Forum Crit Group --

[Listener]

I'll play.

[Russell Nash]

I feel like I'm at a very large poker table, with a large group of rather intimidating players, looking at my cards, fingering my chips, taking a sip of 18 year old scotch, then throwing my chips into the middle of the table with a practiced nonchalance that belies the fluttering nervousness in  my stomach as I say . . .

"I'm in."

I'll probably have something ready for months before I could get the guts to post it.

I swear i'll try to make this as unscary as possible. I know what pre-crit jitters are like.

(Also, i fully intend to submit broken pieces. If i knew what was wrong with 'em and how to fix 'em, i wouldn't be putting them in the kitty, as it were )

We had a writing exercise thread for a short while.  CammoBlammo said he could write a story based on all three suggestted topics.  I said if he did it, I'd write something.  He did it.  I did it.  I haven't posted it.  I don't wear a bulls-eye well.

[Heradel]

I feel like I'm at a very large poker table, with a large group of rather intimidating players, looking at my cards, fingering my chips, taking a sip of 18 year old scotch, then throwing my chips into the middle of the table with a practiced nonchalance that belies the fluttering nervousness in  my stomach as I say . . .

"I'm in."

I'll probably have something ready for months before I could get the guts to post it.

I swear i'll try to make this as unscary as possible. I know what pre-crit jitters are like.

(Also, i fully intend to submit broken pieces. If i knew what was wrong with 'em and how to fix 'em, i wouldn't be putting them in the kitty, as it were )

We had a writing exercise thread for a short while.  CammoBlammo said he could write a story based on all three suggestted topics.  I said if he did it, I'd write something.  He did it.  I did it.  I haven't posted it.  I don't wear a bulls-eye well.

Post it, it couldn't have been worse than mine in that thread.

[birdless]

We had a writing exercise thread for a short while.  CammoBlammo said he could write a story based on all three suggestted topics.  I said if he did it, I'd write something.  He did it.  I did it.  I haven't posted it.  I don't wear a bulls-eye well.

Really? But those colors suit you so well.

[therinth]

I would love to be in this, too. I need writing experience and practice, as the only "training" I had was in high school. Hopefully this will help my self-discipline, too, giving me some motivation to write... if I actually get up the nerve to post something!

Would it be too out of line for the moderator-type-person to actually propose a topic or setting or theme every few months or so for which we could all submit a story on? Maybe that will be too scholastic for some, but it might help people feel they are entering something on a somewhat level playing field... does that make sense?

No problem! We can see about doing line trades, where everyone gives lines to someone else to start off with , or topic trades, or all try to write a story for a themed market. Whatever it takes .

[wakela]

I'd like to play, too. 

Should someone post a link to crit writing tips or examples?  Or should we just see what comes out and smile ten years down the road with other workshops demand criticisms be written in the Escape Pod Format.

[lieffeil]

Soon I'll be too busy to spend too much time on the computer, so hopefully this will keep me active in the forum. Plus, feedback on writing is always a good way to grow and learn.
Ante'd in.

[Rachel Swirsky]

For critiques, I suggest writing in the following format when you're starting out. It's what I teach my students.

ABOUT

A summary of the story's events and the theme you draw from it. This makes clear to the author whether or not her points are coming across. (For instance: "Run of the Fiery Horse" chronicles a young woman's attempts to please her father and live an independent life, despite the interference of the dream snake Tsi Sha. For me, its most dominant theme is the idea that what's deadly or poisonous in one circumstance can be curative in another.)

GOOD

A few sentences of good stuff, as specific as possible. ("Run of the Fiery Horse" benefits from crisp imagery which helps the reader to picture unfamiliar scenes. The characters are painted very vividly, particularly Tsi Sha, which is an achievement because he's a reptile. I particularly like the characters of the main character's paramour and her father who are shown trying to help the main character struggle against the severe odds facing her. They add layrs of complication and ambiguity to a story which otherwise might be about too unidirectionally about a girl striving alone.)

