This is a critique group for works of science fiction, fantasy, horror, and weird stuff that’s hard to categorize. Meetings are not open to the public — if you wish to join, please contact the organizer using the critique groups inquiry form or attend a monthly WGA meeting and ask there. Non-WGA members are eligible to join. The existing group members may want to see a sample of the applicant’s work, and vote.
This writing group meets monthly, first Thursday, 7 PM, in person with an online option, at a location disclosed to members.
Group Charter
- The purpose of this group is improving our craft. It’s for practical critique about what’s working and what’s not working — not just praise and encouragement.
- Membership is by invitation, based on discussion and vote of the current members, after consideration of a writing sample form the applicant. We intend to keep the group fairly small.
- Works must be submitted by email to the organizer at least ten days before the meeting. The organizer will post them to the group.
- Submissions are limited to 10,000 words, and the first four eligible submissions will be accepted for review (extras carry over to the next meeting).
- Submissions should preface the piece with a note about intended audience and any questions they particularly want reviewers to consider.
- Novel chapters or story series sequels should include a summary of what has gone before. Please keep the summary short and sweet — things the reviewers need for understanding what’s before them, not every detail of the history.
- No story or novel chapter will be critiqued more than twice, unless by vote of the membership. You need to finish it, get it out there, and work on something different.
- Members who submit a complete draft of a novel, may request a meeting just for review of that novel. Novels may only be critiqued once, unless by vote of the membership.
How a meeting goes
Reviewers come prepared with printed notes about what they want to say. Plan to give your notes to the author after the meeting. Mark up the notes with your reactions during the meeting. (For offsite attendees, emailing a marked-up Google document link is also fine).
Phase 1 – reviewers report
For each submission, we go around the table and give our critiques, limiting these remarks to 3 minutes. Your notes might go into more detail, but this round is limited to points the author most needs to know and/or that might encourage fruitful discussion.
The author doesn’t defend their work during the initial round of critiques. They would only speak up if (1) a question is addressed to them, (2) they need clarification on what someone just said, or (3) an intervention is needed to avoid wasting time.
Examples of author intervention to avoid wasting time:
- “Got it.” (i.e. I understand, please move on to your next point).
- “I don’t know what you mean by ‘milieu story’ — can you elaborate?”
- “Sorry, Giselle, it was actually Suki who said that about the elephants, not Ben. I’ve made a note to make it clearer who’s speaking.”
The other participants also don’t speak out of turn during the initial round, except they should say “ditto” when another critiquer says something they agree with. When your turn comes, don’t belabor points already made by others. Even if you’ve made notes about your reasoning, you can still just say, “I agree with Amit’s point about the turtle’s motivations.”
Phase 2 – author responds
After everyone has had their say, the author can respond more fully. In general, we like this response to be short. It’s fine to say, “Thank you, I’ve heard some good points and I’ll consider them.”
You might ask for people to expand on points they made. You might ask for specific suggestions on how to accomplish a desired effect. You are encouraged not to defend or explain your work, unless people are really perplexed. Everyone’s reactions to the piece are valid for them, and it does no good to argue. The author will not be there to explain when other people read and misunderstand their work, so any such clarification needs to be on the page, not as a followup explanation.
You may wish to hold back information about your intentions, if people didn’t understand the story the way you intended. Bear in mind the value of a reader who doesn’t already know what you meant to say. If they don’t get your point, maybe the point should be made more clearly in the text. If you hope to revise and resubmit the piece to the group, it’s better the reviewers not know what your intention was, so this knowledge doesn’t color their review on the second pass.
Phase 3 – discussion
Following the author’s response, there are a few minutes of open discussion to delve in more detail on any points raised or explore any areas of disagreement among the reviewers. Again, this is intended as help for the author, and I’ve found it a good strategy in these sessions to listen more than I talk when my work is being reviewed.
Critique guidelines
In preparing your critique, pay attention to any questions the author asked you to consider.
This is a development critique, not proofreading. No nitpicking, please. Is the story comprehensible and effectively told? Are the characters engaging and consistent, the setting compelling, the plot and motivations believable?
We’re not here to judge the writing or suggest solutions, but to report on its effectiveness, meaning, comprehensibility. You’re speaking for yourself, not as the Arbiter of Good Writing — be humble.
Identify those aspects that work well for you, and those that don’t. If you have questions, list your questions. If you think there’s a problem, say what your reaction was and don’t suggest a solution. You don’t know the author’s intent, and the right solution depends on that. It is not your story.
We suggest your remarks lead with what worked well, before you get into the aspects that didn’t work quite as well, and finish on a positive note. You can find something nice to say about any story.
Some people are impatient with receiving praise, and want to skip ahead to hearing what they need to fix. If that is you, know this: if people love something you did, and you don’t know that, you might remove it in later edits, and that would be a tragedy. Pay attention to what your readers like so you can do more of it.