Writing is a difficult lonely endeavor, and every writer is a perpetual beginner. Therefore, don’t be ungenerous with another person’s attempts. Such an act will only reflect on you.
The Peer Response is an attempt to describe the qualities of your peer’s essay specifically, to say more than, “I like this,” or “I think this is just beautiful,” which is no good, empty, unless you can say why. But the Peer Response is fundamentally different in that you are also charged with trying to help the author improve the piece. Because of this, you must always remember to be conscientious and constructive. Take a risk, say something that will help the author make their piece better, but say it in a way that it can be received well. And remember, this is a work in progress. As you're reading, always keep in mind what the essay might still become, not just what it already is. Think about the next draft, and the draft after that.
Choose from any of the prompts below which particularly compel you as they relate to your peer's draft. You can write your entire response on one prompt. You can write a response to three prompts or nine or six, or four! Be thoughtful. Look closely and avoid vague generalizations. Always remember: DO NO HARM. If you can't say what you need to say without being cutting, don't say it. Your task is to have the author read your response, feel encouraged by it, but also have a concrete sense of what they might do next.
The following can't be said enough: Becoming a good editor of other people's work will help you become a good editor of your own work. You can see the flaws in other people's work far more quickly and clearly than you can in your own work--even when those flaws are exactly the same. Watching carefully how your peers' tackle their craft problems, and handle the advice they receive, will help you solve your own craft problems. So remember always: you're not just helping your peer write a better piece with each one of these peer reviews, you're helping yourself, your own draft, and future drafts as well. It's cumulative.
The Peer Response Buffet
What did you like about the piece? A perfect image, the way a mood is established, a well-drawn character, dialogue that flowed smoothly or credibly, the structure of the essay, the development of a theme or idea This is not empty flattery, but an attempt to link these qualities that are compelling to the deeper intent of the work.
What is the essay about? What are its large concerns? (Two or three sentences)
Who is the essay's limited persona? Is the persona limited enough?
Why is the story being told?
Do you have all the basic orienting facts? If not, what's missing?
How is the essay an exploration of change? How might this change be made more clear?
What does the narrator want? What's in the way? Are the obstacles formidable enough?
What questions do you have that the essay does not yet answer? What suggestions can you make that would move this story closer to what it really wants to be about? What craft areas might be developed that would make the draft stronger and more compelling? (A characterization more complexly drawn; a scene written that's only suggested; a scene expanded; the setting better described; an object or metaphor put to further use.)
Notice how, in this response, you're not being asked whether you "liked" the piece as a whole. You're not in the business of judging this as a whole, yet. It's not done. For the most part, you're being asked to describe the formal qualities of the draft. You're not being asked to "evaluate": you're not being asked to say whether the essay is good or bad. Those questions aren't appropriate questions to ask until the piece is finished. You're not being asked to decide whether you would ever want to hand this draft to someone else to read. You're being asked to describe it as a system. Hopefully, what this does for you, as a peer reviewer, is take the pressure off. You're not being asked to judge someone, or judge anything. You're being asked to describe. If you're not sure what the essay's focus is, then your job is to say you're not sure, or to make a guess. Your hesitance is important for the author to hear. If the obstacles aren't formidable enough yet, or the essay doesn't complicate itself (lacks rising action), your job is to say so. Again, you're describing the draft, not the author. We all want to make our pieces better, and our first task is just to respond to what's right there, on the page. Because all too often, the author has a lot more in their head than is on the page, and they think they've communicated something that they haven't yet, and they think the story means one thing, and the reader thinks it means something else.
The Peer Response should be 1-2 pages double spaced, typed. Make sure to indicate which questions you are answering by including the number above, along with your response to it.
Peer responses will be graded in sets of xxxx. Your first three peer responses will not be graded; instead, I will write you a note about how well I think you're doing and what grade you would have received had these been graded.
Make sure to be bring TWO COPIES of your peer response. One to give to me and one to give to the author.
Margin notes are the place where you say to the author: Nice image, or great dialogue, or good description, or Funny, or great transition, good characterization. When I like something in a draft, I usually put a checkmark by it. In your margin notes, you can heap on the praise and good will and fellowship. So read the draft with a pen in your hand, making margin notes along the way. Should you point out spelling errors, typos, individual sentences which confused you? Sure, that would help the author clean up their draft, but the real work you have before you is in the answers to the "big picture" questions up above.
Good Luck!