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?
ANOTHER EDITING WEBSITE, NOT TNBW. AVERAGE GROUP SIZE IS 4. LARGEST GROUP IS ABOUT A DOZEN. SOME GROUPS ARE JUST 2 PEOPLE WORKING TOGETHER. POINTS SYSTEM IS FLEXIBLE, ESTABLISHED BY THE GROUP LEADER. EVERYTHING IS MANAGED BY THE GROUP LEADER.
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.
I DON'T THINK THE EXPERIENCE YOU HAD WITH IN PERSON GROUPS IS RELEVANT, FRANKLY. IT'S NOT THE SAME ANIMAL, IN ANY WAY.
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 LEARN A GREAT DEAL FROM REVIEWING AND READING OTHER REVIEWS. I LIKE REVIEWING/EDITING. HOW I SUBMITTED WOULD ENTIRELY DEPEND ON THE GROUP STRUCTURE AND MAKEUP. I HAVE GROUPS WHERE I MAY RUN SOMETHING THROUGH THEM THREE TIMES - BUT I WOULDN'T DO THAT IN A BIG GROUP.
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.
I GIVE FAR MORE THAN I GET ON THIS WEBSITE. ON THE OTHER WEBSITE, IT'S ONE FOR ONE. EVERYONE MUST REVEIW EVERYONE ELSE'S SUBMISSION. IT'S A PERFECT BALANCE. AND IF YOU AREN'T PULLING YOUR WEIGHT, YOU GET BOOTED OUT. HERE, I GIVE ABOUT THREE TIMES MORE THAN I GET, EXPECT WHEN IT COMES TO THE HANDFUL OF GOOD CRITIQUE PARTNERS I HAVE HERE. IT'S EVEN. THE PROBLEM WITH THIS WEBSITE IS THE POINT SYSTEM AND THE PREMIUM GROUP. IT'S STRUCTURED SO IT REWARDS PEOPLE WHO LIKE TO GAME THE SYSTEM. I READ LOTS OF REVIEWS. THERE ARE PEOPLE WORKING INDEPENDENTLY WHO ARE GIVING CURSORY REVIEWS JUST TO POST. THERE ARE ALSO CRITIQUE CARTELS MADE UP OF BUDDIES WHO GIVE EACH OTHER MINIMAL REVIEWS SO THEY CAN EARN POINTS. I KNOW WHO THESE PEOPLE ARE AND I BLOCK THEM. I DON'T GIVE HALF-ASS CURSORY REVIEWS BECAUSE I DON'T WANT PEOPLE GIVING THEM TO ME. I WORK LIKE A RENTED MULE, I LOOK FOR OTHER RENTED MULES. I BLOCK SLACKERS.
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.
THIS IS COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT. A FACE TO FACE GROUP IS NOT THE SAME. IF YOU HAVE TO MEET FACE TO FACE, YOU ARE GOING TO PUT MORE EFFORT SO YOU WON'T BE SHAMED. ANONYMITY BRINGS ALL SORTS OF ISSUES.
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?
I ROAM ALL OVER LOOKING FOR THREE THINGS:
1. DECENT WORK TO REVIEW. I DON'T HAVE TIME TO CRITIQUE CRAP, AND THE ONLY THING WORSE THAN CRAP IS SLOPPY WORK. IF PEOPLE DON'T SELF EDIT, I DON'T WASTE MY TIME WITH THEM, AND I DON'T WANT THEM CRITIQUING MY WORK. I BLOCK PEOPLE WHO POST SLOPPY WORK. ALSO, I LIKE LITERARY FICTION. I HAVE TO REVIEW OTHER WORK BECAUSE THERE ISN'T ENOUGH LITERARY FICTION. THERE IS VERY LITTLE LITERARY FICTION ON THIS WEBSITE
2. DECENT REVIEWERS. A PERSON ONLY GETS TO GIVE ME ONE CRAPPY REVIEW, THEN I BLOCK THEM. THAT MAY SOUND TOUGH, BUT THAT'S THE WAY I AM. I SPEND HOURS ON MY REVIEWS, I EXPECT THE SAME. PERIOD.
3. VOLUME. I DON'T WORK. I WRITE. I HAVE A LOT TO POST, SO I DO LOTS OF REVIEWS. I DO THOROUGH REVIEWS, SO IT TAKES TIME. I'M PICKY ABOUT WHAT I REVIEW AND WHO I LET REVIEW MY WORK. CONSEQUENTLY, VOLUME IS DIFFICULT.
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.
IF I HAD MY DRUTHERS, I WOULD ONLY REVIEW LITERARY FICTION, BUT THAT'S NOT AN OPTION. HOWEVER, I DO HAVE MY BOUNDARIES. THAT'S THE ISSUE WITH LARGE GROUPS, YOU HAVE TO EDIT STUFF YOU DON'T HAVE ANY BUSINESS EDITING. I CAN'T EDIT YA - I CAN'T DUMB DOWN ENOUGH TO DO IT. I CAN'T EDIT EROTICA, BECAUSE I FIND IT TOO RIDICULOUS.
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.
I AGREE WITH YOUR CLOSING COMMENTS. I HAVE EXPERIENCE WITH ON LINE GROUPS, AND I AM VERY WARY OF GROUPS OVER HALF A DOZEN. I'M NOT SAYING IT CAN'T WORK, BUT IT DEPENDS ON HOW ITS SET UP. IT ALSO DEPENDS ON IF IT'S A POINTS GROUP. I WON'T PLAY IF IT'S A POINTS GROUP. THAT ATTRACTS TOO MANY PEOPLE WHO ARE POINT GAMERS AND THEY GIVE LOUSY REVIEWS.
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 THINK THERE ARE PLENTY, BUT IT'S LIKE GOING TO THE FLEA MARKET. YOU SEARCH AND SEARCH THROUGH PILES OF CRAP ALL DAY FOR THAT ONE DECENT TREASURE THAT MAKES IT WORTH IT.
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.
I DON'T THINK THAT WAY. I DON'T GET LONELY FOR SOCIAL INTERACTION. I ENJOY MY OWN COMPANY AND MY CHARACTERS.
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.
