My fingers quiver over the keyboard as I freeze in my note-taking. My senses contract myopically on a wave of negativity and frustration. I'm trying to listen to what the teacher is saying, keep up with the prolific chat, and also process why I suddenly feel so upset I can no longer hear or read anything. The dissonance is deafening, and the rest of the class is a wash for me.

What happened?

As Write of Passage (WoP) wraps, I'm finding a rich reflection on my divergent experience. On the one hand, the course was exceptional in so many ways. On the other, I was continuously triggered in a way that made me less engaged, less creative, and less productive.

What gives?

The lessons I learned from the barrier-reducing brilliance, and the friction-inducing dissonance, are valuable gifts I'll continue to unpack for years to come. By reflecting publicly, I hope to give voice to undercurrents that others may be sensing but have not yet found the words to express.

If you've gone through WoP, have you experienced similar joys, successes, and struggles? Or if you're hosting online (or offline) educational containers, what elements stand out to you?

Drop me a note (henry at website domain) and share your journey and observations.

The watcher and the doer

I've organized and produced business conferences, dance festivals, private parties, and even a feature-length interactive circus - live event production is one of my happy places. I love to geek out on experience design and how big ideas (like participant interaction) are subtly facilitated by transparent minutiae (like the placement of the shoe receptacle or water dispenser). The best experiences emerge from diligent and thoughtful experience design.

Everything I've done is live, and with the COVID lockdown, I turned my attention to online gatherings. Intuitively, I sense Cohort Based Courses (CBCs) will play a large role in GIFT so I dove in feet first.

In January, I participated in The Annual Review and the Goal Crafting Intensive to kickoff the year on a diligent note of intentionality. In February, I opted into the Keystone Accelerator to prime the way I think about sharing future CBCs I care to host. In March, I traversed the liminal space of Write of Passage to refine my writing here and in my newsletter. In each course I came in with a clear intention. In all but one, I got out much more than I expected.

Fellow WoP6 participant Gad Allon, a professor at Wharton, has a great writeup on the benefits and limitations of CBCs for education. Gad spoke to the electrifying experience of being in the course, the eustress of FOMO, and the scalability of the concept. These are all great points, and I'd like to take reflection that one step further and have the gall to wonder, "would I do it like that? Why or why not?".

That means in each CBC I have a parallel path experience.

In one lane, I am a full-fledged participant. I like to maximize my learning by attending all the sessions and doing all the things. In the other lane, I am a removed, 3rd party observer. I quietly note how my participant's journey is influenced by the design, mechanics, and delivery.

I'm doing, and I'm watching. In the arena and in the chief seats. And in both cases, albeit in very different dimensions, I'm learning a lot.

The Observer

Structurally, Write of Passage was stunningly advanced

In so many ways, the "how" of Write of Passage is exceptionally crafted. I bow in deep reverence to the entire team for the tightly woven threads that created such an uplifting tapestry of intentionally curated experience.

Here are the design choices that I believe positively contributed to the experience:

Many bite-size concepts with Rule of 3

Throughout the course, there are a lot of concepts introduced. In 13 live sessions, I counted 38 distinct concepts (could be more, depending on how one counts). Listed in a linear order, it's easy to imagine being overwhelmed or bogged down with all the different ideas.

In fact, not at all.

First, there was a meta-narrative to provide broad structure - Build, Write, Share.

Then, within each pillar there were supporting sections that raised the pillar. And within each section, there were individual sub-unit ideas that felt like lego blocks. Each unit of thought was relevant in isolation, and especially compelling when clicked in with the others. The concepts built sequentially and coherently in an additive capacity where the gestalt felt like much more than the parts. And by the end, the lego set of simple building block ideas yielded a rather complex structure of intellectual rigor.

One smart move is that every concept had a simple mnemonic or image that made it easy to remember. All but 2 acronyms (FAST writing and CRIBS editing) in the 38 distinct ideas were 3 or fewer words.

Another smart move is that almost every concept was repeated at least 3 (often many more) times throughout the course. This never felt redundant or pedantic - instead, it felt internally self-referential in a wholesome and reinforcing way.

Overall, it's clear David made a conscious effort to organize the plethora of concepts to be approachable and digestible.

Well done.

