Ever since last night’s class, I cannot stop thinking about the concept of silencing a writer during a workshop. I guess it just makes no sense to me. How could this ever be beneficial to a writer? In my previous understanding of a writers “workshop,” a possible read-aloud, a question/answer segment and any other constructive comments were the main elements that would be helpful to the writer. In workshops where silencing the writer is a deliberate action, I cannot see how the writer would be able to advance his or her piece of writing, without being allowed to voice their own opinion.
In our workshop that we participated in last night, if I had to remain silent, I would still be left with the crappy draft that I had from day one. Asking focused questions to my readers helped to gain a sense of what readers got from my piece and engage in a conversation with all of the members of my group. Keeping a writer silent during a workshop eliminates one of the most important elements of personal writing, voice. There seems to be quite a mixed message when writers are told to be silent during workshops, but also to make sure to have a strong and profound voice in their writing. That sure does not make any sense to me!
In my future classroom, I plan to have my students work in writing groups, partnerships and workshops, encouraging students to talk as much or even more about their pieces of writing as the others in their group. I find voice to individualize writer’s works and silencing them during their workshops would go against all I hope to teach and model with voice. What does everyone else plan to do in their classrooms when it comes to workshops and silencing the writer?
Keeley
ReplyDeleteI agree with a lot of what you're saying. However, I think that it's all about moderation. It's probably good to have a mixture of approaches: that is, I think sometimes its good for the writer to be silent in the workshop, and sometimes they need to ask questions. The first time I workshopped a piece in a creative writing class, I couldn't believe how wildly different the responses were. I wondered if some of the respondents were talking about my writing! Now if I'd been there to guide their interpretations, I might've been able to corral the various interpretations into more of a consesus. But someone who has written a blog, or article, or book doesn't get the chance to do this: that is, their words/writing have to stand on their onw. So I think a traditional workshop setting is beneficial in this respect in that an author rarely gets his chance to reply back to your responses. He has to sort of build that into the writing.
But, depending on where the writer is in the process and what he/she might be needing at that time, it's beneficial to have a more interactive workshop experience. I think it just depends. The traditional workshops often seems to transform itself into a chance to take potshots at the presenting writer, and I think the respondants have to be honest with themselves and respectful to the writer in their replies.
I understand the strangeness of having a silent writer in a workshop. In my opinion, a workshop is similar to what you have laid out that you would like to do in your classroom. After reading the above comment, I think I see a little more clearly how both methods could be useful in a writing classroom. I think that an interactive writing workshop is invaluable during the writing process. Revising becomes much more approachable when you get that chance to respond to questions or concerns about your writing. However, I could see the silent writer being useful as a tool during a final draft. If a student comes to a workshop with what they intend to be his or her final revision of an essay, it would probably be a lot easier to sit back and listen to feedback on polishing up that essay and taking those final steps before submitting it. I guess this sounds sort of like a proofreading group, but I think it would be beneficial to the writer at this stage to have that final look at whether there are any places that need clarification for a reader. I still can't say with any certainty how I would like to use workshopping in my classroom, because I know by the time I actually have a classroom, I will probably have changed my mind thirty-two times. But basically, I think both methods have a place and time in the workshopping process, but for me they serve very different purposes. I agree with you in that I do not think a silent writer workshop at the beginning of the revising process for an essay will be incredibly productive. But then again, I have never had to be a silent writer, so who knows!
ReplyDeleteMy two cents: Silencing the writer is a product-centric approach, and the mode of workshop where the writer is silent serves only the product-focused writing goals. I don't think it would be appropriate in most teaching contexts.
ReplyDeleteIn defense of the silencing the writer, I will say that it is a viable approach for a professional writing context, where the writers have developed maturity as a person and confident voice in their writing, where the writers already understand process, where the writers have developed an ability to separate their egos from their writing, and where the writers' main goal is to move toward publication--that moment when their writing has to stand on its own legs in a magazine, journal, book.
I don't see much room for silencing the writer in a workshop that includes beginning writers, tentative writers, or writers who are not yet able to distance themselves personally from their writing.
Hi Keeley,
ReplyDeleteDuring high school I got to experience a workshopping experience that was perhaps a little more positive version of the silent experience you have described. Before our workshop, we were asked to not only distribute enough copies of our piece that everyone could have one, we were also asked to distribute questions that our readers could consider and discuss during the workshop. While we were not allowed to speak during the discussion so as to prevent the derailing of discussion, these questions allowed us to guide our readers to deal with the concerns that we had. For the most part this arrangement worked out well, however, it still fails to allow us to forward to our readers the emerging questions and concerns that arise within us as they carry out their discussion. Because of the importance of this, a restrained allowance of the writer to speak is probably best.
kevin
I agree with you Keeley. In our writing groups from last Monday I had a lot of questions about the comments that you and our other group members made about my paper. I valued your opinion and wanted to bounce new ideas off of you and see what you thought. If I had been forced to remain silent I would not feel included in the writing process of my own memoir and I would have more confusion about my group's feedback.
ReplyDeleteI find workshops to be terrifying. Well, that actually isn't quite true. I find workshops of personal writing to be terrifying. I don't really care if you don't agree with my interpretation of Othello or whatever. I understand the importance of the workshops--how else would a writer know if his readers understood him--and I even somewhat understand the importance of the silence thing. However, I feel it should be more qualified. The writer should be able to ask questions, but should not be allowed to qualify or further explain the work in any way. This would only hinder the revision process. Thanks fr the post!
ReplyDeleteI agree with what you say in this post. I was in a writing workshop last year and I did find it very hard to not be able to talk, especially when they said they didn't understand something, and I couldn't explain it. I got so much out of our workshoping in class last week. I wasn't sure where I wanted to go with my paper, but my group helped me see some different possible things I could do with it!
ReplyDelete