a critiquing group?"

Do it, but bear in mind that what you're getting back is only people's opinion, and their opinions may not be the same as an editor's opinions.

I think it's a great opportunity to find out how others see your writing, and also to find problem areas. But, don't take what people say as gospel.

The problem I have with writing is that I find it very difficult to be objective about my own work. Feedback from an online critiquing group provides that. Writers who are professional have developed the skills to be able to assess the quality of their own work objectively. If you're not there yet (like most of the people on Critters, me included), then feedback can help you tune your perceptions of the quality of your own work.

Cheers,

Euan
 

Jamesaritchie

Re: critique group

I've found that most pro writers don't try to judge their own work, objectively or any other way. It isn't the writer's job to judge his own work, and it certainly isn't the job of other amateurs.

There's absolutely nothing a writer can do about the quality of his own work. If he could, he already would have. Outside of grammar, punctuation, and basic mechanics, changing it to suit the taste of other writers, particularly a group of other writers, is unlikely to improve the quality in any meaningful way. And is likely to take away the one thing that separates it from other work, which is the unique viewpoint and style of the individual writer.

Pro writers don't suddenly reach a point where they are qualified to judge the quality of their own work. When first starting out or when an established pro, they know it isn't their job to judge the quality. That's the editor's job, and it's always best to let him do it.

Just write the stuff. That's all you can do. Then send it to an editor. Critique groups are largely a modern phenomenon, and were extremely rare before the internet. Thank God Shakespeare and Dickens and Twain didn't have them.
 

sfsassenach

Re: critique group

James said:
Most pro writers have one or two trusted people who give their stories "idiot reads," but this isn't the same thing at all as a critique group. Especially an online critique group


I just returned from the Romance Writers of America national conference--and spoke to a number of NYT best-selling writers who are in critique groups.

You seem to always give advice in absolutes.
 

Euan Harvey

Re: critique group

>I've found that most pro writers don't try to judge their own work, objectively or any other way. It isn't the writer's job to judge his own work . . .

This is just silly.

How does a pro decide what to rewrite and what to leave in?

By judging the quality of what they've done.

How do they decide if a short story is working or not, whether they should submit it, or leave it in a desk drawer?

By judging the quality of what they've done.

>There's absolutely nothing a writer can do about the quality of his own work.

Well, apart from rewriting it -- and rewriting is not simply a matter of changing grammar, punctuation and/or basic mechanics. AFAIK, the first Harry Potter book was rejected several times before Rowling rewrote it extensively. Now you may not agree that she's a great writer, but you have to agree that she's successful.

>Pro writers don't suddenly reach a point where they are qualified to judge the quality of their own work.

Perhaps not, but they are certainly more likely to be able to judge it than someone who has just started writing. Levels of judging competence in a given field tend to be linked to levels of competence in that field, i.e., a really good tennis player is better than a really poor tennis player at judging how good someone is at tennis. Similarly, a good writer is better at judging how good writing is (their own or others) than someone who is a poor writer.

Until people develop the confidence and skills necessary to be able to look critically at their own work, then a crit group is valuable.

Cheers,

Euan
 

Jamesaritchie

Re: critique group

Sorry, Euan, that just isn't how it works. Judging quality in the sense a critique group judges quality is not somethign any pro writer I've ever known does. You can think it silly, but if you do it probably means you're constantly on the lookout for someone else to judge your work.

I am a pro writer, and I can tell you exactly how I judge my own work. I write it and send it to an editor. Sure I change things if I think they need changing. In this sense I judge my work. But not it's quality, only whether or not I have what I think is a better idea than the one I've already used. But this is based on whether I like something more.

Sure I rewrite, but it's a mistake to think I do this because I'm trying to judge the quality of my work. I'm not and I can't. It isn't my job, and those who make it their job almost always fail.

My job is simply to write the story. Sometimes the finished story is one I like and one I think works. Sometimes the finished story is one I hate and one where I think nothing works. Just as often, editors reject the first and buy the latter. Just as often, fan letters pour in for stories I've written that I think are awful, and stories I love vanish without a trace.

If you think any critique group out there is going to change this for the better, you haven't been around nearly as many critique groups as I have for the last twenty-five years.

Good writers do not judge their own work. I've heard some of the best editors in the business warn writers against doing so, and the smart writers listen.

Critique groups are great if you're lonely. They're lousy if your goal is to be a professiopnal writer.
 

veingloree

Re: critique group

One thing critique groups did for me, that can only have helped move me more to the professional side of the freelance scale, is let me know about some habitual errors I was making. Critique group readers have helped me develop a sensitivity to the lack of depth in my third person and my tendency to mis-use commas. I don't think would have noticed either of these problems on my own and very few editors would take the time to point them out. Since correcting these problem I have been making more sales.