Inspiring the "Why" in every single class

The one concept that was spoken to in every single session, usually multiple times, was "Why write online?". Some of the main reasons offered:

• To be witnessed in our personal experiences (an added level beyond solo journalling)
• To synthesize ideas and give voice to our unique perspectives
• To connect with others / reduce intellectual isolation
• To create a vehicle for serendipity
• To generate professional opportunities
• To value our own self-worth
• To contribute as citizens of the internet

Some of these resonate with me, and others aren't as relevant or inspiring. And by offering many different flavors and functions, that means at least one (and probably more) will resonate with every single one of the participants. From chatting in breakout rooms, I noticed some folks knew exactly why they were taking the course whereas others were drawn intuitively - seeking but not knowing.

Clearly enunciating the "Why" helped both camps overcome barriers and inspire action.

Moreover, in each session we heard from David, alumni mentors, participating alumni, or guest speakers on how one or more of those "Whys" changed their life for the better.

Of course, I know there is a built-in selection bias for those that choose to speak and share. And still, that didn't stop the wave of excitement and energy that built with each incremental share.

Thanks to Nat Eliason and Tiago Forte, I was already sold on writing online before signing up for WoP. And I feel even more inspired and committed after such diligent indoctrination.

Removing emotional & practical blockers at every turn

Wanting to write online and actually doing it are very different. WoP spent as much or more time on removing roadblocks as it did on turning the wheels of progress.

There are generally two kinds of blockers: emotional & practical. Within each genre, WoP went deeper to acknowledge, address, engage and prompt.

The biggest and most pervasive blockers are emotional. Usually, this comes about as a limiting narrative of lack of self-worth. We sampled every flavor in the palette of put-downs:

• I have nothing valuable to contribute
• My English isn't good enough
• No one will read my work (and that's a reflection of my value)
• My writing is bad
• I'm not enough to be worthy of the attention of others
• I have nothing to write about
• I don't have good ideas
• Many, many more

One of those can be debilitating - layer on multiples and it's easy to see why some people really struggle to put (digital) pen to paper and press publish.

Addressing the underlying limiting narratives is especially powerful because it extends beyond the confines of this course. Being witnessed and supported in the healing journey of rewriting limiting narratives of negative self-talk is huge.

Beyond taming negative self-talk, there are also practical blockers. Organizing the tools and rituals to empower a productive flow state is also really important. It can feel mundane or even trivial, often to the point of being overlooked, so I really respect how much attention was spent at this level of detail.

Taken together, there was a very thoughtful approach to expanding and buttressing our growth as writers far beyond the mechanics of the writing craft itself.

Engaging, fast-paced live sessions

The vast majority of online education experiences I've had are snooze-fest BORING. Nothing could be further from the case in WoP.

There were 4 live sessions led by David every week - two 1.5 hour sessions on ideas around writing, one 1 hour session on the mechanics of writing, and one 2 hour Crossfit for Writing session. On top of that, there were another dozen or so 1-hour mentor sessions (like TA section in college) and we could opt into one or more. I attended 1 mentor consistently, which meant I was in live sessions 7 hours a week - and I can honestly say that I was engaged for 90+% of the time. Wow!!

David's sessions were engaging because:

• 80+% of slides were full screen, evocative pictures - I first learned about this technique from studying Steve Jobs as a presenter. The key insight is that the human mind remembers ideas better when they're reinforced with emotions. When we see words on a screen, that does not evoke any emotions, but when we see a beautiful, crisp, evocative photo, we instantly register an emotional response that then gets overlaid on the meaning of the presenter's words. Moreover, we don't get distracted from the speaker by being forced to read the words on the screen. Neurologically, the rational prefrontal cortex has to engage to read AND to listen, so one elbows out the other. With photos, the emotional amygdala can happily ride shotgun (and reinforce) the rational driver of auditory learning.
• The slides with ideas had ≤5 words - I mentioned this earlier, and it was abundantly clear in the slides. I could skim the few words in a moment and then redirect my attention back to what David was saying.
• Lots of stories - Every session had a handful of stories or quotes that helped reinforce the key point. Stories are a fundamental unit of meaning, so getting saturated with stories made each session feel richly meaningful.
• Frequently varied speech and cadence - David's capable use of varied vocal quality, volume, timber, pacing, and other speech techniques suggest he's been formally trained in public speaking. He enunciated his words clearly, punctuated important points with significant ramps in energy, and shifted gears often throughout each session. Watching his performance reminded me a lot of my days in speech and debate as well as theater.
• High quality video and audio - Simply put, it's easier to stay captivated for longer when the picture looks good and the audio sounds good. David has a legit quality setup with on-brand mood lighting that makes everything feel thoughtfully integrated. In many ways, it looks like David is in a professional studio setting, and I know that's no accident.
• Great back & forth with Will - "Over to you Will ... back to you David" The energy and dynamic between David and Will felt playful, respectful, and enjoyable. Even though Will was on screen for <10% of the time, it added a nice touch.
• Multiple breakout rooms & solo writing per session - Every session included lecture, breakout rooms, and solo writing. We context switched every 10-15 minutes and that kept it always feeling fresh and engaging.
• Bonkers pacing on chat - The chat stream was incredibly lively with multiple concurrent conversations, inside jokes, and questions bantering about. This was reinforced and encouraged throughout the course, and it definitely amped the energy A LOT. I'm guessing many found it overwhelming and simply closed the chat - I did that sometimes. But if I ever tired of the core content, the chat was a gushing river with rapids that I could ride back to full presence.

