"The beautiful part of writing is that you don't have to get it right the first time, unlike, say, a brain surgeon."
- Robert Cromier

Your effort is needed to help our chapter provide door prizes and auction items for the SCWW Conference in Myrtle Beach this October. We have to come up with at least 26 items and each chapter is pitching in.

If the item is writing-related that's great, but it doesn't have to be. It might be a book from a local bookstore, a gift certificate, software, a piece of art, free web site design, a gift basket, virtually anything of value to our membership and conference goers. The greater the variety, the better.

Although any ideas will be appreciated, the greatest help will be if you can provide the actual item(s), or speak to business owners to obtain the promise of a service or item. Either way, please contact one of our board members: Bob Strother at strother@scacog.org, Sarah Cureton at sarah.cureton@worldnet.att.net, or Susan Boyer at susan.boyer@charter.net.

Thanks for your help!

There's still time to spruce up that manuscript and send it off to the SCWW 2006 Catfish Stew Anthology competition. Guidelines may be found on the SCWW website. Submissions should be postmarked by April 30, 2006.

The Greenville Chapter of SCWW is pleased to be sponsoring a free seminar by local author Mindy Friddle at the Greenville Public Library's Main Branch on June 24th from 2-4 PM. Mindy's topic will be "The Road to Publishing: Avoiding Pitfalls and Taking the Right Fork."

Mindy, author of Garden Angel, has received a fellowship in fiction from the South Carolina Academy of Authors, and is a two-time winner of the South Carolina Fiction Project and the Piccolo Spoleto Fiction Open.

The next issue of Printed Matters will include registration information.

Kevin Coyle has struck paydirt this time - In addition to having a story published in the Spring 2006 edition of The Ampersand (Fordham University's literary magazine,) Kevin will be named the "Featured Writer" for that issue. An interview with Kevin will appear in the issue, and an unconfirmed rumor has it that Kevin will be given the key to the city.

Congratulations yet again, Kevin.

Bob Strother announced that his story "Gray Area" will be published in moonShine review in early June. moonShine review usually sells for $5 (plus $1.50 shipping.) To purchase a copy, make checks payable to "THRIFT Press" and mail to: THRIFT Press: Book Orders, PO Box 5424, Charlotte, NC 28299 OR go to www.thriftpoeticarts.com.

Way to go, Bob!

Successful again! Elysabeth Eldering won Second Place in the Armchair Interviews April Fools Writing Contest for her short story, "The Proposal." The contest required her to write a story that used a number of unrelated objects, including frogs and a ring.

Launched in 2005, Armchair Interviews™ ( http://www.armchairinterviews.com ) "welcomes you to a fun, convenient way to access your favorite author or learn more about those who write in a specific genre."

Congratulations again, Elysabeth!

Aimee Caruso was published in the March 2006 issue of Spirit in the Smokies, a free magazine available in the Asheville, NC area. Her essay is about Nia (a blend of yoga, dance, and tai chi.) Strangely enough, the magazine never notified Aimee that she was to be published, and she only found out because someone e-mailed a compliment to her.

Spirit in the Smokies is a monthly print magazine with a collateral website focused on expressions of awakening through first-person stories, interviews, book reviews, articles and other educational and inspirational materials.

Great job, Aimee!

For anyone who likes to check out Phil's blogsite on occasion, ElvisBlog can now be found at www.elvisblog.net.

Bernard Dewley is profiled in the current issue of The Upstate Link. The April 25 issue highlights the The Best and Brightest in the Upstate.

Bernard will also be the featured reader at Wits End Poetry on Sunday, June 4 at 7:30 PM. He will be reading works on the theme of "The Seven Deadly Sins." See Wits End Poetry for more details.

Well done, Bernard.

May I approach the bench?

Your honors, I object to the critique offered for Faye Tollison's Nothing But The Truth and move for a mistrial. It became obvious during Faye's reading, that pages and possibly story sections were either missing or out of order. Subsequent efforts to rearrange for better flow and comprehension were marginal at best.

In this continuation of a courtroom scene, Anna Kayce is being questioned by the Prosecutor and doing all she can to maintain her composure. It could be a tense few minutes - this is the kind of thing Faye usually handles well - but the chaotic arrangement made answers non-responsive and character placement and movements confusing. Seizing on this unfortunate weakness, the group hammered away in true prosecutorial fashion.

