Clarion West Workshop Methods

The Conversational/Interview Model starts with a brief check-in with the author, thereby leading with their intentions for the piece. This model not only honors the author’s intention but also approaches their work holistically: considering their intended audience and language decisions, and offering appreciation for what is already on the page. This model was introduced to Clarion West by Nalo Hopkinson at the 2021 Six-Week Workshop and further developed during a series of experiential workshops held in Spring 2022.

*A close reader can be assigned for this model in order to help the author prepare for questions or to help them think through what they want to get out of the workshop. If needed, the author can request that the instructor share their questions shortly before class so they can begin thinking about answers in advance.

*The author may choose to submit their story with an author statement, which can help the instructor and class determine how to direct their critique.

Duration: 40 minutes 

1. Interview stage: (10–15 min) The instructor interviews the author. Emphasis on the intention of the author (influences, inspirations, relevant questions about the audience) and on things that the author wants help with/wants to hear their peers discuss. The instructor is encouraged to put on different hats, if needed (interviewer, publisher, editor, and reader). The purpose of this role is to prepare the author for the kind of questions that an author is often asked when their work goes out in the world. For example, questions about themes present in the author’s work, stylistic choices, decisions in the work, etc. Therefore, the questions should support that goal. 
2. Q and A stage: (15 min) Moving in a circle or some other order determined by the class, participants speak to what they admired about the piece and ask questions about things they noticed (themes, decisions, repetition, patterns, or even character decisions). Participants are encouraged to imagine they are at a reading when they ask questions of the author, giving the author that sense of authority on their piece. Questions should still help the author think deeply about the piece, and may introduce critical commentary, although we encourage language that introduces the possibility of doubt rather than speaking in absolutes, i.e.: “I found that…” “for me…”
   1. Role of instructor and/or facilitator: To guide the conversation and direct back to the author when appropriate, affirm the author in their intentions, etc. The author is never silenced at any point. It’s recommended that the instructor checks in with the author every once in a while to make sure that the author feels empowered to speak about their decisions or ask questions they might have.
3. Final questions and clarification: (5 min) At the end, the author gets an additional 5 minutes to ask questions about anything they want further clarification on or to answer any questions they see fit. They can also use this step to talk about what they’ll do next or their plans for revision.

This model was developed by author S.L. Huang based on Liz Lerman’s Critical Response Process and tested during a series of experiential workshops held in Spring 2022.

*A close reader can be assigned in this model in order to help the author prepare for questions or to help them think through what they want to get out of the workshop. The close reader can support the author in the final discussion or re-direct at any point if they feel the conversation is getting side-tracked from the author’s intention. 

Duration: 45–50 minutes 

Before workshop: 

When the author submits their story, they should include the following: 

• A short introduction or author statement that details their intention. 
• 1–3 guiding questions for readers.

1. Lightning Round: (10 minutes) Participants go on a lightning round detailing one thing they loved about the piece, that stood out to them the most, or that made the greatest impression — all geared towards positive feedback. Think about this round as giving the author information, not necessarily compliments. For example, it’s more helpful to hear “I loved the Gothic atmosphere, and the scene where the vampire almost bites Cassie gave me chills” than “I loved it!” (Readers: If you find yourself adding lots of little hearts to the text etc., try to dig a bit deeper into what you loved.) 
2. Author’s Intent: (3 min) The author may briefly remind the class of their intention for the piece and any guiding questions. 
3. Neutral Questions and Critique: (10–15 min) Participants go in a circle asking questions about the work (we recommend starting with two questions apiece at this stage). These questions should honor the author’s intention and should stem from curiosity about the work and an interest in supporting what the author wants to do. The intention of this stage is to create a dialogue and foster understanding between the readers and author. Some examples of questions:
   1. “Have you considered including more about Melissa’s motivations in wanting to pursue a career in aviation?” 
   2. “What does it mean to be a part of this town for these characters? What are some of the dynamics of this place?” 
   3. “How does the death of their parents influence the main character’s decisions at the party?”
4. Discussing Author’s Intent: (10–15 min) In this round, participants comment on the work taking into account the author’s intent. This is an appropriate stage for participants to address craft questions that they have about the piece or moments where they needed more clarity. For example: “You mentioned wanting to include your love for astrophysics in this piece, and that’s absolutely evident from the in-depth descriptions of how engines work. You also mentioned wanting the piece to be accessible for everyone. I think this works really well overall, but on page 2 (paragraph 3) I had a little trouble understanding the descriptions of fuel injectors. I wonder if you could simplify that description with a metaphor that would make sense for this character to use, for readers who might not be as familiar?” 
5. Remaining Questions: (Time dependent ~5 min) Author asks more questions about anything that came up or discusses something that came up in workshop.