The mentor sessions were engaging because:

• Unique perspectives on the same content - The alumni mentors refactored the core content from the week into their own framing. Seeing some ideas from a different angle was refreshing and enticing.
• More opportunity to ask question - In the mentor sessions, it felt acceptable to unmute and ask a question to the whole group. That would have been rude and untenable with the pacing of David's larger presentations.
• More time to connect with cohort compatriots - Having more space to hear from others taking the course meant more opportunity to connect with individuals in a live format (as distinct to asynchronously through Circle or editing Google Docs).

Just once, when I was eagerly awaiting a jab of a COVID vaccine needle at a Walmart pharmacy, I tried passively listening to a session on my phone. It was a notably worse experience and I made a point of actively participating in every other live session on my computer.

The fact that I wanted my keyboard and widescreen monitor so I could fully engage is a huge testament to how lively and stimulating the live sessions were.

As Gad observed in his piece, this experience sets the bar exceptionally high for what I now know is possible with online education.

Consistently celebrating success

Each live session began with a couple of call-outs to participants or alumni to pat them on the back for achievements. Not much to say here beyond the fact that it felt nice that we always opened on the note of "I see you and high five!".

For those that care about the vanity of being recognized in front of a group (*ahem* I know nothing of this), it can be motivating to engage more fully to get the gold star in front of the class. For those that couldn't care less about the gold star, it's still fun to cheer on our fellow students as they get recognized within WoP or find success in the larger online world.

I found this to be yet another small, yet classy and meaningful, touch.

Interlocking support & connection systems

The entire course had a feeling of an inverted pyramid of support, in the best possible way.

At the top and broadest section, David was speaking to 200+ people in a "sage on the stage" 1-to-many format. This reminded me of traditional lectures at university.

At the next level down, we had mentor groups with 20-40 people. These were more loosely led by alumni mentors and reminded me a lot of TA section.

Next, we had mentor spillover sessions. These were typically 5-15 people that all felt compelled to hang out after a mentor group and continue the compelling conversation.

Then, we had the breakout rooms during live sessions. These typically had 2-4 people where we discussed a prompt related to the topic most recently presented. Importantly, the 2-4 people cycled (randomly?) each breakout so we had an opportunity to connect directly with lots of different members. I noticed that I was way more likely to read or edit the work of someone I met in a breakout room, so this was huge for cohesion. And after each breakout, in the main room David invited 2-3 people to briefly share what they spoke about in their room. This was yet another nice touch that allowed us to experience and connect with folks that came to the "front of the room" to share.

Then, we had feedback pods of 3 people. These were organized later in the flow, and I think it could have been done more diligently, but the concept is great. This is a static set of 3 people that commit to consistently reading and editing each other's work.

Finally, we had the Google Docs where people offered feedback and commentary in a many-to-1 format.

Somewhere in there it's worth including the chat which typically had 10ish hyper vocal folks that dominated the airwaves and another 50ish that periodically sprinkled in their comments and questions.

Oh, and there were also ad hoc writing groups that formed outside the formal structure. One group meets every morning at 7am PT 5 days a week to quietly gather and write! Not my time to shine, but I love that that's an option for folks that resonate with the commitment device of writing in the presence of others.

Given that there were >200 participants in the course, I felt like I had ample opportunities to connect, witness, support, and be supported by 50%+ of the participants. If I had more bandwidth to be more involved in editing and leaving comments, I could have connected with even more people.

Given the inherent barriers to connection in Zoom meetings and online lecture formats, this rate of inter-participant connection and engagement is awe-inspiringly productive and successful.

