update from sparkleup
This commit is contained in:
parent
27489a4da6
commit
d23beac79c
|
|
@ -5,4 +5,4 @@
|
|||
* [o] [Essay](essay)
|
||||
* [X] [Chat notes](chat)
|
||||
* [.] [Lesson plan](lesson-plan)
|
||||
* [ ] Presentation
|
||||
* [ ] [Presentation](Presentation)
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,232 @@
|
|||
|
||||
In late October, I had the privilege of running a two day workshop for an online fandom writing convention, [Oxfurred Comma](https://oxfurredcomma.com). With the gracious support of the [Furry Writers' Guild](https://furrywritersguild.com) staff, I was able to run a critique-based workshop with three attendees, plus host two additional panels on the topics of mental health and plot structures.
|
||||
|
||||
## Preparations
|
||||
|
||||
To prepare for the event, I discussed the possibility with the FWG staff, the FWG Telegram chat (open to members and non-members alike), and a loosely-related chat for [the Voice of Dog podcast](https://thevoice.dog), which releases audio versions of furry short fiction on a regular basis. Having the chance to talk through the possibility and some ideas for the workshop structure with others beforehand proved to be quite helpful, as my own experience with writing workshops was limited to fairly intensive ones --- [the Regional Anthropomorphic Writers' Retreat](https://rawr.community) and those that I've attended for school --- whereas it seemed like, given the limited schedule of a weekend, folks were interested in something with less overhead. I suspect that, had the convention been in person or run longer than two days, there would have been more interest in an intensive program. However, I'm happy with the way things worked out.
|
||||
|
||||
The structure that I came up with was one focused on the art of giving and receiving critique. While I think a lot of people find use in editing and beta reads, I've found analysis and critique generally lacking within the furry fandom. We trade stories back and forth with some frequency, and the feedback we get rarely reaches the level of developmental edits. There's a lot of line/copy editing that happens, instead. I'm grateful for this, as I'm notoriously bad at such, myself, but one thing that I've been craving is feedback on how a story ticks, what makes it work or not for a reader, that sort of thing.
|
||||
|
||||
To that end, I came up with a three-session workshop with the following structure:
|
||||
|
||||
Before workshop | Friday evening | Saturday | Sunday | After workshop
|
||||
---|---|---|---|---
|
||||
Send participants' stories plus one additional story to the participants for them to begin the process of critiquing | Greetings, chat about critique and how the workshop will work, run through a group critique of the short story provided, provide a short (500-1,000 word) writing exercise as homework. | Critique the stories that each participant sent in, discuss how that felt, turn in writing exercises (evening). | Critique the short writing exercises to see how critique feels on a much earlier draft, discuss how the workshop went. | Fill out feedback forms.
|
||||
|
||||
Due to the time limits provided by the convention the critique sessions would be run under a stricter format: each of the authors would receive critique from three people (myself plus the other two attendees), meaning that each person giving the critique would have approximately two minutes to provide their feedback. The author was to remain silent during this session --- a technique that I'm not totally sold on, but also one that keeps the workshop on track when it comes to time --- but would have a chance to respond to feedback afterwards. Additionally, I round-robin'd having authors summarize each others' stories without telling them who would be giving each summary, as I feel that a) having to give a summary provides a good sense of how well a story's structure works, and b) an element of randomness, which can be seen as kind of petty, does admittedly work on providing incentive to actually Doing The Thing™.
|
||||
|
||||
I felt that this would allow for the following:
|
||||
|
||||
* The ability to critique a piece by an outside author would give the participants a low-impact way to understand just how critique works and get into the rhythm of it without it being about any of their works in particular.
|
||||
* Having the participants submit stories ahead of time (the samples they submitted during the application process were used for the critique sessions) allowed them to select writing that they both felt was good enough that they were proud of, yet young enough that they might get something out of a critique.
|
||||
* Having a writing exercise with a strict time limit would allow the participants to give themselves permission to write something rough that they knew could use quite a bit of work through the workshopping process.
