Search options (Page 15 of 16)

I firmly believe that a member should be able to step out for a week or weekend as they need to.  I've run a few gaming groups and when I try to make it militant where people NEED to be there one hundred percent of the time I find that people start to see it as a job and it loses the fun that we get from reading and writing.

In the in-person group, as the host, I committed to being there for every meeting. I didn't miss a single meeting in 10 years. Of course, there was the difference with the in-person group that we sometimes, albeit infrequently, adjusted the meeting dates based on the needs of members. Sometimes two or three of the faithful members had emergencies arise or in-laws arrive in the same week we were supposed to meet. We adjusted for those situations.

I am all for having our group members comfortable enough in their efforts on behalf of the membership to beg off for exigencies. I hope members, all, will be loath to do it, and consider doing things like begging off other exigencies first. I want this to be a safe haven for anyone who needs to tell in-laws that they will need to disappear for stretches during surprise in-law visits to work on their Writers Afar reviews.

But I also believe missing a week will not cripple the group for that week. There will be at least 3 or 4 other members who will be reviewing or reviewing the other members reviews.   

My suggestion is that if we are flexible with the rules and can alter at need, why not be flexible with people's schedule.  I always believe that life comes first.  For instance, I have received a few reviews and messages over the weekend.  I ignored them after giving them a cursory read because I wanted to spend some time with my girls.  I got vomited and defecated on in return but it was worth it.  One of them just turned seven months so that explains the expulsion of fluids.

I know very well that we will have slots that go unused some weeks, maybe most weeks. ¿I wonder how difficult it would be to arrange for a guest reviewer for a week when a member had to miss? A thought that just occurred to me. I'll talk to Sol at some point after we've set our guidelines.

When I write something here, it's just to say how seriously I take my responsibility to the group, and how seriously I hope everyone will take their responsibility to the group. As we set up the group, this is the time to express our misgivings and stiffen our resolve and give some thought to exigencies.

f we make it okay for some people to take a break for one cycle I don't think it will hurt.  The other mules can pull the weight while one rests their hooves.  I think it will bring the inclusion and acceptance that we all wish for the group while keeping the work mule aspect.  Thoughts?

In the grander scheme of things I agree that a member missing a cycle will not hurt the group. Rather than saying I think it's okay, let me just agree with you that life comes first and life has a funny way of not abiding by schedules. I will do everything I can with my writing time to help this group succeed.

Memphis

dags/njc - thanks for the feedback but I don't think either is the answer. Dags - not everybody in the US uses mm/dd/yyyy. The military uses dd/mm/yyyy. NJC - I checked the Zulu idea, but realized that when it's 2 pm on Sunday in Texas, it ain't Saturday anywhere in the world. To make it more interesting, check the time I posted my original thread. It shows just after midnight. You guys responses show to have been made at 1:13 and 3:24 this morning :(

A few questions as I am new to this type of group and to the changes to tnbw site. So, first, how do we know when things are getting started? Or when it is our time to do a review, etc. Will we get an email alert or anything? Are we supposed to check the site and/or this group for follow up? How does it work logistically? I tend to like the idea of a set day each week that we know a new piece is coming in....
Second, I understand that we can post any type of writing but is there an expected limited on length or is it wide open? Are we thinking of people submitting a chapter, chapters, or a whole book?
Thanks, Rad

Memphis Trace:

Gacela:

You may think I'm stupid, but there are a couple of issues that are not clear to me about this group (which otherwise sounds very interesting). You're talking about a virtual group, aren't you? The question raises because what you explained is a group which gathered three hours once a week, but TNBW group would be a virtual group, am I right?

It is a virtual group that meets on the TNBW stage.

Second: is the virtual group gathering 3 hours once a week. There are many ways to gather virtually, from a Skype conference (either video or only voice) to be sitting in front of your computer during the appointed 3 hours interacting via forum posts, emails, etc. Is there any plan to gather virtually at a given weekly hour/day?

I have not considered doing this on Skype. I see this as a more reflective group. However, I can be convinced. One of the negatives of the in-person group was the spontaneous discussions that required moderation. I see our group reaching a stage of being courteous enough to learn and come back week after week to do it. 

I am not naturally a courteous person, but neither do I join groups of thinkers without wanting to impress them with my critical thinking. I hope our group becomes comfortable enough in its skin that we can air all our divergent ideas in the sunshine.

I see the group interacting by reviewing and responding with self-moderated opinions. I hope those opinions will be considered, vigorous, and courteous without condescension. I spent a lot of my young life winning and losing arguments. It can become intoxicating. One thing I learned for sure, though, was that you cannot convert a person by silencing them.