Panama's review of the evidence, however, finds that most of the commentary can be thrown out as irrelevant and did, in fact, constitute a deliberate attempt by the jury to mislead itself. Two small items appear germane: name "the Prosecutor" instead of always referring to him by title; and, reexamine the narrator's preoccupation with Anna's hands (which are mentioned four times in four pages).

Mistrial granted. Next case!

"Critiqueing 101", by Steve Heckman, is an excellent check list for all of us, both old and new writers. He starts with suggestions for the critiquers. Being positive in your remarks, staying on the piece and not injecting one's own experiences, and signing your copy are excellent suggestions, ones I myself appreciate when I am the critiquee.

Suggestions for the critiquee are ones I wish I'd read years ago. He addresses point of view at length, with concrete examples from other authors. He makes the term "beats" more clear for me. I've heard John Kingsbury telling me about beats and not sure what I was hearing. Steve's article made beats something I can learn to use. His last rule, "Show, don't tell" is one every writer must use in every piece we write. Keeping the piece to five double-spaced pages is especially important. Everyone who comes with something to read deserves to have time to be heard.

It is an excellent set of guidelines for all of us. I intend to keep it and refer to it often.

I do have one critique of Steve's work I checked my dictionary and found "critiquing" is the correct spelling. My added suggestion is to use your spell check or dictionary as you write.

Editor's note: See the Editor's Corner near the end of this newsletter for a reprint of Steve's essay (Part One of Three.)

Jim McFarlane read from Chapter 28 of his novel The Widow Dunn. The chapter begins the morning after the widow and Mr. McFarlane discussed the details of their engagement. The widow is struggling with her options - to sign or not sign the prenuptial agreement. Initially, she evaluates the pragmatic benefits of the proposed marriage. Later in the chapter, she is touched to discover her children's signatures at the bottom of the agreement. Having made up her mind, Laura again reveals her fiery side by signing, then incinerating, the agreement.

Some thought there was too much narration internal dialogue. Several members suggested the novel wanders from one small crisis to another, that it needs a large central crisis. Also, the interplay of quotations on pages two and three was overdone.

The description was very effective; Jim creates a vivid, lively picture of life in 1867. He subtly weaves in historical information, like the relationship between the number of names someone has and his social status.

The group loved the lines like "Anyone willing to work cotton on hope alone was already working for himself", and "...she closed her eyes and opened her imagination." I liked the parallel between oatmeal and the sturdy Scotsman. "To deny the oatmeal was to deny Angus."

Bob Strother continued his reading of "New Blood." The story involves an office worker who discovers that his girlfriend is a centuries-old vampire. In this section of the story, she explains to him the ins and outs of life with the undead and offers him the chance to become immortal himself.

Perhaps it is Bob's laid-back personality and mellow delivery or his smooth, pleasantly-comical writing style that affected my opinion of the story. Whatever the case, I found myself enjoying the piece and laughing often. As previously stated by another reviewer, this genre has been "done to undeath." This piece, however, left me with the feeling I had just read a screenplay of "The Waltons" wherein Johnboy has a vampire girlfriend. That in itself is refreshing and no vampire story I have ever read left me feeling so relaxed and lighthearted. Well done, Bob, and we look forward to reading more of the same.

Kevin Coyle brings us right into the battle with the berserkers being overtaken by cleverness. Funny thing is when the characters are enthralled in the heat of battle, they break into a song and dance. These chapters were no exception to that as we see Snorri using poetry to bewilder the berserkers and take their guard down.

Kevin has really tight writing and it is difficult to comment on faults in his writings. He has taken on a genre that most people wouldn't attempt and brings with it a bit of humor. The group really enjoyed the poetry inserted during a critical moment in the story to get the much needed break in tension.

There was only one place where there seemed to be several characters gathered and some dialogue was confusing as no one was sure who was responding. Overall, the saga is moving along quite well and the characters are less confusing as we see fewer introduced at this point.

