![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
WORKSHOPPING
There’s much to be said for both basic methods of workshopping: handing out work ahead of time and reading aloud at the workshop. I’ve used both, but last night when the Asilomar group got together, I was struck by the distinct difference in the two methods.
I use the “hard copy ahead of time” method when I’m teaching. This works well for new, inexperienced writers and critiquers both. When you’re just starting out, it’s difficult to see problems in your own work, often no matter how many times you review it, and reading it aloud doesn’t help much. It’s also hard for beginning critiquers to catch difficult parts “on the run” as it were and comment usefully on them. Too often, on-the-spot critiques descend to the level of “I like this and can’t see anything wrong with it.” And the real problem with that is the beginning writer is likely to believe it.
lt’s too hard for the writer to have to listen to comments at first – and take notes if necessary, which it usually is. Even when the critiquers will be giving back the piece under discussion with comments added, many writers are shy and have difficulty listening. I often tell my students that if they think they’re going to be too overcome with it all to be able to listen appropriately, then they should bring a tape recorder; that way they miss neither the oral comments or the written ones. (The first time I underwent the workshop process, my blood was pounding so hard that I couldn’t hear a thing that was said, good or bad.) The “hard copy” method has another advantage – you can get more done in the time allotted.
But for experienced writers, there’s a lot to recommend the “read aloud” method. Last night, when my critique group got together, I realized how amazing it is that experienced writers can catch so many glitches in a story that they’re listening to for the first time. Nobody needs to comment on everything of course, or even see the problem in the first place. But a good group will cover the bases pretty efficiently. The real benefit is for the writer reading his/her work aloud. Last night, for instance, I recognized an organizational problem as I read ( another essay on aspects of SF that I’m doing for the NebulaAward website) – ahead of the critiquers pointing it out. Clumsy phrasing, passages that drag, become crystal clear when you have to read them aloud. Yes, it takes time, and our sessions tend to take three or four highly intense hours to work with five or six writers’ work – and that’s with setting a word or page limit. Beginning writers would soon be exhausted.
My group has been together (at least the core of members) for more than thirty years. Jerry Hannah hand-picked the first group while we were at the Santa Barbara Writers’ Conference, and we met twice a year for three or four days in the conference center at Asilomar State Park – thus our name. I remember the heady, in-depth discussions of points of craft that occurred, almost like taking a Master Class. Since then, the group has grown, and now there’s a Northern California group (mostly Bay Area) and a Southern (mostly LA area), and we meet every other Friday night.
Sometimes people will say, “You’ve published a lot! Do you really still need a workshop?” The answer to that is, Yes! I don’t think I would’ve got this far without my colleagues urging me to improve. Or they’ll argue that workshops influence a writer’s style and choice of material to the work’s detriment. My answer to that is, if you find yourself in such a controlling environment, run don’t walk to the nearest exit. A good critique group doesn’t tell you how or what to write; they identify what is and what isn’t working in whatever you choose to write.
Jerry taught us well, and I value the help I get from my workshop group. Now I need to get back to the piece I read last night and work on that reorganization problem!
I use the “hard copy ahead of time” method when I’m teaching. This works well for new, inexperienced writers and critiquers both. When you’re just starting out, it’s difficult to see problems in your own work, often no matter how many times you review it, and reading it aloud doesn’t help much. It’s also hard for beginning critiquers to catch difficult parts “on the run” as it were and comment usefully on them. Too often, on-the-spot critiques descend to the level of “I like this and can’t see anything wrong with it.” And the real problem with that is the beginning writer is likely to believe it.
lt’s too hard for the writer to have to listen to comments at first – and take notes if necessary, which it usually is. Even when the critiquers will be giving back the piece under discussion with comments added, many writers are shy and have difficulty listening. I often tell my students that if they think they’re going to be too overcome with it all to be able to listen appropriately, then they should bring a tape recorder; that way they miss neither the oral comments or the written ones. (The first time I underwent the workshop process, my blood was pounding so hard that I couldn’t hear a thing that was said, good or bad.) The “hard copy” method has another advantage – you can get more done in the time allotted.
But for experienced writers, there’s a lot to recommend the “read aloud” method. Last night, when my critique group got together, I realized how amazing it is that experienced writers can catch so many glitches in a story that they’re listening to for the first time. Nobody needs to comment on everything of course, or even see the problem in the first place. But a good group will cover the bases pretty efficiently. The real benefit is for the writer reading his/her work aloud. Last night, for instance, I recognized an organizational problem as I read ( another essay on aspects of SF that I’m doing for the NebulaAward website) – ahead of the critiquers pointing it out. Clumsy phrasing, passages that drag, become crystal clear when you have to read them aloud. Yes, it takes time, and our sessions tend to take three or four highly intense hours to work with five or six writers’ work – and that’s with setting a word or page limit. Beginning writers would soon be exhausted.
My group has been together (at least the core of members) for more than thirty years. Jerry Hannah hand-picked the first group while we were at the Santa Barbara Writers’ Conference, and we met twice a year for three or four days in the conference center at Asilomar State Park – thus our name. I remember the heady, in-depth discussions of points of craft that occurred, almost like taking a Master Class. Since then, the group has grown, and now there’s a Northern California group (mostly Bay Area) and a Southern (mostly LA area), and we meet every other Friday night.
Sometimes people will say, “You’ve published a lot! Do you really still need a workshop?” The answer to that is, Yes! I don’t think I would’ve got this far without my colleagues urging me to improve. Or they’ll argue that workshops influence a writer’s style and choice of material to the work’s detriment. My answer to that is, if you find yourself in such a controlling environment, run don’t walk to the nearest exit. A good critique group doesn’t tell you how or what to write; they identify what is and what isn’t working in whatever you choose to write.
Jerry taught us well, and I value the help I get from my workshop group. Now I need to get back to the piece I read last night and work on that reorganization problem!