I am not a full time writer. I work and travel quite a lot because of my job. I know that some of you folks are retired or are full time writers, which means full time dedicated to writing, but it's not my case. Some of you, who besides writing and working are mothers, fathers, caregivers, etc., will laugh in my face because I'm overbooked at 25. Call me a freak, but I don't want to ask to participate only to fail.

My experience is that if you want something done well ask a busy person to do it. Still, you know yourself and your time restraints. I am semi-retired, which means there are periods in my day job in which I get stretched tighter than a gnat's ass over a barrel. My day job rewards my efforts with money; my writing job rewards my efforts with knowledge.

I consider my first job to be my writing. And I will find time to do that as well as my talent permits. When I can no longer find the energy or time to give my best effort to the group, I will resign

Based on your experience with that other group you hosted, How much workload does it represents doing all the reviews you're proposing, ballpark figure? One hour per day, two hours per day, one hour per week, two hours per week, etc?

I can only speak for myself. We met every two weeks in the in-person group. We had evolved to the point that we were reviewing entire novels. I was working full-time, plus. I'd say I spent an average of 10 hours per week reading the stories and writing my reviews. Each of the biweekly sessions required 20 hours of work in my chambers.

I recall giving up most of my reading time for published work during the 10 years.

If this online group works as well as the in-person group, I believe those writers who get the most out of it will be the ones who make it central in their writing workshop lives. The group members in the in-person group who stayed from the first words of setting the rules of engagement until I left the group, were all hard working through the 10 years and all much-improved critical thinkers for having done it. 

Again, I wouldn't like to apply to participate in the group only to retire before it even starts. It would be rude. That's why I'm asking these many questions.

I hope I've given you some inkling of the commitment I think is required to make this group serve you well. My experience was that those members who were unwilling to work like rented mules couldn't withstand their own guilt feelings for long and were quickly replaced by members who were stimulated by the dividends their time investment was paying.

Kiss,

Gacela

Memphis has already done a lot of ground work in conceptualizing the basic form and function of the group. And since he possesses the working knowledge of how best to put that plan into action, I think the largest task ahead of us isn't with continuing to conceptualize, but with finding other writers so we can get underway. He put out a weekly task schedule that seems workable and reasonable to me. Unless anyone disagrees, I think we should use that as a starting block. I have faith that many of the ideas and ideals will evolve naturally as the group gets going.

If the group is to survive, it will evolve.

I co-founded the in-person group with another man, starting with a conversation at the end of a writing workshop I took with him at The Writer's Center in Bethesda, MD. He knew some writers he wanted to work with; I knew some; there were 3 or 4 in the workshop in which we met. We decided to stop at 15 charter members because that was as many good chairs as I had in the conference room of my office, and a stuffed capacity at that. Except for our faith in each other's judgment, there was little to no screening on the charter members.

Early on it became apparent to me that there would be attrition. With those charter members in the first few meetings we developed the rules with which we'd fill vacancies from attrition. Two members dropped out during the construction of the rules of engagement. We asked everyone to develop their own waiting list to fill vacancies. I started to consider other aspiring writers I thought would work hard in such a group. My primary criterion for putting people into my mental writers-to-invite queue was how hard I thought they'd work toward the goals of the group.

The two rules we agreed on for nominees to fill vacancies were pretty simple: A charter member had to vouch for the nominee's interest and vouch that they had read the candidate's work and that the work was worthy of our group. We were trying to put the onus on the charter member to upgrade the seat with a harder working group member.

I discovered 2 or 3 (how soon we forget) sterling replacements in workshops I continued to take at The Writer's Center in Bethesda, MD. Other charter members nominated members and we inducted new members, over the capacity. After 10 years I think we had 20 members we were keeping the light on for with fewer than 10 charter members.

A typical meeting had 8 or 9 members present. Other active members were charged with mailing out their reviews of the piece to the author and to every member who attended the session. Slack attendance should not be a problem for this group. And there are several other benefits to doing this thing on TNBW rather than in the privacy of my office. I won't belabor the conversation with those benefits.

As time went on with the in-person group, charter members became too exclusive by half for my tastes. Some even wanted to reduce the size of the group. I very much liked how much harder the newer members were working than the older members were working, but some of the newer members also wanted a gate community.

It felt to me like the head was dying and killing the enthusiasm of the body. There were publishing successes that strung out some of the more prolific writers for their having to be other occupied. We kept the light on for them and they loyally reported back to the group all the joys and pitfalls of dancing among the literati.

It was at about the 10-year mark that I called for a review of the rules for inviting new members. I did this by nominating 2 new members who met the simple rules: I vouched for their interest, and vouched that their work was worthy of our group. Several of the group, a majority, including some of the members I had nominated, wanted to adopt more stringent rules for admission. They wanted the new members I nominated to submit work to the group and enter the group on a probationary basis. It was then I decided I didn't belong in a group that would have me as a member.