SUGGESTIONS

Several paragraphs of suggestions, coming to at least twice the length of the "good" section. Again, criticisms should be specific. They should also be stated as I statements wherever possible, and addressed directly to the writer as "you." If/when you find yourself flipping into third person, it's probably because you want to say something nasty that you don't want to take responsibility for. (For instance I once received a critique that read "The author appears to believe the fancy writing compensates for the lack of plot. It doesn't." A line like "I think you're relying far too much on fancy writing here, and letting things like plot slip" would have been much more likely to be well-received. The first sentence would have been great in a review; it's a bit sketchy in the personal context of a critique.) It is possible to use third person in critiques to good effect, but it's something you have to come into.

Humor is always helpful in critiques, if you can project to the writer a sense of "we're all in this together, isn't writing kind of ludicrous?" In personal settings, I feel like the most successful critters are almost always the ones who can make the room crack up in a positive way.

There's danger in the other direction, though -- don't try to make jokes at the author's expense. Use humor to make other people comfortable, not to make yourself look clever. But y'all know that, I'm sure. ;-)

If people want ,I can make my critique handouts available in the private forum when it opens.

[birdless]

For critiques, I suggest writing in the following format when you're starting out. It's what I teach my students.

ABOUT

A summary of the story's events and the theme you draw from it. This makes clear to the author whether or not her points are coming across. (For instance: "Run of the Fiery Horse" chronicles a young woman's attempts to please her father and live an independent life, despite the interference of the dream snake Tsi Sha. For me, its most dominant theme is the idea that what's deadly or poisonous in one circumstance can be curative in another.)

GOOD

A few sentences of good stuff, as specific as possible. ("Run of the Fiery Horse" benefits from crisp imagery which helps the reader to picture unfamiliar scenes. The characters are painted very vividly, particularly Tsi Sha, which is an achievement because he's a reptile. I particularly like the characters of the main character's paramour and her father who are shown trying to help the main character struggle against the severe odds facing her. They add layrs of complication and ambiguity to a story which otherwise might be about too unidirectionally about a girl striving alone.)

SUGGESTIONS

Several paragraphs of suggestions, coming to at least twice the length of the "good" section. Again, criticisms should be specific. They should also be stated as I statements wherever possible, and addressed directly to the writer as "you." If/when you find yourself flipping into third person, it's probably because you want to say something nasty that you don't want to take responsibility for. (For instance I once received a critique that read "The author appears to believe the fancy writing compensates for the lack of plot. It doesn't." A line like "I think you're relying far too much on fancy writing here, and letting things like plot slip" would have been much more likely to be well-received. The first sentence would have been great in a review; it's a bit sketchy in the personal context of a critique.) It is possible to use third person in critiques to good effect, but it's something you have to come into.

Humor is always helpful in critiques, if you can project to the writer a sense of "we're all in this together, isn't writing kind of ludicrous?" In personal settings, I feel like the most successful critters are almost always the ones who can make the room crack up in a positive way.

There's danger in the other direction, though -- don't try to make jokes at the author's expense. Use humor to make other people comfortable, not to make yourself look clever. But y'all know that, I'm sure. ;-)

If people want ,I can make my critique handouts available in the private forum when it opens.

If I may propose a nomination, I nominate that we make this structure the accepted form for critiquing within this group. I am not necessarily saying it should be required, but... strongly encouraged, maybe? This would, of course, require a second and a vote or counter-nomination.

[eytanz]

If I may propose a nomination, I nominate that we make this structure the accepted form for critiquing within this group. I am not necessarily saying it should be required, but... strongly encouraged, maybe? This would, of course, require a second and a vote or counter-nomination.

