At the Indiana Writers Center, I've led a workshop group for the last ten years and we occasionally have a great discussion on the different approaches to "workshopping."
This particular workshop was founded ten years ago as an outreach for the IWC and is, first and foremost, open to anyone who is or becomes a member of the IWC. Thus, in a sense, we're a very open group as opposed to most ongoing groups that can be selective in who they allow at the table. At any rate, the IWC workshop operates on a single guiding principal: each of the writers participates with the goal of doing their very best to help the other writers make their work the best it can be, based on where that writer is in the process and what they've chosen to write. In return for those efforts, we receive from the others around the table their own best efforts to help improve our writing based on our specific goals and motivations and vision--not theirs.
Of course, this approach isn't the only way--nor maybe even the best in other circumstances--to operate a workshop. Keep in mind there are three (at least) approaches one might employ in commenting on another's writing: straight critiquing (our approach), editing, and reviewing, and each has a place and value. Just as with the three modes of prose writing--narrative summary, scene, and description--and the importance of the writer's awareness and control of which mode they're using--and when and how to mix them--it's crucial that members of any group remember those workshopping principals and understand where they might be stepping over the line into another mode.
So, for the IWC group, workshopping/critiquing means that, as readers, we all agree to approach another's work with 100% objectivity. It's about the words on the page, not about our own personal tastes in our reading. Workshopping typically focuses on works that are at some relatively early stage of development, often even first drafts. In other words, our workshop pieces are usually a good ways from publication and should be viewed as works in progress. At any rate, in critiquing such works, the reader needs to do their best to put themselves in the place (and even the mind) of the writer and to critique the work organically based on what it is, where it is, and that writer's own vision and goals--and abilities. One of our principals stresses, first of all, noting those elements of the piece we feel work well, and then pointing out things that don't work, being very specific, but never telling the writer how to change/correct/modify something, since that means we're stepping into what is really an editing mode, where there is more of a subjective collaboration between editor and writer. Given that our IWC group often has as many as a dozen folks--of decidedly different levels of experience--around the table for a session, sticking to the purely objective approach seems to yield great results while minimizing strife!
Anyway, several of our workshop--in addition to Michael and George and I with Steve Parolini, for Etchings, An Ekprhastic Trio--have been going through the Indie publishing route (congrats to Jen, Heather, and Kristen so far!) and we've experienced the official editing phase of a book, where we've basically done all we can do ourselves and we need an outside, independent view of the work. Most good editors charge for their work and are worth every penny. The key is that an editor (and I do this myself in editing pieces for Flying Island) has the same goal of making the piece the best it can be, but also we ask an editor to give us both objective (including line editing and error catching, at the appropriate point) and subjective ("...this trick ending works okay, David, but it's still a trick and I think you can do better: I'd like to see more of how this affair changes Paul's outlook on Karen, for example, does he find that....") type comments. After all, once we push the publish button on Kindle we want our work to shine since at that point it's the reviewers who get to comment and we don't want to add to that proverbial Indie publishing "tsunami of crap!" Many writers might want to create or join a small, select group of readers from whom they ask feedback that steps into the editing realm and the deeper comments that might bring. But to be successful, such a group would be small and establish a strong bond of mutual trust.
Anyway, then, third, it's the reviewers' turn, and of course the whole point of a review is that it is aimed not to help the writer at all but at another audience entirely and is 100% subjective. Here's where--as a reviewer--we can let loose our spleen and take high handed positions and set forth our own political or other agendas, woohoo! Or blather at length about the book's perfection and enlightenment. Fun! Again, essentially 100% subjective and 100% appropriate and expected, as it's done for an audience and for ENTERTAINMENT! Obviously, this kind of opinionated comment probably has no place in any workshopping environment.
So, which type of group works best for you?
No comments:
Post a Comment