|
||||
* Critiquing work at multiple stages of completion would provide a broader understanding of what critique is and how it works.
|
||||
|
||||
With all of this in mind, I drafted an application call and a few of the communications that would be sent throughout the process of the workshop. Having these lined up ahead of time made it easier for me to focus on offering my own critiques of the works and any moderation that was needed.
|
||||
|
||||
## Application and Applicants
|
||||
|
||||
With all of this under my belt, I opened up applications for the Oxfurred Comma Writing Workshop. The application information was posted online and the link given both to the VoD and FWG Telegram groups. When applications lagged (I only received two, initially), I extended the deadline and tweeted this out along with the help of a small fandom publisher, FurPlanet, and received two more applications.
|
||||
|
||||
This was the application page's content:
|
||||
|
||||
> Welcome to the Oxfurred Comma Writing Workshop! This is a place to learn from each other and writers around the world. In this course, 2--3 people will take part in two critique sessions and one writing assignment to learn more about the process of writing and critical reading. Pending FWG and applicants' responses, the Saturday and Sunday sessions will be presented as panels during Oxfurred Comma so that other attendees may view (though not participate in) the process of critiquing.
|
||||
>
|
||||
> **Note:** This workshop is being held as partial fulfillment of my Master's of Fine Arts in creative writing program. The sessions will be recorded, though those recordings will be kept between myself and my advisor and mentor. However, should this prove successful, I would love to hold it at future conventions!
|
||||
>
|
||||
> ### Application process
|
||||
>
|
||||
> To apply to this workshop, please provide a writing sample --- either a short story or logically complete segment of a larger work with a short paragraph describing its context --- of 2000 words or less. This writing sample may be the same one used for the critique assignment described below, but doesn't need to be. To apply, email your writing sample in MS Word .docx, LibreOffice .odt, or Google Docs link (we'll be using the comment feature, and those are the best options) to <ocww@makyo.io> along with a short, one paragraph bio for yourself.
|
||||
>
|
||||
> Decisions will be made within a few days (pending the number of applications) and selected participants will be notified by email.
|
||||
>
|
||||
> Priority will be given to those who have never attended a writing workshop before. If you have, don't let that stop you, just be sure to mention so in your bio.
|
||||
>
|
||||
> Applications due by 12PM Pacific on October 18.
|
||||
>
|
||||
> ### Course outline
|
||||
>
|
||||
> During this course, you will be reading one story provided by the instructor, plus one story from each participant prior to beginning the workshop. The workshop will last for two sessions of an hour to an hour and a half during Oxfurred Comma.
|
||||
>
|
||||
> Friday --- Evening Pacific time
|
||||
> : You will receive a writing assignment via email. This will be due Saturday at Midnight, PST
|
||||
>
|
||||
> Saturday --- TBD
|
||||
> : On Saturday, we will do introductions, learn about critiquing with the short story that was provided, then spend some time per author critiquing each other's stories provided prior to the workshop. Pending remaining time, we will discuss what we liked and didn't like about the process of critique so that we bring that to the table on Sunday.
|
||||
>
|
||||
> Sunday --- TBD
|
||||
> : The second day will be spent critiquing each other's assignments turned in on Saturday with an eye towards where to go with editing. At the end, we will discuss what we can take away from the process of critique to apply to our own writing, as well as to critical reading in the future. Participants will be provided a certificate upon completion.
|
||||
>
|
||||
> ### Assignments
|
||||
>
|
||||
> One week before the workshop begins, students will be provided with reading materials that will be heavily discussed in the workshop.
|
||||
>
|
||||
> * Participants will be provided with a short critical reading assignment that they will have read with the goal of participating in a discussion about the mechanics and experience.
|
||||
> * Participants will provide a short story (or logically complete story segment with a paragraph of context) of 1000--2000 words. Each participant will read the other participants' stories with the same goal of providing feedback and learning for their own craft. This story should not be one that has been published before or not one read by the other participants.
