[1](1). [o] [Intro](Intro)
2. [.] On fandoms and subcultures
    1. [ ] [What are they](001)
    3. [ ] [What's important to them in their writing](002)
    4. [ ] How is that usually accomplished
3. [ ] Introducing furry
    1. [ ] What are they
    2. [ ] What's important to them in their writing
    3. [ ] How is that usually accomplished
4. [ ] The two workshops
    1. [ ] OCWW
    2. [ ] FCWW
5. [ ] Adapting workshops
6. [ ] Conclusions

-----

Writing what's important to us helps us to build styles, language, and stories of shared meaning. Fandom and subculture spaces provide authors with a meta-genre of sorts in order to explore this shared meaning. By leaning on each other for support, the members can build up a corpus of their own, something that resists commercialization outside of those spaces, and builds a stronger sense of in-group community.

Over the last four months, I've had the privilege of running two writing workshops and four writing classes within the furry subculture. My goal with running these workshops and classes was to explore what specific aspects of fandom and subculture writing can be incorporated into writing workshops.

For the purposes of this project, I'm leaning on two working definitions, one for 'fandom' and one for 'subculture'.

Fandoms are groups of people focused on consuming media from a particular canon and, in this case, producing content related to that canon. This can take the form of art, music, costuming, or fanfiction, with the last being the natural choice for workshopping in a writing context.

Subcultures, on the other hand, are groups of individuals focused on consuming media from no one, single canon, yet sharing an interest related to some aspect of media, culture, or identity. This can be anything from anime to LGBTQIA+ identities to furries. Without a central canon, there is no concept of fanfiction, and yet they can still serve in the role of a meta-genre, informing the style and content of the creations associated with the subculture, regardless of the core genre of the work itself.

Both of these serve an important role in building community in a playful way. Association with fandom and subculture is often seen as frivolous, silly, or in many ways 'not real', despite the fact that members may make a very real living off their creations.

Still, it's that very playfulness that allows a set of styles and tropes to arise within these areas. When the works created aren't necessarily beholden to popular tastes, fandom and subculture creators have a lot of freedom to explore.

The creation of this shared language within the context of an in-group such as a fandom or subculture is bound up in two things: conversation and art. Conversation is the sharing of information, emotions, and opinions surrounding the shared sense of identity, but the creation of art strengthens shared identity through the mutual appreciation of the core subject or topic of the fandom or subculture.[^berk]

In the context of writing in particular, the shared language takes center stage. When using a similar lexicon, grammar and stylistic choices, and word choice, a sense of membership can build, strengthening community bonds.

This is what drew my interest to the idea of teaching in this setting. Not only does it present unique challenges for the educator, but it provides potentially greater rewards for both the students and teacher --- especially should they share membership to the fandom or subculture.

In my case, I chose interacting with the furry subculture.[^furryfandom] Not only is it a group that I interact with frequently given my own membership, but there are some particularly interesting features that create for a stronger sense of in-group membership. For instance, furry has long provided a safe space for LGBTQIA+ individuals, and as a non-binary trans woman, it has been a particularly important home for me since before I came out both to myself and others.

Given this relationship between furry identity and queer identities, this provides a poignant example of shared identity and topic selection. One of the most well-known of furry authors, [Kyell Gold](https://kyellgold.com), writes quite frequently about gay male characters, focusing quite often on the themes of coming out and fitting in. His books have been widely praised within the subculture due to what's perceived as a common experience.

Beyond this, however, writing within the context of furry has picked up several features and conventions common within the corpus. For example:

* It's quite important to establish the species of the characters soon after their introduction. A common saying is "If I don't learn the character's species on the same page that they're introduced, I'm just going to get confused".
* Dialogue tags often use the construct of "the *\[species\]* said", rather than relying on names. This is seen as helping reinforce the view of the character in the reader's mind.[^speciestag]
* Adding elements that "make the story furry" is seen as important. Some writing is considered "funny animal fiction" or "coffee shop fox stories", where the nominally anthropomorphic characters could be replaced with humans with no detriment to the story. These are often described glibly as "zipperbacks", referring to the idea that fursuits, costumes of anthropomorphic animals, contain a zipper down the back used to put them on and take them off. These elements can take the form of tails wagging, ears perking, or the importance of scents, given the preponderance of canines, but can be as elaborate as including the social implications of shedding or the requirements of tail accommodations.

With all of this in mind, I scheduled two workshops to run during conventions and adapted a standard workshop template to include discussions and critiques of these features in furry writing.

The first of these workshops took place during the online convention [Oxfurred Comma](https://oxfurredcomma.com), hosted by the [Furry Writers' Guild](https://furrywritersguild.com). While the core group of attendees of the workshop interacted with each other over a video call, attendees of the overall convention were able to watch via a streaming broadcast on [Twitch](https://twitch.tv) to view the process of workshopping and interact via the text chat.

This workshop followed a familiar format, where a small group of writers came together to critique and discuss each of their pieces over the course of two one-hour sessions, plus one video provided in advance. Each author applied to the workshop with a short piece of fiction (either a story or stand-alone selection of a larger work of up to 2,000 words) along with a short bio. Workshop attendees were selected from the pool of applicants based on the strength of their submissions and a subjective evaluation of how willing to participate they seemed. Applications were slim, so it was lucky that I was able to admit all applicants.

The two sessions of the workshop were focused on critical reading and critiquing writing. The video provided in lieu of a first session involved the critiquing of a piece published by an author not in attendance to offer an example of the process of critiquing and workshopping. The Saturday session involved workshopping the pieces used for applying using the standard format of a silent author for the first few minutes, followed by a discussion where they were included.

