I’m still pondering critique. After recieving some yesterday from complete strangers, I’ve decided I have more to say on the matter. That and…

I stumbled on a blog post a week or so ago, and the resulting conversation got me thinking. Okay, stumbled isn’t the right word. I read Kate’s blog all the time. But her comments got me thinking more than usual about critique groups. And go read her blog first, because I’m totally using her post for inspiration.

I’ve belonged to a fair share. I’ve always ended up leaving because of, well…okay, it’s not always the same reason. Sometimes I leave because I’m a bit of a slacker when it comes to returning feedback, and when I start to feel too guilty about it, I bow out.

I’m that person. The one member who talks a lot, but takes more than she gives.

But that’s the thing. Each of these groups tends to fall into a pattern after a while. They all start off great. But as they grow, certain archtypes start to filter in. Kind of like ‘Breakfast Club.’

Except instead of the geek, the weird girl, the nerd, etc, the categories are a little different.

I’m not saying all critique groups have all or any of these, or that everyone who belongs to a critique group fits one of these categories. I’m just saying I see these pop up. But I know none of us are actually like this, because we know better 😉

• The arguer. Kate covered this one. This is the person who argues against feedback they don’t like. Which is very different than asking questions or working with the critiquer to figure out how to make something clear to them that you already understood as the author. Telling a critiquer “you’re wrong” is similar to telling them their opnion is invalid. Not nice.
• Which leads to my least favorite The opinionated. This person knows what they do and don’t like. That’s fantastic, because it makes it easy for them to articulate issues with a story. It becomes a problem when their opinion is perceived as fact and a story is considered ‘wrong’ because that person would have done it differently. (This person is frequently why I’ll give up on a group).
• The people-pleaser. I think most of us want our writing to be liked by as many people as possible. I believe as artists, it’s a deeply rooted reaction we can’t suppress unless we make a conscious effort. But…this person will focus on adjusting their story to fit every critique, even those that conflict with each other. No one will agree all the time. We have to learn to trust ourselves.
• The praise-bringer. Because who doesn’t like to be told how awesome they are? This person loves everything they read and it’s all fantastic. Hardest to dislike, but probably the most harmful under the definition of ‘critique’.

Honestly, I think to some extent all of us have traces of each of those in us. The trick is to recognize and balance them with helpful feedback – both giving and recieving. I also think frequently it becomes easier to get past these things in ourselves as we move further along in our own writing. We begin to recognize those patterns in ourselves and others and it pushes us to grow as writers.

What trait do you have (of the above or otherwise) that takes a little work to suppress?