BEFORE the Workshop session:

The Group should agree on their customs and expectations regarding everything from when and how often to submit work to how forthright vs. supportive they want each other to be when discussing work.

Writers might bring in work at different stages of completion to the group. Each writer should tell the others where they are in the process so everyone knows what sort of feedback will make sense. A polished piece is not necessarily more excellent than a rough one.

The Writer should:

• Present their work in a simple, double-spaced format using a 12-point font in a document that can be edited (not a pdf). The file name should include the author name and the submission title. There should be no annotations or traces of prior editing.

• Include their name, a title, and a header with name and page numbers. If the work is an excerpt, include at the top a brief orienting statement so the reader understands the scale and context of the larger work.

The Readers should:

• If editing digitally, especially if there are several people in the group, save a copy of the file with their own initials added to the filename so the author can easily manage multiple files with feedback from multiple readers.

• Read the work at least twice, with a pencil in hand (or Track Changes / Editing Mode turned on). Most readers of published work will not re-read a text, so your initial reaction is extremely important to capture. If you were confused on page 2, only to have that confusion cleared up on page 3, the clarity came too late. The writer needs to know your reaction to the first read-through. They also need to get your more considered opinion, based on your second reading.

• Use an efficient shorthand for frequent notes.

I suggest:

√ for passages you love

? for confusion

CL for identifying clichéed expressions

Underlining or highlighting and connecting with lines

^{\________________/}

to point out repetition (rep) or contradiction (x)

• Be supportive but honest. Many workshops require one positive remark for every negative one. I find this too formulaic. You should never be snide or dismissive. You should always put your own aesthetics to the side, serving the writer and their text, not yourself. If you are empathetic and remember that you are reading work that is in progress, you should be able to express criticism without being hurtful.

• Avoid rewriting or telling the writer what to write. Instead, observe, describe, and react.

• Keep track of characters, point of view and time.

• Describe what you think the piece could be if fully realized.

• Ask questions.

• Provide a brief note with an overview or summary of the piece. (This is surprisingly useful to writers, who often find reader summaries of early drafts to differ substantially from their own notions of their work. One very successful revision strategy, by the way, is to ignore all prescriptive advice from readers but instead set out to narrow the differential between readers' summaries of your work and your own idea of what you want it to be. Basically, this is the gap between what the writer intended to convey and what the reader actually took away. When a writer eliminates this gap, they have achieved their goal for the piece of writing.)

DURING the Workshop session:

The Writer should:

• Take notes and possibly record the session

• Listen without defending, explaining or interrupting — except that they should

  1. 1. 1. 1. • be allowed to ask the workshop to move on, if workshop members are discussing a point that is moot or otherwise not useful to the writer.

              • be given a chance to respond briefly and ask one or two clarifying questions at the end.

The Readers should:

• Speak briefly about the piece, describing it, its strengths and the opportunities they see for its successful realization.

• Be specific and attempt to ground most of their comments in a passage from the text.

• Raise questions about the piece amongst themselves, but avoid asking the writer to answer these questions directly.

• Avoid reiterating previously made comments at length — but do mention agreement or dissent.

• If the larger points a reader has to offer have been made already, that reader should move to more granular or text-specific comments.

• Be mindful of the allotted time for the workshop and the number of commenters and attempt to participate without dominating the conversation.

FOLLOW UP.

If time allows, it is advisable to revisit each writer's previous critique briefly at the next workshop, to ensure the writer understood the comments and had a positive experience — or, if not, to remedy that.

© Elizabeth Gaffney May 2021