Okay, we all have opinions about a lot of things. I've recently noticed that my opinion of writers groups is beginning to gel (or is it gell? or is it jell?).
WG's fall into three categories: good, bad, and ugly.
A good WG is one with a strong leader, a good set of rules, and requirements that the authors must meet. If you're in that group you're very fortunate. I call it the "A" group, and it's the one a writer will be most active in. It's also the one a writer benefits from most.
A bad WG is at the other end of the spectrum. Leadership is weak or non-existent. The rules only have to do with posting: what you can and cannot say. Mostly, it's a place where authors socialize. Frankly, I don't know why anyone wants to be a member of that group. I call it the "Z" group, and maybe lurking is the thing to do. read the new posts, and mark them as read and leave the site. I suspect it's where a writer rarely participates, since the majority of new posts are of the socializing kind. Again, why stay?
An ugly WG is indifferent and is almost as bad as a bad WG. Leadership exists, it isn't weak; it just doesn't know how to be strong. I think some leaders don't want to appear mean or tough, or they want to be liked. Or maybe they've been in a tough good WG, and they got burned (usually from not following one of the rules), so their pendulum swings to the other side and they think it's best to not have hard-and-fast rules. I disagree. Authors are people, and all people need rules. They need to know what is expected of them. So, there's the problem. If you're a rules person (and an author) you won't benefit from being a member of a no rules WG. Still, you can participate now and then, and feel you receive some benefit from membership in the group. If you often think you should quit the group and focus solely on the good WG, but don't. Why? It's something to think about.
No comments:
Post a Comment