lhandley's recent activity
-
Comment on Constructive critiques - a question on tone in ~creative
-
Comment on <deleted topic> in ~creative
lhandley Link ParentI also think it's a good idea to keep this sort of thing in a single thread (or perhaps a group of its own once the site gets larger). It would both help feedback-seekers and -givers find each...I also think it's a good idea to keep this sort of thing in a single thread (or perhaps a group of its own once the site gets larger). It would both help feedback-seekers and -givers find each other and spare the rest of ~creative from our oodles of words.
And I am also up for giving feedback as I'm able. :)
-
Comment on <deleted topic> in ~creative
lhandley Link ParentAlternately, if you want to emphasize the collective nature of the drones, you could go with "a swarm of drones traversed its way...", particularly if they're all moving in one pack or under one...Alternately, if you want to emphasize the collective nature of the drones, you could go with "a swarm of drones traversed its way...", particularly if they're all moving in one pack or under one central control.
-
Comment on Want to start a writers group in ~creative
lhandley Link ParentAh, I see what you mean. @eladnarra's right that you can't do that yet, but as the site grows and more people join in, they'll probably start letting us splinter off more. (According to the...Ah, I see what you mean. @eladnarra's right that you can't do that yet, but as the site grows and more people join in, they'll probably start letting us splinter off more. (According to the Mechanics page, one of the reasons they don't want users creating groups yet is to concentrate us together and keep the existing groups active.)
I'm glad I could help you out with that IRL group, though. :)
-
Comment on Tell ~ about your upcoming hike! in ~health
lhandley LinkLast weekend I did the Three Ridges loop along the AT (in part) in central Virginia. The trail starts at 1000' on the banks of the Tye River, in what's probably the deepest gap in that section of...Last weekend I did the Three Ridges loop along the AT (in part) in central Virginia. The trail starts at 1000' on the banks of the Tye River, in what's probably the deepest gap in that section of the Blue Ridge, and snakes up the mountain and along the eponymous ridges to the summit nearly 3000 feet above. It's all below treeline (which was nice and shady in the heat), but there are a couple of bare rock overlooks along the ridge that give great views of the gap and of the nearby mountains. The hardest part was making it down the trail that closed the loop between the upper and lower sections of the AT--we've had a crazy amount of rain over the past month, so all the stream crossings in that valley were submerged, and in some places the water had taken over the trail. Wet rocks everywhere. >.<'
As for gear, I hate carrying weight, so I try to do as much as I can with just a day pack (Osprey, 20L?) and trail runners. Later this month, I'm hoping to head down to the Smokies and do Mt.s LeConte and Kephart in a (very long) day as a sort of trial run for my attempt of Mt. Whitney, CA in July.
-
Comment on Want to start a writers group in ~creative
lhandley LinkTo answer your question literally ("how is a writing group formed"), speaking from my own experience in leading such a group: The bare minimum: assemble one person who wants start a group, a few...To answer your question literally ("how is a writing group formed"), speaking from my own experience in leading such a group:
The bare minimum: assemble one person who wants start a group, a few other participants, and a physical meeting place or online platform (forum, Slack channel, etc.). Sprinkle with vinaigrette, toss, and serve.
Somewhat better: assemble one or two people with the time, wherewithal, and people-wrangling skills to start a group and keep it going; three or four other participants who write at least semi-consistently; and a meeting place or platform as described above. Having multiple "leaders" is a huge help--that way the group won't die if one of them loses interest or hits a patch where they're too busy to run things. Making sure the members actually write enough to keep the group supplied with material is essential, or else you'll devolve into a social group of people who like to write. (Which isn't inherently a bad thing, but it's also not, by definition, a writing group.) Also note that you'll want enough members to keep the discussion lively (or, at minimum, a proper discussion rather than a dialogue or monologue). And as for the meetings themselves, be willing to shift the schedule around as the members figure out what works for them, acquire new commitments, shed old ones, and such.
