The "Silent Author" critique method

If you've ever taken a creative writing class (ESPECIALLY in (but not limited to) a university setting) then you've probably sat through the torture method critique style that is the silent author critique. You know the one: the class all have copies of your story/chapter/poem/whatever, and you are not allowed to talk while they make comments.

I've never been a fan. Actually scratch that. I think it has its place, but I think that place is limited. I definitely enjoyed it more when we broke into small groups to do critiques.

(For real though, there are some serious advantages to this type of critique, as much as it kind of sucks to sit through one. It's very helpful for people who are new to writing (or new to sharing their writing--I know some people write for YEARS without letting anyone see) when the impulse is still very much to either apologize for or defend your work (or both) as soon as someone says something less than glowing about it. It's also very helpful for practicing GIVING critiques--and it has the added bonus of letting you hear a lot of other people delivering critiques. So, there, it has its place.)

Past that, though, meh. I feel like they're kind of empty. I always came away from those classes feeling like I got a lot of surface information, but rarely was I inspired to really dig into my story. Partially because of time constraints, and partially because I could never ask someone to go further with their comments without breaking the pesky silent rule. (That also could be because in class we always did short stories, and if I'm not working in 50k plus words then I don't really care and I was never very attached to my short stories.)

I had the hardest time sitting there in silence, not because I wanted to defend myself (okay there's always that), but because when someone said something particularly insightful about my writing, I wanted to start a conversation with that person RIGHT THERE. I wanted to pick their brain, or bounce ideas, or ask them "what if" scenarios. Honestly, I usually failed at being silent, because I'd pipe up "oh wow I didn't think of that! So you think that if I did this instead, then xyz would go better. If I tell you abc, then what do you think?" And then I'd get one of THOSE looks from the prof and I'd shrink back and shut up. Until the next insightful comment...

I'm not really sure what my point is. Maybe simply getting a mini-frustration off my chest that I've had since college!

Is there anyone out there who can happily sit in silence during a silent author critique? (If you're out there...I may have to pick your brain. I find that fascinating.)

Writing in order: sanity for your brain, or the killer of creativity?

I write and revise in order. My brain does not consider it optional. Save for going back to quickly make a note, add something in one particular place, or find a specific detail, I do everything in the order it happens in the manuscript (generally chronologically, as far as it goes). For the most part, it helps me keep everything straight, remember when twists are revealed, remember which information comes when, what certain things happen in the mc's emotional arc, etc. I think it's a pretty natural way to approach things. I mean, it is how I read, after all. ;)

It's not always a great approach to writing and revising, though. If I get stuck, I have a really hard time skipping over a scene and coming back to it later. So if I want to take a break from it and work on something else, I usually have to pick something outside of my manuscript. A totally different project. I can also usually work on the query or the synopsis, or outline something new, so it's not all bad, and I get other stuff done that might make my life easier later! But. We all know how frustrating a day or two (or, let's be honest, a week or two sometimes) away from the manuscript can feel. (That is, until you return to it refreshed and realize it was worth it.)

A dear friend and critique partner of mine does NOT write in order. (She'll know who she is when she reads this.) Quite the opposite: she sees scenes in her head and she writes them down, regardless of where they go in relationship to each other. And her brain has an uncanny knack for fitting them all together later. (Seriously. It's impressive. I could never make my brain do that for me.)

(I've tried it, too. The writing out of order thing. All I ended up with was a mess that didn't make sense, and I never did finish that novel. Didn't even get close. This is not a skill I possess.)

I'm guessing a lot of people are somewhere in between. Writing mostly in chronological order but having the freedom to jump around, or working off an outline so that you can write the "fun" scenes first and the connecting stuff later, or skipping over stuff with far less anxiety than it causes me if the need should arise, or starting with the scenes you see vividly, and then working from the beginning...I can think of a bunch of other examples but I'll stop now.

I am really curious, though, as to how everyone else works. How is it for you: order, random, or somewhere in the middle? If you want to go into detail, please do! I would very much love to hear it. :)