Critiquing Guidelines for WWG

Critique, and not writing per se, is the core activity of the WWG regular meetings. Such emphasis should set WWG apart to become a magnet for earnest writers—and a repellant to the non-committed. Critique requires hard work and emotional risk, but it rewards the courageous with both a strengthening process and a tested product.

We use the glass box critiquing method, where the critiquee receives critiques in silence. For more on WWG and this method, please read Considering The Glass Box Critiquing Method, which is also posted in the files section of this site.

The following sections contain some guidelines, suggestions and warnings for performing critique with the Worcester Writers Group.

Homework: Nothing happens without it! Mechanics: Virtually all of our critiquing work occurs outside of and well before the WWG regular meetings. At a meeting, only the orals remain. The monthly meetings are not so much a place of work as they are a place to report on work that was done previously. Pieces for critical consideration shall be distributed enough in advance of the regular meetings for all members to work critiques before the meeting. They shall (commonly) be distributed electronically via email, allowing the recipient to control his output preferences, such as paper, spacing and font. Your critiquing comments should be marked on your copy of the paper. You should use that paper during your oral presentation and give it to the writer under critique when finished. These critiques become the property of the writer, who may use, file, or discard them. A critiquer may (but rarely, please) declare to “pass” on any work, and not offer critique. Remember, we count on one another for critique, and other group members will have likely found the wherewithal to deliver on their promises. Realistically, life does what life does and we need the occasional bye, but a member who shows a pattern of non-work shall be asked to leave. You may not feel qualified to critique certain pieces of work. Do it anyway. We’d rather that you state your reservations, but continue with critique. Because a writer passes on critiquing a piece does not preclude him from receiving his critique in turn. Content: Ignore spelling and grammar Do not proof-read or copy-edit—not on the critique sheet, and not during the oral session. It amazes me how many people love to correct grammatical minutia…and who will do it anyway even when asked not to! Such micro-editing wastes time (at this stage of writing.) After critique, huge chunks of writing will often just be tossed…along with all your little red corrections. These marks also confuse the visual field, and take focus off the point of critique—the bigger issues of style and story. In this, they do not “add value” to the critique—they diminish value. Members of the group may seek out other members for something akin to proof-reading or copy-editing, but such agreements should be considered personal—they are not an implied benefit of group membership. All such activities must occur outside of group time. Critique the work and not the worker. Take this as an axiom. Consider a tattoo. Critique the object work. Do not critique another critique. Critique the work as crafted and not the work as preached. You must separate the message from the diction—not in their logical connections one to another—but in the message’s connection to you. Could you, who believes passionately in the right to life, objectively critique a piece that supports a woman’s right to choose abortion? Could you, the vegan, objectively critique an article targeted to Meat Mongers Monthly? What do you hate most?—I mean passionately hate! Could you lay all that aside to give energetic writer’s support and advice to someone who was writing a piece promoting the very issue that you hate? You simply must to critique objectively. Submit your best formative work. Do not throw out mere “ideas” or “concepts” and expect those writerly peons to flesh it out for you. Critique time is not group-write time. We look at works that the writer considers to be appropriately completed—the best at this stage. Particularly in an environment where your peers have sacrificed to craft fine work, do not toss something out there merely to fulfill the writer’s requirement. Others will know. But if you apply your maximum efficient effort, others will know that too. It is far better that you suffer for your art than your reader suffer for it. Your received critique is your report card. It shows you what needs work, but also what shines. Critique time flow: Making the best use of very few minutes. Noise: We should hear only one voice during any oral critique—the voice of the current critiquer. This implies that other critiquers listen carefully to the critique, especially to note critique points which might be redundant in their presentation. The writer should not speak or vocalize during critique, either in agreement or disagreement, neither to the presenter nor to the side. In like manner, other critiquers should not speak or vocalize in either encouragement or disagreement, either to the front or to the side. Remaining silent is more difficult than many realize, since, especially at the early sessions, the room feels unbearably tense, and we humans hate discomfort and confrontation. We are driven to speak to ease the moment. Don’t. The sessions will get easier in subsequent weeks. Turn off your cell phones. What to say. How to say it. Redundant observations Pay attention to ongoing critiques and make note of any findings that duplicate your own. Please do mention them again in your turn, but as a brief ditto, like “Ditto on the lost connection in paragraph two.” But, do not re-plow that furrow. In like manner, if you noted an extraordinarily effective bit that was previously mentioned, please mention it also, but again, as a ditto. Why bother with a redundant mention? Writers need to know if eight people agreed that they wandered off in paragraph six—and that it was not merely one person’s interpretation. Similarly, if five people thought that paragraph six was the best thing they’ve ever read, a writer would want to know that too. Do point out the particularly good, but not the routinely good. Writers use higher diction than non-writers on average. This is neither surprising nor remarkable…so don’t remark. Watch for the fresh—the uniquely good. Speak to that. When possible, submit suggested corrections on the critique sheet. If you, the critiquer, cannot come up with a suggestion for correction, maybe your proposed problem does not really exist. I do not agree, however, that all critique must contain suggested corrections. Balancing good and bad comments. Common wisdom says something like “Always soften a negative comment by balancing it with positive comments.” Hey, I’m a believer…especially with six-year-olds. But we advertised for well-adjusted adults, remember? Consider the following: Never convert “wisdom” into formulaic behavior. Balancing applies a tax to critique. By rules of balance, you must “purchase” the right to comment negatively by “spending” positive comments—and often at a non-balanced ratio: two positive comments to every one negative. What do you do with a really really really poor piece? Invent positives? “Great ink color, by the way…and hey, you don’t sweat much for a bald guy!…anyone ever tell you that?” Any presentation that relies on formulas runs the risk of showing more pattern than content, becoming, in effect, the presenter’s tic. Balancing also violates other guidelines that were designed for meeting efficiency, such as not commenting on the routinely good. Balancing can only add to time without adding to value. Balance is a good rule…but not the first rule. The critiquer’s observed truth is the first rule. No matter what other rules follow that rule, they must be considered subordinate in both truth and weight.

Cautions: Most new enterprises start with a honeymoon period. I say Enjoy!…for we will soon know an uncomfortable amount about each other. Even blood families crumble under that strain. The trials that must necessarily come will sift commitment. Then, what remains remains. Works shared on any level at WWG must be considered private. Members are honor- bound to keep the creations of other people secure. Never share another member’s work without the writer’s permission. You have the last word on what to do with your received critiques. Sometimes, even the nearly omniscient mass of the WWG will make mistakes. Take the groups observations seriously, like traffic signals. Evaluate, then proceed down your road. Are your observations intrinsic to the work or are you projecting your own problems upon it? This one’s tough. If you connect with a piece at all, you will certainly apply your DNA to it. As much as possible, become two different persons: One who reads to enjoy, and one who reads to critique.