Confessions of a Rogue Writer: Don't Waste Your Time with Critique Groups

[StephenEngland]

I decided to celebrate Ayn Rand's birthday today by embracing my individualism and taking on one of my favorite targets in a blog post on: critique groups. http://bit.ly/ws8kZL
Feel free to comment and disagree with me. 

[Nathan Lowell]

Well, that's one way to boost blog traffic, I suppose.

Will you be taking on editors next? (oh, wait, that was Mike Angel) Or cover artists? (Did somebody do that one too? I forget)

[StephenEngland]

Not necessarily. A professional-grade cover artist is essential, and most authors do need an editor--although the quality of editors(both freelance and publisher-employed) varies wildly. Critique groups, by contrast, are as anachronistic as writer's conferences.

[JRTomlin]

Well, that should give some really bad writers an excuse not to improve. (What we need around here is a "raised eyebrow" icon)

[foreverjuly]

I'm celebrating Ayn Rand's birthday by walking into a stop sign.

[StephenEngland]

Haha, JR, I think this is the emoticon you were looking for:  You must have missed my line about becoming a perfectionist. Most indie authors I know aren't perfectionists. The ones that are--write good novels, with or without a critique group.

[Andrew Biss]

[N. Gemini Sasson]

YMMV. 

(Sometimes I'm grateful for someone who can tell me, "Gemi, this part makes no sense. You need to -" And I know they're right. I just needed a slap upside the head to knock some sense into me.)

[Paul Clayton]

I can't read your post at present, but I will later tonight.  But I do agree with the idea, up to a point.  I believe that critique groups can help... in the early days of a writer's training.  But, they can become a trap.  I've seen it happen -- folks coming back again and again to the group, and having that group essentially re-write their book and send them back to the drawing board.  

I think that a more beneficial arrangement for a writer that has mastered the basics would be to have two, or hopefully three, other writers who he/she respects, that will critique his/her work.  

But groups...  I don't like comittees.  

[SeanBlack]

I broadly agree about critique groups. However, a good editor is worth their weight in gold. I was very fortunate to work with a legendary editor on the first three Lock books and it made a huge difference.

[N. Gemini Sasson]

I can't read your post at present, but I will later tonight.  But I do agree with the idea, up to a point.  I believe that critique groups can help... in the early days of a writer's training.  But, they can become a trap.  I've seen it happen -- folks coming back again and again to the group, and having that group essentially re-write their book and send them back to the drawing board.  

I think that a more beneficial arrangement for a writer that has mastered the basics would be to have two, or hopefully three, other writers who he/she respects, that will critique his/her work.  

But groups...  I don't like comittees.  

I agree, Paul. If you find a beta reader or two that you trust, who can respect your writing style and the story you're trying to tell, but still give you a solid reaction and tell you why something does or doesn't work, that's priceless.

[Katy]

Thank heavens I didn't publish my novel before I spent some time in a critique group.  
I was pretty sure of my writing when I joined the group. And then I found out the reality. Did I let a committee write my book? Heck, no. Did I learn a LOT? Heck, yes.
A serious writer will learn which advice is sound and which is not.
It is the rare writer who can learn everything they need to know from reading other writers' works.
Amazon is littered with books by people who have no idea that they need help. Sometimes they submit those books to the review site I read for. And sometimes I gently steer them to Critique Circle.
Saying crit groups are worthless is doing a disservice to the newbie who is going to put his stuff on Amazon and get bad reviews.
 

[J. Tanner]

I'm sure there are bad critique groups or ones that are a bad fit for a particular writer but I think impartial feedback is essential (at the early stages) to learning how to write entertaining fiction and the reality is a crit group is probably the best option you're going to get. If Vince Flynn is knocking at your door to read your first draft by all means don't turn him away but who really has that option? So you make due.

(You, oddly, defend BETA readers in the comments and there is little difference to my eye between a BETA reader and a critiquer. Both offer outside, impartial feedback on your writing for the purpose of identifying and resolving problem areas.)

I also think a new writer gets a lot from trying to deconstruct what's wrong with someone else's substandard writing. You get a feel for the difference between the bad and the good (which I agree you need to be immersed in as well) and how to turn one to the other. Crit groups let you apply the advice you're getting from the RITE REAL GOOD! book you're turning to for help.

