A Brief Note To All Members and Readers Of The Writing Essential Group

that's great! New writers need to be encouraged and not be scared into giving up.

:)

Great guidelines, I've used similar ones when leading a writing group at my local senior citizens center!

Many good points raised here. Salud

"Today, while serving as member editor, I received feedback that some members ..."
That's "memeber," "receieved," and "foodback!"

Just kidding! Couldn't resist....especially given my ability to screw up even the most basic of words. lol

Ah, Caroline, a little comedy to lighten the mood. :)

Seriously though, when people focus on the mechanics of a piece of writing, that is copy editing, not critiquing, and it is hurtful to some members. And sometimes, a typo is just a typo—we all make them.

I've read many points of view on the subject. You should take into account a person's disposition. If you don't know them, then act like Sgt. Schultz on Hogan's Heroes. Second, do you know anything about the topic? If not, don't flap your lips. Finally, do you understand the person's culture? If not, say nothing.

Doesn't posting to the group indicate that the member welcomes critique? Shouldn't anyone posting to a writing group welcome spelling and grammar corrections?

"We all make them," is the very reason we should all appreciate others looking out for us.

Spelling and grammar corrections are not really part of a critique—they are copy editing. I assume anyone who posts to this group with the comments enabled is looking for some kind of a critique, which is content based. If any member wants copy editing included in their feedback, that's fine, but that doesn't mean everyone wants the same. Actually, the post I referenced included critiquing guidelines from Writer's Digest, and they suggest not making those kind of corrections but focusing on the work as a whole.

I would never presume to tell any group member what they should welcome or appreciate; I simply made a suggestion based on feedback I received from some group members.

In general I agree that critique should be about the work as a whole and not the mechanics, but then if someone has enough issues with mechanics to be noted by a commenter, I think they need to know this. I doubt editors read past the first two lines if there are more than two spelling or grammar issues in them, unless they're looking for a unique "true story", not a writer.

I assume anyone who posts to this group with the comments enabled is looking for some kind of a critique, which is content based.

You're an optimist. :-)

Unfortunately, I suspect anyone who gets upset if a spelling or grammar error they made is pointed out (which are, for the most part, fairly straightforward questions) is not going to be much more gracious if someone says "your ending is bit weak" or "your plot is not quite believable". But there could be exceptions.

As someone who at times makes errors in her writing, I do not always see the mistakes before I hit the submit button. I appreciate being made aware of errors most of the time. The rest of the time it is my issue and not those who are attempting to be helpful. Depending on where the article is posted influences what I expect. If I am posting an article in Writing Essentials I expect the feedback to be different than if it is posted to a post it here for points group.
But that's just me.

I should think that mastery of the mechanics should come before learning how to actually write well.

I guess it's just the way that I was educated in the simple basics but I do believe that people should proof their posts before submitting. I know that I quit reading many stories if I trip on too many grammatical and spelling errors. That's just my opinion. I'm not in the group. Salud

I think the concern raised was speaking to the issue of focus: when giving a critique, the content is the intended focus, not the mechanics.

Grammar, when writing for Gather Writing Essentials, IS essential. If one cannot do it tactfully in comments, then a private message to the author should be done. If I want to be a better writer, I learn from comments from other, more skilled writers and absorb the critique. Develop a thicker skin or get out of the game!

Faith, no offense, but that's just the kind of attitude that prompts comments around Gather about the literary snobs in the WE group.

I agree that grammar is an important part of writing, but this group is not a writing class—we are trying to foster a spirit of acceptance and nurturing towards anyone who wants to write.

If you're not correcting a writer's grammar or syntax to make yourself feel better, why is it a problem to follow their request not to crit at that level? If you think that they aren't going to make it with that attitude, then maybe they aren't going to make it. It's not your responsibility to force them to become writers. That won't work. You have the better option of ignoring them.

There are plenty of thin skinned 'writers' who argue with critiques, ignore good advice, and give every indication of not having a prayer in the real world of publishing. So what? Leave them alone. For one thing, they won't be any competition.

