Being part of an on-line writing group for several years provided me with many benefits. But the positives also produced a few negatives.
The Positives:
Over a period of time, I learned to recognize each reader’s style of critiquing and approach to writing fiction/non-fiction. I discovered that, usually, all of our critiques collectively added up to one excellent response. Each person brought a different angle, a new take on the material. Some focused on character development more than story arc. Others sought deeper meanings in the piece and how they were revealed by imagery, metaphor, etc. And, usually, someone good at punctuation, grammar, or style made valuable suggestions. Rarely were comments duplicated, and, if they were, then they added weight to whatever was being discussed. So while responses could be predictable at times, they also were dependable.
I was always astonished by the ways in which these multiple readings pushed me into deepening my revision process. I didn’t submit anything that hadn’t gone through multiple (and I mean MULTIPLE) revisions. By the time the piece reached my readers, it had been examined from every angle and I couldn’t find anything more to change. It was a surprise, then, when the comments started dribbling in, and I learned all of the things I’d missed or overlooked in my own editing process. Without those extra eyes and minds, my work would have remained incomplete rather than being enriched by the perspectives these readers brought.
Okay, the Negatives:
Some readers are not sophisticated in their literary knowledge. Therefore, they often don’t get it if the writer is experimenting, trying out new approaches to the genre. I’d learned to recognize these individuals and read their comments discriminately, recognizing their limitations.
In a similar vein, most of the critiquers had been through a writing program and brought some of the problematic, standardized workshop advice that can limit rather than liberate a story. Show and don’t tell is one approach. In certain instances, it’s valid and helpful counsel. But at its worst, it becomes a blanket response to all writing, the reader not taking into account when the narrative is more attuned to the character’s inner state than what is happening externally. Creating “scenes” also can fall into this trap. Sometimes a scene can vitalize a fading passage and dramatize what’s happening, bringing conflict and tension into the piece. Other times, it’s not appropriate.
The greatest negative for me was when a writer submitted a really early draft and hadn’t spent time honing the material. It was essentially a freewrite containing all of the original grammar and punctuation errors, the assumption being that the messier the better—the more “emotional” or “authentic.” It wasn’t. It was simply a very early draft that was difficult to read because of all the surface errors. Then I felt the writer was making me rescue this effort and do the actual writing.
I didn’t want to deal with early drafts because they are usually in the exploratory stage and haven’t really congealed yet. The writer hasn’t discovered the heart of the story and is relying on critique group readers to do this hard work. I resented being used in this way. But I also felt that responding too soon to an exploratory draft inhibits the writing itself, shutting down rather than opening up possibilities.
The positives of these groups clearly outweigh the negatives. Otherwise, I wouldn’t have remained with these particular writers for so long. Not only did I learn from the responses to my own submissions, but I also got insight by reading comments on other members’ work. It’s a win all the way around.