I know, I know, I said there are writers and there are authors (see my first post). But every author has to start off as a writer. An author is a writer determined to publish, not just bury their work in a closet, under a desk, or on his or her computer.
I've been a part of two writer's groups - one for wannabee screenwriters, and the present one for wannabee (and actual) authors. From that, I learned two distinctly different approaches to criticism - and most everything else.
In my screenwriters group, what we did was print out copies to hand out to fellow screenwriters to read 25 pages of a screenplay - beginning, middle, what-have-you. And what I mean by read is "read aloud" - so when it was my turn to have my screenplay read, I would "cast" a narrator and every other part and hear it read. That was incredibly helpful, because you hear what sounds clunky that didn't when it was only in your head. Afterwards, we would go around in a circle adnd each wannabee screenwriter would provide her feedback and notes on the fly and hand those to me to tweak as I saw fit. This meant that the screenwriter would have to be put on a schedule, so it might take up to a couple of months to have the opportunity to get your screenplay read and critique.
In my writers group, we put all our work on a cloud share, one folder for each wannabee author, and each writer would read one chapter of everyone's work-in-progress and have notes ready in advance. There was no reading aloud and every writer expected each week to have some critique available to them. We go around in a circle, every other writer providing their critique before moving on to the next writer. Then the writer would take home the notes made by his fellow wannabee authors.
These differences are essentially dictated to by the nature of the written media. Screenplays are very dialogue heavy, with slight, nuanced action descriptions, so the reading aloud is a very useful way to provide feedback. Whereas the writers group provides feedback on novels, novellas, or short stories - a medium where internal dialogue and rich description are at least as important as the dialogue, so less is gained by reading aloud in the group setting and it provides more constant and consistent feedback.
But the differences between these two groups went much deeper than the format of the meeting or the media. It was the way criticism was treated. First, some background.
In the screenwriters group, most everyone had gotten to know each other after attending a pricey weekend screenwriting seminar and formed a bond based on that event. Afterwards, they commited to help each other develop their screenplays. Their core was stable, but starting to crumble as people realized their hopes of actually selling their screenplay or making it themselves was almost astronomically slim. As a result, many persevered with different screenplay projects, like TV episodes to act as a "calling card" to get a real job, or create a low-budget film and convince others to finance it, etc. I did this for years and was incredibly fortunate to have a friend who could gather resources (mostly) gratis to help make two short films to act as calling cards (see my first post for further details). In the end, it worked in large measure for Rick, who was both a co-writer and director. For me, not so much.
My problem with this screenwriting group wasn't the crumbling membership due to a descending sense of hope, but how they critiqued each other. Though I did get some very useful feedback, after about nine months to a year, I realized I was getting the same kind of feedback as the established members gave each other - namely, "that's pretty good - you can tweak x and y and make it better, but keep going..." I realize now that the reason for that less-than-useful approach was 1) a sense of malaise had settled over the group, and 2) they'd become more concerned about maintaining their friendship than risking real criticism. In other words, they'd devolved into a social club.
Understand, I'm not anti-social, but, if I want to be successful, I need a whole lot more than "pretty good" and minor tweaks - particularly if the screenplay, at its core, sucks! It's like they're saying, "Since you don't have any hope of selling this screenplay or making this movie, go ahead and maintain your fantasy and fart around, doing whatever makes you happy until you realize how hopeless the whole effort is." I was in this group for five years and inevitably saw people drop out and not get replaced because new members saw they weren't going to get much real help!
What was my history with the group? At first, I was a sponge. I just listened and took it all in. Later, as I kept reading screenplay books and learning what I thought worked and what didn't, I jumped into providing honest feedback. Big mistake! I immediately began offending people because I would either say this wasn't working (and once I used the word that should not be spoken as criticism - "stupid") and pissed my "colleagues" off!
The funny thing is, this dichotomy in our approaches actually provided me with a new friendship. Once, a new guy came along to the group and, when his time came up on the list, he brought out an SF screenplay. We read through it and everybody else did their "pretty good - just tweak x and y" bit and then it came to me. Literally, when I started, they went "well, here goes Jim". Funny. Anyway, I started off asking questions about his world, his characters, and their conflicting goals. The new guy admitted he wasn't sure of those answers, so I suggested he determine those answers and then go back to it. He took verbatim notes on my questions and I never saw him at our social club again. Six months later, we ran into each other at a social function and he re-introduced himself to me and said I was the only one to offer him valuable feedback. I'm not saying this to toot my horn. What I am saying is - you need a group of people with the goal of being successful authors (or screenwriters) and that requires people willing to offend you to help you make your work the best it can be.
I'm very fortunate to say my current writers group is made up of such people. One full-time career author, three published authors in different genres who are making money on the side and have a following, and a few wannabees like me. My friend Ed invited to the group (which is invitation only) because I knew him and two others and they had seen my shorts and believed I had the potential and the commitment to become an author.
Now, if you read my previous post on my Crisis of Confidence (if not, please read it), then you know they place the work ahead of trying to stroke each other's feelings or ego. "Iron sharpens iron" is never more true than for authors and wannabee authors. Mere writers are afraid of it or have, unfortunately, had bad experiences with it. I've had to have a thick skin to keep going through all my efforts, but I can say without doubt that my current project Sojourners would have no hope of publication except for taking in and working with their incisive and in-depth criticism.
That is what you MUST have - a group of committed fellow wannabee authors who are willing to tell you the truth about how they see your work and are willing to provide constructive criticism.
But what if you don't have such a group or want to form your own? Here are a few suggestions:
1. Form a charter where the rules are spelled out for all members. In it, put in what is acceptable and what is not acceptable to provide in criticism and how to react to it. For example, no one wants to provide you with a good critique if you constantly interrupt them to defend or "explain" yourself. In our group, the rule is - if you as the critiqued author are asked a specific question, answer that specific question. Otherwise, simply listen, remembering that they are trying to help you write to your potential. On occasion, if I'm unclear about a critique, I can ask a question to the critic, but that shouldn't be used as a chance to "explain myself" (though I admit I've tried!)
2. Look for or advertise on the Web. Every social media site provides such a capability. But you'll need to decide if you want to do a local, meet-in-person group or a virtual group where you get together on Skype or something similar. Both have advantages and disadvantages.
3. Commit to listen non-defensively and critique humbly, but honestly. You know the saying about opinions - everybody's got one. That doesn't make yours better or worse, except for these caveats, First, if they're published, they've been through the grist mill and their critique should be weighed more heavily than not. Second, if they are in the same genre, that can be very helpful. But neither makes that person the Pope. Follow the Rule of Three - if three people tell you that something doesn't work, you probably want to listen to that and take steps to tweak. If only person says something and it seems way off the mark, you can let it go.
4. Pick members at varying experience levels and different interests. I'm grateful that my current group is made up of several non-SF readers. Beside which, my next project will not be SF-related, so their varied perspectives provide me a deeper richness. Besides, what could be more boring that being around people all with the same mindset, all equally clueless, and all trying to do the exact same thing at the same time? It sounds like a recipe for a social club - or high school!
Sorry. I promised a short post. Next time, next time.. Please let me know what you think. Have you been in a writer's group before? What was that like and do you think it's useful? Thanks and look for tomorrow's short post.
No comments:
Post a Comment