Critters Revisited

When it comes to the subject of writing workshops, critiquing groups and other categories of group activities as they relate to the creative process of writing, they are often met with a degree of skepticism. Some writers feel that these sorts of activities hamper the writing process rather than enhance it. So the notion of just such a group in the virtual world may be even more ridiculous to them than the real world equivalent. However, not only are regular group workshops an invaluable tool for a writer, but the accessibility of the on line critiquing groups make them an indispensable tool to an author, aspiring or otherwise. In particular one critiquing group comes to mind. There are several out there, each with its own general focus. The best example of a successful on line critiquing group, Critters.org, however focuses on the Fantasy/Sci-fi genre. For our purposes we will explore the success this particular group and its various authors have had, and what about the critiquing and workshop process has contributed to that success.
Andrew Burt, a Denver University Professor and founder of Critters.org, explains in an e-mail interview, "When used properly, they can greatly improve an author's work. The biggest downfall, and common criticism of them, is when a group tries to herd an author's voice into a 'group' voice. That can happen when there are strong-willed authors who continually criticize the elements of pieces they don't like. In a larger group, or one with a good leader who doesn't allow members to run roughshod, this isn't a problem. In a large group like critters, with thousands of members, the law of averages keeps this from happening, so it isn't a problem." Certainly an author will not want their story written in a "group voice" as Professor Burt described it, but the caution against that alone should not keep an author from utilizing such a valuable resource. One of the ways in which a critiquing group such as Critters is so essential is to provide fresh insight into an idea or piece the writer is crafting. Having fresh insight is critical since pieces are not usually written for the author's benefit, but to communicate events, opinions, or facts to the readers. It is necessary to ascertain if another reader can comfortably read and comprehend what the author is trying to convey. If a common audience can not understand the jargon the author uses, or does not understand a particular reference, the depth and breadth of what the author is saying is lost on them. A Critter is usually very good about posing questions and asking for clarifications, which will force the author to reassess their presentation of the idea or event they're trying to convey to the audience.
Critiquing other people's work can teach you mechanical rules, descriptive techniques, vocabulary, and creative ways of utilizing essential writing tools that you might not have otherwise thought of. E.g. character development, setting visualizations, articulation and rhythm, dialogue techniques, sub-plot development, etc. A group of people can easily pick out things that aren't worded correctly, or pick out common mistakes in a piece especially in regards to continuity and mechanics. Continuity is a difficult issue to self edit, since the author already has a visualization of the events taking place in a story. Whereas a reader is reliant on what the author reveals to know what the characters are doing from one paragraph to the next. If something is inconsistent, a Critter will be certain to bring it to the author's attention so that it can be corrected. Other Critters may be better equipped to help the author with mechanics such as spelling, grammar, and punctuation that when obvious can become distracting to the reader.
Also there is the other side to the equation in being a member of this group. Before one can be critiqued, they must critique other author's pieces. Critiquing workshops are necessary to the creative process because they force you to think critically of other people's work, and by proxy assist you in becoming constructively critical of your own work. In other words, by learning to recognize the faults in others the author begins to see their own errors and means of improving their writing. In reading other people's writing the author may learn about punctuation, expand their vocabulary, and add new ideas to be adapted to their own story. New descriptive and developmental techniques can be picked up and added to an author's repertoire as they think beyond their own "world" and take a glimpse into someone else's. Not to mention each author will have unique ways of handling elements of story telling such as setting visualizations, articulation and rhythm, dialogue techniques, sub-plot development, that the Critter may find useful to adapt and tailor to their own work. The variation in skill levels in a group like Critters is sure to keep the Critter thinking about not only what a fellow author can do to improve their piece, but what they can do to improve their own. Jeremy Minton, a Critter for almost seven years in the U.K., states in his e-mail interview, "The nice thing about Critters is that you will nearly always get a range of views and opinions on any story that is submitted and I have never known a case where I have not been told something which helped to improve a story I had written." [Sic.] And then he later stated, "Getting into the habit of thinking about what works and what does not work in someone else's story and trying to identify what can be done to put those problems right is a valuable skill. Hone that skill and t is almost guaranteed you will start applying the same techniques to your own work and it will improve as a result." [Sic.]
Not only is the varying skill level of each member of Critters advantageous to an author, but their varying areas of expertise as well. One Critter as mentioned may be able to give solid advice on grammatical and mechanical errors, where another Critter may have original ideas on character development. In some cases a Critter may have historical knowledge of certain types of events or objects that are written into a piece and may be able to offer the author in order to give the reader more. For instance an author may include a Masamune Sword in their piece because it just seems like a really neat sword to them. Another Critter however may be able to tell the author about the Masamune family, and the original forging techniques that were used for those particular swords, how the technique has been handed down from master to apprentice for generations, and why they are very valued and prized, battle ready collector's pieces. All of which would add depth and character to the object described for the reader.
One disadvantage to in person writing workshops is that of course they require a time and meeting place to be scheduled, which in turn involves travel and scheduling around work or classes. In the case of larger workshops that have features such as guest speakers and published authors, if you can not attend when the workshop is scheduled, then you can not participate. With an on-line critique group however a Critter can participate anywhere there is Internet access, at any time that is convenient for them. Critiques are handled through e-mail, and Critters only requires one critique a week to meet participation requirements. For this reason they become that much more invaluable because they do not rob the author of precious commodities such as the time to write in order to participate. For those who think the weekly critique requirement is a hassle, well it's as Jeremy Minton says, "The group needs to have a professional approach to work. One of the key differences between people who would like to be writers and people who write and get bought is the how much more writing the second group do than the first. A good workshop will force members to write and critique regularly."
