The answer to this is that it's not your sole responsibility to bear your instructor's and peers misreadings of your work. One of the main reasons I dislike the workshop model in the first place. The workshop centers and favors the instructor as the authority, the bearer of correct and good, and relegates readings of the text to assumptions and possibly stereotypical readings by the author's classmates.
The workshop is a community space where parameters may be set to minimize misunderstandings and to empower the author as much as possible. It's the workshop instructor's job to create and institute guidelines—safety bumpers, as I think of them—so workshop is useful and productive for everyone.
If you have an instructor who you think would be receptive, I recommend reaching out to them and talking about this issue. Some of us are just following the format that we've been taught: the author is silent while everyone else speaks, but this doesn't have to be the case. I really liked the example structure Emperatriz shared from a workshop with T Kira Madden (https://yanyi.substack.com/p/the-writing-what-do-you-wish-you/comments#comment-425754) a couple weeks back: "an open workshop with dialogue encouraged where the author always has space to respond, ask for clarity, or move the discussion to a new topic." Allowing the author to bring their own questions and to moderate, with help from the instructor if desired, the terms of how their work was discussed, can be very empowering and make the workshop more community-oriented.
Of course, more likely you're in a situation where this is not the case. I've talked a little about this in this letter: https://yanyi.substack.com/p/how-do-i-get-through-my-mfa-program. Aside from leaving the program or class, you can be careful about contextualizing your work with specific questions about what you want discussed when you send others the work, or even write the questions in a note before the actual piece, similar to how footnotes make function to help contextualize the piece.
If you want to stay in the class and see merit in it still, even if the class format won't change, you have to ask yourself what exactly you want from workshop and be honest with the limitations of your peers and professor and play to their strengths. I wouldn't bring work in that would likely be misread—save those pieces for the people who can truly understand its depths.
I was introduced to a "Champion" model workshop via a workshop with Kevin Chong (a la AmberDawn) a few years ago and it has really set the bar for me on what is the best approach. In this model, a peer opens the workshop as a champion of the piece and must talk for at least 5 minutes on the strengths. As a 'champion' they are given the role to uplift what the author is trying to do. They are then tasked with opening the discussion with two questions that they feel would benefit the piece via conversation. The author is silent for that discussion but is given space to speak to the piece or to ask their own questions at the end. Best feedback I've ever received, fullstop.
It is a challenge to do this however - to receive support for either peers or the instructor as many don't want to do the extra lifting or to "lead" a workshop. I've only done it successfully a few times. There were also times when I read peer pieces that I could not champion due to stereotypes perpetuated in the pieces and I had to state that "I am unable to champion this piece because X, Y, Z". But that is also a form of skin-thickening perhaps. Finding your own boundaries and then drawing them stronger.
In the second year of my MFA, I am leaning into guided conversations for my workshops - at the time of sharing my work, I give specific questions or information that I need from my peers and then lead the workshop myself to get the feedback I am searching for. It does mean I do more work on my end (not just in the writing of the piece but also in the presentation of the questions) yet it will be interesting to see if this will work better and steer away from the conversations that I don't want (i.e. These terms are in-accessible and can you add footnotes...lol). Maybe it is better that I am gazing out at my peers?
Thank you for both of these alternative models. I hadn't heard of the "champion" model but I'm grateful for the strengths and weaknesses you've shared about it here. I like that there's also space in this model for uplifting readings of the piece and graciously pointing out issues that made it difficult to advocate for the work. I've definitely been in workshops where I've nervously pointed out something in a piece that didn't sit well with me and was shocked by how no one else in the class had mentioned it yet. One thing I do worry about with the author-guided workshop is how there is less room for comments like that.
Also lol at the footnotes comments. Ultimately, workshop is just one tool of revising and editing. One thing that's been interesting for me personally is how much less I've wanted to workshop as I've been writing for longer. I now mostly turn to a couple of close friends, usually also writers, with questions for more in-depth and guided feedback.
So true - I was taking stock of the number of workshop classes I've done over the last three years and going into my last one, I feel as though it is time to let go a bit. Learning how to edit/read my own pieces is definitely where I am beginning to lean into. Great observation - thank you so much for that. I am going to carry that with me this year.
I don’t think I’ve ever been in a workshop in which the author moderated their own discussion. In all honesty, based on my workshop experience which was not in an MFA program but a novel writing workshop, many authors are very defensive and argumentative. Most afterward said it was extremely hard to simply listen and that they learned the most from reading other people’s work. They saw there the mistakes they made themselves and learned that way.