Phil Arnold showed his versatility with his first venture into poetry. "Inspiration For A Poem" was delightfully well written and had a great punch line. There was some criticism about meter but when I got it home and read it in prose, the meter worked out fine. The last two lines were a little rough meter wise but then I'm a free verse writer.

Also, in the last verse, some wanted him to substitute "out" rather than "over" but that's in the word of the poet. My only criticism, and one I learned from the group, was in the punctuation. My feeling was that it didn't need periods after each sentence line and that the semicolon (second verse, fourth line) could be replaced by three dots or dashes to show pause.

For his first poem, Phil moves to the top of the intermediate class. I would advise him to write more often and use "poetic license" to its fullest. Hopefully, he will bring more of his works.

Ooops. I was so excited with Phil Arnold's poem that I forgot to write a review of his article, "Elvis Commentary Mini-Nuggets." As always, Phil's deep knowledge and research opened up another facet of Graceland. There was some minor suggestion that he substitute "crash" instead of "go to bed" (fourth paragraph, last sentence) and also there was a certain incongruity in the fifty year rule being applied but that isn't Phil's fault. In all, it was another well written article by our Elvis commentator.

This is my first attempt at critiquing so please, forgive, ignore or otherwise try not to become faint of heart while reading the many mistakes that no doubt abound within these printed words.

John Helfrich read the group a poem he had written while visiting that "special" room most of us reserve for reading. The poem's title, "Conjugal Hearing", was enough to make even those growing weary from the unforgiving metal chairs we sat in take notice.

I was first taken, well, with the title, of course, but also with John's wonderful reading voice. In poetry that can make a big difference. I am not a poet, nor do I often understand poetry when I read it. But, upon hearing the same poem read aloud by someone who knows how to convey the nuance of poetry, its meaning is revealed.

Now that you know I am uneducated on meter and beats and poetry in general, you can smile with sweet pity as you read the rest of this article.

John's poem is an irreverent look at one man's confusion over what his wife has to say at any given time. And at the wife's timing, as in, just when he begins to read, or at the moment of The Play of a televised sports game.

Well, call me a heathen, but I really liked this poem. In fact everyone in the group seemed to enjoy it. Laughter often interrupted John as he read the nine verse poem.

John asked for real comments from the group so that he could work on his poem and improve it.

I would say; It's funny and it rhymes. What more do you want?

Realizing that was probably not what he meant, I jotted down some of the things others offered. Like changing a word here and there so the number of syllables would match. Or, leave out a certain word that wasn't needed, and once removed, the number of "beats" matched.

That was it. The poem stood on its own as proof that John Helfrich is a good poet. I, for one, want to hear more of his poetry. I could probably even read his poems and understand them.

Pat Stewart presented a sobering reminder of the devastation of Katrina in her essay, "After Mardi Gras, 2006". She and her husband went on a "fact-finding" trip to Mississippi and Louisiana for their church to evaluate what they could do to help in the restoration of those areas. The remnants of Mardi Gras in 2006 was a contrast of the remnants of Katrina which left an impression not to be soon forgotten for Pat and her husband.

As is to be expected, Pat showed good writing craft and presented good visuals for her readers, even though some in the group did not like her comparison to "scenes from a war zone." Having been down there myself, I felt it an appropriate description. It was also felt that the character, Willie, was not introduced to the readers well. There needs to be a description of him, and it needs to be made clear that he owned the house the volunteers were working on.

The beginning of this essay grabbed our interest, and Pat did a good job of showing the aftermath of Mardi Gras giving us a picture of a happy time in the middle of the sad devastation Katrina left behind her. Pat touched us with her pictures of the people struggling to rebuild and the courageous efforts of the people who gave unselfishly of their time and energies to help them.

This essay was quite different from the usual humorous essays that Pat brings to the group, but her writing was as topnotch as ever.

Writers write for all kinds of reasons. With me, it's one of two: Sometimes I write to entertain myself, with the hope of one day entertaining others with my fiction-writing for the reader. And sometimes I write to vent feelings or express opinions that I never show to another soul-writing for the author. This writing as therapy makes me feel better, but would not be a riveting read for anyone else. In my opinion, Elysabeth Eldering's "Who Is Responsible" in its current form, might best serve her as an example of the latter. Judging from the conversation around the table during the first Thursday meeting in April, others felt this way as well.

