Drug cartels may be blowing their brains out all over Mexico, but here in old Mazatlan it’s the weekly gathering of scribes who are doing all the bleeding. At least, that’s the idea.
Meeting at a round table in a seaside bar named Canucks, we read from our works in progress, then sit back, bite our tongue, and listen with great equanimity to feedback. That’s the tough part, the essential part. As a collective, we’ve become an organism that’s more broadly critical than any of us could be on our own.
Over the winter, a valuable but fragile trust has developed within the hard-core members of our group. Lately, though, we’ve been struggling to preserve the status quo in the face of a booming membership. While sheer numbers are obviously more unwieldy, not to mention less intimate, it seems to me that the erosion of our hard-won trust stems more from the quality of participation – which boils down to two things: sharing and critiquing.
Perhaps the situation could be improved if we took time out to reflect upon what constitutes appropriate participation. For what it’s worth, here are my thoughts on the matter:
Presenting old, rather than current, work is a cop out. It suggests that the writer is only interested in establishing some literary ground under their feet. Or they’re reading to hear the sound of their own voice. Yet, that same voice is often silent when it’s time to respond to another writer’s work? Those who haven’t the courage to share spontaneously are playing it safe (for themselves), which presents a danger (for the group).
The arena of trust, it would appear, thrives on risk. A good writers group encourages its members to expose their fresh and vulnerable thoughts. The group loves the participant who broaches the unknown, who refutes political correctness, who risks being as wrong as he or she can be. Trust grows quickly among partners in literary crime.
It’s blood on the page that any writer strives for, and which every writers group needs. Blood still wet. Not blood that spilled and dried long ago. Perhaps we should prepare a manifesto and hand it out to prospective members: bleed or die.