For many years, Clarion West employed the traditional Milford model for workshops. It has the benefit of allowing everyone in the class to speak about a story, but some of its drawbacks included silencing the author and not allowing them to speak to any of their intentions or goals with the story. We have updated this model to allow authors to submit an author statement with their stories that helps direct their workshop. Furthermore, authors will not be asked to remain silent in this model. This model was developed by Clarion West’s Core Workshop Group for the 2021 Six-Week Workshop and tested during a series of experiential workshops held in Spring 2022. Clarion West staff further developed and differentiated the model between Summer 2023 and 2024.

Role of close reader in this model: A close reader can be assigned for this model in order to help the author prepare for questions or to help them think through what they want to get out of the workshop. If needed, the close reader can redirect the conversation if they feel the discussion is getting side-tracked from the author’s intention. In Steps 4 & 5 (Author Response and Follow-Up Discussion), they can also remind the author of questions that they wanted but forgot to ask.

Duration: 45–50 minutes 

Before Workshop: The author submits their story and an author statement. It may be as simple as stating their intentions and several guiding questions, or they may prefer a more in-depth letter. 

1. Author’s Intent: (1–2 min) The author briefly restates their intentions and guiding questions for readers, or briefly summarizes their author statement. If the submission is an excerpt of a longer piece, if it’s unfinished, etc., this is a good time to let the class know. If the student isn’t sure what to ask of the class, the instructor may use this time to ask some guiding questions, ex:
   1. What prompted this story? 
   2. What are some ideas that you wanted to incorporate? 
   3. Do you have a particular audience in mind? 
   4. Is there anything in specific that you want the class to discuss? 
2. Roundtable discussion: (27 minutes for a group of 18) Going in a circle, or other order determined by the class and facilitator, students discuss the story for one-and-a-half minutes (1.5 min) each. If a close reader is being used, they will start, setting the tone of the discussion and touching on the themes the author wants to bring up. Students are encouraged to talk first about what struck them in the piece or what they admired and THEN pose questions^✽ for the author to consider or to answer during Step 3. The author may choose to briefly answer a question during this step, or to interject and redirect critique, but for the most part this stage is about listening to classmate feedback. 
3. Instructor Feedback: (3–4 minutes) The instructor has a turn to provide feedback and pose questions for the class.
4. Author Response: (2–3 minutes) The author has 2–3 minutes to respond or pose additional questions to their classmates and instructor. 
5. Follow-Up Discussion: (5–10 minutes) The full class participates in a discussion led by the instructor. The author is never silent, and is encouraged to use this discussion to further comment/ask questions about what wasn’t clear or what they need help with. 
6. Next Steps (optional): (5 minutes) The instructor may choose to synthesize the main points, or ask the student to do so and discuss their plans for the work moving forward. 

^✽Question examples (for Step 2): 

1. “Have you considered including more about Melissa’s motivations in wanting to pursue a career in aviation?” 
2. “What does it mean to be a part of this town for these characters? What are some of the dynamics of this place?” 
3. “How does the death of their parents influence the main character’s decisions at the party?”

A model from Felicia Rose Chavez’s work: a pedagogy of deep listening and empowering the student. This model was tested during a series of experiential workshops held in Spring 2022.