Perhaps most importantly (looking at you Charlie!), I never once felt confused or a lack of support. The constant deluge of ideas, live sessions, mentor groups, assignments and more felt overwhelming, but never drowning, and that speaks volumes to the support systems that were thoughtfully designed and diligently implemented.

Quiet writing time during live sessions

In every single live session there were 5-10 minutes set aside for us to quietly reflect on a prompt and write. This was usually toward the end of the session, and most often was followed by a breakout room where we could discuss what we wrote with others.

Silent writing is brilliant because it engages and empowers folks that are more introverted or need a moment to catch their breath before starting to talk. So often, group discussions veer in the direction of the loudest / fastest talkers speak the most (or, in chat, the fastest typers are seen the most). Allowing a few moments for everyone to write instills the habit, prompts for success, and connects us in doing above and beyond speaking.

Also, it reduces the sway of groupthink by allowing folks to jot their unadulterated thoughts before being pulled by the thoughts of others. A great technique to add to any meeting of the minds (professional or personal) where reflection or introspection is encouraged.

Challenging to the edge

Every week we had a writing prompt (and usually a non-writing assignment).

Every week we had Crossfit for Writing to power lift our way to finishing a piece or working on a concept.

The cadence was challenging, and for me, it was right at the edge of possible. I wrote something the first two weeks, then got disenfranchised and slacked the second two weeks. For the final week, I'm disregarding the prompt and writing this reflection instead :).

I appreciate that there was so much push and challenge to get us to our edge. I don't know of a single person who said "Oh, that was easy peasy" and I think that's a good thing.

---

Overall, it's clear that a lot of thought and care was put into the structural design of the course. And that has positive ripple effects that are felt much more than they are seen.

Operationally, the WoP team was a well-oiled, well-calibrated machine of excellence

Here I'm celebrating everyone around and supporting David. You guys did an incredible job, and I bow in deep reverence to the stage hands and hearts that make the show possible.

The things that stood out to me operationally are:

• On time, every time - Each session started within seconds of the start time, and ended within 1-3 minutes of the end time. I could calibrate the clocks in my house to how this team ran their show.
• Precise, detailed, and timely follow up - Within 12 hours of each session, the team sent out a follow up email complete with resources, assignments, call outs, and more. The emails were well structured, easy to read and understand, and useful.
• Everyone showed up ready to go - The energy was high from everyone on the team and each person added their flair and unique touch. Love the French Horn!
• Videos edited into smaller chunks - I super appreciate that each live session was broken out into constituent concepts and parts for easier review later. I've done some video editing in the past, so I know how time consuming and painful such a seemingly simple task can be. For the unsung heroes quietly editing after hours, thank you.
• Technology is supportive and engaging, not distracting - There is a non-trivial tech stack for the class. There is Zoom, of course, for the live sessions, Teachable for the recordings and resource materials, and Circle for the community forum and discussions. Also sprinkle in some Evernote for David's shared note repos, Google Docs for editing each other's work, and an ad hoc Slack for opt-in asynch discussions. Overall, the technology seemed to just work and wasn't distracting at any point. Given all the juggling balls, that says a lot about how thoughtfully the support team paired activities and functions to platforms.
• Onboarding survey was referenced & used - It's not super common to have an onboarding survey before a course. It's even less common for the responses of that survey to actually drive content throughout the course. In multiple sections I could see how the collective answers to the survey informed the messaging and content of the lesson. That adaptability requires a certain nimble and responsive attitude from the support team (and the instructor) and it is trust-building to see that our words as participants matter.

I think the biggest tell for the outrageously high caliber of the operations team is the only mistake that I could find anywhere in the system.

Somewhere around minute 40 in Live Session 12 we were offered a template for a motivational writing one sheet. The document had some silly formatting mistakes, but I downloaded it 3 different ways before accepting that it wasn't me screwing up the file somehow.

In 40+ hrs of live instruction, >100 emails, and probably close to 700 slides, there was a single page that wasn't super dialed. Just wow.

WoP team, you should be incredibly proud of yourselves. Your high standards made our experience as participants that much more meaningful and potent. Anyone would be lucky to have such a capable and diligent force of excellence on their side. Thank you for everything you did, seen and unseen.

---

On each of structure, experience design, and operations, I give WoP a 10 out of 10.

In each domain my standards are high, and my expectations even higher (given the cost of the course). As an observer, both my standards and expectations were thoroughly surpassed. Again, kudos to David and the team.