|
||||
>
|
||||
> During the workshop session on Friday, students will be provided with a writing assignment that will be due 24 hours later on the evening of Saturday. These assignments will be forwarded to the other participants to read that night/Sunday morning in order to be able to hold a second critique session during the final session.
|
||||
>
|
||||
> I fully acknowledge that this is a short period of time, especially during a convention where you might want to attend other panels. However, I encourage participants to use this as a motivating factor for their own writing, and remember that the only two ways to 'fail' the workshop are to not participate or not learn anything. Still, take this into consideration when considering whether to sign up for this workshop.
|
||||
>
|
||||
> **Note:** all writing (the critical reading assignment, the pre-workshop writing submission, and the in-workshop writing assignment) must be 'SFW' as the workshop will be publicly visible to other attendees who may not be 18+. Erotica holds an important place within the fandom and is due all the respect in the world, but the platform must be considered.
|
||||
>
|
||||
> ### Expectations
|
||||
>
|
||||
> During the process of the workshop, there will be both reading and writing assignments, and it's expected that these will be approached seriously with the attention that they deserve. They will take time, so be sure to budget accordingly.
|
||||
>
|
||||
> All participants (and myself!) are expected to treat each other with respect. This means:
|
||||
>
|
||||
> * When critiquing, respond to the writing, not the author
|
||||
> * Respect each other when interacting via the voice chat and any communications outside the class
|
||||
> * Respect each other with one's own writing; writing is a form of communication, and writing that demeans or degrades outside elements of the plot is unacceptable
|
||||
>
|
||||
> This is doubly important given the nature of the workshop during a convention. We will be discussion the work of real people, and those discussions will be visible to spectators who also wish to learn but are not participating in the workshop itself, though the chat will be heavily moderated to ensure that the discussion taking place between participants remains the focus.
|
||||
>
|
||||
> If there are any issues regarding respect, message me or a Guild moderator and they will be addressed immediately. Please be sure to provide Telegram or Discord contact information so that, should we need, we can message directly.
|
||||
>
|
||||
> ### About me
|
||||
>
|
||||
> I'm Madison Scott-Clary (she/her), and I've been chilling in the furry writing community for a decade or so now. I was editor-in-chief of \[adjective\]\[species\], an online magazine exploring the social and demographic aspects of the furry subculture, and editor-in-chief of Hybrid Ink, a small publishing house focused on thoughtful LGBTQ+ writing. I am the author of the Post-Self cycle, the Sawtooth anthologies, and three other books, and have edited or helped edit the short story anthologies *Arcana --- A Tarot Anthology*, *When the World Was Young: a Prehistoric Anthology*, and *Clade*, an anthology of stories set in the Post-Self universe. I am currently studying for my MFA in creative writing at Cornell College, and this workshop is being held as part of that degree program.
|
||||
|
||||
The four applications were all quite good, and the only reason I had settled on the number three was due to time limits. The fourth applicant withdrew their application due to time constraints, so I essentially wound up accepting everyone who applied. I'm thankful that the quality was so high.
|
||||
|
||||
Unfortunately, due to the fact that time zones started clashing with schedules (we had one attendee from Australia), the Friday session was canceled and the interactive portions of the workshop were reduced to the two at-con sessions. This was addressed by setting up a Telegram group chat for the attendees and providing them with a video introduction of what would have been my first session's content in lieu, which is provided below.
|
||||
|
||||
## Lead up to First session
|
||||
|
||||
> Welcome, friends, to the Oxfurred Comma Writing Workshop! Thank you so much for applying and working with me on this.
|
||||
>
|
||||
> I'll be your host, Maddy, and I'm looking forward to working with you over email and during the workshop itself. Starting...well, now, you will be receiving some reading assignments to begin with. The first reading assignment will be the short story "Coyote Woman Sings the Blues", which you can read for free here: <https://zooscape-zine.com/coyote-woman/> The second reading assignment will be the stories that you submitted for the application process. This means that you will each have three stories to read, so I suggest starting now to ensure that you have time to do so comfortably and let them sink in. Our slots are at 1PM Pacific on Saturday and Sunday and will take place over voice and video on Discord (If we need an alternate solution, I have a private Jitsi instance we can use).
