Semi-Daily Scribbles

This week's peer assessments may have a bit of prickliness attached, but they are certainly not a thorn in my side. On the contrary, the comments I've received on the Hawthorne essay are some of the more interesting and helpful to cross my computer screen. Reading through the comments, it appears as though I understand the mechanics of writing, but my message isn't connecting with the audience.

Once an essay has been submitted, there is the element of "How's this gonna play in Poughkeepsie?" that I find intriguing. I'm a believer in listening to different perspectives and considering all constructive feedback. I even take the comments from week to week and see if there's anything I may apply to the novel I'm working on. It's gratifying to have people read my writing. If something doesn't ring true for a reader in 320 words, I take stock of the shortcomings and seek to improve my ability to communicate. One thing is for certain. I always have something to say. The goal is to have my words sound right to as many sets of ears as possible.

Here's how my peers reviewed my Unit 5 assignment ~

FORM

student1 → Good grammar, verb tenses. The essay is easy to read and understand.

student2 → Great language use.

student3 → Intro seems a bit disjointed; lots of interesting thoughts, but need a bit more coherence. Otherwise, follows nicely intellectually, and conclusion is a lovely finish.

student4 → You can write, good style and fluid. I've nothing to pick on at all – 2 points from me. For 3 points, I'd be looking for a more creative delivery as the grading guide below suggests: "writes in ways that are particularly vivid or uses particularly incisive key terms to focus the argument or in some other way is outstanding in usage or structure"

student5 → The form is too complicated and it actually looks like it has been made complicated ON PURPOSE. It doesn't help to percept the content at all.

Score from your peers: 2

CONTENT

student1 → Just excellent.

student3 → If Owen is a transcendentalist, I think it's worth pursuing why then he finds inspiration in the mechanical as opposed to another artistic medium–painting, writing, etc.? We often posit the mechanical (read artificial) in direct contrast with the natural, but here they're inexorably intertwined. And, in the mechanical butterfly standing as the fairer specimen, it's almost as if human has triumphed over nature, rather than being one with it. Perhaps this is why the butterfly needed to be destroyed? For though it's the fairer specimen, it's not the 'truer' one? Just thoughts.

student4 → Excellent content, especially for such a short essay. I would have left out the Emerson paragraph though, and given more meat to your main thesis. You haven't tied it in with your main thesis and it's almost an entire thesis in itself. 2 points from me. I think with a little more content, would have been a 3.

student5 → Possibly, because of puzzling form, but I could not catch the main idea of the essay.

Score from your peers: 2