Duration: 35 minutes 

Before Workshop: 

1. Authors free write about their intent for the piece (value, purpose, hopes) and set goals for the piece. What do you want this piece to accomplish? You may wish to turn this in as your author statement, or to condense a portion of it for the author statement. 
2. Close reader: Authors are encouraged to request a close reader for this model. The author should meet with their close reader and discuss the questions they want to ask participants. The close reader is helpful too in offering a different perspective. For example, they can share information with the author about things they noticed as a reader that weren’t as clear or questions that the author is not asking but should consider, etc. 

In Workshop 

1. Author Statement: (5–10 min) This model is directed by the author. They start the workshop by explaining what their goals are for their piece and what kind of feedback they need, and what kind of feedback is not needed at this time. 
2. Conversation Directed by Author: (10–15 min) This stage is a dialogue. The author directs the conversation and asks questions, when relevant. 

Examples of questions: 

1. “Did you think there were enough descriptions of the city for the reader to get a sense of the setting where the story takes place?” 
2. “In terms of characterization: What were some things you were curious to learn about the father that were not yet on the page?” 

This stage is also about deep listening. Encouraging the author to listen to peers and take notes about what resonates.

Note about close reader: The close reader can help support the author in this section. They can ask questions, speak when there are silences, or even redirect conversation when they notice the workshop is veering away from the author’s intention. 

3. Follow-Up Questions: (10 min) Last questions and open dialogue about anything that isn’t clear. The author can provide a reflection at the end of the workshop about what they learned and next steps for the piece.

Fonda Lee introduced this model at the 2022 Six-Week Workshop. Clarion West staff further developed and differentiated the model between Summer 2023 and 2024.

Duration: 45–50 minutes

Before Workshop: The author submits their story and an author statement. It may be as simple as stating their intentions and several guiding questions, or they may prefer a more in-depth letter. 

1. Author’s Intent: (1–2 min) The writer begins by making an optional explanatory statement about their piece based on their author’s statement. This is your opportunity to let readers know what your intentions and goals are for this story and to provide guidance as to what type of feedback you’re hoping to get. You may wish to pose two or three specific questions that you would like answered. Example: “I’m trying to ramp up tension and suspense all the way to the big reveal. Where do you think the story does that effectively and where could it be improved?” 
2. Rapid Round: (3–5 minutes) Participants go in a circle and BRIEFLY detail 1–2 things they admire about the piece, such as: What did you love (and why), what stood out, or what made an impression? Gear the positive feedback toward giving information, not merely general compliments. Briefly summarize a scene or a moment you remember from the piece, without offering judgment.
   1. Example: “You did a great job making this character’s voice very distinct in dialogue and their motivations so relatable that I rooted for them throughout the story.” Example: “I remember the moment when Amy got lost in the woods and started talking to the deer, it was really unexpected.” 
3. Neutral Questions: (20 min) Volunteers raise hands to participate. The instructor begins the critique by posing neutral questions to the class and/or author. (The instructor will offer their critique at the end of this round.) The volunteers take turns offering their critiques, making sure to include their own neutral questions as part of the feedback. These questions should come from a place of curiosity and create a dialogue that supports what the author is trying to do.
   1. Example: Rather than, “It’s a cliché for the character’s parents to die, why did you make that choice?,” say, “Why is it important that this character is an orphan? How does the death of his parents influence his outlook and decisions at the outset of the story?” 

The questions ought to provoke thought. The author is a listener; they are not expected to respond although they may do so briefly to provide information or clarification. 

4. Instructor Feedback: (3–4 minutes)
5. Author Response and Class Discussion: (10 minutes) The author may respond more fully to comments and questions at this time, and direct or open a full-class discussion in which readers express additional feedback and thoughts. Classmates comment on the work and provide additional feedback, taking into account the author’s intent.

For the sake of time, students should limit their remarks to 1–2 minutes. 

6. Next Steps (optional): The instructor may synthesize the main points and/or ask the student for their key takeaways and plans moving forward. (If we’re out of time, this can take place during the afternoon student conference.)