Writers' Critique Groups: What's Your Style?

Each writers' critique group has its own style. Writers' groups are different, in ways hard to define. I'm going to try, though, because I'm in two critique groups that seem to exemplify something or other.

One is for writers of work for children, the other, for writers of science fiction and fantasy.

The differences between them are epitomized by what I shall genteelly refer to as, "the F word," a word in common use among the sf writers and refreshingly absent from the children's writers' meetings.

Likewise, if you read the first the newsletter of SFWA, the Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America, and then that of SCBWI, the Society of Children's Book Writers and Illustrators, you feel as if you've moved from a boxing ring to a garden party. If you're used to SFWA, as I was, SCBWI seems to be wearing high heels, white gloves, and a little hat.

The difference may be connected to the better balance of the sexes you find in SFWA, as opposed to a certain female tilt to SCBWI. Whatever it is, there are advantages that come with the science fiction writer's group. There's a different style of critiquing--blunter, and less hedged--and a different atmosphere.

Here's a peek into the two groups--

Children's story critique group:

The author reads her story, while everyone else listens intently. Then there's a silence. Eventually, someone speaks up: "What a cute idea! I love the donkey!"

Several other voices agree. Then, uncertainly, someone says, "The only thing -- maybe -- wouldn't Juan have noticed the golden hooves right away? Or am I missing something?"

That's when the actual critiquing starts, with due regard for the ego of the writer.

Science fiction story critique group.

Everyone has already read the stories before the meeting. "Who shall we dismember first?" says someone. A victim is decided upon, and the selected author remains silent, attempting to assume a humble and receptive posture.

The person on the author's left checks his notes. "Well, " he begins, "your hero's a jackass."

Definitely a difference in tone between the two critique groups.

The sf writers use the Clarion method of critiquing. Everyone gets the story in advance, reads it, makes notes. Then, one at a time, each person discusses the story, while the author bites his or her lip and says nothing. Last, the author gets a chance to speak -- not to defend himself, but to explain obscure points, ask for clarification of some point of the critique, or just say thanks to the group.

The first time I had a story critiqued in the sf group, eleven people said, "What happened with the nephew? I didn't get it." One person, two people, I maybe could have ignored. But eleven? Even my rock-hard head had to recognize a problem.

Critiquing is hard work in the sf group. You have to have something to say when your turn comes, and you'd damn well better have read the story or have a good reason why you didn't. And you've usually marked up your copy of the manuscript with notes and arrows and comments like, "Cool!" or "This is where I lost interest."

In the children's writers group, there's no homework. People read their stuff, and other people react. You can wing it, or even fake it--murmur agreement and pretend you're carrying your weight. It's friendly, not scary. People who dislike a story in total usually don't speak at all.

Nice, but, on the whole, I think the sf group is more useful.

But I'm learning that the children's writers can be useful, too. Their carefully phrased comments may carry as much meaning as the blunter ones of the sf writers, if --

--if I can only learn to hear what they say! I do take notes of every gentle criticism. I do try to circumvent the part of my brain that wants to hear only the praise. But still...

Still, sometimes, I want to shout, "Just tell me! Is it derivative? Is it sappy? IS IT BORING? I'm a grownup; I can take it! Please, just tell me what you think!"

(You don't have to use the F word, though.)