May I propose we don't? I, for one, would feel more comfortable using a template closer to the one Anarkey proposed earlier in the thread. And in any case, one thing that my experience as an academic reviewer and marking essays taught me (and it's a similar process, though the material critiqued is different) is that different reviewers have different marking styles, and different authors have different reactions to different marking styles. So, forcing a template means that you're catering directly to one group of critics, and another group of writers, and being less effective for others. While allowing different critics to use their own templates mean that they tend to be more comfortabel and it's more likely that each writer will find at least one critic who uses the template that works best for them. Of course, that doesn't mean that anything goes - there are plenty of outright bad ways to critique - but there's no one good style that works for everyone, on either end of the process.

(btw, just to clarify, by "academic reviewer" I meant peer reviewing articles pre-publication, not writing post-hoc reviews)

[birdless]

May I propose we don't? I, for one, would feel more comfortable using a template closer to the one Anarkey proposed earlier in the thread. And in any case, one thing that my experience as an academic reviewer and marking essays taught me (and it's a similar process, though the material critiqued is different) is that different reviewers have different marking styles, and different authors have different reactions to different marking styles. So, forcing a template means that you're catering directly to one group of critics, and another group of writers, and being less effective for others. While allowing different critics to use their own templates mean that they tend to be more comfortabel and it's more likely that each writer will find at least one critic who uses the template that works best for them. Of course, that doesn't mean that anything goes - there are plenty of outright bad ways to critique - but there's no one good style that works for everyone, on either end of the process.

(btw, just to clarify, by "academic reviewer" I meant peer reviewing articles pre-publication, not writing post-hoc reviews)

That makes complete sense to me. I'm fine with withdrawing the nomination, especially if that's the majority opinion.

[lieffeil]

May I propose we don't? I, for one, would feel more comfortable using a template closer to the one Anarkey proposed earlier in the thread. And in any case, one thing that my experience as an academic reviewer and marking essays taught me (and it's a similar process, though the material critiqued is different) is that different reviewers have different marking styles, and different authors have different reactions to different marking styles. So, forcing a template means that you're catering directly to one group of critics, and another group of writers, and being less effective for others. While allowing different critics to use their own templates mean that they tend to be more comfortable and it's more likely that each writer will find at least one critic who uses the template that works best for them. Of course, that doesn't mean that anything goes - there are plenty of outright bad ways to critique - but there's no one good style that works for everyone, on either end of the process.

Here here. I was recently part of a freelance theatre review team, and they proposed a set form of critique, "Plot, good points, rough points, overall impressions". They also suggested that, to prevent beating on the actors and crew, any negative comments should be counterpointed with positive ones.
The problem with that is that not everyone is good at being light or funny or friendly, especially if they feel strongly about a certain area. I'm not saying we should allow flaming, but a certain freedom to be yourself has to be assured. It's always the author's choice to listen, and it's the critic's choice to maybe come off as a tool, it's their risk. But personally, I've always been one who appreciates a straight-forward approach to reviewing, and I'd be sad if that was restricted just because people don't want to be offended.
(I also appreciate sunshine and rainbows and pillows and Earl Grey with too much sugar, if anyone cares. Note to self: Talk less about personal preference and more about the issues...)

[Russell Nash]

I prefer no critiquing form.  Especially as I start to get into things here, I'm more likely to just talk about one point.  If something was really brilliant or just felt akward, I'd probably focus a couple of comments just on that.  I'm far too inexperienced to go into a big huge review.

[Windup]

Thanks to the people who suggested templates; I will probably start by following the one Rachel proposed. When you're new at this, it's good to have a model.  (Fiction reviews are new to me; my editing/critiquing experience is limited to technical writing and news.)

However, I agree that we should let people decide what they want to do rather than forcing a particular template on the whole group, at least to start.

[Schreiber]

I'd like to participate as well.