|
||||
>
|
||||
> The goal with these assignments is to read critically. We're not here to pick every nit and grammar/spelling are off the table for our purproses. We're reading to get a sense of the plot structure, the characters and their individual arcs. Make notes (in the text, preferably, so that you can refer to individual sentences during discussion) about the following questions:
|
||||
>
|
||||
> * What works for you, what doesn't? Why?
|
||||
> * What was inspiring and made you think about your own writing?
|
||||
> * Did anything remind you of another text (story, book, film, podcast, etc)?
|
||||
>
|
||||
> Be prepared to summarize the story (we'll be summarizing "Coyote Woman" together and then each of you will summarize another's story) as well as your overall impressions.
|
||||
>
|
||||
> Remember that our goal is to be respectful and constructive. We may come across a story/something in a story that we don't like, but that need not be anything other than a conversation starter.
|
||||
>
|
||||
> On Friday evening, you'll be given a short writing assignment: 500-1000 words completed based on a prompt that I'll provide via email. This is to be completed by Saturday evening so that submissions can be emailed to everyone to read overnight for the Sunday session. This short duration gives us two opportunities. First, it lets us work on our velocity while writing (the writing should be self-contained, even if it's just a vignette or opening chapter), and second, it lets us critique something much earlier in the writing process. It's a good chance to get feedback on something that still has a lot of room to grow. As such, I will not be accepting any apologies along the lines of "sorry it's so rough." We know it'll be rough, we can work with that!
|
||||
>
|
||||
> Finally, this is a reminder that this workshop is being given as part of my MFA degree and, as such, generic emails like this will be included in my packet of materials with contact info redacted. Additionally, the sessions will be recorded and those recordings shared with my mentor and no one else. If you run into any concerns along these lines, please don't hesitate to reach out. At the end, I'll be providing you with a brief questionnaire about how you feel the workshop went.
|
||||
>
|
||||
> Please feel free to email each other and me, or if a chat setting is preferable, I can set up a telegram or discord chat for us.
|
||||
>
|
||||
> I'm really looking forward to this, and I hope you all are as well!
|
||||
>
|
||||
> Madison Scott-Clary
|
||||
> (she/her)
|
||||
|
||||
## Sessions
|
||||
|
||||
During the time leading up to the convention, the Friday panel was canceled due to a misunderstanding about schedules. With one participant joining from Australia and the convention not actually beginning until Saturday, the participants weren't able to meet. However, the two sessions on Saturday and Sunday went off as planned.
|
||||
|
||||
### Video in Lieu of Friday Session
|
||||
|
||||
Due to the canceled Friday session, I recorded a short video with the introduction to critique that I had planned. The participants found this quite useful, though a few got stressed due to missed expectations as to what critique actually was.
|
||||
|
||||
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/v_HKqGY1fiM" title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>
|
||||
|
||||
#### Writing assignment
|
||||
|
||||
> Good evening! Or morning! Timezones are difficult. I hope that the reading assignments have all treated you well so far! I've really enjoyed getting the chance to read all your stories.
|
||||
>
|
||||
> Now, however, it's time for the writing assignment. You have until 5PM Pacific time tomorrow to write 500-1000 words on the prompt "missed connections". What that means is up to you. There's no other restriction on genre, setting, characters, or style. so do what feels most comfortable for you. As soon as I receive all of your stories, I'll send them back out for you to read. We'll be critiquing them on Sunday with some of the tools that we learn on Saturday, so you'll be able to approach something much fresher, more along the lines of a draft. The hope is that this will give you more experience in critically reading drafts as well as incorporating critique during the writing process.
|
||||
>
|
||||
> Looking forward to tomorrow!
