 When we chose the name "Hearts of Gold" for our writing group two years ago, no one realised what the acronym would be!
There were two romance writers' groups already located on the Gold Coast, Queensland: (Gold Coast I and II). We wanted a name which would reflect the place where most of our members lived, but differentiate us from them. Gold Coast III seemed too tame.
We were horrified when someone first used our acronym in an e-mail. But now, like the heroes of Tobruk who adopted Rommel's insulting characterisation of them as "Rats" with pride, we're sneakily proud to be HOGs! Our Christmas get-together is, of course, the Hogmanay.
As the only male, I went along to the first meeting with some trepidation. However, after we'd sniffed each other over for a bit, the forthright Lorena put me at my ease with, "Don't worry, Al. To us, you're just one of the girls!" We've since been joined by Richard who, like me, is quite chuffed to be considered an "honorary chick".
At those first meetings, we decided on the format, which is:
- Meet every second Wednesday, generally from about 10am to 2 or 3pm,
alternatively at each others' homes;
- Discuss any problems, ideas, information gained, socialise generally;
- Each member with a WIP brings a copy of their latest chapter or story for each other member. We take them away and bring a written critique back to the next meeting, read them out and discuss them.
At our early meetings we also discussed the critiquing method to use, being mindful of the tender egos of budding writers (we all have them!).
I was then a member of Toastmasters, and suggested we adopt their method of commenting on speeches made by members. They do not critique, they evaluate, in the format of "commend-recommend-commend again", otherwise known as the triple-K method (kiss-kick-kiss).
We're all aware of the power of words. Getting away from the pejorative critique to the neutral evaluate forces a paradigm shift, making the evaluator a participant in building up the manuscript, rather than tearing it down.
Although you shouldn't pull any punches in your evaluation, you must be constructive:
- Start by commending something you like about the MS (even if it's only the layout!);
- Recommend things which, in your opinion, would strengthen the MS;
- Wrap it up with a further "well-done!"
However, you must be entirely honest. Biting your tongue when you don't like something doesn't help the writer one bit.
In the written evaluation we usually start with overall comments, then go to "nitpicking & compliments" listed by page number/paragraph number, then a final wrap-up.
In a first evaluation for a new member, we would preface our comments with a "disclaimer", such as: "These are my personal opinions, coloured by my own reading and writing preferences. Feel free to take them on board or discard them as you see fit."
This format has worked so well that we haven't varied it over the two years of our operation. Personally, I find the written evaluations invaluable. I put them in the front of my MS, and check off each point raised when I do my final edit.
We are at present a closed group, having sixteen members (including our group mentor, Meredith Webber, M&B Medical author), nine active. Having up to nine works to evaluate is a more than sufficient work-load. If any drop out we would consider taking on new members, but not at the moment.
A big part of our success as a harmonious group is, I think, the variety of genres we represent, which brings a lot of fresh viewpoints to the meetings and avoids the problem of a "group voice" emerging. The genres we are aiming at are:
- Lorena Chiappara, contemporary intrigue;
- Caz Convine, western historical;
- Winifred Cross, short stories and sexy romance;
- Barbara Gibson, sweet romance;
- Bronwyn Houldsworth, intrigue/temptation and short stories;
- Claire Molloy, fantasy/SF;
- Richard Pitchforth, short stories, SF and various;
- Vanda Vadas, historical and temptation;
- Myself, historical, contemporary and SF.
I think another factor in our success is the variety of skills each member brings to the group. One is adept at finding weaknesses in dramatic/sexual tension; another, logical inconsistencies in plotting and grammar lapses; another, repetitions in words and phrases, and so on.
When you see these skills in members of your own group, comment on and encourage them. The whole membership will benefit.
Although accepted for publication before I joined HOGs, I'm sure the insecure process of writing alone would have been greatly alleviated by running it past all the discerning Ms and Mr Piggies. It has certainly benefited my current works in progress immeasurably, and since the inception of HOGs, our members have had the following results from works evaluated by the group:
- I placed fourth in the 1999 Love scene competition (submitted before being published);
- Lorena came first in the 2000 Love Scene, second in the 2000 Valerie Parv First Chapter, and third in the 2002 First Kiss;
- Caz was a finalist in the 2001 Tall, Dark and Delicious, and has had a Western short story published in a "Bonanza" anthology in the USA;
- Winifred has had short stories and non-fiction published in national magazines;
- Bronwyn has had short-short stories published in a national magazine;
- Vanda placed third in the 2001 Query Letter and Synopsis, and sixth in the 2002 First Kiss.
It's a great pleasure to watch our fellow members growing in skills and confidence, and a privilege to be a part of their creative process. I wouldn't miss a HOGs meeting for quids. I think all HOGs would agree that, even if we're never published, the benefits in personal growth and the friendships made mean every minute of every meeting is worthwhile. If you are a frustrated writer with no group in your area, start one. You won't regret it.
|
