Ours is less a critique group than it is a working writers, "tell us what you need to know about what you've just chosen to read to us tonight" feedback group. One thing I'd make damned sure of in advance, if possible, is that everyone in the group can, in fact, write.

We had a dear sweet man come to two of our groups, and he was one of the worst writers I've ever come across. Ask Betsy. She was there. His stuff was so awful, you couldn't meet his eye; one of our group members actually thought this stuff was supposed to be satire.

Plus, I've never had a group devoted to long fiction.

Are they all romance writers, Susan? I would love to be a group devoted to one genre -- tin my current group everyone is writing novels, but they're all over the map, genre-wise, and some of them don't ever read romance, so...not so helpful.

Bev, I was in a group very briefly that included people writing, essentially, greeting card verse. It was tough for me, because while that can be fun, it's tough to switch gears from ways to say "I'm sorry your cat died" to the opening scene of a murder mystery.

I've never tried a formal group (meatspace, that is), but for me, the "this part doesn't seem to work, I think the dialogue is off, help me with it" would be best. And you'd have to come down hard on the sort of people who seem to think "critique" is a license to see how many pieces you can slice somebody's ego into.

I want to know moremoremore, now!

I need to write it down in a more settled form, but the rough sketch would be that this is a novel about two sisters in their late teens or early 20s. Ainsley, who won't tell me whether she's the younger or older sister (or possibly a twin), was at one point a moderately famous child actress/singer, but had a baby at 16 by a truly scuzzy manager. She 's a pretty useless mother, and Ainsley and Abbey's parents aren't really around; as a result, Abbey is the primary caretaker for her niece, now three. Cue laughter, tears, learning, hugs, drama, etc.

Or, anyhow, cue those things once I write the book.

One thing I've always wondered -- how do you pronounce Ainsley?

I'm pretty sure it's Aynz-lee, though some anonymous internet person says it should be Ashley. (I guess following Aislin/Ashlynn). The caveat there is, I stole it from Margaret Atwood, so I've never heard it on a RL person.

Worst writing group experience? Having to explain to a man twice my age that it really truly wasn't "mother-fucker" honest. No hyphen required. I may look like a pixie, but I know from Mafia drama. He was not convinced.

And you'd have to come down hard on the sort of people who seem to think "critique" is a license to see how many pieces you can slice somebody's ego into.

I don't tolerate that at my writers group - never have, never will. There is no trashing allowed; that's why, when a space opens up at my table, I'm really careful these days to make sure the new member is a decent writer, published or not being beside the point.

I also didn't allow the writer to explain. The work needs to speak for itself and I was firm that it was a given that all the choices the writer made were for a good reason and since the writer already knew those reasons, enumerating them didn't help the writer learn anything new. Thsi is very difficult for some folks, but it leads to more fruitful discussion.

Can you explain a little what you don't allow people to explain? Because while I think it's important to hear what your critique partners have to say without protesting or going into "yes, but" mode, I also find it very useful when a critique partner has a problem with a scene to be able to say, "What I was trying to achieve here is X. You say that's not coming through? OK, got it. Any suggestions on how to get it where I want it to be?"

One thing I'd make damned sure of in advance, if possible, is that everyone in the group can, in fact, write.

I've seen samples of everyone's writing, and while we're not all at exactly the same level, we all have a certain basic level of competence at the mechanics and at structuring a story. So that part is OK.

Are they all romance writers, Susan?

Not only that, they're all Regency writers. Cool, eh?

My existing writers group is all over the map, too. There's me, plus a writer of magic realist novellas, a guy who does sort of high school nostalgia short stories based on his 60's experiences, a woman who did a sort of romantic time travelish fantasy for her first book and is plotting a mystery now, and a woman who does paranormal romantic suspense. It's turned into a good group, and it's useful to see how my work is received by people who don't have a pre-existing set of mental furniture for Regency romances or Napoleonic Wars sagas. But I'm looking forward to having the Regency group, too, just 'cuz.

I also didn't allow the writer to explain.

I think she means beforehand. Let the work stand on its own on the first readings.

I also think she shouldn't explain afterward. Too often it degenerates into "yes, but".

The protocol that I've seen work best is that the writer says nothing until all the critiques are finished. Then she gets to reply, in the form of "Would X make it work better"?

I'm with Betsy on principle, although I'm less draconian about it. But, after all, no one is obliged to utilise the results of the criticism; the purpose for feedback is to provide a touchstone for the writer, not for the providers of said feedback to rewrite the book.

So listening without yes-butting? A very good thing. You can always discard what doesn't work from that input later.