|
||||
>
|
||||
> Madison
|
||||
|
||||
### Saturday Session
|
||||
|
||||
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/-05SW1qeNEk" title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>
|
||||
|
||||
#### Handing stories back
|
||||
|
||||
> All,
|
||||
>
|
||||
> Thank you so much for a wonderful workshop session today! I really had a lot of fun, and I'm pleased to hear that, bumps aside, it went well for you all as well. I hope that your writing assignment is going well, and I look forward to seeing you again tomorrow.
|
||||
>
|
||||
> Attached are the notes I made on your stories.
|
||||
>
|
||||
> Madison
|
||||
|
||||
#### Handing out writing assignments
|
||||
|
||||
> Hey all,
|
||||
>
|
||||
> Attached are the three writing assignments from the last day. We will be critiquing these in very similar fashion tomorrow, followed by a discussion about workshopping and how to use both critical reading and the critiques we receive in our own writing. As before, we will begin with a summary of the story before the round of critiquing at a high level.
|
||||
>
|
||||
> And again, thank you all for today!
|
||||
>
|
||||
> Madison
|
||||
|
||||
### Sunday Session
|
||||
|
||||
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/EMXYc0LIJOQ" title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>
|
||||
|
||||
#### Final email
|
||||
|
||||
> All,
|
||||
>
|
||||
> Thank you once again for such an amazing weekend of reading and writing! You all did a fantastic job on providing very thoughtful and respectful feedback and listening with an open mind. I've attached my notes for your second stories, and have pulled together a short survey for your honest opinions on how things went: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSdzmhBV-d8jnHZyeOzG5rMpOM0xuvT0tJgMJmes0lfNBGrY3Q/viewform?usp=sf_link
|
||||
>
|
||||
> Thanks, and keep in touch!
|
||||
>
|
||||
> Madison
|
||||
|
||||
### Other Sessions
|
||||
|
||||
During the convention, I ran two additional panels (a third was offered in case there were not enough panels from others, but there was a sudden surge of submissions a few days before the con began).
|
||||
|
||||
#### Writing and Mental Health
|
||||
|
||||
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/i9btAkkoGzA" title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>
|
||||
|
||||
[Panel notes](https://writing.drab-makyo.com/writing-and-mental-health/)
|
||||
|
||||
#### Plot Threads
|
||||
|
||||
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/r1SEKD2IAhQ" title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>
|
||||
|
||||
[Panel document](https://makyo.wiki/assets/romance-caduceus.pdf)
|
||||
|
||||
## Feedback
|
||||
|
||||
### Feedback During
|
||||
|
||||
I ran into an issue with expectations around critique. A few of the members were confused as to what that meant and just how much work needed to be done. For instance, Kayodé wound up running through the stories several times as he learned more about what was expected of him, starting first with line editing, then with points that he wanted the authors to focus on that he felt were too specific and would have taken up too much time. As I posted the video for session 0, that wound up giving a much better idea of what the critique sessions would look like. This is probably something that I'll keep in mind moving forward, and may hunt down some good resources to provide participants with for future workshops.
|
||||
|
||||
### Feedback Survey
|
||||
|
||||
After the workshop, I provided the participants with a short survey to see if they had any particular feedback, positive or negative, about the whole experience as well as particular days.
|
||||
|
||||
#### How do you feel the workshop went overall?
|
||||
|
||||
* I thought it went well. Coyote Woman was a good story to analyze. The mix of people, yourself included, was excellent. We all had different things to share and came from different directions. Sometimes a group has too many people that see things the same way. That did not happen here. The shorter, compressed format worked pretty well for me as an introduction to workshops. I wouldn't have had the time or energy for something more. Now that I know what to expect, I feel that I could tackle a longer, more involved workshop in the future. It's had a very positive affect on how I think of myself as a writer and author. As I've said elsewhere, I feel like this was my introduction to writing as a craft, rather than just a hobby. Seeing how other people analyzed things and seeing my own analysis compared to theirs was incredibly validating. I've had people say I'm good at writing and while I kind of believed it, it was hard to know what parts of my writing style worked. I was surprised that my dialog was highlighted. It's never something I considered. I'd focused on knowing my characters and knowing their voices. Accents and dictation were very deliberate, informed by their backstories. But I never explicitly thought about the dialog as a tool for conveying information the way I do with description. Knowing this, I now have some direction on where to grow.
