In “Responding- Really Responding- to Other Student’s Writing,” by Richard Straub, the author aimed to exemplify what a great peer revision should be like. At certain times, peer responses can feel like chores, something you have no real interest in but you were assigned to do. Not always do we see the face behind the words, and that almost always leads to a lackluster and lukewarm edit with brief uninspiring comments. However, the author introduces to us an alternative, a method of giving a good critique without sounding like a teacher or coming off as harsh. Rather, Mr. Struab suggests a calmer way of giving our personal opinion to a paper, by relaying back to the writer what we understand from his words, and then offering either praise or advice. Wondering out loud with the writer can make all the difference in sounding like a judge versus a friend. The writer will only truly accept this critique if they feel comfortable with the diction, so if the only words relayed are of criticism and no praise, your advice is likely to be taken halfheartedly, if at all.

Another aspect that the author really touched well upon was concision. We are always told “short and sweet.” However, when it comes to giving personal understanding, explanation and detail are vital. How is the writer supposed to know what made you think to suggest the writing “needs better structure?” Short and sweet must be sacrificed for length and detail in these responses, as understanding is key to getting your point across.

Lastly, a critical device the author touches on is being able to identify revisions based on the stage of the draft. For example, when the writer needs to have more focus on the direction of the paper in his rough draft, do not start crossing t’s and dotting i’s. Understanding when to make certain suggestions along the timeline of a draft is imperative to gaining the writer’s trust as a peer. Just like diction is important to make sure your advice is even read, so to placement.

I really have not looked at peer response this way before, and Mr. Straub introduces great points to us and revisionists to absorb before sentencing a paper to a boring, oblique response.