Okay, I'm confused. I wasn't aware that there was an issue.
Buck made a suggestion and opened up a conversation; I joined in. No issue here.
That's why I had suggested early on using the Critique Group thread as a "laboratory" for taking a piece and collectively sharing different critiques by members of the group for the same article. It would be a "hands-on" approach to improving the critique/review process that could be limited to one article a week or twice a week.
Post me back to this Lillian; I must have missed it.
I thought the whole conversation was about increasing the number of constructive comments on Challenge entries; I don't remember anything about creating a 'laboratory' to improve the critique process. I obviously had tunnel vision here and apologize.
I like the idea of a collective critique for one or two articles a week; actually think it's great. But I don't see a need to improve the 'way' that critiques are done. But maybe I've misunderstood you.
I think that Deb's comment is taken out of context here. She is suggesting that we do not react to critiques by entering into an argument and become defensive. And I agree.
However, the process here at the moment, and reinforced by Buck's own comments about articles on writing a good critique, is to discuss critiques verses reviews, how to write a good critique, how to improve the critique numbers without demolishing writer confidence and how to do it following this sites guidelines; an issue I've been passionate about for some time.
I can't discuss these issues without discussing Buck's critique; it is central to the point Buck is making about knowing how to do a critique. My desire here, without offending Buck or putting him off leaving critiques, is to help him learn how this site works.
To make judgments on the past experiences of a writer, based on ones own life, is not a part of a critique; I felt Buck needed to know this.
There is lots more I could have said, but Buck did me a favor and I thanked profusely. I learnt something, actually a lot, from Buck's review. My prayer is that I also helped Buck to learn something about critiques, especially on this site, by my response.
I just also want to say. The five stages of grief are linked to the process of someone going through terminal illness. They are not linked to someone going through crisis. My point here is that we all respond in different ways to emotional stimulus. It is important in giving a critique that we appreciate the writer as much as the story. If our increase in critiques follows through, then the learning process for the critique giver is as important as the one the writer goes through.
I personally believe that if the 'group critique' that you have suggested happens, then writers are going to respond to these critiques and discuss them. And they need to or the critique giver will never learn how their critique was received.
Sorry for being long winded, and I don't mind if you disagree.