By: William Bradley, St. Lawrence University

William Bradley, St. Lawrence University — Wed, 29 Aug 2012 19:53:40 +0000

I tend to open each workshop the same way I tend to open discussions of literature: I ask students to tell us what they found “interesting” about a piece. This could be good or bad, but I find that it usually leads to a student saying, “I really liked the way you handled [x], and wondered if you might do something similar when you talk about [y].” “Interesting” seems to me to be a nice, judgment-free term– it’s on the students to decide if what’s interesting about the piece is something that works or not.

Having said that, the few times that the workshop has just seemed overwhelmingly negative, I try to steer students towards identifying what does work. Even if it’s just, “This is a really difficult subject to write about; I admire for you taking on such a task.” I’ve never read a manuscript that had absolutely nothing going for it– occasionally, it’s useful to remind students of this fact.

By: David J. Eshelman

David J. Eshelman — Wed, 29 Aug 2012 00:44:15 +0000

I err on the side of being too kind at workshop. I use the Liz Lerman method that we used at the University of Texas. We start with positive comments, move into questions from the author, and end with general comments from the audience. This guarantees some encouraging feedback—so that the writer will keep writing—yet allowing for constructive criticism while keeping the writer in control. If done properly, there can be no comments left by the end because the author has anticipated problems and asked his/her own questions about them.

As far as yourself, we’re all miserable about rejection. But, as we know, the biggest difference between the one published author and the 500 unpublished authors is that the unpublished ones didn’t send their work out.

Comments on: The Agony of Defeatism

By: William Bradley, St. Lawrence University

By: David J. Eshelman