Critters can also offer advice on how to close plot holes, and better develop a plot. In some cases they may offer plot alternatives that would give more flavor to the writing, all of which can be used or discarded at the author's discretion. In addition to plot development they may offer suggestions on the subtleties of working in sub-plots, and how to develop them in such a way that they strengthen rather than detract from the main plot of the piece. All these suggestions can help build up a very rough piece, or help refine an already well crafted prose. All these suggestions and criticisms may sound overwhelming to a writer, especially those who invest themselves wholly into their craft. However criticism is a very good thing when given and received correctly.
Andrew Burt says in his on-line article, "Critiquing the Wild Writer: It's Not What You Say but How You Say It", he says, "The underlying problem is rarely that the 'attacker' said something vacuous or even incorrect. As judge and jury, I try to view what they say in a neutral way, allowing great latitude for freedom of speech. I almost always find that the critiquer had some valid points. Well, it's their opinion so it's valid by default; but you know what I mean. There's a kernel of truth in what they say. The problem is How They Say It." [sic] He goes on to suggest that a Critter should not use sentences that look more like a drill sergeant's instructions than helpful advice. Specifically avoiding phrases like, "You have to ...", "You must ...", and "You need to ...". Substitute phrases such as "You might consider ...", "I'm not sure but ...", "Perhaps ...", or "It strikes me that ..." In my own experience as a Critter however, I have never come across anyone who ripped my work to shreds for the sake of being mean. In some cases a critique can bruise the fragile ego, but upon reflection I inevitably bite my pride and begin to edit, cut, and rewrite, producing a finer crafted piece each time it runs through the queue. Professor Burt points out the necessity of diplomacy however when he states, "Of course, you can take the cop-out approach, and say, hey, I'm a blunt, gruff sort of person, I tell it like it is, that's just who I am, live with it. Well... if you do it that way--to be blunt--you're wasting your time. Don't bother with the critique, since the author won't hear you. They're too busy with their rising blood pressure and thoughts of playing Mark McGwire with your head. You won't have communicated. So what was the point?"
It is because of these diplomacy standards and because of the mechanical function of the group that has made it and its members successful. As mentioned above by Jeremy Minton part of the success of the group has to do with its requirement to participate. Andrew Burt has established an ingenious critiquing and submission process. All critiques as previously mentioned are handled by e-mail, though it is possible for a Critter to log into the site and give critiques directly if they so choose. Obviously the group would not work without member participation however, as the founder Professor Burt has invested a great deal of time into writing the software that automates the site. A Critter first signs up for a password and sets their preferences for how many submissions they would like e-mailed to them for review, and of what genres. A critter must have a ratio of participation equal to 75% of the time that they are a member. In other words a Critter should aim to submit at least one critique per week. So long as this ratio is maintained the Critter is free to submit one manuscript to the queue at a time, and each batch of manuscripts goes out to the members in the order in which they were received. Credit is only given to critiques that fall above a 200 word count, anything falling below that gets half credit. So this insures it is in the best interest of the Critter to offer thorough feedback instead of just saying something like, "It was really good!" There is also an option to select pieces from authors offering an RFDR (Request for Dedicated Readers). These are normally pieces that fall above a 5,000-10,000 word count, and credits are given for every 5,000 words read. At any time Members may look ahead to see what manuscripts are coming up in the queue. This required participation ensures that every author in the group will receive the feedback they need in order to improve their piece.
Critters also works for its members by giving tips on publishing their work. To most Critters it is important to make that transition from being an aspiring author to becoming a Professional. In Jeremy Minton's case he has sold a number of his pieces, and the Critters site has a space for member's "Hooray!"'s. In fact when asked in the interview about the number of members who had their Crittered pieces purchased and published, Andrew Burt responded, "Lots. I don't know exactly, because there are over 10,000 members and they don't all report sales. I did a statistical sampling one time, and found that Critter members were ten times more likely to make a sale than non-workshop members." With 10,000 members it is difficult to say how many members have published short stories and novels over the 12 years that Critters has been in operation. Jeremy Minton was unsure either, but was able to share his own success. He said, "The first story that I put through Critters I sold to a now-defunct UK webzine for GBP75. First payment I ever got for a story and it still makes me smile when I think of it. The second was this stupid, crazy 10K novelette. (Stupid and crazy because everybody knows that a writer no one's heard just can't find a market for a story that length.) It went through the Critters queue three times (I think) and then sat on my desk for weeks while I looked at it and wondered what I could do to improve and/or shorten it. In the end I decided the answer to both these questions was "nothing" so I shoved it in an envelope and sent it to Gordon Van Gelder at F&SF. Who bought it."
Given the evidence it's obvious that not only are Critiquing workshops an invaluable tool to a writer, but the ease and accessibility of the on-line version, particular as structured the way Critters.org is, makes them an indispensable writing tool. Everyone in this example will receive valuable and in depth feedback on their pieces because of the requirements established by the Administrator. In addition though each critique given is a chance for the Critter to learn and improve their work as well. Critters has proven its success by being able to boast 10,000 members, and a growing list of success stories by their various members.