Some stories are just plain stubborn. They refuse to take shape -- to meld into the perfect form their authors envisioned for them.  It’s not their fault they’re so obstinate. They were born that way.  Oftentimes, the fate of such stories involves either an unused section of hard drive, or a dark place where the dust bunnies grow to Mesozoic proportions.  There is hope for these misfits, however: critique groups.

In a world where the average mortality rate of a critique group is around six months, finding one that is established and useful is a tall order. Enter the Colorado Springs Fiction Writers Group, or the CSFWG. Henry (Hank) Snider founded this group over ten years ago, and has witnessed many problem stories evolve to fully-fledged, published pieces. The Colorado Springs Fiction Writers Group (CSFWG) is a good example of the kind of quality an author should look for when searching for feedback on those difficult to pin down stories.

After exhausting all of the college workshops where they were living, Snider and his wife (author Hollie Snider) set out to find a home where they could workshop their own writing and help others with theirs.  They tried out almost a dozen critique groups, but none of them seemed to fit the image they had for what a critique group should do for writers. “The biggest problem we saw was in control,” he says. “There tended to be either too much of it, or not enough.” He explains that a good environment is one where authors are not brow-beaten to produce work, yet they are challenged to want to write, submit, and critique. “It involves a certain amount of letting go on the part of whoever founded the group. With some, you can tell, this is their baby and you’d better not step out of line or you’re out. Period. For creative minds, that’s deadly.”

He says that there were a few groups that came close to what he envisioned, but, in the end, fell short of his expectations. So, together with his wife, Snider struck out to form the CSFWG. “The group was founded on one basic goal: to focus on honing the craft of writing, regardless of experience,” says Snider.

 Writers need to be careful when they’re looking for help.  There are many different groups out there, and the discerning author can save himself or herself a lot of frustrations by knowing what some of the differences are. “There are three basic kinds of critique groups out there,” explains Snider. First, there is what he calls “fluff” groups. “These are the ones that are primarily about boosting egos. Every submission is great and very little is wrong with them. Members will find one or two things in a story for an author to work on, but, mostly, it’s all about how good the work is. These groups are great for the writer who’s just getting started, but they have a very high turn over because, in truth, people tend to outgrow them quickly.”

Next, there are the literary groups. “Literary groups are all about comparisons,” says Snider. “An author submits work, and the people doing the crit’ try to figure out who the author sounds like. ‘You’re writing is a lot like Ernest Hemingway’s or Stephen King’s.’ Then, the group will go on to find some of the faults in the writer’s style and, perhaps, a little in the area of content. There’s benefit to it, I suppose, but the world already has both Hemingway and King.”  He says that people tend to grow tired of these groups, too.  “After a while, a person doesn’t want to know who they sound like.  They want to sound like themselves.”

Last on the list are the groups Snider calls “destructive.”  Though the word connotes anything but positive feedback, Snider uses the term fondly.  “What I mean by ‘destructive’ is that each submission gets a thorough, in-depth critique by each member.” These groups fall into two camps.  One is centered on the mechanics of writing, the other around content. “We do both.  Mechanics, story elements, what works, what doesn’t – real critiques, in other words.” He says no matter what level a writer is at, he or she can benefit from a destructive group. “Most of the problems that arise with new writers come from mistaking critiques as personal attacks. A writer should understand going in that a critique is about the work, not the individual.” He says that writers tend to be protective of their work, which accounts for some of the reactions he’s seen to really tough critique sessions.  “But it’s about development.  You develop good writing habits, you develop voice and style. It’s almost like therapy, in fact. When somebody new comes in, within six months they’re not the same writer, and in two years, if they stay that long, they get really good.”

If they stay that long?  What was that? “There’s turn over, sure.  People move or decide they’re not quite ready for the level of feedback we give. We have members who want to take a breather for a while, too.”  When a member decides to go on hiatus, it’s usually because he or she needs some time to digest everything. “They’ll devote time to writing more, and when they come back – wow!  It’s like watching a caterpillar change to a butterfly, it’s that dramatic.  None of the common errors they had are there anymore, and the writing is always impressive.”

Critique groups don’t just benefit the author of a specific story.  Being involved in an active group with varying levels of experience allows those giving critiques to focus on the skills necessary to hone their own work, as well. “When you’re doing in-depth critiques, not the cursory ones you often get from beginning groups, you learn what works and you can apply that to your own writing.  Both the critiquer and the author benefit.”

So, what are the necessary ingredients for a good critique group? “Bring a sense of humor,” says Snider. “Writers live like trolls.  We work alone in the dark and only come out to feed.  When you belong to a critique group, you get the chance to socialize and laugh at your own mistakes and those of others. Only another writer is going to understand the passion that goes into writing. It’s cleansing. We’re one, big, dysfunctional family.”  Outside of a sense of humor, he says that education, insight, and experience, make for a good start. “You don’t have to have formal college educations, but you should have some members who have strong backgrounds in the craft.”  If the focus is on publication, he says, then a group should have members who have some experience in the business and are willing to share their knowledge.