And if that rare earnest tyro who tells great stories, paints fabulous descriptions, and moves you with honest craft, does not know "there" from "their," or "its" from "it's" perhaps an encouraging respectful note would not be uncalled for.

I agree with your comments, Charles.

I would like to add that not everyone who writes has a goal of being formally published. Some members are just looking for a place to express their feelings or experiences through a poem or a story. I think there should be a place for them here too.

There are people who can critique well and fairly and there are also those who cannot. The art of critique is a bit like the art of fighting fair - difficult to do but easy to find fault in others.

And it is difficult to learn how to write well without dozens of hours.

I help many students with writing in my job.

I have some advanced students who do not know the finer points of grammar or punctuation. It is difficult to learn these in a forum such as this. Not impossible, but difficult.

And even more difficult to learn that through commenting.

One can learn these things more easily via a focused effort directed toward mechanics.

And posting to the WE group in no way implies that a writer welcomes critique.

I agree Kathryn; critiquing is actually more difficult if it is done correctly.

I misspoke earlier when I said that if a member posts with comments enabled that it indicates a desire for some kind of critique. I meant to say it indicates a desire for some kind of comment, which is not necessarily a critique.

Nancy: exactly.

It is very difficult to learn how to write well in this kind of a forum.

People need to spend dozens of hours focusing on a myriad of matters.

Just focusing on mechanics can require dozens of hours.

KEO said: "And posting to the WE group in no way implies that a writer welcomes critique."

No, it doesn't, but the group description seems to imply that it's the place where a writer might receive it:

"Welcome Gather writers to the Writing Essential! The Writing Essential was created as a home for Gather writers to congregate and publish their work and receive constructive criticism, as well as to share their experiences and ask questions about the craft of writing.

The quote from the Writing Essential does not imply that people who submit articles to that group necessarily want a critique or invite a critique.

People should ask the writer if he or she would like a critique.

Yes, Janna, I agree that some people might want a genuine critique of their writing, while others do not. The problem lies in knowing who wants one and what each person considers helpful or constructive, and it's difficult to manage in a large online group. In lieu of anything else, I had suggested a while ago that members include a note of some kind at the top of their post indicating what kind of feedback they were requesting—maybe there's a better way to do it.

Nancy, that would be good, but few are doing it.

Otherwise I agree with Charles that whoever doesn't want any critical comments should just be left alone--but how do we know who wants critique until we've tried and we were either welcomed or called mean trolls? We don't, so we we stop trying. The result is what has been happening: people comment on their friends' stuff only, or say nice things to new members so they would become their friends, and the Writing Essential group is no different from all the other groups on Gather.

I have never been involved with writers who do not want critique, and who do not welcome someone pointing out typos or grammar and punctuation errors.

The Writing Essential group description reads:

Welcome Gather writers to the Writing Essential! The Writing Essential was created as a home for Gather writers to congregate and publish their work and receive constructive criticism, as well as to share their experiences and ask questions about the craft of writing. This Essential will host a dynamic and ever changing array of content and is unique from any other Essential on the site. Why? Because it is run by Gather members!



Each day, a different Gather member Writing Essentials Editor will moderate the group and feature work based on quality of writing and possibly a theme that the Editor has chosen. Our Member Editors come from diverse writing backgrounds, so one day you may find poetry as the feature theme. Another day, it might be personal memoirs. And the next day, it might be a mix of the best writing across all genres.

My understanding of that is that anyone who posts to the group understands that quality is of concern, and welcomes input from other writers, and that member editors are responsible for maintaining group standards and requirements.

Kathryn says: "The quote from the Writing Essential does not imply that people who submit articles to that group necessarily want a critique or invite a critique.

Yes, it does imply that, whether or not it is understood or supported by all members/editors. As for editors, don't all editors look for technical errors? Why would editing for this group be any different than editing anywhere else?

I'm sorry, but how is grammar and spelling not essential? If you don't want "...a home for Gather writers to congregate and publish their work and receive constructive criticism..." then I would suggest not publishing to a group that claims clearly to offer it. I have done critiques (albeit photographic) for a LOT of years...I realize that for every point you bring up where you think help is needed you need at least one point to bring up that you like. I also think it is essential not to crush a person, but to encourage them.

