Essay review

Please review these two drafts. The workshop has at least two purposes. First, it provides a way for us to receive feedback on our papers at an intermediate stage in their development. Because it is often so difficult to assess our own writing—particularly something we’ve just written—having several pairs of extra eyes to look over our writing can be an invaluable resource. Second, it provides a way in which we, as writers and readers, can practice and refine our critical skills. At first, it is often easier to diagnose what is wrong with someone else’s writing, and over time, doing so ultimately helps us to look critically at our own writing. Personality has no place in the workshop. We are here to talk about writing, not about people or their characters. This means several things. When commenting one someone’s paper, we need to make clear that we are talking a bout a disembodied piece of writing, a bunch of ink on a page, and not the person who wrote it. We must also recognize that when people make a comment about our paper, they are not making a comment about us. You are not what you have written, nor is writing, good or bad, an indication of intelligence. Our goal is always to make our writing reflect and communicate our intelligence, and this is a process that takes work Effective comments have several characteristics: They are critical. This means that they seek to evaluate how or why something happens. Comments like “this is good” or “this is awful” are essentially useless, as they do nothing but stroke or squash the author’s ego. Keep in mind that your job as a reader is to help the author understand how his or her paper is working and not working. They are prescriptive. This means that each comment should also be a suggestion. Diagnosis or description is only part of the process: you should offer constructive suggestions for remedying the problems your reading identifies. They are specific. The more detail you can provide the author about (a) why you have the specific reactions you have, and (b) what they can do to improve the paper, the more you will be helping him/her improve the paper. Certain things are excluded from workshop discussions: -Grammar & spelling: we have a very limited amount of time to deal with each paper, and must focus our attention on larger, global writing concerns (argument, evidence, organization, etc.) -Disrespectful or unkind comments -Discussion of what you did this weekend, who you’re dating, last night’s basketball game, etc.: if you’re supposed to be discussing someone’s paper, but are instead gossiping, you are cheating that person out of the attention he or she is due. To help make the workshop work, I’m giving you a set of specific concerns to focus on when you read your peers’ work. In preparation for the workshop, do the following: (1) Read the paper once without commenting (2) Read the paper a second (and third) time, making notes as you go along (3) Organize your notes so that you can communicate your concerns clearly to the author during workshop. (4) Once you have a good sense of the paper, write the author a well-organized letter of at least one single-spaced page in which you explain how you think the author should prioritize his or her time in revising the paper. Your letter should provide detailed criticism and specific advice, and not simply a list of brief answers to the questions below. You will submit one copy of the letters to the Canvas, and will bring one copy to class. Note that in order to receive any credit for the workshop, you must (a) be present and have copies of your draft prepared on the day we distribute drafts; (b) submit your letters to the Canvas on time; (c) be on time for the day of and fully participate in the in-class workshop. Here is a list of concerns you might consider: IDEAS What seems to be the paper’s controlling idea—what, specifically, does it want you to think about its subject? Does the essay have a main point? Put it in your own words, and write it on the back of the essay. How easily can you, as a reader, ascertain this point? As you read, note points in the essay that don’t relate to the controlling idea. Point out which ideas the paper develops best. Also indicate which ideas need further development, and offer suggestions for developing them. Mark passages you don’t understand. What, if anything, did you learn from this essay? What ideas, passages, observations, etc. in the paper interest you most? Should the paper be about one of these, as opposed to its current topic? What would that look like? ORGANIZATION As you read, note in the margin what the controlling idea for each paragraph is. When you’ve done this for each paragraph, look at the overall structure of the essay (the controlling idea + the supporting ideas). Do the ideas seem to flow in a logical order? Would the paper benefit by rearranging the order of its paragraphs? If a paragraph addresses more than one idea, offer suggestions for editing it (cutting material, dividing it up, etc.) Does the paper’s organization complement and enhance the specific idea it is developing, or does it seem to follow a more arbitrary course (the list of instructions the assignment gives for the tour, for example?) DEVELOPMENT For each point the paper makes, consider how well it executes the three steps of analysis: stating a claim, presenting evidence, and explaining the connection between the two. Make a note of passages that require more explanation. The essay has 2 purposes: to explain something, and to convey enthusiasm for that thing. Which one of these dominates? Is one of these more interesting to you as a reader? GENERAL Pick out and mark with a check the essay's two or three strongest points, then mark with an X its weakest points. Explain what makes them so. Circle the paper’s best sentence, from the point of view of style, not content. Explain why you like this sentence.