Components of a Good Writing Workshop

Recently, a friend of mine asked for advice on starting a workshop for writers. I quickly went back to my days in the MFA program, where the major part of the program was the weekly fiction workshop. The advice I gave my friend closely adhered to those things learned from the MFA program as I learned a great deal about myself as a writer and as a critic within our fiction workshops. For anyone that's interested in starting a writer's workshop, I hope this information proves useful.

In my experience, there are three components that are necessary for a good writing workshop, and they are:
1- A great moderator
2- Appropriate size for the workshop
3- Rules for the workshop

MODERATOR. A moderator has to be kind yet firm and have a great knowledge of storytelling. This is the person that the workshop participants are relying on to guide them as writers. It also doesn't hurt that the moderator has some publishing credits. Participants want to feel that they are learning from someone who has experience in the field. A moderator also has to know when to speak and when to sit back and let the participants guide the workshop.

SIZE OF WORKSHOP. This can be debated, but I wouldn't have more than 15 people in any one workshop. When I pursued my MFA, we had 10 students in the fiction program. It was large enough so that each writer received ample reads, write-ups, and suggestions for his or her work, yet it was small enough so that writers were able to connect with one another beyond the stories. That connection ultimately helped us to see more of what a writer was trying to do in a work; therefore, our critiques were more likely to help a writer.

WORKSHOP RULES. Yes, some might say that rules cramp their style, but for a workshop, it is important to have rules set. Rules not only protect the writers, but they also protect the integrity of the workshop and its mission. The rules we had for our MFA fiction workshop were more aligned to how the workshop would be structured and what each participant would be obligated to do during the workshop.

Workshop met one a week for approximately 2, 2.5 hours. During that workshop, we discussed works from two writers, so each writer received an hour of discussion on his/her work, and there was a short break in between sessions.

During the week, our job was to read and mark up each reading and write a one-page letter to the writer that addressed what we liked, what our concerns were, and what suggestions we offered. We would then meet up for the workshop.

During the workshop, the moderator did just that--moderate. To begin each workshop session, our professor would ask, "So, what would you like to talk about today regarding X's work?" He then would take notes as we went around the circle, each of us adding something to the agenda. We would say things like "Dialogue," "Character development," "The heart of the story." Once that was done, our professor would ask if anyone wanted to jump in first, and then we would begin. The professor remained silent for most of the session. He would jump in if he thought we stayed on a topic too long or if we were moving beyond the purpose of the session: to help the writer better his/her writing. Aside from keeping us on track, our professor made sure we touched upon all components addressed in the agenda.

Once a session was complete, the writer would receive a huge packet complete with all the marked-up versions of his/her work and critique letters written by workshop participants. The moderator, too, would mark up the story and write a letter, and the writer would receive that material then as well.

One important component of the workshop, one that might seem weird but proved to be a necessity, was that at no time did the writer speak; we played "The Author Is Dead." During his/her session, the writer would take notes of what others had to say, but sessions were not treated as trials. The writer did not have an opportunity to jump up and defend his/her work. And the reason behind this was a simple one. The minute a writer jumps in and tries to tell participants what he/she meant to do with the story, the dynamics of the workshop shifts. Participants start to feel attacks for their thoughts and speak less. Silence, and lots of it, quickly builds. In my experience, keeping the author "dead" is a great thing. It teaches the writer humility--learning to accept his/her issues within a story without attacking. It forces the writer to listen and to be open to the idea that a story isn't perfect just because it's done. There is always something that can be fixed, and you (as writer) might be too close to the work to see where those changes need to be made. Also, it teaches the writer that sometimes there is no need to build a defense. If there are 9 or more people reading your work and the majority believes X is a big problem in your work, the problem isn't that the reader didn't "get" what were you trying to do. The problem is you as writer failed to develop X in a way that makes for a solid read. That's not a debate. There's nothing to defend, typically. It means it's time to get back to the drawing board with revisions and rewrites.

There was one time in which the writer could speak, and this came at the end of a session. Once all comments were made by the participants, the writer was allowed to speak, to ask questions about concerns he/she had in the story that wasn’t addressed during the session.

I'm a big fan of writing workshops. I've participated in formal and informal workshops, and even with the informal workshops, having rules are important. Participants need to know what's expected of them and what they will get out of the workshop. In the end, a workshop needs to have a purpose, and typically, that purpose is to help writers better their writing. Everything that is done in preparation for the workshop and what is done during the workshop should directly connect to that purpose.

Have you had experience with writing workshops? What great things did you learn through the workshop? What problems did you find, if any?