I personally have sent private messages...but I think it should be all fair game so long as you don't discourage...but, rather, encourage the person. Frankly, that applies to private messages as well.

Serusly, wuld you even imagine criticing a purson who wote so badly that you culd not find enuff good to say to balance the negutive critikicism? Can You tull me thut this is not bothering the liveeng heck outtta you? That it's not "essential"? How can you hope to help a person improve without freely speaking and letting a person know the truth? Without the mechanics, the grammar, the spelling...it's difficult to read and there is, in my humble opinion, no way to help a person improve. I think, in the end, the question is whether or not you encourage or discourage a person. If you're discouraging a person...you're failing the goal of this site. If you're ignoring the 600 pound gorilla in the room, you're not helping.

The key, I think, is not the parameters of the critique. I expect the key is in the way the critique is presented. Is it helpful or mean spirited? Do I say "any moron can spell equivocation" or do I say "Pssst. it's 'equivocation', which, by the way, is the perfect word choice here. In my opinion, if you correct that...you've got a great piece of work here. I only mention it because it's distracting."

Trying to set rules won't work...as you no doubt know. Setting a guideline that people should be supportive and encouraging will be more likely to be a hit...but less likely to cause people who are good at critiquing to quit doing so. In photography...any negative response to my well thought out and difficult to compose critiques results in no further critiques. It isn't easy to give a good critique. I won't waste my time if i have "rules" other than the ones I mention here...I want to help. If i cannot help...I can easily say..."Nice. A 10 for you!" In the end...people neither learn nor improve that way though.

Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~

Why not agree to have the Writing Essential Editors set the parameters for their respective days with regard to critique?

I joined this group only recently. Over the past week, I've read so many terrific articles and conversations posted to this group, and still have a queue of things I haven't gotten to yet. If the Writing Essential group is just supposed to be a big "Brilliant writing! Thanks for sharing! A 10 4 u!" circle jerk, I'm not interested, and will gladly retreat back to my little corner of the Gatherverse.

I personally have sent private messages...but I think it should be all fair game so long as you don't discourage...but, rather, encourage the person. Frankly, that applies to private messages as well.

and
The key, I think, is not the parameters of the critique. I expect the key is in the way the critique is presented. Is it helpful or mean spirited? Do I say "any moron can spell equivocation" or do I say "Pssst. it's 'equivocation', which, by the way, is the perfect word choice here. In my opinion, if you correct that...you've got a great piece of work here. I only mention it because it's distracting."


YES!
Best comment on this thread so far!

Aniko, I agree with your comments. The way it works right now, it is impossible to be sure what each member is looking for in terms of feedback.

It would be great if there was a way to specify what kind of comments are desired under "Rating and Commenting Options" when first creating a post: critique, copy editing, or a more general type of feedback for those who may not be interested in anything more than that. Those selected options would need to be displayed on the post so readers would know what the author is requesting in terms of feedback. Since that does not exist, I suggested authors add the request to the top of their post, but most people don't do that.

It would be great if the WE group could function as a whole instead of breaking up into smaller groups of friends, but maybe that's not realistic.

"YES!
Best comment on this thread so far! "

See? That's sweet! And it would have been no less fine with me if she had written:

"I'm sorry, but how is grammar and spelling not essential?"
Doyle, my genius friend. A singular verb with a plural subject? How are they not essential might be the best way to go but, you know, outside of that...heck even with that, I think this was the best comment yet.

Regards,
Your aspiring protegé,
Debra

(Ok, the sign off was a tad pushing it...but you get what I mean!)

[ *Ducks and runs* ]

Janna Opines: If the Writing Essential group is just supposed to be a big "Brilliant writing! Thanks for sharing! A 10 4 u!" circle jerk, I'm not interested, and will gladly retreat back to my little corner of the Gatherverse.

As will I.

