[Critique Group 2] guidlines

[Tuchyner5 at aol.com]

Hi all, 
Well it seems we are getting close to breaking the  Champagne bottle. I 
expect there will be some  lists in the way this ship floats, at first. The 
closer we get to launch, the  more I find the devil in the details. So we’re 
making adjustments as we go, and  I wouldn’t be surprised if we don’t find 
the need for more changes on our first  sail. 
At this moment, one of my poems is in the evil hands of  one of the 
toughest critics I know. When she gets finished slicing and dicing,  I’ll put it in 
a form hopefully you can understand, and send it off to you, so  you will 
have one example of how a really intense critique might look. I’m  choosing 
to send a poem because it is the most intensively critiqued genre. If  you 
can deal with one of those, you can make it anywhere. Poetry may be the most  
compact form of communication, so the critiques need to be the most intense. 
 This example will be appropriate for prose as well as poetry. Remember 
this is  just an example, and you don’t have to emulate it.  
The sessions will be closely moderated. The time limits  for each person to 
deliver their critiques will have to be based on how many  pieces we will 
have to deal with, which in turn depends upon how many people are  
participating. Since we have 6 members in each group, that would mean 6 pieces.  5 
people will be giving a critique for each submission.  The author will also 
have a say. That’s  6 critiques. 
I was hoping  to have sessions that would last only 1 ½ hours. But 6 times 
6 equals 36  critiques. That is unlikely. The math will determine what the 
maximum time  allotment will be for each individual in any session. I’ll do 
the math and let  you all know how much time each person will have at any 
given session. I  apologize in advance. I must be ruthless in maintaining the 
time rules. If I  don’t, the sessions will degenerate into a discussion 
group. So I’ll have to be  on the verge of rudeness at times.   
Since the format is for us to go around in some form of  round-robin, only 
one critic will be speaking while he holds the floor.  Therefore, it is 
recommended that  everyone who is not speaking at that time go to mute. I’ll 
stay unmuted so when  it is time to go to the next critic I can facilitate 
that. The last person to  speak, if they choose to, will be the one whose work 
is being critiqued. We can  all unmute at that point, but if the discussion, 
if there is any discussion,  deteriorates into  a contest of  whose point of 
view is the best, it will be time to move on to the next  critique.  
Some critics may have little to say and thus leave us  with extra time. 
We can save up that extra time for the end, when we can  spend it 
discussing some principles of writing, critiquing and procedure.  We could also take 
a little bit of time  on a given critique to make open phone comments. 
Presentation order: It is important that every group  member knows which 
submission will be critiqued first, second, etc. at any given  session. So 
that will be identified in advance. I’ll find some random way of  doing that. 
We probably don’t want to use the same order every session, because  people 
get tired of always going last, first, etc. I’ll get that information out  
well in advance.  
There is also the order of who gets to give their  critique first, second, 
etc. That, too, will be randomly decided in advance and  the information 
disseminated well before the critique day. 
I will identify each submission by the first name of the  author, their 
e-mail address, and number assigned. 
At first, I thought everyone would need to present a  written critique so 
that there would be a record for the writers to consult. But  we will have a 
telephone line very similar to what is used now in our  teleconferencing.  
And the sessions  will be recorded. So a writer will be able to access the 
recording to find their  particular interest.  Thus, except  in some 
extenuating circumstances, you need not send anything in writing. But I  strongly 
recommend that you have something in writing for yourself for all the  
critiques you do. This will facilitate a serious, well-thought-out critique when  it 
is delivered, in whatever form it is delivered. In some cases, people might 
 be working off their notes. In other cases, they might make a recording to 
be  played at the session. That recording could simply be the reading of 
the  critique by your screen readers.  I  hope, in that case, that the 
electronic pickups are adequate. All the more  reason that everybody else be on 
mute.  Don’t be afraid to be inventive.   
All critiques should have topological relevance. By that  I mean, the 
author should know what you are referring to in your comments.  So, you might 
say, “paragraph 3, line 5,  where you say, blah, blah, blah,, you left out a 
comma. Or, “You’ve used ‘the’ 3  times in one run on sentence.” Etc.  
We can learn as much about writing from the comments made  on pieces that 
are not our own. Sometimes more. We also learn how to write by  reading other 
writers’ writings. 
Please point out how you might do this process  differently, or ask 
questions, etc. 
Leonard
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://bluegrasspals.com/pipermail/group2/attachments/20160705/f1db7bdb/attachment.html>