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.)

Drabble:

Half a lemon, slightly shriveled, with patches of green and white starting to fuzz one side, lurks on one side of the refrigerator next to two-and-a-half beers and a Mountain Dew. Three boxes of leftover Chinese takeout slowly leak drops of sauce onto the dented top of a pizza box on the shelf below, spotting it brown and red. A wedge of cheese, loosely wrapped in plastic, weighs down a paper plate on top of an old bowl of chili.

An open box of baking soda sits forlornly in the back corner, inadequate to the task.

The Book, Pg. 14,969,478

James, Harriet (cont.)

10:31am 21-May-1944

She: turned the corner by the bookstore::walked down Reed to the train station::stopped at the intersection and waited for the bus.

10:42am 21-May-1944

At the: coffee shop she met her current fling::train station got on the #12::corner, the buss’s brakes failed.

10:50am 21-May-1944

Her: lover pulled out a gun::brother met her at the station.

10:58am 21-May-1944

She: sprawled on the sidewalk, bleeding::screamed as the grill of the truck headed straight toward them.

11:05am 21-May-1944

The body was prepared for viewing at the county morgue.

Impassively, he closed the book on that particular destiny listed therein.

edit: made it fit the 100 words. Hah.