Sandy, the group charter, as with everything else, is somewhat open to interpretation. What defines quality writing is going to be different for each person. So when you say "member editors are responsible for maintaining group standards and requirements", that implies there is a specific set of rules and standards for the group, which there is not, beyond the general group charter statement.

As far as editing goes, member editors are not copy editors—at least not when serving in that capacity—since we do not have access to perform that function on anyone's posts other than our own. We accept or decline submissions based on our individual criteria, we post a prompt or article, and we are supposed to moderate the group on our day. Those are our only duties as Jennifer Hodge presented them to me.

So when you ask the questions: "As for editors, don't all editors look for technical errors? Why would editing for this group be any different than editing anywhere else?", my answer would be that yes, copy editors do look for mechanical errors, but we are not serving in that capacity here, either as member editors or group members. Editing for a client who has hired an editor is vastly different than providing feedback in a comment bubble in an online writing group.

Doyle, I agree with your comments about encouraging rather than crushing a writer. I am in no way implying that every comment on every post should be a total love-fest. I think that's why typical critiquing guidelines recommend not including comments on mechanics as part of a critique; it's too easy to focus on spelling and grammatical errors or whatever we don't like in a writing piece. That's why a good critique always states a positive comment first; there is usually something good in every piece of writing—even if it's only the concept.

I also agree that writing a good critique is difficult, and hopefully, we get better as we practice.

Janna, your idea about each member editor setting the parameters for their respective day is interesting, but I think it would be very confusing for everyone to have a separate set of critiquing guidelines to remember depending upon the day of the week. Each member editor does have the ability to set the guidelines for what will be accepted regarding submissions for that day.

I am in no way suggesting that feedback should be restricted to include only affirmative, meaningless comments. I made a suggestion based on what I have learned and requests from other members.

Doyle needs some help there.

In my opinion, why would anyone post to a writing group and not welcome constructive criticism? There are many other groups to post to that downright encourage poor writing and provide points for it. As a former teacher, I am particularly annoyed by the 'let's just make everyone feel good' attitude. That dilutes the efforts of all...and even the poor writers eventually get bored with undeserved praise. People should suck it up when they post to a writing group and take the critiques like grown-ups. And maybe even take them to heart and start writing better.

I say, no more gold stars for effort, folks. There has to be somewhere people can go and know that standards are high and support is there to achieve them. If not a writing group, then where? (oh, and don't say my mom...she could use a break once in a while.)

Sheryl, I don't presume to know what is in the mind of every individual member posting to this group. We've already discovered that there are members who are not looking for a critique in the traditional sense, and I think there is a place for them here as well as more serious writers.

Part of the problem is that member opinions of what constitutes a critique, what is considered constructive or welcomed criticism, and what are the duties of the member editors are widely varied.

As I said earlier, every writers group or writing class I have participated in has presented guidelines for providing feedback to other members to eliminate the guesswork from what is expected and to provide some commonality; we don't have any guidelines for providing feedback in this group, which is why I suggested using the guidelines from Writer's Digest.

We have a large number of members from varied backgrounds, languages, and ages—we have young teen members as well as adults. It is reasonable to expect that they may all be writing at different levels of ability and have different goals for their writing.

Personally, I'm not a fan of the "suck it up" approach, mostly because I don't think it comes across as being encouraging—especially to writers who may only be looking to express their ideas and feelings with no thought to becoming a "hard-core" writer. There should be room in this group for everyone. The problem is how to identify who wants what.

Seems to me that grammar, syntax, and spelling are part of the whole.

I think a critique should include more than observations on the mechanics of the piece but I don't think it's fair to the writer to ignore problems with mechanics.

Having been a Gather Writing editor for a several months in 2007, I'd like to say this: There's different ways to critique and I think the worst possible thing an editor can do is crush someone who is trying out their wings, so to speak.

We all have varying degrees of writing experience, and I think that's what Nancy is trying to say that. I have to agree with her comment here:

Personally, I'm not a fan of the "suck it up" approach, mostly because I don't think it comes across as being encouraging—especially to writers who may only be looking to express their ideas and feelings with no thought to becoming a "hard-core" writer. There should be room in this group for everyone. The problem is how to identify who wants what.

