Oh, crap.

I'm editing the work of one of our two newest writing group members.

It's awful. He dots every i, crosses every t, leaves absolutely nothing to the reader's own choosing, and doesn't introduce the main character until over six pages of redundant description.

Shoot me now.

a little butterly-tummy going on

Good luck, Astarte!

They're like a facial for the head.

Oh, I like that metaphor.

Shoot me now.

No, no, no! Shoot him now. If we shoot the good writers, all we'll have left is Reader's Digest. I don't want to live in that world.

I've never had any luck with writers groups. I've been in a couple of them, periodically, and they always burn me out something fierce. I've even been in at least one with some utterly amazing poets, and got very little out of it. (OK--good edits on one long poem.)

I think, for me, it doesn't force me to write, it just contributes to the background noise in my head that I have to tune out in order to write. Does that make sense? I mean, I can and do ask advice of friends and cohorts on pieces, but sitting around with a bunch of other writers? I'd rather be drinking.

Can I shoot him instead? Please?

What I've got from writer's groups has been some mechanical corrections that were helpful, so far as my own writing is concerned. But what helped me grow as a writer was critiquing other writer's work, which made me focus more on what works as good prose, paragraph construction, dramatic focus, et cetera. So, on the balance, a big plus for me.

I thought about finding another one, but now all the sad stories are making me all btdt, so maybe not...

I thought about finding another one, but now all the sad stories are making me all btdt, so maybe not...

Well, I know some very good writers who swear by them, so I don't know. I think it may be that I just don't play well with others.

By and large I love my small group in my writing class, except there's one woman who always disagrees with everyone's opinion -- not of *her* work, but of everyone else's work. For instance, Person 1 will read a poem, and ask if the situation she's trying to convey is clear. If it is, the rest of us will say yes, and point out the elements that make it so.

Contrary!woman will pipe up with "Well, I *like* being confused by a poem; it makes me work harder. I think you should make it more vague."

I try not to throttle her.

What's been good for me about being in a group is that it forced me to produce output, week in and week out, for the long period of time until my book actually took on a momentum of its own. And I still think a group could be beneficial to me if I could find one where the writing level and/or subject matter was closer to my own. I want people who'll see the small things and call me on them. Also, as I'm editing I keep pulling things out of my rough draft, overexplanations and the like, that I never would've put in if my weekly audience wasn't people who'd never read a Regency and rarely read historical fiction of any stripe.

The thing about being a writer is-and I try to remind myself of this every time I get the nervies about how much I don't know about writing- is that the only method that really matters is the one that gets you to apply the butt-glue and put the words on the page.

If that's a writers' group, swell. If they make you break out in hives, that's a big neg-a-tory. If communing with nature and a laptop does it for you, charge up that battery and head for the great outdoors. If you need to cloister yourself away in the closet converted to an office to get some privacy for writing, get a lock for the door.

In short, while there are formats, and submission requirements, and the need for an outside eye once the work's drafted, whatever gets that first draft completed? That's the right way to work.