CRISIS IN THE CRITIQUE GROUP-Part I
A bad critique group is like being lost in the TV show, "Nightmare on Elm Street." A good critique group is like a best friend. But a great group is like soaring with eagles. In thirty years of participation in critique groups, leading three to four on a weekly basis over the past thirteen years, I've experienced all three types. While no group is entirely free of problems, untended problems tend to escalate into crises. If you don't address problems before they become crises, you can kiss your group goodbye.
While the following list of problems and solutions is far from exhaustive, it does include some of the most common difficulties to afflict even the best groups. I'll cover five problems in this column and five more next month. If you are searching for a group, or thinking about starting one, use this list to guide you.
1. Ego Trippers.
If you have individuals whose goal is to collect more accolades than any other member of the group, then resentment will rise and trust will erode. Likewise, if someone's feedback assumes an edge of judgement, or worse, slides into character assassination of the writer, something must be done. A telltale sign of this problem is comments like, "This character is stupid," or "I didn't like this piece," or "You should scratch this and start over," or "You should stick with genre writing; you really aren't cut out to handle literary writing."
The treatment for the problem of ego-trippers is a group meeting, without readings, in which you review some of the basic principles of a great group. What might these be? First, always support the writer, the person who created the words. Most of us already feel inadequate about our writing and fearful of looking bad in front of our peers. Every member of a group deserves unconditional respect, which means support for the effort it takes to produce any piece of writing, be it ever so lowly in your humble opinion.
A leader must help the group to be cooperative rather than competitive. Occasionally, the ego contest takes the form of a competition to be the best at giving feedback. Competing to be the "star" of the group, as the best writer or as the best critiquer, creates winners and losers. By contrast, members of a great group are all winners, because their singular purpose is to genuinely help each writer make his or her writing the best it can be. In your group's discussion, review the need to stay focused on support, on giving versus getting, and you'll begin to remedy the ego problems.
2. Judge Judy.
Writers need constructive criticism of their work as much as they need support as writers. Constructive criticism means specific feedback of the work addressing the elements of craft. For instance, "Your stimulus-response order was reversed," or "More character reaction would help me empathize better," or "Fewer passive verbs would pick up the pace and the energy." A group can do this only if all members become educated about the concepts of craft.
Avoid words that deliver a gut punch. I've had writers decide not to join one of my groups after a visit, and I'm glad they did, because they felt they would be constrained from being able to say, "That's a bunch of s----!" I don't want comments like that in any of my groups. Occasionally, a writer simply does not know craft, and they'll fill the void with like-don't-like comments. "This is the worst sentence ever written" appeared in the margin of one of my manuscripts, and I've never forgotten it. Unfortunately, negative comments have a long half-life compared to glowing comments.
Our everyday language is riddled with statements of blame, but a critique group is a special place, a safe place. Make your critique group a judgment-free zone. Better yet, make your mind a judgment-free zone. Replace emotionally colored critique with informed feedback about craft.
3. Edicts versus Suggestions.
Nearly every group has a forceful personality, or several. These individuals have strong opinions, and there is nothing wrong with that. Problems arise when one member aims to foist her opinion on a writer as though none other is valid.
When someone becomes overly zealous in giving critique, the writer's rights have been forgotten, trampled under the stampeding hooves of well-meaning advice. Most of the time it takes the form of, "I think you should..." Some of the time, the edict is built upon a scaffolding of inductive arguments that would make a trial lawyer proud. Occasionally, imagination afire, group members orally write their own version of the story for the poor writer.
I'm sure heavy-handed advice is never made with malice aforethought, at least not when I'm the overly zealous writer stepping over the line. Group members may suggest, raise questions, or offer constructive criticism, but they must understand the importance of self-restraint and respect artistic integrity.
It helps to remember that the writer rules. The writer is the final and sole authority. I respect agents whose rejection forms read: "This is only one opinion; other agents may respond differently." They understand that their opinions, be they professional and based on a lifetime of experience, are still just that-opinions, not facts.
4. The Blind Leading the Blind.
If you are going into a group as a beginner, it will not matter if everyone is a beginner in the sense that any constructive feedback can be enlightening. However, occasionally, a critique group will falter because it can't progress beyond the beginner level if everyone stays a beginner. All critique groups evolve and change-or collapse. I once had a small critique group join one of my ongoing groups, when they wisely recognized that they couldn't help each other take the next steps of growth.
I believe groups become dynamic, exciting, and meaningful when members are dedicated to learning as much about writing, and the field of writing, as they can. Group members who never take classes, study writing, read, or go to conferences, workshops, or author talks can quickly become dead wood. Decide as a group to seek and pool information, contacts, techniques, and outside resources. If necessary, vote to structure into group time exercises or lessons-until every group member has taken a turn. The dead weight won't like doing this, and they'll probably drop out.
5. Too Much Character.
A lot of us are eccentric. But some of us are more than a little troubled. I call this "too much character." I'm referring to group members whose personal problems, or core biases, intrude upon the group process. I don't believe that critique groups should be emotional support groups. Whatever the reason for someone having too much character, if he or she cannot conform to the group needs for sharing time, being appropriate, and acting respectful, the leader or whoever gets the short straw must ask that person to leave. And, one of the most difficult things to do is to ask a person not to come anymore. That is problem #6, to be continued next month in Part II of Crisis in the Critique Group.
©2001 Elizabeth Lyon