I’d like to try what you suggest, as long as the group is open to the parameters. I am in a poetry workshop right now that gently follows the traditional author listens approach, however there is time left at the end for the author to ask questions, clarify things that were confusing, etc.
It also depends on if there is a time limit, which can make it hard if the author does all the talking for them to get feedback.
I do see how the alternative version could be empowering for an author. It might be interesting to offer a choice of which kind you’d like to do - author’s choice.
Yes, I do know of those you speak about who are defensive about the work. Getting used to shared workshop parameters are key if people are starting off feeling unsafe with the writing group. I do think that it's on the instructor, if there is one, to have a discussion with that person about getting better about accepting critique. Ultimately, I think the workshop needs to be a useful place for people wherever they are in their artistic journeys. Some people who aren't ready to receive critique for a piece should not bring that piece in (or any others), or come in with very specific parameters with what they want discussed. Otherwise, it isn't useful for anyone involved. If they respond by lashing out at others in the process, that's something they need to work out with a therapist.
I can see a way where the model might change based on each author's preference. The limited perspective of a group used to reading through a white, US-centric lens may not be helpful for a Chinese student writing about contemporary Chinese issues and looking for comments on the nuances of how that comes through. Sometimes I truly want to know how people react to a piece cold; other times, I'm only tinkering with one part or another, and that's the only thing I'm willing to change about that piece at the moment. There's a fine balance between writing that is understandable and effective and being true to one's vision.
As a participant, I haven't found an easy answer to this. I've gotten the most out of a process when I've included epigraphs or short summaries of historical events at the beginning of a piece. I've found the downside to be that other participants may not look any further than that, or only discuss how your piece exists in conversation with the references you give.
Even if the instructor doesn't let the author speak, there are things you might ask to do! I've been in workshops where the author doesn't speak but contextualizes the piece with a written summary and questions they want to be answered. It's sometimes best for me to ignore what people discuss in the workshop and focus on the written feedback, where there's both more detail and more insight to the peer's entry point.
I've had peers misunderstand my work before, but there's a bizarre flip side where some will be overly enthusiastic or cheerleader-y about my work based on its subject matter and still not provide in-depth feedback!
Hi Matthew! The flip-side that you're talking about reminds me of when people read past the work into some stereotype of what they think it might be about, taking the work to be an extension of some sort of essentialist view of the author.
The answer to this is that it's not your sole responsibility to bear your instructor's and peers misreadings of your work. One of the main reasons I dislike the workshop model in the first place. The workshop centers and favors the instructor as the authority, the bearer of correct and good, and relegates readings of the text to assumptions and possibly stereotypical readings by the author's classmates.
The workshop is a community space where parameters may be set to minimize misunderstandings and to empower the author as much as possible. It's the workshop instructor's job to create and institute guidelines—safety bumpers, as I think of them—so workshop is useful and productive for everyone.
If you have an instructor who you think would be receptive, I recommend reaching out to them and talking about this issue. Some of us are just following the format that we've been taught: the author is silent while everyone else speaks, but this doesn't have to be the case. I really liked the example structure Emperatriz shared from a workshop with T Kira Madden (https://yanyi.substack.com/p/the-writing-what-do-you-wish-you/comments#comment-425754) a couple weeks back: "an open workshop with dialogue encouraged where the author always has space to respond, ask for clarity, or move the discussion to a new topic." Allowing the author to bring their own questions and to moderate, with help from the instructor if desired, the terms of how their work was discussed, can be very empowering and make the workshop more community-oriented.
Of course, more likely you're in a situation where this is not the case. I've talked a little about this in this letter: https://yanyi.substack.com/p/how-do-i-get-through-my-mfa-program. Aside from leaving the program or class, you can be careful about contextualizing your work with specific questions about what you want discussed when you send others the work, or even write the questions in a note before the actual piece, similar to how footnotes make function to help contextualize the piece.
If you want to stay in the class and see merit in it still, even if the class format won't change, you have to ask yourself what exactly you want from workshop and be honest with the limitations of your peers and professor and play to their strengths. I wouldn't bring work in that would likely be misread—save those pieces for the people who can truly understand its depths.
I was introduced to a "Champion" model workshop via a workshop with Kevin Chong (a la AmberDawn) a few years ago and it has really set the bar for me on what is the best approach. In this model, a peer opens the workshop as a champion of the piece and must talk for at least 5 minutes on the strengths. As a 'champion' they are given the role to uplift what the author is trying to do. They are then tasked with opening the discussion with two questions that they feel would benefit the piece via conversation. The author is silent for that discussion but is given space to speak to the piece or to ask their own questions at the end. Best feedback I've ever received, fullstop.
