It's been 3 weeks since the writing class I joined with Sir Abe and Daniel Miller. I have participated in about 3 assignments and spent several hours researching. Here are my thoughts on the class:
1. Each session has less than 13 people at all times. It is deliberately limited in number to keep the group small and promote getting to know each other. I think this is key. I have taken courses where the number is very high and it is overwhelming just to get to know everyone and make any connections. Keeping the number low means we get to know each other and so would be encouraged more to provide feedback and engage in discussions.
2. Each week has an assignment that requires us to learn more about the person we are trying to mimic. I have leant more about Scott Adams style of writing and about writing itself from these past few weeks of researching and working on assignments. Since the write up is just 500 words, and we have a week to get it done, it gives us enough room to research and learn things that we may not have done in another setting. I never knew anything about structure and plot before now. I never took any serious writing course before and my writing was just a reflection of my thought - no formal structure or style behind it.
3. Each session involved the participants taking time to read another person's work and to give feedback while also getting the same in return. Just like in toastmasters, this type of feedback loop makes all the difference for deliberate practice and improvement. I am not sure that the class still enables critical feedback in the structure like it does in toastmasters but just having someone read and comment on how they felt about it - is good encouragement.
4. There is about 30 minutes of discussion every week regarding what we learnt during that week and writing in general. It is a good experience to meet other people that share the same interest and are actively working on improving it. With the diversity of the group but the common interest, I like how I am able to learn about writers I hadn't heard of before. It is interesting to hear what are the things other writers like and want to mimic. The discussions also talk about things like common fears or tips that we can share with each other.
I think this format of learning is similar to how we did it back in school with a virtual twist. I like it so far and find that my understanding of writing is improving. I didn't start writing with a specific goal of mastery. I would like to be able to tell my story and be better at communication in general. Both written and oral. Getting a chance to get this type of deliberate practice for 6 weeks has been a good investment.
1. Each session has less than 13 people at all times. It is deliberately limited in number to keep the group small and promote getting to know each other. I think this is key. I have taken courses where the number is very high and it is overwhelming just to get to know everyone and make any connections. Keeping the number low means we get to know each other and so would be encouraged more to provide feedback and engage in discussions.
2. Each week has an assignment that requires us to learn more about the person we are trying to mimic. I have leant more about Scott Adams style of writing and about writing itself from these past few weeks of researching and working on assignments. Since the write up is just 500 words, and we have a week to get it done, it gives us enough room to research and learn things that we may not have done in another setting. I never knew anything about structure and plot before now. I never took any serious writing course before and my writing was just a reflection of my thought - no formal structure or style behind it.
3. Each session involved the participants taking time to read another person's work and to give feedback while also getting the same in return. Just like in toastmasters, this type of feedback loop makes all the difference for deliberate practice and improvement. I am not sure that the class still enables critical feedback in the structure like it does in toastmasters but just having someone read and comment on how they felt about it - is good encouragement.
4. There is about 30 minutes of discussion every week regarding what we learnt during that week and writing in general. It is a good experience to meet other people that share the same interest and are actively working on improving it. With the diversity of the group but the common interest, I like how I am able to learn about writers I hadn't heard of before. It is interesting to hear what are the things other writers like and want to mimic. The discussions also talk about things like common fears or tips that we can share with each other.
I think this format of learning is similar to how we did it back in school with a virtual twist. I like it so far and find that my understanding of writing is improving. I didn't start writing with a specific goal of mastery. I would like to be able to tell my story and be better at communication in general. Both written and oral. Getting a chance to get this type of deliberate practice for 6 weeks has been a good investment.
Honing in on one aspect of a writer during analysis yields more than just trying to copy some blob-like idea of another writer.