There was a lot of dialogue as to how Elysabeth might transform this piece into something for publication, and she may want to think about some of those: adding other, more compelling examples of abuse, making the story less personal, or making the issue of children put at risk by a bureaucracy the focus. Any of those ideas could tighten up this piece.

I think if it were me, I'd leave the current piece exactly as it is. It has served its purpose, which seems to be to give voice to something the author needed to say. Then, I would use the emotional heart of the piece to create a new story that is not so close to my own experience, but which my readers would find more entertaining.

Jim Morgan continued his science fiction novel of Nimue and her unusual rescuer. Despite being a novice, Jim has a good sense of adventure and an excellent feel for action verbs. The dash through the nighttime woods flowed smoothly, except he forgot to mention that she carried the baseball bat the entire way. His development of the Nimue's character is proceeding nicely, while Rohan's history is still satisfyingly mysterious.

On the other hand, as a beginner Jim stumbles over many of the errors we easily recognize, because we formerly--ha, ha--made them often enough. Rohan is probably not a native speaker of modern English, so he should have some speech peculiarities. Jim must decide what those idiosyncrasies are and consistently use them. Rohan should either use contractions or not, speak formally or not, sound foreign or not.

Semicolons are discouraged. Adverbs are often a form of telling, not showing, as are weasel words, such as somehow and nearly. Excessive use of proper names is a form of repetition, so use pronouns often whenever the antecedent is very clear, but never make the reader guess.

The identification of the speaker by means of an action sentence in the same paragraph either before or after the dialogue is preferred, as in: Rohan stopped .. . . "Let's just say..." John Kingsbury will not be content unless you put the action and dialogue--"There." Rohan pointed-- in the proper sequence. This means of speaker identification avoids excessive tags and reduces the urge to use synonyms for said, such as exclaimed, queried, or explained.

Despite an occasional tendency toward the cliché - mighty downward blows - Jim entertained us and made us impatient for the next installment. Not bad for a tyro.

Susan Boyer's readings always evoke a strong reaction from der Tubemeister, and that's a good thing. Well-drawn characters, natural dialog, and a strong sense of place are hallmarks of Susan's writing, and the latest chapter of Lowcountry Boil (has anyone mentioned what a great title that is?) is no exception. Unfortunately, the strong reaction always seems to include something to bitch about.

In prior chapters, it was excessive (though always well-written) backstory. This time it's the ghost. "The dead are patient." That line knocked DT (and others) out last month, when it seemed that the ghost of Colleen would be a shadowy muse, who perhaps planted ideas in the protagonist's head, then faded from view. Now, instead of a murder mystery, we have a ghost story, with Colleen as an active character, leading our heroine to the right spot at the right time to hear a critical conversation among miscreants. Sorry, Susan, but DT liked Colleen better when she was merely patient. If she's going to actively help solve the crime or crimes, it's like cheating, like a Deus ex Machina. It just makes things too easy, and detracts from the strength of the heroine herself. Now maybe if Colleen were an amiable moron, who kept leading in the wrong direction, another obstacle to overcome, she might be a more useful, though still annoying, plot device.

Does DT know Southern women's fiction? Absolutely not. Does he have a clue how well an active ghost might be accepted in this genre? Not a chance. But he knows what he likes, and if he didn't love Susan and her writing, he wouldn't bother to spend the time disagreeing with her.

Here's the short review of new member Aimee Caruso's essay "The Church of the Holy Sweatpants" -- Terrific title, enjoyable story, mis-matched ending.

Everyone in the group enjoyed Aimee's essay about her yoga class. It was cleverly done and provided lots of laughter at key places. The difference between the usual routine and that imposed by the substitute teacher (Jessica from California) was a great hook. Jessica's emphasis on proper breathing was the perfect set-up for humor. We loved Aimee's lines, "We weren't breathing loudly enough. She was pissed," and "Clearly our class was sub par. Not only were we collectively paler and less fit than California yoga students, we were shallow breathers." Great lines.

