Qualification to critique
Mar. 26th, 2006 12:59 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
branchandrootDid you know that the current mania for peer-review, in writing classes, started with a study of medical schools? (src: lecture, Kay Halasek, Ohio State University)
Someone looked around and realized that, if medical students worked in groups, they were more likely to make the correct diagnosis. There was an article in an educational journal, trumpeting this "discovery" of the benefits of group work.
Why anyone ever thought this would apply well to basic writing courses, I have no idea.
One part does translate well. Students trying to diagnose are working from various descriptions of "this is what this something-wrong looks like". Put them all together, and, yes, a correct identification of the something-wrong is more likely. Similarly, a group of writing students can usually pick out most of the mechanical something-wrongs in a piece of writing, if they have been told how wrongs look before-hand.
That leaves out two more important parts, though, the "this is something-right" and the "this is how to fix the something-wrong". It also leaves out all the most important something-wrongs, like how to spot a missing thesis.
Most students, unfortunately, simply don't have the experience to spot something-right, yet, or, in fact, to find any something-wrong that isn't a simple mechanical mistake. Simple mistakes, after all, are the part that's easy to describe and put your finger on, while complex mistakes are far harder to do either with, and "good writing" is truly the Holy Grail... right down to the bit about disappearing every time you think you've found it. Emphasis on peer-review is a classic case of the blind leading the blind, and it also reduces the available learning time that could be used to teach identification of things right and wrong.
Peer review, among experienced writers, has some utility. In a beginning writing course, it's worse than useless.
And, you know, it's the same with creative writing. Other students can, sometimes, give emotive reactions that the writer can, sometimes, use to gauge whether she succeeded in her story-goal or not. But as far as saying why something was or wasn't effective... very, very few people at any level of experience have the ability and inclination to observe and parse, not only the story, but their reactions to it like that.
This is why a good writing circle is a thing more precious than diamonds, and a whole lot rarer.
This is why the notion, which has taken root in fandom and spread like kudzu, that the only good/acceptable feedback to leave on a story is concrit makes me laugh. Because it's either laugh or scream, and I'd rather not alarm my cats. There are all sorts of feedback that the vast majority of fandom is well qualified to give. Constructive criticism is not, however, one of those sorts. (Never, ever believe that a meritocracy is egalitarian. I suspect even perfect parity of opportunity would not make it egalitarian, and perfect parity would require total social control like Huxley never dreamed of.)
This is why any sympathy I may once have had for fandom's badfic hunters, who insist that everyone should want to become a better writer, is fast waning--you see, I suspect this is their fault.
So I'll keep on responding "I really liked this" to stories I like, and save the teaching for the classroom, where my students have some tiny modicum of assurance that I know what the hell I'm talking about, and I don't insult their intelligence by expecting them to take it on faith.
Or by expecting them to settle for being "taught" by their equally-inexperienced peers.
.
Someone looked around and realized that, if medical students worked in groups, they were more likely to make the correct diagnosis. There was an article in an educational journal, trumpeting this "discovery" of the benefits of group work.
Why anyone ever thought this would apply well to basic writing courses, I have no idea.
One part does translate well. Students trying to diagnose are working from various descriptions of "this is what this something-wrong looks like". Put them all together, and, yes, a correct identification of the something-wrong is more likely. Similarly, a group of writing students can usually pick out most of the mechanical something-wrongs in a piece of writing, if they have been told how wrongs look before-hand.
That leaves out two more important parts, though, the "this is something-right" and the "this is how to fix the something-wrong". It also leaves out all the most important something-wrongs, like how to spot a missing thesis.
Most students, unfortunately, simply don't have the experience to spot something-right, yet, or, in fact, to find any something-wrong that isn't a simple mechanical mistake. Simple mistakes, after all, are the part that's easy to describe and put your finger on, while complex mistakes are far harder to do either with, and "good writing" is truly the Holy Grail... right down to the bit about disappearing every time you think you've found it. Emphasis on peer-review is a classic case of the blind leading the blind, and it also reduces the available learning time that could be used to teach identification of things right and wrong.
Peer review, among experienced writers, has some utility. In a beginning writing course, it's worse than useless.
And, you know, it's the same with creative writing. Other students can, sometimes, give emotive reactions that the writer can, sometimes, use to gauge whether she succeeded in her story-goal or not. But as far as saying why something was or wasn't effective... very, very few people at any level of experience have the ability and inclination to observe and parse, not only the story, but their reactions to it like that.
This is why a good writing circle is a thing more precious than diamonds, and a whole lot rarer.
This is why the notion, which has taken root in fandom and spread like kudzu, that the only good/acceptable feedback to leave on a story is concrit makes me laugh. Because it's either laugh or scream, and I'd rather not alarm my cats. There are all sorts of feedback that the vast majority of fandom is well qualified to give. Constructive criticism is not, however, one of those sorts. (Never, ever believe that a meritocracy is egalitarian. I suspect even perfect parity of opportunity would not make it egalitarian, and perfect parity would require total social control like Huxley never dreamed of.)
This is why any sympathy I may once have had for fandom's badfic hunters, who insist that everyone should want to become a better writer, is fast waning--you see, I suspect this is their fault.
So I'll keep on responding "I really liked this" to stories I like, and save the teaching for the classroom, where my students have some tiny modicum of assurance that I know what the hell I'm talking about, and I don't insult their intelligence by expecting them to take it on faith.
Or by expecting them to settle for being "taught" by their equally-inexperienced peers.
.