If I came across someone who had a particular problem with their writing, I'd send them a private email with suggestions, not make them on the comment thread. It's not about fragile egos, it's about encouraging that beginning writer who is unsure of themselves.

We were all that way at one time or another, I think it's about treating that person the way we would want to be treated. I've had some fantastic interactions with very talented writers here in emails who were kind enough to make specific suggestions to my various writing projects, and for that I'm very grateful.

It's a delicate balance a writing editor treads, and you feel a certain responsibility to make sure things don't get "mean" on a comment thread. I feel common courtesy should rule, particularly if you aren't connected to the person or don't know them. You can always send an email.

Debra, I forgot to mention that your example of how to include a comment on a misspelled word is wonderful! It is both tactful and supportive of the work as a whole.

Nancy - I did not mean to imply that critiques could not be encouraging as well as honest. When I say 'suck it up', I mean that anyone who posts to a writers' group should be willing to take a critique and not go off with their feelings all wounded or shouting about how they didn't post with the intention of illiciting comments on spelling and grammar.

I fully support using guidelines. However, I totally disagree with simply having a group where all can contribute without any purpose or vehicle of getting better.

Just so you know, one of the reasons I left teaching was the attitude taking hold in education that spelling should be 'creative', grammar is in the eye of the beholder, and children reading the back of a toothpaste container is just as valuable as children reading Steinbeck. That's the type of tripe I abhor. There should be standards in any endeavor, else how will you know if you are truly progressing or not?

Nancy said, "I misspoke earlier when I said that if a member posts with comments enabled that it indicates a desire for some kind of critique."

This seems extremely odd to me. I think you spoke sensibly when you originally said that. If someone posts to a writers group and doesn't want crits they really should say so.

But I have trouble wrapping my mind around the idea of a writer posting to a writers group who wouldn't be grateful for any respectfully presented critique. As I said above, I'll leave them alone if they make it clear that's what they want, but I'll discount them as anyone worth my time even in reading their stuff.

Thank you, Rose, I agree with your comments. Sending a private email is one way to address those issues. I think the relative anonymity of the Internet encourages some people to take a harder line with others than they would if sitting face-to-face.

I was not proposing that we all hold hands virtually and sing "Kumbaya" when I encouraged members to focus on the work as a whole.

It occurs to me that there are members who have never really written a critique before, and might like to learn how to do it. Even if their feedback is not presented in the format of a formally written critique, the same ideas can apply to shorter comments. I would still suggest to anyone who is not familiar with the Writer's Digest guidelines that they use in their own online classes to take a look. And if any member knows of another list of useful guidelines that they'd like to share, please do.

Critique vs Criticism: if the first thing we fellow writers point out is a spelling, typo, or punctuation error we are NOT critiquing, we are being CRITICAL. Nobody appreciates that.

There is a form for good critiquing and it starts with listing the good points of the ms. it's strengths and what is good about it. Once we've done that, most everyone will accept whatever else we feel called to point out with good grace.

If fellow writers are prickly about our critique, I suggest we change our style to one of support and encouragement rather than unkind belittling. And no, I have never been offended by anything anyone commented on any of my work here on Gather. Quite the opposite, but I have seen comments that were just plain unkind and mean-spirited.

Charles, what I meant by my correction was that I assume anyone who leaves comments enabled wants feedback of some kind, but what they are desiring may not be what I would consider a critique, which has some structure or guidelines applied to it.

Maybe I can give a personal example of something I've written where general comments would be appreciated, but where I was not looking for a critique of my writing.

I have posted a couple of pieces about my dad who passed away last February. He had a terminal illness and I spent a considerable amount of time with him before he died. I had a lot of strong feelings about his illness and death that were hard for me to express except through my writing, which was cathartic for me.

If someone had thought to leave a comment about how I had misspelled a word or had incorrectly punctuated a sentence, I don't think I would have appreciated that feedback. Sometimes we write just to release, and without really knowing each other, it can sometimes be difficult to gauge how welcome any feedback might be on any particular piece of writing.