[Italiahaircolor]

I think in many respects you're right ...

For my first novel, I joined the highly touted public CC. It was the only option for me at the time. My original plan was to slowly add the entire novel, chunk it out and wait potentially to collect enough credits to accomplish that ... only, I never did ... I only posted my prologue after reading the "reviews" and "commentary" ...

Let me say, some of it was good ... heck, golden, maybe.  Others, not so much.  And reading the works posted by my peers ... I get entirely what you were saying ... some of their writing is hard to swallow, even in small chunks, and yet those were the ones sitting in judgement of me.  As I've said before, I was a reader before a writer.  It wasn't uncommon for me to consume two to three books a week, while I'm not the best writer (obviously) ... I can decipher good writing from bad ... and most of what I reading on the CC felt like high-school level Young Author submissions rather than the real deal.

However, for my second novel, I've joined not only a group with three other writers I respect, but committed to exchanging with another outside source as well.  This, I feel will be a better match for me.  I know, for instance, that one of the writers in the larger group has written books I personal enjoy, so obviously, we're off to a better start.

CC ... online ... are bubbles.  Those critiquing your work are working with limited knowledge of your story ... a few hundred words at a time with zero backstory.  Some will follow you from the start, others will start swimming mid-stream.  That, by nature, is bound to lead for monumental discrepancies and yet, you could trust them entirely.  It makes no sense, really, when you think about it like that in those terms.

Thank you for the blog posting, it was incredibly insightful.  

[MichaelWallace]

Your blog post doesn't describe my experience with critique groups. I've belonged to six different groups over the past twenty years. They certainly have their pitfalls, but I've never found them a "colossal waste of time." Reading, critiquing, and offering up my own stories for evaluation has helped to hone my skills.

“At the start of every poorly written indie novel, there’s a dedication to the critique group that ‘improved’ it.”

I thank my critique group in my book that will be released on the 21st. They gave me encouragement to keep writing when I was at a low point in my confidence. But to be fair, the book did get its start in the "poorly written indie novel" category before it was picked up by Thomas & Mercer.

[edwardgtalbot]

Heh, we could always celebrate her birthday the way she did in her last years - leeching off the system when her individualism failed to provide what she needed

(hypocrisy is of course present on both the left and the right, Ms. Rand only gets the attention in celebration of her birthday. And I'm aware that it is easy to find in her work the fact that she regarded taking the aid as restitution as opposed to being hypocritical - if that holds together for anyone, God Bless 'em.)

As for the topic, some critique groups are great for some authors and others aren't.  Same as anything else.

[Edward M. Grant]

Heh, we could always celebrate her birthday the way she did in her last years - leeching off the system when her individualism failed to provide what she needed

I'm not great fan of Rand as a person and I'm not terribly familiar with her 'last years', but I'd guess her books have resulted in the government collecting far more tax than she used in her life.

[D a l y a]

The thing about critique groups is ... they're like strata councils.  Some people will be there because they want to do good and help other people, and some will be there because they have absolutely nothing better to do.

[MikeAngel]

Well, that's one way to boost blog traffic, I suppose.

Will you be taking on editors next? (oh, wait, that was Mike Angel) Or cover artists? (Did somebody do that one too? I forget)

I didn't "take them on" bub, I merely eschewed them for my own work. Somewhere someplace an editor is peeing in someone's cereal instead of writing their own stuff. Sure. An editor might be a good writer, though they are different skill sets. I simply admire folks with enough gumption and perserverance to learn how to edit. I prefer beta readers with great sensitivity. And I do listen to them, as well as to reviewers.

[MikeAngel]

Critique groups have often proven less friendly than Ward 5 at Trenton Prison. My only extended experience with them was with Alt.Fiction.original, a usenet group where Joe Konrath and I and a bunch of others used to post excerpts and comment on them. Got truly nasty. Also, Zoetrope, a cauldron of leftist vitriol and mutually congratulatory cliques, but which also had a few helpful aspects, such as "private offices" where certain aspects of the craft could be discussed. I dabbled in a few others when trying to improve my fiction, but they were only done in passing.

