SarahJF
04-22-2004, 08:45 PM
This idea has been floating around in my head for ages, so I thought I’d better post it if just to get it out of my system.
I’ve noticed (in the ‘general’ forums, at least, although I’m not so sure about ‘High’), that ‘further discussions’ of a certain piece (not mine, just something I’ve noticed) often start, but then, of necessity, have to finish – otherwise that particular piece would keep getting bumped up to the top of the board, which wouldn’t be appropriate.
Obviously, there isn’t really room in the generals for in-depth progressive(?) discussion, and further analysis of specific points in someone’s posting, before a complete revised version is posted. And that’s right and correct for the general’s.
But, what if there were a space for say – four, or five interested people to further workshop a piece of their choice each. Rather like what naturally often happens in college, when a group of friends will, over coffee, look at each others’ pieces a bit more specifically, and with a deal more ‘follow-through’ than in the classroom environment. For example, specific word choices could be discussed, or a problem that's been bugging the writer, or whatever - a slightly deeper debate than a critique.
So, my idea goes along to say that perhaps something like that should be considered on the board here – with five people each posting work to a forum, and discussing their work in depth – seeing it through to another stage of the revision process. Each group would have to choose and post one piece each, and then the whole group would take turns to discuss it, or answer specific questions that the author might have. A sort of mini-workshop within-a-workshop. Not like the specific mentoring in Charon’s at all – more of a peer group discussion of their specific concerns during revision.
If people think it’s completely stinky, then of course it wouldn’t be on. I haven’t been a member here all that long, so I wouldn’t pretend to know what could work and what couldn’t. I can see that it could only work if all concerned were reasonably committed.
But it could be really beneficial to look at how people work on issues within their work, too, of course. And it’d enhance critical eyes! I mean, it could just be a ‘revision’s’ forum – just that I know the thing I got loads and loads out of at college, and which helped me develop no end, was sitting down, with a group of friends, and looking at each others’ work with a semi-critical eye. There’s nothing like being able to actually ask someone ‘does this work here, or would it be better here', and that sort of thing, by and large, seems a bit antsy and inappropriate in the generals, to me, anyway. I feel a bit rude if I start asking people to be specific in crits, there.
I hate posting suggestions like this, btw. Aaaaargh. I’m left waiting for the first polite person to come along, sigh quietly, and explain quite why it wouldn’t be a good idea. To which I realise that I’ve missed something blindingly obvious, and that, yes, the idea wasn’t very good at all. So if I’ve missed something blindingly obvious, I’m sorry. Twice. Ack. Sorry. This comes with being brought up in a really insular village, where if you haven't at least three traceable generations from the same street, and try to suggest anything, anything at all, people wander off muttering 'bloody foreigners', and don't speak to you for months. I know here isn't like that. It's just ingrained in me.
Sarah
I’ve noticed (in the ‘general’ forums, at least, although I’m not so sure about ‘High’), that ‘further discussions’ of a certain piece (not mine, just something I’ve noticed) often start, but then, of necessity, have to finish – otherwise that particular piece would keep getting bumped up to the top of the board, which wouldn’t be appropriate.
Obviously, there isn’t really room in the generals for in-depth progressive(?) discussion, and further analysis of specific points in someone’s posting, before a complete revised version is posted. And that’s right and correct for the general’s.
But, what if there were a space for say – four, or five interested people to further workshop a piece of their choice each. Rather like what naturally often happens in college, when a group of friends will, over coffee, look at each others’ pieces a bit more specifically, and with a deal more ‘follow-through’ than in the classroom environment. For example, specific word choices could be discussed, or a problem that's been bugging the writer, or whatever - a slightly deeper debate than a critique.
So, my idea goes along to say that perhaps something like that should be considered on the board here – with five people each posting work to a forum, and discussing their work in depth – seeing it through to another stage of the revision process. Each group would have to choose and post one piece each, and then the whole group would take turns to discuss it, or answer specific questions that the author might have. A sort of mini-workshop within-a-workshop. Not like the specific mentoring in Charon’s at all – more of a peer group discussion of their specific concerns during revision.
If people think it’s completely stinky, then of course it wouldn’t be on. I haven’t been a member here all that long, so I wouldn’t pretend to know what could work and what couldn’t. I can see that it could only work if all concerned were reasonably committed.
But it could be really beneficial to look at how people work on issues within their work, too, of course. And it’d enhance critical eyes! I mean, it could just be a ‘revision’s’ forum – just that I know the thing I got loads and loads out of at college, and which helped me develop no end, was sitting down, with a group of friends, and looking at each others’ work with a semi-critical eye. There’s nothing like being able to actually ask someone ‘does this work here, or would it be better here', and that sort of thing, by and large, seems a bit antsy and inappropriate in the generals, to me, anyway. I feel a bit rude if I start asking people to be specific in crits, there.
I hate posting suggestions like this, btw. Aaaaargh. I’m left waiting for the first polite person to come along, sigh quietly, and explain quite why it wouldn’t be a good idea. To which I realise that I’ve missed something blindingly obvious, and that, yes, the idea wasn’t very good at all. So if I’ve missed something blindingly obvious, I’m sorry. Twice. Ack. Sorry. This comes with being brought up in a really insular village, where if you haven't at least three traceable generations from the same street, and try to suggest anything, anything at all, people wander off muttering 'bloody foreigners', and don't speak to you for months. I know here isn't like that. It's just ingrained in me.
Sarah