Your suggestion about letting others know if they don't want a crit is a good one; however, if I had said that, in your own words, you would have discounted me as a person not worth your time.

Sheryl, you make a good argument for why we should have guidelines. If everyone knows the guidelines and agrees to abide by them, then there is no reason for hurt feelings.

The comments I received from members about spelling and grammar corrections were made privately and genuinely; they were not presented as whining or complaining. That was the motivation for me to write this short post.

I'm sure they were genuine, Nancy. And being private really would make them more discreet about their feelings, but hardly justify them. I still believe that comments on spelling and grammar are appropriate, if done respectfully and not in a condescending or mean manner.

As a professional musician, I have played in a number of settings for audiences consisting of many levels of experience in music. When you play for other musicians, or a gathering specifically put together to present one's work with comments, I would hardly expect everyone to respond without criticism/critique (it really means the same to me). One attends 'master classes' for this purpose specifically. I guess people who are trained artists are much more open to this sort of thing than amateurs, but even amateurs should welcome critical responses if warranted, especially if they are playing notes incorrectly. That seems to be the most basic of help you can provide to someone - accuracy. If that is not there, or at least a goal in the mind of the performer, then it is almost ludicrous to comment on interpretation. I view writing the same - if one cannot take the time to get the words correct, then what difference does the style really make? The 'wrong notes' in the piece have distracted the reader/listener.

"Sometimes we write just to release"

I do this and encourage everyone to do the same. If I'm going to post my "release" in public, though, I owe it to my readers to edit before posting.

"Guidelines"

Are pretty specific for spelling, punctuation, grammar, and presentation, and are taught at elementary school levels.

There are several problems with critique through private messages.

*Some of us think our private mailboxes are for private communications with friends and don't want them filled with comments people would rather not make in public.
* It takes more time
* There's a chance that the person making a suggestion might not know what s/he is talking about. If that's out in the open, others can discuss/debate the issue and everyone learns in the process.

-

Sheryl, I don't think any member has to justify their feelings to me or anyone else.

"I have posted a couple of pieces about my dad"

Did you post it to a writers group? I assume not. The question of whether or not crits are appropriate for run-of-the-mill posts on gather is one I'd prefer to stay away from. I'm only commenting on the expectations of posts to a writers group.

Sandy, none of us is perfect—even editors and proofreaders miss things, as is evident in many published books. To say any member in an online writing group owes it to potential readers to provide anything beyond what they believe is their best effort is a judgment that I am not willing to make.

As far as what is taught at elementary school levels regarding spelling, grammar, presentation, etc., I hardly think it is a complete education by the time a person is eleven years old. There are also style and cultural considerations that can influence word and even spelling choices.

I agree about private communications; they may not always be appropriate. I would always suggest that a member feel free though to contact another member to ask if they would welcome private feedback.

Okay, Nancy. I didn't mean 'justify' in that way. From a psychological standpoint, feelings are feelings. They don't need to be 'justified' by another. They can be acknowledged, but also be baseless. I can see we're not going to agree on this spelling/grammar thing in writing. I simply wanted to support the standards as being a good idea in a writing group.

Actually, Charles, I know at least one of the pieces I wrote about my dad was posted in this very group and I was proud of it—even though you might dismiss it as "run-of-the-mill". You just made my case about why some people might not want a critique; that comment would have been hurtful to me if you had made it known on my post.

Sheryl, I guess I don't understand how anyone can can judge another's feelings about anything to be "baseless". Yes, we clearly disagree and that's okay; I'm not trying to force anyone into agreement.

As I said before, the only problem with trying to enforce "standards" in this group is that there are no identified, consistent, agreed upon standards.

The fact that this topic has to be hashed out again and again over the years causes me to pause, reluctant to participate. My vocabulary isn't great, my spelling is mediocre and my writing style has no particular style.

A forum such as Writing Essentials throws the novice, who may have never taken a creative writing class, but only wishes to be able to express one's self effectively, in with those who have a higher education, have been writing for years, and are accomplished. You simply can not critique everyone on the same level. You don't teach kindergartners the same way you teach sixth graders, or compare high school students to college students.

