On Constructive Criticism and Feedback

As writers, we are all familiar with the innate vulnerability that writing involves. As such, when giving feedback it can be challenging because we acknowledge that the author has made himself vulnerable by writing, and by sharing that writing. Often, people withhold genuine feedback either to preserve the author's feelings, or because they don't know how to give constructive criticism. I've learned this through countless peer-reviews both in high school and college--the feedback many give is restrained, half-baked, and not very thought out. Bland and generic comments are more than abundant in peer-review, with statements like "This was a good essay," or "I liked it because (rephrase thesis)" being all too common because they're easy to say, and are safe comments to make. Yet because of this, they do not promote constructive discourse. 

That is why for me, reading Elbow and Belanoff was refreshing and intriguing. I like how they essentially streamline the feedback process, offering different ways to ask for and give constructive criticism. I recognize that I follow some of these feedback models Elbow and Belanoff suggest, in particular the "Movie of the Mind" approach. I find this one to be especially useful as a Writing Center tutor because as a peer to the author, I can express how the piece makes me think and feel as someone on the same playing field as them. I do not come from a position of authority, thereby it is easier to say how I feel and react to a piece. However, I do not only use this approach; I find that I use almost all of these approaches, from summary and sayback to criterion-based feedback. For me, it largely depends on the mood (or voice) of the piece, the context, the author's ability, or what stage of the writing process the author is in. One type of feedback I had not considered or thought of before, however, is the metaphor-based feedback. A metaphor may be a useful tool for expressing how I feel about a given piece as it permits me to share my thoughts in a more creative way.

This streamlined list aside, however, I feel that some of the more important things to take away from this reading, I think, are the two paradoxes that the authors highlight in the beginning: the paradox that both the writer and reader are right, and that the writer must be in charge, yet sit back and do nothing. The writer will always be right because her writing is genuine mental labor; a heartfelt rendition of her thoughts. Yet the reader will always be right because his rendition of the text is personal and valid. If the writer is able to "sit back and do nothing," she encourages room for discourse, and with the two sharing their collective relationship with the text, a more salient meaning can be obtained in following edits and revisions. With these paradoxes understood from the get-go, it will make constructive criticism easier for all parties. From there, feedback will be more genuine, less censored, and more constructive. Through practice, giving feedback with these guidelines will become second nature, and the type of feedback system utilized will be chosen through the genre of the text, the nature of the subject matter, and the author-critic relationship.