The Sunday session involved critiquing a piece of homework. On the first day, authors were given a bit more than a day and a half to write approximately 1,000 words of fiction. On the evening of the second day, these assignments were emailed to each of the authors so that the third day could workshop those pieces, keeping in mind the lessons that they had learned so far. This also provided an opportunity to write a piece with the fact that it would be critiqued in mind.

The workshop was highly successful, both from my point of view as the facilitator and the point of view of the attendees. Despite some confusions on communication early on --- we had originally planned on three sessions before schedule conflicts got in the way, and initial communications regarding the structure of critique were unclear --- the attendees left the workshop feeling like they had a clear idea of the feedback they received and what directions they could take their submitted works. I left the workshop with a greater understanding of facilitation and how to guide timed discussions.

The second workshop took place in-person at [Further Confusion](https://furcon.org), a mid-sized convention (for furry, at approximately 4,500 attendees). The goal of this workshop was to run a similar event to the Oxfurred Comma Writing Workshop, except that the workshop would take place in person at a convention. The realities of the convention worked against this, however; with no guarantee that the sessions would not be scheduled against other, more popular panels or events, it was difficult for attendees to guarantee that they would be joining all three sessions. Additionally, some of the largest draws of in-person furry events --- fursuiting, the Dealer's Den, social interaction --- tend to leave panels focused on more technical material poorly attended.

This led to a reevaluation of the planned sessions, and instead, the three-session workshop was shifted to the topic of critical reading and critiquing within the context of furry. The first session focused on what goes into the act of critical reading and how we interact with texts as furry readers. The second focused on what goes into giving critique on furry writing. The final session focused on writing with an eye to receiving critique and how to incorporate feedback into one's work.

Despite the slim attendance --- five on the first day, seven on the second, ten on the third --- the workshop was still overall a success. During the first day, after leading with a discussion on critical reading and what goes into it, the attendees read through a short piece, ["Bibelots and Baubles"](https://zooscape-zine.com/bibelots-and-baubles/), which we discussed afterwards. At the end of the session, I gave the attendees the opportunity to write and submit short (500-1000 word) stories for workshopping on the third day.

The second day was spent discussing what exactly goes on in a writing workshop including various methods that they might see and how that can play into furry, which led into critiquing one of my pieces, ["Jump"](https://makyo.ink/jump), with the idea being that we would be able to workshop a piece with the author present, yet not put the pressure on any of the attendees.

The last day involved workshopping the pieces that the attendees offered and then having a discussion about writing with an eye towards receiving critique and how to engage with critical readers in a workshop setting.

Once again, the workshop was largely a success. The attendees were invested and committed to learning and participating in the process. When it came to reading the provided story, all provided a good sense of understanding of the work as well as providing insightful answers to guiding questions ("what aspects of this story are furry, and how effective are they to you?" --- "what was your favorite image and why?" --- "what aspects of the main character did you wish you had more of?" --- and so on). On the second day, the discussion about what goes into some fairly standard formats of workshops led to a delightful conversation over "Jump", including insights into the piece that hadn't arisen when the piece was workshopped for the first time back in 2021. On the third day, with [two pieces to read through](https://makyo.ink/workshops/fcww/23/submissions/), the authors responded well to the conversation and a sense of camaraderie  was clear among the attendees.

With both of these workshops, there were a few commonalities in terms of what worked and what didn't. In both cases, the attendees all reported a sense of joy at having their writing approached seriously and earnestly. "I got to experience a style of critique and writing teamwork that I've never experienced before," one wrote. "I loved how the structure meant that everyone was on the same level, and we were all accountable for our own input but it wasn't onerous." This sentiment was echoed by other attendees. Others mentioned that this level playing field made for an experience that felt like a group of people helping each other out rather than a classroom setting.

In terms of what didn't work, both workshops involved instances where I wasn't able to communicate what it was that I was looking for effectively. In the case of Oxfurred Comma, the initial Friday session was canceled due to time zones and a miscommunication with the conference itself. As a result the attendees felt left in the dark as to what exactly 'critique' meant, with one stating, "It would have been helpful to have a better introduction. I didn't know what kind of analysis was required and as a result, I ended up having to redo my analysis twice on all three stories." In lieu of the session, I provided a short video providing an example of critiquing the first story, which very much helped, but the situation was still less than ideal. For Further Confusion, on the Friday session I began a discussion about "Bibelots and Baubles", and rather than it being an open discussion in the room, attendees simply turned to their neighbor and began talking through the piece, with an attendee sitting at the back of the room for social distancing left out entirely. While I quickly steered that conversation to be the whole group talking to each other loud enough for all to hear, one person speaking at a time, I still made note that I hadn't provided a clear explanation going into the process.

Moving forward with future fandom- and subculture-specific workshops, setting clear expectations of interaction both in the materials and communication is going to be important for me, and in the attached lesson plans, there will be notes as to possible pain points in communication. That said, after reviewing the successes of the two workshops has provided plenty ideas on how to make curricula that cater specifically to the subculture, also included in the lesson plans.

<!----->

[^furryfandom]: It's quite common to refer to furry as a fandom as well. I resist this phrasing more on intellectual than moral grounds, simply because there isn't a core media that furries are a fandom. When asked, most furries will say that they're fans of anthropomorphic animals or, more poignantly, themselves.

[^berk]: See <https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZTRscgS5B/>

[^speciestag]: I'm careful to specify 'is seen as' due to a common complaint of editors being the overuse of this construct.
