Getting your work critiqued in a writing group can be a real crap-shoot. In one session, you can get a critique worth your weight in gold and, in the same session, you can be forced to listen to 15 minutes of verbal waste product.
One time I gave up and disregarded our rule for sitting through a critique in vegetable silence. After listening for ten agonizing minutes to a person beating the same point to death, I finally interrupted her to explain that "Margarita" wasn't an underdeveloped character who dropped into the story out of nowhere but, rather, was the name of a mixed drink. She then spent a few minutes of my precious life explaining that she doesn't drink.
This example highlights a couple of problems: the reader who does a piss-poor job of reading the material, and the agony of having to listen to the same comment in as many variations as possible. I try to trust the reader to carefully read my work, and I expect the reader to trust me to listen to his/her observation the first time it's said. An opinion isn't any more, or less, true just because it's repeated over and over and over. (should I make that point a few more times just to make sure you know I mean it? No.)
On the other side of the coin, I spend a lot of time being the reader and writing up critiques for other writers. The last thing I want to hear is that you just hammered out your pages the night before. Why should I spend more time working on your pages than you did?
The best scenario is when people, who are committed to the art and craft of writing, get together to provide insight into each other's work. It's good motivation to have a reader who appreciates the good writing, as well as being able to offer constructive criticism.
One time I gave up and disregarded our rule for sitting through a critique in vegetable silence. After listening for ten agonizing minutes to a person beating the same point to death, I finally interrupted her to explain that "Margarita" wasn't an underdeveloped character who dropped into the story out of nowhere but, rather, was the name of a mixed drink. She then spent a few minutes of my precious life explaining that she doesn't drink.
This example highlights a couple of problems: the reader who does a piss-poor job of reading the material, and the agony of having to listen to the same comment in as many variations as possible. I try to trust the reader to carefully read my work, and I expect the reader to trust me to listen to his/her observation the first time it's said. An opinion isn't any more, or less, true just because it's repeated over and over and over. (should I make that point a few more times just to make sure you know I mean it? No.)
On the other side of the coin, I spend a lot of time being the reader and writing up critiques for other writers. The last thing I want to hear is that you just hammered out your pages the night before. Why should I spend more time working on your pages than you did?
The best scenario is when people, who are committed to the art and craft of writing, get together to provide insight into each other's work. It's good motivation to have a reader who appreciates the good writing, as well as being able to offer constructive criticism.
Here, here! Let me repeat that. Huzah! Huzah! Or rather, I hear you! jk...
ReplyDeleteYou are a kindred spirit!
DeleteHow culturally illiterate do you have to be to not know about a margarita?
ReplyDeleteWho is this "Gin Andtonic" who appears halfway through?
Culture illiteracy was a small part of the problem, and it wouldn't have been much of a problem to overlook if it wasn't for the amount of time being expended on the subject.
ReplyDeleteI should say that this isn't a problem limited to one person. It's sort of a technique to stretch out a critique when the person hasn't thoroughly read or was able to engage in the writing.
DeleteCritiquing is a skill that some people think comes naturally simply because they can functionally speak and write.
ReplyDeleteObjectivity, as much as possible, is the ideal. And approaching it with the goal of being 'constructive', which is not necessarily 'kind', but it isn't unkind either. A critique is not re-writing someone's work, it is trying to give usable observations and suggestions so that the creator can write it even better with their next revision.
Unfortunately, the word "critique" is too close to critical and criticize. And it is human nature to more easily spot the blemish than to recognize the effort that went into being unobtrusively carried away into the story.
Some good points.
DeleteMaybe we should switch to a loose definition of "workshopping" for the group.