The Participant

My personal experience was much more of a mixed bag

Throughout the course, I noticed that my enthusiasm, creativity, and output dropped off dramatically. Ironically, my pre-course very consistent publishing cadence stumbled and I had to push through an active disinterest in writing that I could directly attribute to the course.

Weird, no?

I can repeatedly sing the praises of the course design and delivery, but personally feel disempowered and disengaged to the point of not writing for myself, editing for others, or publishing anything in my queue.

My turn-off had nothing to do with limiting narratives or personal struggles (I was writing and publishing consistently before, after all). After lots of meditation (read: tea) and processing, I finally pinpointed the reason - value friction in metaphor design.

Grading my participant's experience in four dimensions

Standing in the arena, I define success by 4 overarching criteria: content, context, creativity, and community.

Content - 8/10

Content refers to the value of the core concepts that are taught. In my "observer" section above I mentioned that I found the content organization and message design to be compelling.

As an individual and for my personal writing journey, I found some of the ideas useful and others to be overly reductive and simplistic. By making everything bite-size, a lot of the nuance and richness of certain concepts were stripped away for the sake of brevity and ease of communication. I suppose trading nuance for ease and convenience has its value, but it sure felt like the microwave economy of writing a good chunk of the time.

In truth, I think the fix here is straightforward: don't get too attached to the simple answer being the only answer. Present counter-examples of good writing that don't follow the suggested "rules". Highlight that there is no "one way" and encourage us to find our own way. Speak to best practices, and elevate us beyond the mundane to the magical.

Most of the ideas offered are great as a starting point to reduce barriers to entry or decrease the cognitive burden for folks just beginning to write. If people *only* followed the suggested advice, though, I can easily see a proliferation of cheap, self-serving content that doesn't achieve the lofty aspirational goals for writing that were drilled into us from day 0.

That's a bug, not a feature.

Context - 3/10

Context refers to resonance or dissonance of how the content is communicated.

If a parent violently shakes a child while yelling "I LOVE YOU", no matter how honest and true that love may be, it's hard to receive the (totally valid) content for the context in which it is delivered. The love is real. The transmission of love is not loving. If the child responded by running away and crying, it would be easy to understand why.

That is how I felt for the vast majority of this course - content valid, context hyper dissonant to the point of distracting.

Here is a small sampling of the terms that riled me the most:

• Personal monopoly - Perhaps it's just my academic training in economics, but monopolies are bad news and this term instantly put me on high alert. Monopolies tend to exploit market dynamics, decrease quality for consumers, decrease the rate of innovation, and treat their workers miserably - so much so that most developed nations have extensive laws against monopoly formation. In fact, the only people that like monopolies are those at the top that get to cash in by exploiting everyone around them. When so much of the framing of the "Share" section is about getting other people to come to our site and connect with us, the framing of a "personal monopoly" leaves a really icky feeling. The last thing I want is for folks thinking they suddenly and exclusively "own" an idea just because they wrote a sequence of words in an order that wasn't easily Google-able before them. This framing feels unfortunately self-centered and trite to me. Plus, Monopoly is one of the worst games I've ever played in my life and I remember many fights ending with play money, a thimble, and a car scattered all over the floor. I honestly can't think of a single instance where a monopoly is a good thing, and that's not changing in WoP. For what it's worth, there is a resonant core of an idea here that is really beautiful to me. The framing of "personal monopoly" makes it really hard to see that beauty for the distasteful clothing its dressed in.
• Idea fracking - This one sent me over the top to the point where I couldn't hear anything else David said that class. The concept is so-so - explore an idea by going down deep then expanding laterally - and the imagery is miserable so there is really no redeeming quality. Fracking is horrible for the environment, it's extractive by definition, and it's ruined countless communities around the world with water that can literally be set on fire. Moreover, natural gas (what gets fracked) is a non-renewable resource - so are we to extend the metaphor to believe that our ideas are limited, finite, and must be forcibly ripped from the source whatever the cost? That our ideas exist far below the surface and the only way to get there is with heavy machinery and even heavier destruction? Wouldn't it be easier to just say we should rape and pillage our best ideas from the unsuspecting villagers? Let's just raze their fields and salt the earth while we're at it, because heck, why not, it's our personal monopoly after all.
• Shiny dime - Judging by the frequency with which David repeats this term, I get the feeling he's very proud and fond of the visual. To me, it sounds like an idea that is distracted and cheap. I don't want the core of my writing to be "shiny" - I want it to shine. I don't want my most compelling contributions to be quantified in orders of penny magnitude - I want them to be valued by the meaning and impact they have in empowering my readers. I get that David has a personal attachment to the childhood memory he evokes in this concept, but as a participant without that context, it repeatedly distracted and disjointed me until I trained myself to simply ignore and translate those words realtime. But that creates extra effort and friction that makes me consciously and subconsciously start discounting much of the other metaphors and examples provided. As long as I don't spend my shiny dime all in one place ...
• Coining a term - Technically, this isn't unique to David but coupled with all the extractive, control, and money-oriented phrasings it still bugged me. The concept of "coining" has been around for >700 years and refers to the process of stamping out mass-produced coins. Somewhere along the way it transmuted to mean novel phrasing in language, but the visual metaphor is neither attractive nor compelling. More to the point, David's idea of "coin a term" is intended to express domination (own Google), exploitation (free advertising), and manipulation (stick with people) in a way that is wholly uninspiring to me. This feels a lot like "try to be clever so others can see how clever I am" and that's beyond uninspiring to me.

