Journal #3

We tend to have such negative feelings toward peer review because of either the vulnerability the situation lends itself to and the lacking qualification of our revisers. With writing, there is no hiding from your opinion, which tends to be a daunting task. The writer is responsible for vocalizing their opinions and analysis in a way that allows them to enter into a conversation whether they are ready for the backlash of criticism or not. I agree with the general consensus that I disregard peer revisions from time to time because I do not think their feedback is credible. However, with the tactics we discussed in class about approaching revisions from the writer’s perspective as looking at quantitive data rather than qualitative, peer reviewing no longer seems pointless or burdensome. A few benefits to this style of review is the writer gains insight on the reader’s process of going through the piece, rather than a definitive “this is baloney” or “congrats on writing at an adequate level” jurisdiction. Hopefully this can assist me in clarifying the journey of my writing; how is a connecting with b and how can I clarify this to the best of my ability? As for future peer reviews, I am going to keep in mind using the “subjective” statements to help the writer through an outside perspective, and also to let their writing be their writing, and not a knock off version of my own stylistic choices.