Now, about the ending. It is a wonderful ending, but it does not fit with an essay that has been light-hearted and humorous all the way through. It belongs with another essay. Perhaps one about what makes yoga so good, why we should do yoga, or why Aimee loves yoga. She needs to take her wonderful last line and write another essay to utilize it: "In yoga, we venture to the edges of our comfort zones where we feel an uncomfortable tug at the heart muscle, the awkward, complex feelings that arise when we allow ourselves to grow." That is a truly powerful, well constructed sentence.

So, rewrite the last line to end on a funny note, perhaps tying into the title "Church of the Holy Sweatpants". Then write anther story to go with the terrific original last line. That, in this reviewer's humble opinion, will give Aimee two winning essays.

I will be the first to admit that, as a non-woman (I think the PC term is "Estrogen Challenged,") I might not be the best person to review so-called "women's fiction," or "chick lit." Nevertheless, I very much enjoyed Pam Gurule's story, Your Tiara Is Waiting, the second part of which she read at our last Thursday meeting.

The story is about the wacky contestants at a Miss Georgia beauty pageant, circa 1960. Granted, this has been done before-the movies "Drop Dead Gorgeous" and "Best in Show" come to mind - but Pam has such a distinct voice and deadpan sense of humor that I couldn't help but laugh out loud. The panic that ensues when Miss Georgia Bull Dog strolls through the auditorium armed with a rifle-her talent, you see, is marksmanship - is hilarious. I'm looking forward to the next installment.

In a radical change of Third Tuesday protocol, Susan Boyer started off the meeting with Chapter Six from her novel Low Country Boil. From the point of view of Blake Talbot, Chief of Police and brother to Liz and Merry Talbot, we hear about the mundane madness of the first Stella Maris Town Council meeting since Emma Rae's death. Blake explains that while Merry fulfills the requirements for the Council seat vacated by Emma Rae, everyone is relieved that she has expressed no interest because she is widely considered to be a subversive. Merry does attend the meeting, however, and shocks everyone by volunteering to fill the seat.

Bob Strother stepped up next with five pages from Burning Time. It's been a few months since the birth of Louise's brother Henry. Louise's father comes home drunk again and her grandfather throws him out. The next day, Louise's parents fight, and her mother decides to move her father's things into Louise's room and let Louise sleep with her and Henry. Louise asks Jesse, and later her mother, why her daddy hates little Henry. Jesse says he's always been an angry man, and her mother says he didn't want another child. Louise tells her mother that she's glad they have Henry.

Elysabeth Eldering read a revamped version of her piece discussing accountability within the medical profession titled "Deity Doctors?" Elysabeth begins by stating that the medical professions are living by the motto, "Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil." She then presents three case studies illustrating medical discrepancies, malpractise and personal endangerment/abuse/neglect which were detected ahead of time but not prevented because of the blind eye attitude. Finally, she states that "we need to strive to implement a strong system that allows these persons to report to the proper authorities without fear. No more blindness, deafness and muteness."

Jim McFarlane took one of his chapters out of The Widow Dunn and turned it into a short story to be submitted to Catfish Stew. "The Census" takes place a few years after Laura Ann and Angus McFarlane's wedding. A census-taker comes to the door, and Laura Ann's eleven-year old daughter answers his questions, with many trips to Laura Ann for information. Laura Ann muses between interruptions: about her growing family (3 children now, with another on the way); how they packed up and left the plantation for Meridian, Mississippi, so Angus could work in a wagon factory; and about how even though they only had seventy-five cents to last the week, "the pantry was stocked, the cow was contented, and the chickens were laying. Laura Ann was contented too." On the last page of his story, Jim takes us to Ancestry.com, where he discovers the 1870 census and a list of five names with the last name of McFarland (and McPharlane.) The library closes as Jim prints out the names.

Aimee Caruso's book named Epipany continued. At dinner with Emily and Jennifer, Epiphany describes how he broke up with his boyfriend Jason and ended up living on the street. The next afternoon, the girls see Epiphany again and help him to get a shower while they wash his clothes. Then they all go to a gay club looking for Jason. When Epiphany finds Jason and approaches him and his companion, Jason pretends that he doesn't know Epiphany.

