UWC2101D: Selves and Cities

Peer Reviews

Having a draft discussed in class can be a high point in the course. You get to have ten or so devoted readers examine your work and provide a thoughtful, typewritten commentary. Different readers will emphasise different things in their responses, but patterns of reader-response will generally emerge, and you will eventually get a good idea of how your writing is affecting most readers.

Read the following texts:

The essays that have been distributed by their authors to all class members (including me) at least 36 hours before class. (It is important for writers to observe this deadline in order to give readers time to reflect and respond.)

Preparation:

Print the essays, read them carefully, and bring them to class. Your aim is to read each draft with respect and understanding. When you comment on a colleague's work, your emphasis should be on the service you can offer as a provider of an alternative viewpoint. Remember that your personal viewpoint is neither superior nor privileged. The writer may or may not listen to your opinion. The writer has the freedom to use your input as he or she sees fit.

Write a thoughtful, one-page, single-spaced letter (signed by you and addressed to each peer by name), in which you discuss the following things:

• In your own words, and as clearly as possible, say what you think the main argumentative thrust of the paper is.

• Does the paper ever swerve from its main argument or thesis, or is the point of the paper ever obscure to you?

• Where in the paper do you find the single clearest statement of the main idea?

• Testify to what the paper does to you as a reader. Where does it engage your interest, or lose your interest, and why?

• What are the best instances of the writer's relying on very exact evidence to make a refreshing interpretation? Does the writer ever interpret without relying on evidence? Is the evidence ever insufficient for the interpretation that the writer wishes to make? Do the interpretations of evidence seem surprising or new to you?

• Does the paper seem to begin with a kind of question or mystery, or something counter-intiutive that an active-minded reader would want to look into?

• Is there a feeling in the paper of questing toward a solution to this mystery or dilemma?

• Does the draft carry us toward a provisional answer to the question it poses at the outset? Is this provisional answer based on the evidence of the texts?

• Do you find that the argument of the paper favors certain key-words or anchor words? What are they?

• Does the paper generate a healthy constellation of keyterms so that the reader can easily sense the central meaning or idea of the paper? Can you list the constellation of keyterms?

• Does the paper flow? Where does it flow well and not so well? Locate the best paragraph-to-paragraph transition and say why it is good.

• Does the paper have just one argument all the way through, or does the writer use the evidence to lend complexity to the basic argument? (In other words, is the writer able to use evidence to counterargue the basic argument, thereby enabling the argument to evolve from its basic form? Locate the best instances of this.)

• Is the writing clear to read? Indicate places in the text where you can discuss the clarity of the writing.

• Can you find any additional evidence in the source texts that would help the writer to argue or counterargue his or her main idea? Any specific instances, images, passages, or exchanges of dialogue?

• What was it about the paper that motivated you best to keep reading it? Did anything inhibit your motivation?

• Do you have questions about what anything in the paper means?

You do not have to answer every single question above in a slavish manner, but do select the major issues that seem to apply to each draft, and address them. Try not to wait until the last minute to do the assignment. Bring two copies of each letter to class: one for each peer, and one for me. I look at your letters to see if you are understanding our criteria for the writing of good essays.