Bob Mayer, author of scores of books including, The Fiction Writer’s Toolkit, says that a critique group without experience is a lot like a ship without a rudder. Though not a proponent of critique groups, he says that any group with value will have published authors as members, as well as at least one professional editor, and possibly even somebody in the publishing business. “If a group doesn’t have people in it who know the business, then it’s basically worthless to a serious writer,” says Mayer. “All of these writers -- who have never been published -- sit around and hone their skills to meet the nebulous standards of their critique group, and, when none of them can get their work published, they sit around and wonder why!”

Though Snider doesn’t go as far as Mayer, he does put value in what the author has to say. A good group must have depth. “We’ve got two groups that meet on separate days.  Each has a member who’s a professional editor, and each has experienced, published authors in novel and short story formats.  The Monday group has two publishers in it, as well. Everybody has to start somewhere, but, in a group like ours, they can draw from a pool of experience and not have to reinvent the wheel.”

What about on-line groups like Critters or Critique Circle, do they have value? “Sure they do,” says Snider. With the computer came the ability for everybody to tell a story and many find on-line groups satisfy their need for feedback. “But, again, you need to be sure of what you’re getting into.  Most of the critiques a writer gets from on-line sources -- and this is not singling out the ones already mentioned -- tend to be very short and cursory.”  He says a writer should thoroughly check online critique resources.  Most reputable groups will list their requirements up front, along with saying who they are and who they’re affiliated with. In addition, they should have a page devoted to frequently asked questions that address specific problems such as non-participation and what happens if plagiarism is suspected. “On-line groups can be good, but everybody needs to be committed to making the site work. Just because you can tell a story doesn’t mean you have the commitment to take, or give, an honest critique.”

As far as commitment is concerned, Snider has found one thing that works well for his group. “We have dues,” he says.  He goes on to explain that when the CSFWG started, it was essentially a fluff group with a lot of turn over.  “I just couldn’t get people to get past the this-is-good-I-like-it stage and start going into the kind of depth needed to help writers really grow.” Finally, he hit on a solution: charge a nominal amount for membership. “After we started doing that, things changed dramatically.” Many people dropped out of the critique group, but many more joined. “It transformed us from a club to a group.  When there’s money involved, even the small amount we charge, people suddenly start getting serious.”  Money isn’t the issue for Snider, it’s the commitment. “The money goes back into the group.  We do flyers, print membership cards which get our members discounts at various stores in the area, sponsor writing contests, and it helps a little in offsetting the cost of website upkeep. There’s no profit in it, that’s for sure.  But it helps people to focus on the reason why they’re here.”

The reason writers turn to critique groups is to hone their skills. As with anything of value, however, there are drawbacks. The biggest one in the case of critique groups is that of over-workshopping. Many agents and editors have gone on record saying that they can tell stories that have been over-workshopped. “They’re nice,” says Bob Mayer. “That’s it.  Just nice stories.  They don’t offend anyone, they don’t raise any issues, and they’re plain.  No voice, no distinguishing marks, no edge.”

Snider agrees.  When it comes to accepting input from a group of people, the varying opinions can have a tendency to overwhelm.  For instance, “I had a short story that was initially well received by the group.  People were saying, ‘Oooo, this is creepy.’  I did some re-writes based on the input I received, and the story went from ‘Wow, this is good,’ to ‘This is well written.’  ‘Well written’ is not the same thing as ‘good’.”  Like any form of feedback, he says, a writer must learn how to distinguish the important details which can have tremendous impact on a work, from the ones that will homogenize the work and take the writer’s voice out of the piece. “It’s up to the writer.  You’re making a big mistake if you try to please everybody. You can’t do it, and, truth be told, you shouldn’t try.”

Is there a point where a writer can outgrow critique groups? Snider doesn’t think so. “People will always have trouble areas, and that’s where a group can really come in handy. But some people develop a god syndrome where they think their writing is untouchable.  A writer’s group may not be a good idea for people like that.  You have to be able to leave your ego at the door.”

“You also run into people who only want their work critiqued and don’t think they should have to do anything in return.”  One recent episode of this prompted Snider and the officers of the CSFWG to change their rules about submitting. “This person walked in, paid his dues, and then tossed his entire manuscript on the table for critique. It was a script, so it wasn’t a huge undertaking, but it was definitely some work. The next month, after we’d all critiqued the guy’s work, he left. We’ve never heard from him again.” The anger in the group over the writer’s actions was palpable. “Look,” says Snider, “that’s using a group, and it’s really bad form. The guy essentially got the services of an editor and a focus group for less than the cost of a modest meal. No ‘thank you,’ no anything. Just a big grin. Who can blame him?  It was our own fault.” The solution? “We require potential members to attend three meetings now.  They have to critique at two of them.  Only then will we allow them to join and submit their work.  It’s a shame we had to go that far.”

In the end an author’s success in a critique group depends on his or her commitment to the process. Say what you will about them – and they do have their detractors – critique groups play a vital role in the writing community. Historically, these groups have helped shape many a formidable writer.  One need only look to Virginia Woolf and the Bloomsbury Group to see evidence of this.  Whether it’s a loose band of friends who get together once every few weeks to read each other’s work, an online group, or a more formal setting like a college or university workshop program, a critique group like Henry(Hank)Snider’s CSFWG might be something to consider when you’re staring down the gaping maw of Storyasaurus Rex.