Workshop Comprises Authors

... as described in SafeSetting, the goals of the writing community can best be achieved only when authors are given feedback useful for evolving their work while preserving their dignity.

* * *

The best feedback comes from authoritarian sources, and most review settings elicit the feedback of experts (and those with vested interests) in an authoritarian setting. This posture can contribute to a feeling that critics are not accountable for what they say, and that leaves the author in a disadvantaged position. We feel uncomfortable while in this position.

There is no reason that an author should trust reviewers except on the basis of their reputation. Trust based on subject matter reputation creates a hierarchy in the review community, structuring "those who know" against "those who write." This breaks down the sense of community and leaves the author vulnerable to feelings of inferiority.

Weinberg notes that one of the strongest power positions is learned in our grade school years, where the teacher is in the position of power to convey ideas to the student, who is passive.

Even though expert feedback is important, pattern authors are usually the most expert at communicating the pattern they have experienced again and again. What nature of expertise can best improve the work?

In the pattern community, it is best that AuthorsAreExperts in the material they compose.

Therefore:

Assemble the workshop membership from other authors who are interested in the material, who have a stake in the material, or whom the author otherwise believes will contribute to the goal of improving the work. If all the participants are authors, it contributes to an egalitarian community.

Authors know and appreciate the WritersWorkshop culture and are less likely to be disruptive with faux pas than a casual outsider would be.

As authors, the reviewers have experience with the pattern form and its effectiveness, and can contribute ideas to improve the expression of the idea.

* * *

This principle derives from the prevailing practice of the creative literature review community. RichardGabriel relates that he knows only of one major review setting where this principle is violated (BreadLoaf?), but that, even there, they are explicit about putting the rule aside.

You wouldn't engage a bereavement expert to improve a poem on dying, but an accomplished poet.

The author may invite non-authors that they trust to improve the work while maintaining the sense of community.

NEXT: CommunityOfTrust

-- JimCoplien 1996/8/29

[ WritersWorkshop ]