I told the assembled that I would continue to provide the office and the machinery to make the coffee, but that after we finished reviewing the work in the queue, I would no longer be a member of the group.

As to finding other members, I'm fine with soliciting a few of my contacts and would hope you'd all do the same.

I am loath to fill the room with my contacts, but would encourage everyone to solicit members who would engage us with vigorous opinions they are willing to defend publicly.

I would love to fill the room with energetic folks at that stage in their development that they suspect they have much to offer aspiring writers.
 
Consider my main reason for not surrounding myself with my contacts:
I enjoy several good offline conversations with really good writers and critical thinkers who I think would make me too comfortable by half in our public group. I'm more inclined to nominate folks based on a glimpse of a delicate ankle or a furrowed brow and a faraway look.

Two or three of my writer contacts know my writing intimately, know my reviewing intimately, and know my reviewing of reviews intimately. They are careful to couch their public criticisms. Being brug on in public makes me too comfortable. My critical thinking suffers; I start believing my clippings. This said, I like to defend my critical thinking publicly. It's how I write my fiction; and I hope to make my writing as public as the law will allow.
     
The only sticky area that remains for me, and I'm bringing it up again because it pertains to finding more members, is the novice factor. By novice, I mean someone who is very new to the process.

The part of the process that intrigues me most in a workshop environment is the process of a reader clearly stating and eloquently defending his critical thinking about the work of other pilgrims on this journey to tell stories for public consumption. I believe any winnowing steps we take should be based on how hard the extant group believes a nominee is willing to work to show off his publicly defensible critical thinking.

I believe the most successful stories never seem to be defending the writer's critical thinking ability, but I believe they do so more profoundly than less successful stories. I want to start conversation with writers who makes it look easy.

I believe workshops are all about finding and defending good critical thinking. I see the mission of the group to publicly challenge the critical thinking of our members about all facets of storytelling and story reading. A big part of this is for readers to learn why and be able to explain why something worked as well as why something didn't work. To me that is the point at which we need eloquent and honest feedback from the writer about what he was attempting and how he made it look easy.

Out of 14, if one or maybe two writers fall into the category, I'd be okay with that. But if that number is any higher I'd probably be forced to rethink.  It's simply too large an investment consideration.

My experience with this was that my co-founder and I filled the 15 slots in our group with eager recruits, at least half of whom we didn't know much better than a closed sack of lump coal. At the first meeting when we described that we were trying to create a comfortable venue where aspiring writers, readers, and reviewers would have their critical thinking challenged, we lost 3 pilgrims.

After the first review session—of my work, no less—we lost 2 more. The vigor with which the first reviewer's opinion that it was the best thing he'd ever read was debunked caused two of the older members—I was one of the middle-aged at the time—to remove their submissions from the queue and disappear.

The vacuum they created was filled quickly. I suspect our experience will be similar. I think our being in a more public venue will minimize hatchet job reviews and hatchet job reviews of reviews.

I believe the key will be to find and finally people our group with aspiring writers who believe that the foundation for writing well is reading critically and being able to eloquently state their opinion of what they read for group consumption.

Anyway, I did a little search starting on page 1 of the membership role and found the following two TNBW members that I asked to connect with me. I informed them of our group.
liam mc gaghey http://www.thenextbigwriter.com/users/l … ghey-11592
Larne Shields http://www.thenextbigwriter.com/users/l … elds-11510

Neither had posted any work, but their bios intrigued me  How could any group that didn't have a couple of Irish poets consider itself serious? If they show up for auditions, we'll let Linda Lee give them the once over. Linda has been writing Irish sort of stuff since I've been a member of TNBW.

Memphis

I'm on another website of this ilk where the focus is on small workgroups.  There are no big groups.  It's a very intimate experience, and I like it a lot. 
¿By websites of this ilk, I assume you mean TNBW? How many members were in the the small workgroups on those websites?

However, my problem with it, is that it doesn't allow me enough throughput.  I am in the midst of a novel rewrite and I can easily post a Chapter every four of five days. 
In the live group I hosted, the throughput was not evenly distributed. Some 6-month periods Member 11 might be the big submitter. And there were members who, despite my and the group's plaintive cries, offered very little throughput over the course of the entire 10 years of the group's existence. As with any group of writers, some were prolific writers, some were methodical. Some came with a cache of work-in-progress like you seem to have. Some had a half-finished short story at the outset. The non-submitters were nevertheless some of our very best critical thinkers.

