Writing strategies

I've been part of a writing group since earlier this year. We have met about three or four times so far, discussed our writing priorities and read at least one piece of writing from each person. This week, we watched a video together about writing: Peter Elbow On Writing (Media Education Foundation, 1995). Peter Elbow, a professor of English and a teacher of writing, discusses some of his philosophies and strategies about writing, different audiences and responses to writing. He emphasizes "making a mess", which in fact goes against the age-old writing rule that you need to make an outline and have a clear idea of what you're writing before you write. He suggests free-writing without revising, without spell-checking, without fixing grammar. And you can even be repetitive, point that intrigued our group: We're allowed?

One of the problems in writing that Peter Elbow points out is the fact that we almost always write for a teacher, i.e. an authority figure, be it a professor, advisor or journal/book reviewer. There are other kinds of audiences, too: peers and allies. Ally readers are those who read your writing and still like you and respect you even if it sucks. This is an important point about the emotional risks involved in writing and sharing your writing. We need supportive individuals as well as critiques of our writing.

There are also different types of audience responses:

1) Private writing: There is no audience. It's the safest type of writing because it's where you can really make a mess and take risks you normally wouldn't take with an audience at the end of the process.

2) No response: Someone reads your writing but does not give you any response to it. It can be awkward but a simple "thank you" can help alleviate the awkwardness. This is slightly more risky but still very safe. Both private writing and no-response writing help you to write more and take more risks because you don't have to worry about the audience very much.

3) Response but no evaluation: This can be particularly difficult for us in academia who have been trained to critique, critique, critique. The reader's responses should answer: What do you think my piece was about? How did it make you feel? Did it inspire you to think of other ideas? Nothing else. No sentences that start with "You should..." or "You didn't..." This type of response is so important yet underrated. Before you can make any critique, you have to first understand what the writer is trying to say. There's no use tearing someone's work apart if there isn't a mutual understanding as to what the piece is about. It's time wasted and relationships damaged for no reason. This type of feedback also compels the writer to write better and more clearly, and yet still feel safe enough to take certain risks. (This is my favourite type of response! It builds understanding, help bridge between differences and truly agree to disagree.)

4) Critical evaluation: This is only one type of response. We dwell on this so much in academia but it really should come at the very end.

My writing group will try out these four stages of writing and audience response. We will first meet to do some free-writing then discuss the process, not the contents. It's not something that any of us are familiar with so it'd be interesting to examine how we gradually become accustomed to it. We will then meet to read outloud to one another with no response, a great suggestion by one of our members. Having a piece read outloud by the author is a great way to physically feel the person's "voice" and hear how the piece was intended to be read by the author. We will then move on to response without evaluation and finally to critical evaluation. We not only think this will improve the quality of our writing but also help us develop a trusting writing/reading relationship in our little group. Trust is also one of those things that are so important yet underrated in scholarship. Hopefully, we can become both peer and ally readers to one another.