It is a challenge to do this however - to receive support for either peers or the instructor as many don't want to do the extra lifting or to "lead" a workshop. I've only done it successfully a few times. There were also times when I read peer pieces that I could not champion due to stereotypes perpetuated in the pieces and I had to state that "I am unable to champion this piece because X, Y, Z". But that is also a form of skin-thickening perhaps. Finding your own boundaries and then drawing them stronger.
In the second year of my MFA, I am leaning into guided conversations for my workshops - at the time of sharing my work, I give specific questions or information that I need from my peers and then lead the workshop myself to get the feedback I am searching for. It does mean I do more work on my end (not just in the writing of the piece but also in the presentation of the questions) yet it will be interesting to see if this will work better and steer away from the conversations that I don't want (i.e. These terms are in-accessible and can you add footnotes...lol). Maybe it is better that I am gazing out at my peers?
Best,
Manj
Hi Manj!
Thank you for both of these alternative models. I hadn't heard of the "champion" model but I'm grateful for the strengths and weaknesses you've shared about it here. I like that there's also space in this model for uplifting readings of the piece and graciously pointing out issues that made it difficult to advocate for the work. I've definitely been in workshops where I've nervously pointed out something in a piece that didn't sit well with me and was shocked by how no one else in the class had mentioned it yet. One thing I do worry about with the author-guided workshop is how there is less room for comments like that.
Also lol at the footnotes comments. Ultimately, workshop is just one tool of revising and editing. One thing that's been interesting for me personally is how much less I've wanted to workshop as I've been writing for longer. I now mostly turn to a couple of close friends, usually also writers, with questions for more in-depth and guided feedback.
So true - I was taking stock of the number of workshop classes I've done over the last three years and going into my last one, I feel as though it is time to let go a bit. Learning how to edit/read my own pieces is definitely where I am beginning to lean into. Great observation - thank you so much for that. I am going to carry that with me this year.
I don’t think I’ve ever been in a workshop in which the author moderated their own discussion. In all honesty, based on my workshop experience which was not in an MFA program but a novel writing workshop, many authors are very defensive and argumentative. Most afterward said it was extremely hard to simply listen and that they learned the most from reading other people’s work. They saw there the mistakes they made themselves and learned that way.
I’d like to try what you suggest, as long as the group is open to the parameters. I am in a poetry workshop right now that gently follows the traditional author listens approach, however there is time left at the end for the author to ask questions, clarify things that were confusing, etc.
It also depends on if there is a time limit, which can make it hard if the author does all the talking for them to get feedback.
I do see how the alternative version could be empowering for an author. It might be interesting to offer a choice of which kind you’d like to do - author’s choice.
Hi Doc!
Yes, I do know of those you speak about who are defensive about the work. Getting used to shared workshop parameters are key if people are starting off feeling unsafe with the writing group. I do think that it's on the instructor, if there is one, to have a discussion with that person about getting better about accepting critique. Ultimately, I think the workshop needs to be a useful place for people wherever they are in their artistic journeys. Some people who aren't ready to receive critique for a piece should not bring that piece in (or any others), or come in with very specific parameters with what they want discussed. Otherwise, it isn't useful for anyone involved. If they respond by lashing out at others in the process, that's something they need to work out with a therapist.
I can see a way where the model might change based on each author's preference. The limited perspective of a group used to reading through a white, US-centric lens may not be helpful for a Chinese student writing about contemporary Chinese issues and looking for comments on the nuances of how that comes through. Sometimes I truly want to know how people react to a piece cold; other times, I'm only tinkering with one part or another, and that's the only thing I'm willing to change about that piece at the moment. There's a fine balance between writing that is understandable and effective and being true to one's vision.
As a participant, I haven't found an easy answer to this. I've gotten the most out of a process when I've included epigraphs or short summaries of historical events at the beginning of a piece. I've found the downside to be that other participants may not look any further than that, or only discuss how your piece exists in conversation with the references you give.
Even if the instructor doesn't let the author speak, there are things you might ask to do! I've been in workshops where the author doesn't speak but contextualizes the piece with a written summary and questions they want to be answered. It's sometimes best for me to ignore what people discuss in the workshop and focus on the written feedback, where there's both more detail and more insight to the peer's entry point.
I've had peers misunderstand my work before, but there's a bizarre flip side where some will be overly enthusiastic or cheerleader-y about my work based on its subject matter and still not provide in-depth feedback!
Hi Matthew! The flip-side that you're talking about reminds me of when people read past the work into some stereotype of what they think it might be about, taking the work to be an extension of some sort of essentialist view of the author.