What is Writing Essentials, and who was it designed for?

Debra, I can only speak for myself, but I welcome everyone who wants to write, regardless of experience or education, to participate in this group and be considered of equal value.

I have really only been active in this group since October, so I can't really answer questions about the original intentions for it. I would expect that Jennifer Hodge could answer them best.

Formal education and/or great vocabulary and grammar skills do not make any member more entitled than another to participate and are not necessarily indicative of a higher level of writing ability.

Posted with the Writer's Digest critiquing guidelines is this:

-Remember, this is your work and you must ultimately make the creative decisions that feel right to you. Whatever the group's response, you should:

* stick with an idea that is deeply interesting to you, even if it needs a lot of work
* never compromise your vision for the piece
* try everything to see what works and what doesn't
* please yourself first


I think every writer needs to remember that their own opinion about their writing is the most important opinion.

Nancy, you misunderstand me. I didn't mean to imply that your posts about your father were run-of-the-mill. I simply wanted to clarify that my statements about critiquing apply only to writers groups not to other groups.

I am surprised that you posted to this group a piece you felt was too sensitive for you to want critiques. Why would you publish anything here you did not want critiqued? There are plenty of other groups.

"Sheryl, I guess I don't understand how anyone can can judge another's feelings about anything to be "baseless". "

Again, I need to explain. The situation I see happening is this (and feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, again):

Someone writes a piece and submits it to a writers' group (clearly marked - Writing Essentials is intended for writers, first-time through experienced);

A commenter reads the piece and remarks on errors in grammar and spelling, perhaps being a writer themselves and the fact that the piece is posted to a writing group prompts them to not only comment on the overall piece, but also to cite some ways to improve the reader's experience;

The author of the piece is offended, angry, hurt, whatever - they feel attacked and unappreciated, perhaps condescended to, etc. The feeling IS the feeling. But, the reason for their feeling is baseless - the commenting individual did not mean to insult them, nor did they mean to degrade them. They meant to offer some constructive criticism to help them make their writing better.

It all comes down to what Charles said. If you do not want comments on your writing, then do not post your work to a writing group. Gather has endless groups to choose from where people will not be concentrating on how the piece was written - just the underlying message.

Okay, I'm going to make this my last comment on this thread, as this discussion could go on forever.

Charles, I posted the pieces about my father in this group because I considered them to be good writing and something I wanted to share here.

Sheryl, I can't speak for every other member, but maybe if all criticism was given in a respectful way, and coupled with positive comments, they wouldn't feel the way they do. I am not trying to represent every member's opinion here.

I think we all need to be very careful about telling members that if they don't accept our ideas of what they should be willing to accept in terms of feedback, that they should go elsewhere. The group is it's members—each and every one of them.

According to Jennifer's description for the group, this is a place for writers, to critique and share their experiences as writers. It even goes on to explain that this is a place to ask questions about getting published.

So, only people who want to improve their writing skills, share with other accomplished writers, and find new friends of the craft should join this group. It has a specific purpose and critiquing is part of that purpose.

Also, something I learned from reading this thread is that there is a difference between critiquing and copy editing.

Even within this thread, I have caught a couple of errors in grammar. It's a little more challenging to catch grammatical errors than it is to correct spelling. Anyone know of a good grammar check out there? I already have spell check.

I think I'll just read and watch those who participate in the group. I tend to learn a lot that way, without actually trying to write a novel or fiction, etc.

Self expression seems to be more important to me than actually seeking approval, or being read by a large audience.

I'm a newbie to this group, so my comment may be irrelevant. I do think that many writers follow a stream-of-consciousness method. Writing often must be done quickly...it's hard for your fingers to keep up with the characters moving in your head. I often like to post these fairly raw, just so I can get some feedback on characters or plot. If you want to correct grammar, feel free. But at that stage of the game, I will probably ignore that comment. I would rather hear things like "Susie's speech doesn't seem natural" or "I don't think this reaction is believable." Just MHO.

If I have suggestions about mechanics, I usually send an e-mail to the writer instead of mentioning it in the comments.