|
||||
* Overall, the workshop was great. I got to experience a style of critique and writing teamwork that I've never experienced before. 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.
|
||||
* I think it well!
|
||||
|
||||
#### Thoughts on the time leading up to the workshop?
|
||||
|
||||
* Maddy did a great job keeping us informed with what was going to happen over the workshop, so there weren't any surprises. We all knew that we were expected to produce at least one new text, and that we would be critiquing several texts including each others work. Maddy did an excellent job in adjusting the structure of the workshop to meet our needs; she was flexible with the arrangement when it became clear that the initial Friday session wasn't going to be achievable, especially as one of the attendees lived overseas (sorry!). The use of a recorded video instead of the Friday session was an excellent idea and served as a good introduction to the workshop.
|
||||
* I wasn't sure what to expect. 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. The video you made for us on Friday helped a lot. Having a few days to think about the workshop and stories before diving in was good.
|
||||
* I was definitely anxious! I have no problem GIVING critiques but it is very hard to RECIEVE critique, which is something I'm actively working on to do better.
|
||||
|
||||
#### Thoughts on the Saturday session?
|
||||
|
||||
* Maddy really helped us ease into the workshop by speaking about a text that she had provided, setting up expectations and not putting anyone on the spot of being 'first'. This probably helped us to loosen up and get into the swing of talking about each others submitted texts. If this session could be improved, simply an extra thirty minutes would have been great. This would have let us talk about the four texts without having to rush too much.
|
||||
* The format worked amazingly well. Having only one person talking at a time, while keeping that time short helped me listen instead of thinking about how I would reply to the discussion. Two minutes is enough time to hit the highlights without overwhelming anyone. Personally, that's something I would want to see used again, even for a longer workshop. After everyone has said their piece, a longer discussion would be excellent.
|
||||
* It would have been nicer if there was more time for people to get feedback on their own pieces.
|
||||
|
||||
#### Thoughts on the Sunday session?
|
||||
|
||||
* Sixty minutes was perfect as we only had the three texts to discuss. I was apprehensive about writing a short story in only 24 hours, because I am usually an incredibly slow writer. However, I think the Saturday session got the creative juices flowing because I really surprised myself by slamming out 1000 words in just a few hours. Critiquing these stories was a very interesting experience, for me because there was less at stake, if that makes sense? I knew and the other attendees knew that these were quickly produced texts and so there wasn't as much concern about the quality for me. I was a bit scared that people would not like the text that I had submitted prior to the workshop, which was actually a highly edited text, but there wasn't any apprehension about the short stories produced for Sunday. It was quite freeing, honestly, to have a text of mine under scrutiny and not really be bothered that much about if it worked or not.
|
||||
* The feedback on the writing assignment was a great contrast to our writing samples. Having a more freeform discussion at the end resulted in some interruptions eating time. To me, that validated the effectiveness of using the one person at a time format for the critique. It would have been nice to get to know people better. :)
|
||||
* I know you mentioned there was originally 3 sections, so having the third section going over the writing excercise after it was edited from the first day's feedback would have been cool to see how people use that changes and get info on how best to do that.
|
||||
|
||||
## Takeaways
|
||||
|
||||
This was an incredibly fun project from start to finish, and I had a really fun time working with some great (and very respectful!) authors. With their insights, I think they were all able to take something away for each of their stories that they could use moving forward. There are some things that I would change, such as adding some clarity before the workshop starts and also spending a bit more time on introducing the concepts of critique during the first session. While this had been on the schedule for the first session that wound up getting canceled, the participants did mention meeting over video chat beforehand, and we never wound up doing so. I'll be hosting an in-person workshop in January using a similar structure, and I'll be using a lot of the lessons that I learned from this in order to make that one all the better.
|
||||
Loading…
Reference in New Issue