Optimal: assemble two fairly experienced writers (with both a solid knowledge of the craft and some idea of how to answer all those questions you mention about next steps, publishing, and such) who are able and willing both to keep the group going and to continuously recruit new members to replace the ones that inevitably drop out over time; several participants (including a core of at least three to four members who show up to most every meeting) who write regularly, are committed to improving their craft, and have similar goals for their writing; a meeting place or platform that can scale to fit however many people you have on a given day; and some way in which the members can bond/collaborate/keep in touch outside the group's formal meetings. That ought to leave you with a functional, cohesive, and sustainable writing group--though, of course, all that is much easier said than done.
In the end, it all comes down to the people you recruit. A writing group, like any voluntary association, will only exist as long as its members want to keep it going, and whether they want to keep it going will depend on a lot of factors outside you-as-the-leader's direct control. Do the members get along? Are they available at the same dates and times for meetings? Do they like each other's writing well enough to enjoy reading and discussing it? Can a critical mass of them contribute useful feedback?
I can't stress questions 3 and 4 enough. It's all well and good to be "open to all kinds of writing and levels of expertise" at first, when the group is still seeking core members and figuring out what it wants to be, but the facts remain that 1) not every writer likes (or understands well enough to critique) every sort of writing and 2) writers vary wildly in skill and experience. A lone hard-scifi writer won't stick around for long in a group of poets (unless that scifi writer is, like, the next John M. Ford), nor would a writer who's near publication in a group full of newbies who still struggle with exposition-dumping and comma splices. An ideal group would consist of members different enough to not devolve into a hivemind, but similar enough in taste and skill to understand what each other is getting at and give feedback at the level each other needs.
So then: the best way to go about finding writers that would make good group-mates for you is probably to tell them about yourself: what sort of writing you do, what sorts (if any) you appreciate but don't do, where you hope to take your writing (you seem interested in publishing someday), and, of course, logistical concerns like what time zone you're on and when you're available to meet up. Share a piece or two that you've written, if you can--I generally ask prospective members of my group to show us one polished piece (so we can see what they're capable of at their best) and one first draft (so we can see what they'll be submitting for feedback). Broadcast the call wide and sundry... and then sit back and see who answers.
Best of luck to you as you assemble your group!
-
Comment on How do you log your reads? in ~books
lhandley Link ParentIt's also useful as a reference: for example, if a quote pops into your head but you can't remember where you read it, you can look back over your list to narrow down the options. If I didn't keep...It's also useful as a reference: for example, if a quote pops into your head but you can't remember where you read it, you can look back over your list to narrow down the options.
If I didn't keep records (in a .txt file on my laptop... what more do you need? :P), I doubt I'd be able to remember much of what I read three years ago, especially the books I ended up not keeping (mainly for space reasons). I like to have something to call those books back to mind.
I second the idea to encourage people to post context along with critique requests. Maybe we could establish a loose formula like "I have X experience with writing and I'm trying to do Y, Z, and Q with this piece"?
(That would have the added benefit of getting people to think about what aspects of the piece they want critiquers to pay attention to--and even if they don't yet have the technical vocabulary to pinpoint exactly what they want, any focus they could provide would help them get what they're looking for. Something as simple as "I'm trying to write an adventure story. Is everything plausible so far?" says a lot: that they're looking for high-level feedback, that they're most concerned with plot-logistics at the moment, that this is likely an early draft or a work-in-progress, etc.)
And one guideline I'd suggest for critiquers, which I learned in a developmental editing class I took a while back, is to focus your critiques on the two or three most major issues with the piece rather than throwing out a laundry list of every little thing you'd tweak. A focused critique is a lot easier for a writer to process and act on, and it spares them from wasting time on smaller problems that could be fixed in a later draft. And often, particularly with new writers, the majority of the problems in a piece stem from one or two flaws that repeat or ripple throughout it, like pacing issues or exposition-dumping or a flat character. Point out one or two instances of that, and the writer can figure out what to do with the rest. After all, that's the goal of every good critique: to teach the writer how to identify and fix problems in their writing on their own.