5 Ways to Evaluate
Your Writing Group
by Mark Nichol
The writing group
you started three or six months ago is still going, but there’s something not
quite right about it. It’s time to step back and evaluate it:
1. Attendance
Are the charter members all
still attending? Or, if one or more people have dropped out, was it mutually
beneficial for them to do so, or do you wish they had continued to participate?
If the latter is true, and you haven’t already done so, send them a note asking
for their frank appraisal, assuring them that you want the truth so that you
can apply their response to improving the group. They might have simply found
they lacked the time or the motivation, or they might have had a personality
clash with someone else in the group or a problem with the meeting format.
If one or more people is
regularly tardy or absent, ask them why. You won’t know whether you can help
them if you don’t know the reason they aren’t on time or present all the time.
It might be as simple as needing more time at home after work before heading to
the meeting, or they might just be hesitating about quitting.
2. Skill
Are the skill levels of the
members basically on par? Not everyone needs at exactly the same place in terms
of facility with writing, but it helps to have an only slightly divergent
range. An especially skilled group member might make others feel inadequate,
and someone who is noticeably deficient in talent may be dragging the group
down.
You will likely feel
uncomfortable about approaching either type of outlier, but the more skilled
writer will probably take it as a compliment if you suggest that they seek a
writing group with higher collective abilities and may be glad to have
“permission” to do so. For the person not quite up to the group’s level, it may
take no-punches-pulled criticism — respectful but candid — to prompt them to
look for a group more suited to their level of development.
3. Workload
Are group members keeping up
with the workload? If members routinely come to group meetings unprepared —
lacking either a writing sample for others to critique or completed evaluations
of others’ passages — perhaps the amount of preparation required is excessive.
Consider reducing the frequency
of meetings or the length of submissions, or mix up the way submissions are
presented: If group members usually email their pieces for others to review and
critique before the next meeting, alternate this approach with cold critiques
(responses to writing samples that have just been distributed at that meeting).
Alternatively, have members
submit samples at every other meeting rather than each time, or skip critique
meetings in place of tutorials (everybody presents a fifteen-minute lesson
about character, plot, narrative structure, or some other element).
4. Development
Do group members feel that the
writing group is helping them develop as writers? Set aside part or all of a
meeting to discuss how everyone feels about their progress. Are other members
too timid about providing feedback, so that one or more people feel that they
aren’t getting anything out of the critiquing sessions?
Is criticism writer centered
rather than writing centered? Critiques that focus on the author rather than on
the writing samples not only hinder development but may also make members feel
uncomfortable, which may also be the cause of absentees or dropouts. If you
haven’t yet done so, model constructive comments that are specific and that
respond to the piece, not the person.
5. Feedback
External feedback, that is. At
three months after the group’s launch, this step will likely be premature, but
for a group that’s met for six months or more, it might be time to step up to
the plate. Talk everyone in the group to committing to submitting: With a given
period, everyone must send an article or poem or short story to a certain
number of publications or writing competitions for consideration.
That’s certainly one way to
evaluate a writing group. If one or more people get a prize or get published,
also-rans might feel resentment, but try to forestall any bad feelings by
suggesting ahead of time that if anyone hits the jackpot, it means everybody
has the potential to do so.