A Fedora, Bullwhip, and The Book!

Yes! It’s Break!!!!
Ok, now that is out of my system…

Having finished the second of the workshop-sessions, I am not really sure what to write about. Overall, I think that this review session went much better than the last one. I got really good feedback from both, but I think that one of the things that happened this time was that my group didn’t remain restricted to the exact definition of the workshop session. It was kind of interesting really; before we got started on Monday, we looked at each other and were like, “how do we want to do this?” I feel that the result –open communication between everyone – worked really, really well. Though I can defiantly see merits to the whole ‘be-quiet-and-listen’ thing, I felt that, having done that the first time around, we had a good idea going into today as to just how much we needed to talk to get the most out of the workshop session. I guess that I felt that I got more out of this session than I did from the other one, because last time, since we were trying to stay to the prescribed time, we got to the point on some stories where we were really stretching to find things to say.

Also, this might just by opinion, but I am rather mixed as to whether these work-shop sessions might go better with smaller groups. I feel like the larger group brings a more dynamic communication and more points of view, but in the end everyone says the same things (at least this time around), and that smaller workshop groups would allow for more personalized feed-back. It just seems like when I, as a reviewer, am looking at seven stories to read and review, I feel like that the shear amount of reading/reviewing means that I give feedback overall that is not as in-depth as I might like. I still try my best with every piece, but when it takes you an hour or more to review a piece and you have seven to do it can be extremely stressful. Also, in large groups like these I feel that people tend to go with the dominate interpretation, and don’t always stand-up for their own interpretation as well as they might if it were in much smaller groups.

Just a thought.

On a side note, Hunter is the Master of Ambiguity. Go Hunter!