Managing a Critique Group

In February I attended the bi-monthly Western Slope writing workshop; this time it was about critique partners. I enjoy the RMFW workshops and attend them when I can spare the time to drive 120 miles to Grand Junction. It isn’t just the drive time. For residents of southeastern Utah, a meeting in G.J. takes all day. Once of one of these desert dwellers drives all the way to the “big” city there’s no way they can start the long drive back without visiting a good restaurant and shopping at Walmart.

Free time or not, I wanted to attend this workshop because I’ve been president of an online critique group since 2012, and I wanted to hear what the speakers had to say. The workshop, How to Become an Effective Critique Partner, was led by Vicki Law and Mike Ruchhoeft. The two were well prepared. They make an effective team, providing the audience good information about being an effective critique partner. If the meeting had been longer, I would have stayed as long as they did. I didn’t need to go shopping anyway.

However, finding an effective critique partner, which is largely a one-on-one affair or one-on-two or three, doesn’t include the challenges and problems found in a large critique group like mine. The challenges I face include:   

• Members who don’t know each other outside the Internet’s virtual reality;
• Members who vary widely in religious and/or spiritual beliefs, political positions, and favored genres;
• Member ages ranging from 18 to 75;
• Members who believe in “paying it forward” contrasted with those who only joined to receive free beta-reader feedback; and most exasperating…
• Members who wouldn’t know a prepositional phrase if it bought them breakfast.

Long ago this chapter started out as the At-Large group for a state-wide writing association. Before 2012, the chapter president for this group didn’t have much to do because the association sent announcements and newsletters to all chapter members; nothing separate went to the lonely at-large members.

After I agreed to be chapter president, the association president asked me to start an online critique group with them. Well, since I often work as a copy editor and I used to be an English teacher I said, “Sure, why not?” Now, eight years later, I’m still looking for a magic widget to smooth out the wrinkles. I would like this group to work for everyone who joins, but now I fear that’s not a realistic expectation.

Take Bertha for instance (please). Her criticism of my vice-president’s writing nearly caused a perfectly good author (award-winner no less) to quit the group. Bertha condemned Jane for using cuss words in her YA spec fiction novel, to which Jane responded that she had a teenage daughter who told her what it was like in high school and how the students spoke in the halls and outside. Bertha believed Jane should be setting a “decent” example for her young (almost adult) readers while Jane insisted she wanted to meet the readers on their level (but without the F word) so they would read her book and enjoy the story.

Without my knowledge, this email debate between the two had been raging for over a week when Jane finally wrote me that she’d quit if she had to take more of Bertha’s haranguing.

I freaked.

In my POV, one Jane was worth ten Berthas. Jane was an excellent reviewer, most everyone’s favorite, while Bertha’s comments and suggestions were sparse and usually lacked depth. I didn’t know what to do. If I stepped in, Bertha would know Jane tattled on her. In the end, I convinced Jane to tell Bertha the email debate had to end and that Jane wasn’t going to change her mind—or her writing. Jane was pleased to learn she had my blessing to so. Bertha backed off and eventually left the chapter.

Arguing philosophy is one thing, but ignoring (dissing) a member by not critiquing their work is a worse sin by far. Over the years, this callous action by a member has caused another member to leave. Because I’m not privy to conversations between members, I don’t realize there’s a problem unless the injured party tells me.

Last month I contacted members whose association dues were up, asking if they planned to renew. Kaitlin told me she wasn’t going to renew because Robert had refused to review her story.

My mind screamed, “What?”

I realize Kaitlin writes some strange stuff, it is strange even to someone like me who actually digs strange stories, but I had no idea that Robert (a straight arrow if there ever was one) would simply refuse to review a member’s submission. One of our guidelines asks that members make six to ten remarks or corrections per submission (which are 3200 words or less).  Since everyone receives a copy of our guidelines, I (naively) assumed that we are all adults and would all comply. I assured Kaitlin that she would never be placed in Robert’s subgroup again, but she still declined to renew.

I feel bad about losing her and wonder if she’ll ever join another critique group.

In summary, perhaps finding a compatible one-on-one critique partner would be easier (and certainly safer) than getting along with a disparate group of distant reviewers. Yet, isn’t that who might one day read our book… people we don’t know who may disagree with what we’ve written?  Could happen.