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.

I don't think, except in very rare cases, that you ever need to explain what you were trying to do. You need to find out what you DID do. I think explaining only works if it's a question, the way you have it in your example. Nine out of ten times, though, the explanation is more like this:
Reader: I didn't see why she got so mad at the brother. It seemed to be way out of character.
Writer: But I put this in this to reveal why she pawned the ring. Reader: But she has been so shy up to now. It felt forced.
Writer: No, because she suddenly gets courage. People sometimes have hidden reserves.

(nodding madly at Robin's example)

"Yes, but..." to the life, isn't it?

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 think I might suggest something close to this, allowing people to explain what they're trying to achieve as long as it's done in a tone of "How can I better meet my goal?" rather than "Your criticism is invalid."

Because really, the best advice I get from the current writing group usually comes out of the dialogue. E.g., last night if I'd just silently listened to the critiques, I wouldn't have had an "Aha!" moment about the shifting power dynamics in Jack and Anna's relationship that's going to color every scene I write for them from here on out.

I don't think, except in very rare cases, that you ever need to explain what you were trying to do. You need to find out what you DID do.

Yes, this. Nodding madly with Deb. Robin explained it all much better than I did.

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

Oh, very cool. Should be a good group.

My last group was LAME. And not in a Biblical sense...that was the one before. They always thought my stuff was nasty, too(and that was pre-Buffista. I think I could kill them now.)