To close the meeting, Jim Morgan read from his novel Cassador. Jim describes the capital city of Corserador, home to Emperor Dalin Asphin, the Prince of Heaven and Ruler of all Men. Emperor Asphin stolls the polished marble hallways of his palace with Tayon Rix, the Supreme Patriarch of the Xolomite Council, and Sontra Furii, Imperial Consort and Studiac Priestess. He is waited on by Creelan slaves who are pacified and controlled by spider-like parasites attached to their necks. Councellor Rix and the Emperor discuss their prey on Earth, and Rix assures the Emperor that she will be eliminated soon. They also discuss the difficulties in controlling the Ratta horse clans, and Sontra Furii demurely suggests a way to deal with them.

• Thursday, May 4 - First Thursday Meeting, 6:00 p.m. at The Open Book
• Tuesday, May 16 - Third Tuesday Meeting, 6:00 p.m. at The Open Book

All genres welcome at both meetings. Suggested limit for reading selections is five double-spaced, typed pages, although longer selections may be possible if time permits.

The Open Book, 110 S Pleasantburg Drive, Greenville, SC

Many thanks to Steve for sharing this with us!

We have a lot of new members in the Greenville Chapter, and that's a good thing. But the unaccustomed crowds have placed some strains in our system, and new members often find the old hand speaking an unfamiliar language. Here are some things I've been thinking about, things that new members may not have heard and that old members need to be reminded about once in a while. Some are in the interest of keeping meetings moving along, some are simple reminders of common courtesy, and some are attempts to get us all speaking the same language.

Few writers are fond of rules, but we do attempt to at least keep in mind some rules of basic critiquing courtesy. When you are the critiquer:

1. Find something positive to say first. Point out a sentence you particularly liked, or an image that worked for you, or some realistic dialog. Don't open with "This really sucks." I often forget this rule, and I always regret it.
2. Be gentle. You don't need to pull punches, but the reader shouldn't feel like he's under attack. In particular, this means don't gang up. You don't need to reinforce a criticism already made by several others.
3. Stay focused. We don't have much time, and the reader is counting on you to give helpful suggestions, not tell him how his work reminds you of something you wrote ten years ago.
4. Jot down your suggestions in the margins. That's one of the reasons we like double spacing - it gives room for comments. It's hard to remember all the things people said, so it's a good reminder when the writer gets back home. And sign your copy. I know I like to know who made which comments when I get home. That way I know who to track down like a dog.

And when you are the critiquee:

1. Bring plenty of copies if you can. Lately that means 10 or 12.
2. Don't read too much. Five double spaced pages is our general rule. Read more and you just cut into the amount of critique you will receive. You can cheat and use 1/2" margins or space-and-a-half instead of double space, but you'll only cheat yourself.
3. Don't bring your best passages, bring your worst ones. We're here to help each other, not to show off. Okay, we are here to show off, but the best way to do that is to get better over time. Bring the stuff that needs the most work - that's what we're here for.
4. Don't defend yourself. If somebody in the group has misinterpreted your work, other readers may as well. Maybe it needs to be written more clearly. Anyway, arguing just wastes your valuable critiquing time, and it tends to shut off discussion. If you want people to keep trying to help, you've got to listen to what they have to say. You always have the option of ignoring the advice later.
5. Don't bring a piece back to read again unless you've done a major rewrite. We don't need to see your tweaks. We assume you've done them. Bring in the next section, even if it's a little rough. This is another example of using your critiquing time efficiently.
6. Go out for a beer with the group afterward. Sometimes it's the best part of the meeting.
7. Trust yourself. One of my rules said not to waste your valuable critiquing time defending yourself. That doesn't mean you have to agree with every suggestion. Ultimately it's your work and your writing style, and if you believe in what you've written, go with it, in spite of what somebody may have said. The critiquers don't know everything.

Printed Matters is the newsletter of the Greenville Chapter of South Carolina Writers Workshop.

Thanks to our contributing writers and news reporters:
Bob Strother, Pat Stewart, Aimee Caruso, Jim Morgan, Elysabeth Eldering, John Helfrich, Pam Gurule, Faye Tollison, Susan Boyer, Jim McFarlane, Steve Heckman, Phil Arnold and Kevin Coyle

Copyright 2006 by Marcia Migacz, Editor. Contributing writers retain all rights to their work.

To unsuscribe, send an e-mail to Unsubscribe.