I am presently involved in two writing groups which are of interest to me on several levels. Both groups involve writing — critiquing stories, journaling. The variety and mix of men and women, mostly women, is revealing. Some come into the group tooting their own horns, revealing their writer’s resume as if a testament to their talent; others, latently, “know” they can run the group better than the leader but keep it to themselves, although their discontent exudes from them like musk. Some participants really want to learn, others crave adulation or applause; some are so needy that they attack others rather than accepting criticism kindly given. Some want to excel in their writing as a personal attainment, others don’t want to hear anything about their writing except trivial evaluations. Anxiously, some wet their panties waiting for their “turn” to read .Many do not know how to listen and if they struggle to do so it is on the manifest level, for they do not listen with the third ear. And not a few come to be with people, to socialize, to interact, to palpate what others might say about their efforts. It is a gallimaufry of feelings, needs, sometimes latent anger, seeking, and wanting to be emotionally and psychologically stroked. Some persons are damaged and want the group to hear their woe, their angst. The leader has to be careful here for sometimes a meeting turns into triage.
If the leader attempts to structure the group in order to more effectively meet the group’s needs, everyone puts in their two cents worth. To make that clearer, when a group is ongoing, free, revolving, there is no real constancy for the leader and this proves to be, in my mind, a critical defect. Given that these groups are free, individuals abuse this — no shows, failure to submit work on time to be evaluated, failure to email the leader in case of potential absence; in short, if the group is free, I observe that it is abused. Such is human nature. Place a price on a shirt and it might be purchased or not, but the free shirt will be met with skepticism — it was previously worn by a corpse, etc. I would never give treatment on the cuff; pay me a nickel, give me a book, an orange in payment. Treatment without cost is not taken seriously on unconscious levels. Lay down resonable and fair structure, fair limits, and one gets Tea Bagger thinking. However, I have also observed that reasonable order for conducting these groups is met by some with pleasure, for there is constancy and regularity to attain set purposes. I think that any group has a resistance to it and the leader must meet that resistance not with disdain, but first must see it, realize it and ultimately join it if an attachment or connection is to be made with each individual. How to do that? Offer me a nickel, an orange or a book and I might give you an “answer.”
As a secondary teacher I realized after years of working at the craft that students wanted order and structure as opposed to the teacher who was their “friend,” disorganized, whose whole lesson was a planned digression.To put it in an arch way, where there is id one must put ego.
The other day a “writer” who Jane had to reject from the group for she did not send in work to be evaluated, who failed to show up after much hoopla on her part had a hissy fit and wrote Jane that it was ridiculous to be excluded from the group. In the context of her snippy email she once again spoke of her past credits, her knowledge, her credentials, all tangential to the issue at hand. Jane had reasonably imposed conditions which were clearly identified in memos to all involved. One of the “defects” of Jane’s civility is that her kindness is met with abuse. Additionally, within one paragraph the “writer” had misspelled two key words, a clue to her anger. I responded by informing her that Jane had no time for her petulance and I took a couple of shots at her arrogance. What is key here is that she devalued the other work of the group as “amateurish.” So I have observed once again the personal agendas of these aggrieved souls as purely self-serving and very needy, to say the least.
Several individuals from both groups make me think about their motives. Apparently they are critique or writing goupies. A writer, in my way of thinking, can energize his spirits and writing by being with other writers or in writing groups. After a time, he or she must leave and do his daily work in the arable fields of his mind. Other motives are involved when one spends so much time in groups. The hissy fit gal was such a person and she used all that “learning” to belabor Jane with her background. The question here is: why don’t you start your own group? Why isn’t your writing group world-wide famous? Who is knocking on your door for your writing wisdom? I call these folk, for lack of a better term, menu writers: they have sampled everything but have produced nothing
When I am pretty fed up with the shenanigans of a person who I am in contact with, when I find them disordered or mean-spirited, or empty, I say this to them which is often met with glazed over eyes: “You are not a serious human being.” I walk off. If the groups do not extend for the span of 10 weeks, or if people drop out for sundry reasons, if we are left with about three people willing to learn, teach and share, Jane and I will persevere. What is sad, perhaps because it is free and willingly given, is the distrust about us, for we are serious (ah, there’s the rub!) about what we are doing. And if the course ends, so be it. Jane and I go on writing. And if we need or wish to start up again, this time we will meet human nature where it is — we will charge for our services and it won’t be a nickel, an orange or book.
Leave a Reply