This last meeting we shifted the critiques into a new (old) format where the author doesn't say anything in the critique unless being asked a direct question. (Even that should be kept to a minimum, really; try to phrase your questions into statements.) Also, I experimented with going around the table in order, rather in a random "jump right in" way. Sorry for the confusion, but I was checking to see how it would work.
Let me know, as we go on with these changes and tweaks, how you think it's working out.
It can feel awkward as a writer to not be an active participant in the discussion. Particularly when you've been used to it. Think of it this way: What's being said isn't aimed at you, it's about your writing. The writing that's on the page, via your mind. Your spoken words have nothing to do with it. Listen. Take Notes. Process what's being said. Later on, after reading the written critiques, you can find a way to translate what's been suggested to the page. Take what you can work with, set aside what you can't. The writer is always the final arbiter. But first you have to be open and listen to what's being said. It's a privilege, really, to be given a glimpse into the inner workings of a reader's mind. That's what you joined a critique-based group for. Get the most mileage from it.
The up side of going around the entire room is that everyone is heard, which gets harder in a larger group. The down side is that by the time it gets to you, many of the same comments have been heard. That's why I was changing directions. Also, predictable can become boring. So unless it distracts/detracts from the process, I'll continue to sometimes go left, sometimes go right. If I'm feeling mischievous or chaotic I may start randomly across the room. Or I may purposely first ask to hear from a person or people who may have more experience with a certain type of writing.
It's great to see the Group continually change and evolve. Hard to believe that in April we'll celebrate 12 years in existence. Maybe we should do something special for the 3rd Thursday. Send any suggestions my way.
See you all on 3/4.
Let me know, as we go on with these changes and tweaks, how you think it's working out.
It can feel awkward as a writer to not be an active participant in the discussion. Particularly when you've been used to it. Think of it this way: What's being said isn't aimed at you, it's about your writing. The writing that's on the page, via your mind. Your spoken words have nothing to do with it. Listen. Take Notes. Process what's being said. Later on, after reading the written critiques, you can find a way to translate what's been suggested to the page. Take what you can work with, set aside what you can't. The writer is always the final arbiter. But first you have to be open and listen to what's being said. It's a privilege, really, to be given a glimpse into the inner workings of a reader's mind. That's what you joined a critique-based group for. Get the most mileage from it.
The up side of going around the entire room is that everyone is heard, which gets harder in a larger group. The down side is that by the time it gets to you, many of the same comments have been heard. That's why I was changing directions. Also, predictable can become boring. So unless it distracts/detracts from the process, I'll continue to sometimes go left, sometimes go right. If I'm feeling mischievous or chaotic I may start randomly across the room. Or I may purposely first ask to hear from a person or people who may have more experience with a certain type of writing.
It's great to see the Group continually change and evolve. Hard to believe that in April we'll celebrate 12 years in existence. Maybe we should do something special for the 3rd Thursday. Send any suggestions my way.
See you all on 3/4.
2 comments:
Am very happy to see the return of the author-be-quiet rule. OK, yes, I've been pushing for its return for awhile. Not in favor of the once-around-the-table rule, though. Just wondering if people feel compelled to respond rather than pass called upon to comment on a particular piece. Yes, a few of us dominate the critiques otherwise, but we spoke the most as it was. I vote in favor of opening it back up, watching the time, and letting individual writers decide if they want to offer constructive criticism or sit one out.
I think it's good to try different techniques out. The once-around-the-table rule does have the advantage of giving the less forceful people an explicit chance to chime in. But I did find it a bit awkward for two reasons.
One is because some pieces I just don't have much to say about and feel compelled to say something trite or repetitive just to say something, as John alluded to above.
The other, and this is bigger for me, is because I've found some of the most interesting exchanges have been between two (or more) critics discussing a particular issue from different points of view. I've found many of these dialogues fascinating. Sometimes someone else's POV or these dialogues have made me see a particular piece or passage in a completely different way and prompted me to offer observations that never would have occurred to me.
I think this dialogue is discouraged by the once-around-the-table method.
Post a Comment