The best groups have been sub-genre specific (erotica, romance, gay fiction) because even amateurs in a specific genre are experienced readers of it and can point out continuity errors and features that will make a piece a 'hard sell' in that genre (a recent example -- infidelity in a romance plot). Those in the romance area have definitely included published authors who live off their writing income. Perhaps when I am fully pro these groups will just be a form of entertainment but they are definitely part of my 'evolutionary' process.
 

Euan Harvey

Crit Groups

>Judging quality in the sense a critique group judges quality is not something any pro writer I've ever known does.

[James Ritchie]

Hmm. First, I think we may be using slightly different definitions of 'judging quality'.

I'm using 'judging quality' to refer to looking at the components of a story and thinking of how they could be improved, i.e., if the characterization is flat, if one of the character's reactions are 'off', if the dialogue is stilted, if the symbolism is heavy-handed etc. As yet, I don't have the skill to identify all these weaknesses in my stories, which is where a critique group helps.

>Sure I change things if I think they need changing.

[James Ritchie]

Right, and at the moment I, and, I would imagine, most of the people on Critters, do not have the experience to figure out what needs changing in a particular story. As I write more, I am finding it easier, but I still don't have the experience to be able to do it as well as someone who has been writing for many years.

>Perhaps when I am fully pro these groups will just be a form of entertainment but they are definitely part of my 'evolutionary' process.

[Veingloree]

This goes for me too (btw, I don't want to give the implication that I'm anything but a complete beginner). James, you say that "no pro writer" uses a critique group, and I can see where that might be true, but, even if it is, not every writer is a pro-writer yet, and what might be no help at all for a pro, might be very helpful for someone who is beginning to write.

I can see a point in the future where it might be time to move on from Critters, but it's not going to be for a long while yet.

And yes, I do think that any valid assessment of writing quality (as in 'this is a great story') needs to come from an editor who's willing to pay money for it, or a reader who did pay money for it.

Anyway, that's my 2c,

Cheers,

Euan
 

Andrew Jameson

Re: Crit Groups

It isn't the writer's job to judge his own work, and it certainly isn't the job of other amateurs.
Let me play off of this for a second: It most certainly is the job of amateurs to judge the quality of what a writer writes. Those amateurs are called readers. They buy, or don't buy, books and magazines based on their judgements.

So, to me, the biggest value of a critique group like Critters is that the group represents a cross-section of readers. When multiple critiquers say something along the lines of "eh, the story dragged; pacing was slow; I got bored easily," then that gives me some useful information. I can apply that information to a rewrite of the current story, but, more importantly, I also understand that this might be one of my weak spots as a writer; an area where I need more practice.

I think your main point -- that one's voice might become diluted if one tries to please every critic -- is well taken. But I also think that a writer should strive to improve with every story he writes, and using feedback from a critique group is a good way to identify areas of improvement.
 

sfsassenach

How do you get your head through the door, James?

Does it ever occur to you that your opinion isn't the only one?? Sheesh...I'm weary of you always mentioning you're a "professional" writer. So are a lot of us here--and we realize that what works for us may or may not works for others.

As I mentioned upthread, I know NYT-list writers who swear by their crit groups.
 

dpaterso

Sorry for chiming in late.

I'm still unable to take a critique like a real man despite being with an online group for more years than I care to remember. I'll maybe glance at a critique a couple of times, the equivalent of prodding it with a long stick, and if it's not too bad I'll read more... but if it's a stinker I'll hold off for a while before tip-toeing back and absorbing content a tiny piece at a time. And yes, always say thanks for taking the time to read and deliver comments, even if the critique is a stinker and/or the critter's advice doesn't work for the story.

Humor is great for defusing explosive situations! When readers see you aren't a stuffy so-and-so who snaps and snarls at every little picky suggestion, they'll treat you as a fellow human being instead of an anonymous userid. Next thing you know, you'll have more friends online than in real life.

-Derek
-----------------------​
My Web Page - naked women, bestial sex, and whopping big lies.
 

annied

There are many advantages and disadvantages to online critique groups. I have a portfolio on Writing.com and am a regular reviewer. When someone reviews my work, I try to make the courtesy to review that person's work, too. Although the same reviewers tend to show up, occasionally, a newbie will put in a thoughtful review. It gives a different perspective on the piece that I might not have thought of before.

Yeah, I've had my share of really bad reviews. Let me qualify "bad reviews": they're the ones who say "This story (poem, essay etc.) has no point" or "Something's missing from this story, but I don't know what." But they never tell you just WHAT made it a stinker. I like to know what worked, what didn't, and if it didn't, why. I'm scratching my head and going, "Huh????":huh

As far as just sending it to an editor, some people just forego the whole critiquing group thing, and that's their way of doing things. That's fine, if it works for you. Personally, I like to "test the waters", so to speak, and get opinions and ideas from other readers. That's just how I operate.

Annie:grin
 
Status
Not open for further replies.