Having just completed the first round of workshop critiques, I feel like I have gotten better at trying to understand what the story is really about, noticing subtext, and being confident in suggesting both small and global changes to help the writer take the story to a new level. Many times, it is one small thing that is already in the story but not explored or developed enough. Focusing on this can make a huge difference and take a story from good to amazing.
This being an online class, we are only giving written responses and critiques. This can make it both easier and more difficult. It is almost easier to give written responses because you have time to think about what you will write and choose your words carefully. However, talking in person can be easier because you can rely on tone of voice and facial expressions to get your meaning across without offending the writer. I've done most workshops online so it's hard for me to compare in-person vs. written responses. I think in-person could be more effective because you could have a conversation and clarify things right away, whereas reading only written responses can lead to confusion.
What stood out to me the most from the Straub essay were his insights on how to present comments. It's important to not only explain your comments but also to try to "engage the writer in considering her choices and thinking about possible ways to improve the paper." I do find that I have the urge to change things in someone's story and say, "Do this!" not out of sheer bossiness but out of excitement and seeing the potential of the story. (This is why I love to have my work critiqued: as the writer, there are so many things that I miss but a different set of eyes can really offer suggestions to make my story so much better) I really try to focus on reigning in my excitement because the writer may have different intentions for the story and it's not my story to change, only to make suggestions and explain why.
Hi Elaine,
ReplyDeleteI do agree that written responses can seem a little impersonal because of the inability to clarify what is meant by some of the suggestions. But I do have to say that written responses are a little better because you have time to think about what you are going to say and the writer doesn't get unnecessary anxiety when you pause trying to think of the next suggestion.
I agree with what you pointed out from Straub's essay. I also tend to excite overly excited about edits to someone else's story when I am critiquing them. I keep wanting to make the edits and changes myself even if the suggestions are not the direction the writer wanted to go in. I have bad impulse control when it comes to that to be honest. I'm glad I'm not the only one.