About Us:
We are a group of writers in the Dallas/Fort Worth area who
are intent on pursuing professional careers in speculative fiction.
We meet twice a month in the Plano area to exchange and critique
each other's fiction. Our critiquing is primarily focused on
short fiction, mostly due to the difficult logistics of critiquing
novel-length work in a workshop setting. Novel critiques work
best on a quid pro quo basis with another writer who has a novel
for critique as well, but we are open to the occasional novel
chapter submission.
We are currently accepting new members -- for more information
about FutureClassics, please browse our website or contact Bill
Ledbetter.
On Critiquing:
There are a number of good articles available on the internet
regarding professionalism and critiquing. Here are a few:
http://www.crayne.com/howcrit.html
http://www.sfwa.org/bulletin/articles/workshop.htm
http://www.sfwa.org/writing/hc_critique.htm
http://www.speculations.com/breakup.htm
In FutureClassics, we emphasize professionalism and constructive
feedback as the main goal in our critiques.
Stories are distributed electronically via our mailing list
page, so that everyone can read and critique the stories before
the meeting begins. We normally ask for a volunteer to be critiqued
first, then go around the table giving our feedback.
It is best to focus your oral critique on larger issues and
general impressions, rather than on nitpicks or mechanical errors
(which can more easily be indicated on the manuscript). Feedback
should be constructive, helping the author make his or her story
better and potentially salable. In this vein, it's a good idea
to mention the positive aspects of a story, along with the things
that didn't work for you. It is not a good idea to overhaul
or edit the writer's story according to your vision of the way
it should be -- leave that job to the writer. Your goal is to
help the other writer produce a top-notch story, not do it for
them.
Critical comments should be justified to the best of your ability;
that is, if you say you like the opening, try to explain why you
liked the opening. For example, if you thought a particular character
was flat, make suggestions that will help flesh out the character,
or recommend removing that character from the story if you consider
it superfluous. If you have an opinion on an aspect of the story,
you need to back it up with an explanation, either to reinforce
what the writer has done well or help him/her fix what hasn't
worked.
We try to avoid cross-talk during critiques, though an occasional
follow-up question or unmoderated comment is fine. We're not
that strict, but we like to maintain an atmosphere of relaxed
professionalism.