Over the course of the 10 years Charter Members were replaced by members who were at a prolific stage. One Charter Member took a leave of absence after being a hard working, prolific member for 2 years to pursue a J.D. degree. We kept the light on for him. Basically, what I'm saying is that each member reaped what they sowed. I think most members tried hard to work just as hard at reviewing the work of a slackard as they did to review the work of a hard worker.

For me, it was good practice at dismissing my prejudices when I started reviewing slackards' work. In fairly short order, I decided I never wanted to be thought of the way I thought of the slackards. It resulted in my reading and reviewing some really fine work from writers I had very little respect for as workshoppers. I learned a lot from their work, and used their poor reciprocation as motivation to try to raise my relative reputation as a workshopper. I fear today that I became such a paragon of reviewing that the membership gave my writing more respect than it deserved.

I will never find a group that can deal with that kind of volume and provide effective reviews. 
What would be your ideal group at the stage you are now in? Do you visualize having periods in which you would be revising your compositions based on the reviews you received rather than submitting more work? During those periods do you believe reviewing other work and having your reviews reviewed would help you hone your craft? How much value do you place on developing your critical thinking skills by reviewing work and reviewing reviews instead of composing new work?

I have solved this by being a member of several groups, and I use this website for my less refined work.
Sounds like you have work in several locations and are harvesting the review labors of your writer friends. For the group here, I see no problem with that as long as you work like a rented mule to pay in the coin of our realm for receiving those reviews. My experience in 30 years of haunting workshops is that busy aspiring writers do the most and best reviews.

With that as background, what I have seen in Groups is they get difficult to manage over a certain size if you really want a disciplined approach as you are proposing. 
My experience in the flesh with 15 writers was different. The core worker bees seemed to try to outdo one another to be the best at accomplishing our mission.

We even had one woman from Iceland who'd make tiramisu for breakfast for the group on days her work was being reviewed. Boy, did that stop me from bringing poached possum the week I was being reviewed. In essence, we became group-managed by guilty consciences.

What really happened in the group over 10 years was that some of us handled our guilt by working harder and some of us drifted away from the group to be replaced from a waiting list. Over the course of the 10 years I saw remarkable progress in the writing and critical thinking skills of the worker bee members.

You also need VERY committed people, or you end up with a handful doing all the heavy lifting both in terms of submission and reviews. 
My experience is that the hardest working people received the far greater benefits of our review the reviews group. Consider yourself: You roam about the web looking to get reciprocal reviews for your work. Are you getting as good as you give? Are you giving as good as you get?
 
Also, without some kind of boundaries on subject matter, if you leave it wide open, you'll get such a wide variety of work that I think some people will get disinterested.  For example, your historical fiction buff might not be too interested in the writer doing LGBT YA Vampire Fantasy stories.
I tend to gravitate toward literary fiction when I review work here on TNBW. That failing stems from what I am practiced at reading for pleasure. I cut my teeth on Faulkner as a young man and Mark Twain is my favorite dead poet. I believe my reading practices has caused my writing to suffer somewhat from ponderosity and meandering plot lines.

Although I have NO interest in writing sparkly vampire stuff or true historical fiction, I think reading and understanding the skills needed in those works in a review the reviews group is a laxative that could help clean out some of the subliminal crap I'm backed up with. 

In your prior case, you had people meeting face to face, and that puts pressure on people to fulfill their commitments.  When you have people spread all over the world, people get less committed and tend to come in and out.
This could be. This thing could peter out in 6 months. Or 6 weeks. I'm hoping for members who'll work like rented mules, using all the tools and conveniences of the world wide web and the platform of TNBW to get better at this wreading, writing, and wreviewing. I thinking reviewing reviews is the most efficient way to build up one's critical thinking skills.

Maybe there aren't enough aspiring writers out there who are willing to work hard under the semi-public glare of an online writing workshop.

I believe the solid foundation, if there is a solid foundation reason for workshopping writing, is the writer's fight against loneliness. I've heard it said that everybody dies alone. Writing well for public consumption is about the best way I know of to achieve immortality. 

These are kind of random thoughts aimed at making you consider other parameters and think about how you can sustain commitment from people. 
I really appreciate the time it took you to do this. I think your wariness speaks well of your goals and potential commitment. And would love to hear any thoughts you have about how to keep Writers Afar afire.

In my experience, the best Groups I have been in are ones where the goals between the people are more aligned.  The ones that tend to fail are where the goals are disparate.

1.    During week 1: 14 members receive a work with 5 of the members assigned to review it.
2.    During week 2: 5 different members review the work and review the reviews submitted by the first 5 members.
3.    During week 3: 4 remaining members and the author review all the reviews and all the reviews of the reviews.

How many people are submitting works simultaneously?