I find it ironic that one of the classes focused extensively on using metaphors but the metaphors implemented throughout the class are lackluster.

I've recently been obsessed with metaphor design because of the way it subtly but powerfully redirects subconscious currents of connection. On recommendation from Ayomide, an alumni mentor, I dove deep into the (heady but super fascinating) book Metaphors we live by. My biggest takeaway is that the metaphors (and metaphor systems) we use implicitly point to our values (and value systems). In effect, we communicate from our experience and our desires so how we speak says a lot about who we are.

The metaphor design of WoP implies a value system focused on ego-centrism, exploitation, extraction, control, and maximizing money. I cannot judge the choices or life experiences of anyone else, but I do know that these values are antithetical to my very being. In being so dissonant, the context became distracting to the point that I could no longer process the content and it sapped my creative energy down to zero. I disengaged from writing and editing altogether, and if my peers weren't so awesome (more on that below) and the course so expensive, I probably would have stopped coming to class as well.

Simply put, my inner wisdom pushed back and said if those are the values of writing online, I'm out.

Of course, those are not the "the values" so much as "some people's values" that are far from my own. Honoring the depth of my aversion has empowered me to excise dissonant ethos from my writing (and being) which is proving infinitely more valuable than finding a shiny dime.

Creativity - 5 / 10

Creativity refers to my creative expression as a writer. Simply put, "Am I a better writer for taking this course?".

At this point, no. In the future? Maybe.

There are a number of curious concepts that I have to think about how I can make my own. Like any new skill, there is a clunky period of repetition before the techniques get integrated into capacity and style. There a few notable directions I find value in exploring and I am embracing and playing with my current clunk.

The biggest insights that I think of every time I sit to write now are:

• Writing for an audience of 2
• Composing music with words
• Storytelling with micro-moments
• Inviting and empowering my reader (ideally, with warmth and safety)

It is definitely unfortunate that WoP actually broke my consistency of creation, but I'm taking that in stride. The experience is overall very net positive, so if this is part of the cost, it's a relatively small price to pay.

One thing I will say is that WoP stretched me to try different stylistic expressions that don't come naturally to me. Baillie, a fellow WoP6 alumnus, wonderful writer, and truly inspiring human, keeps encouraging me to try my hand at satire. Somehow, that feels hilariously terrifying.

Community - 10/10

This is far and away the best part of my experience as a participant. There are so many brilliant, capable, inspiring humans that came to WoP6 (here I'm including mentors, alumni, and participants) that I am humbled to be a part of this group. Content and context aside, WoP is a really potent filter for people that resonate with my worldview and aspirations in life.

I'm noodling hard, and have some nascent ideas, for how to make the most of this part of the program. As these ideas crystallize, I'll write more about what I'd like to do.

---

Taken together, I have absolutely no regrets from taking Write of Passage and I would absolutely do it all over again. I feel the gifts of awareness around what's possible for CBC excellence as well as meaningful insights for my writing and connections to nurture moving forward.

If I could give my pre WoP self any advice, it'd be this: read through David's blog ahead of time so I can digest my dissonance earlier. Maybe it would help me POP less in class.

My fingers are resolute as I punch my finishing keystrokes. My senses expand as I relax back in honoring my self, my value, and my values. I have turned on my translators, and I'm ready to write for me and for you again.

Shall we dance together over the threshold of this Write of Passage?