I learned far more from studing 60 or so of the top books on the craft, from Stephen King to Anne LaMott to John Gardner. Of course, reading widely helped, as I'd never read much fiction as a young man.

Much of what you say about critique groups I agree with--to a large extent it's the blind leading the blind. Without Hemingway's internal [crap]-detector, a writer can go wrong in a hurry. I used to take those crits and go thru them with a blue pen and mark "yes" or "No" or "Asinine" to each remark. That did help me build a doodoo detector. When most of the remarks got low points, I moved on. A writer has no closer or better critiquer of his work than himself. That goes for dames too. Of course, I was born a perfectionist of sorts, who has tempered that streak with the realization that one must accept a few flaws in life.

[Victorine]

I can't believe anyone could say "Critique Groups are worthless" anymore than they could say any large and diverse group of people are all the same in one fashion or another.

Critique groups are not like McDonald's. They're not all trained and given the same skills so they are pretty much the same wherever you go. So you tried a critique group or two and didn't feel like you got good advice. Well, each person in a critique group is not the same. You're going to have vastly different critiques depending on who you are paired up with.

I, personally, have found critique groups invaluable to me. Other people see things I can't in my own writing. And I don't let a committee write my books. I take their advice, viewpoints, and reactions and I decide if I want to change something.

Unless you've had every critique partner in the world critique your stuff, it's impossible to deem them worthless. And utterly silly to say critique groups are bad, but beta readers are good. (Or editors, for that matter.) There are bad beta readers and good beta readers. There are bad editors and good editors. There are bad critiques and good critiques.

Just sayin...

[J Dean]

Except for her atheism, I was pretty fond of Ayn Rand.

And in fairness to her, keep in mind that she was in Russia when Marxism began its takeover, so while she may have swung to a wild and opposite extreme, she wasn't speaking from ignorance.  Neither were Arthur Koestler, Richard Wright, Louis Fischer, or Stephen Spender, all of whom were exposed to communism and wrote about their disillusionment with it in the book "The God that Failed."

Critique groups are not bad, provided they are made up of genuinely honest people.

[ToniD]

As a "dame writer" I respectfully disagree, Mike. Every editor I've worked with has given strong constructive criticism that allowed me to see where my story fell short. I'm talking about structure, character motivation, and pacing, which I was able to improve by answering the questions the editor(s) posed.

I do agree that a writer should try to develop the skills to self-critique (especially after letting the manuscript chill for a week or a month), but that takes a writer only so far.

I'll also sing the praises of good beta readers.

I've never been in a formal critique group, but I'd think it's possible to find a good one.

[JamieDeBree]

Both crit groups I've been in (both small, offline groups) actually hindered rather than helped my writing when I was just starting out. I don't do anything well in a large group, so that's not something I'd even try. Well, and I tend to write too fast, and I don't like critting one chapter at a time (I edit as I go, but it's as I'm writing, and I don't go back through until I'm done). So crit groups don't fit my writing or editing style either, or none have to this point. I wouldn't have time to participate in a large group with lots of reading/critting responsibilities either. Too much writing of my own to do.

I have two people who read for me now, my editor, and my cover artist (also a writer). For me, that's all I need/want, aside from readers.

To each his/her own...I'm sure some people find crit groups fun/helpful (and that's fab), but they're definitely not my cup of tea, so to speak.

[Victoria J]

Both crit groups I've been in (both small, offline groups) actually hindered rather than helped my writing when I was just starting out. I don't do anything well in a large group, so that's not something I'd even try. Well, and I tend to write too fast, and I don't like critting one chapter at a time (I edit as I go, but it's as I'm writing, and I don't go back through until I'm done). So crit groups don't fit my writing or editing style either, or none have to this point. I wouldn't have time to participate in a large group with lots of reading/critting responsibilities either. Too much writing of my own to do.

I have two people who read for me now, my editor, and my cover artist (also a writer). For me, that's all I need/want, aside from readers.

To each his/her own...I'm sure some people find crit groups fun/helpful (and that's fab), but they're definitely not my cup of tea, so to speak.

I have also found this to be the case for my own writing. If others get something out of them - and they've found a good group - that's great. Personally, I don't find them useful and I don't have the time.