[deflective]

If/when you find yourself flipping into third person, it's probably because you want to say something nasty that you don't want to take responsibility for.

kinda why i've been slow making up my mind about the group (well, this and i didn't know about it until mentioned by cuddlebug). hashing out possibilities and interpretations can be fun but talking directly to the author means you gotta be productive 'n stuff. i've certainly gone and taken a wincing look at my comments after an author unexpectedly shows up.

ultimately though, i'm curious what sort of stories the voices from the forum will produce. DKT's story was surprising and i wonder what else is out there.

accessorize please

[Rachel Swirsky]

My take on light & friendly versus straightforward -- it is always, in my opinion, possible to be straightforward while also avoiding being a jerk. Anne Lamott, in Bird by Bird, says "point with the sword of truth, don't slash with it" (paraphrased). That's my feeling.

Now, where the line is where people go from feeling "this is constructive" to "my lord, you're a dick" does vary. When I teach, I try to warn people as stongly against the danger of being wishy washy and refusing to say anything negative as about the danger of being a jerk.

In the two years I tuaght creative writing on the college level, I came across only two instances of critiques that required intervention. (1) When one student informed another that "The author of this story should be on antipsychotics," and (2) when one student informed another "You're not getting any better; why are you even still writing?" (One of these was intended to be a joke, and the situation was easily resolved. The other one was not a joke, and required a lot of reorganizing of the class to cope with.)

I *have* been in other critique situations as a participant where someone got nasty, and it's sad to say, but one really nasty person can poison a group which is otherwise excellent.

However, being nasty does not equal being straightforward. Straightforward, negative critiques can be totally awesome. Things only get problematic when one person stops treating the other person as a human being. People in a crit group are friends, peers, and to some extent  business contacts. It's useful to treat them as professionals. And as long as that gets done, things usually go swimmingly.

So, yeah, in sum, I don't think it's worth it for anyone to worry about not joining the group because you're worried you'll be a dick. Unless, you know, you actually are trying to hurt people to make yourself look better. In which case, one of my Clarion West classmates Heather Lindsley ("Mayfly," "Just Do It") has a solution... every time you think of something really clever and devastating to say, give yourself one cool point for how clever you are, and another cool point for your restraint in staying silent. ;-)

[therinth]

There won't be a proscribed way to crit things, although people who want to follow a format are welcome to it.

It's difficult to rate "crit value" as people will have different strengths, and I believe it is OK for a crit to say, "This is it. Send it out."

I'll use my discretion though if someone's crits are all the same for everyone (not in format, but in text) or if I feel they are lacking effort. I'd do this off forum, and in private, and it would be something that we (that person and I could discuss). I don't want this to be a huge amount of effort for everyone, like onerous homework. All the same, i will expect some attempt at insight.

[Heradel]

It seems like we're at the point where the basics have been figured out and we could keep debating the details or just be thrown bodily into the body of water and figure it out there. I'm in favor of the soaked approach.

[Russell Nash]

It seems like we're at the point where the basics have been figured out and we could keep debating the details or just be thrown bodily into the body of water and figure it out there. I'm in favor of the soaked approach.

It's the only way to really learn how to swim.

[Liminal]

It seems like we're at the point where the basics have been figured out and we could keep debating the details or just be thrown bodily into the body of water and figure it out there. I'm in favor of the soaked approach.

It's the only way to really learn how to swim.

Or, you know, how to drown.

Was that too negative? That was too negative. Reminder to self, don't post to the forums before having your morning coffee.

[Anarkey]

Or, you know, how to drown.

Ha, ha, ha.  It only looks like I'm waving.

[Graham]

Hi there

Please count me in.

[therinth]

It seems like we're at the point where the basics have been figured out and we could keep debating the details or just be thrown bodily into the body of water and figure it out there. I'm in favor of the soaked approach.

I'm the lifeguard. We're still getting stragglers and it hasn't been a week yet. Hang on just a bit more.

[therinth]

Okay!

Everyone who indicated that they wanted in should have access to the Crit Group forum on this board now. Please check your access and make sure that you can see it/post there, and if you're interested and you haven't let me know yet, please give me a holler!