This was actually my main problem with the previous reading concerning essay-writing tips. The piece lead off with "listen to your thesis to determine the direction of your essay," and to me this presupposed a satisfactory and finalized version of the thesis. After all these readings this quarter, I definitely subscribe to the idea that the introduction should be the last part of the essay to be written.

The biggest issue with this conception of revision (or as the student called it, "reviewing") is that it limits the writer to changing a text only locally. A proper revision effort should consider the context each phrase and sentence exists in and seek to rework on a larger scale.

This sequence of questions does a good job of breaking down the issues that the writer has revealed with the linear model of writing and establishing what research/results she is about to go through.

inverted pyramid-esque

This is a very interesting idea. I'm acquainted with the idea of active voice being better than passive voice (especially in personal statements - yay grad school apps -_-), but I never thought of how this technique could also be important in analytical papers. It makes sense that one should carefully choose the subject to reiterate to the reader what he should be focusing on.

I appreciate the inclusion of this point. We should never forget that writing is a constant process, and our arguments can evolve during the process!

I think a lot of people have a lot of trouble with this concept, having been burdened with the "three paragraph" rule for most of the time they've been writing. Looking back at my old writing, I definitely feel like my paragraphs can be bloated.

This section in general reminds me of brainstorming a mind map as the textbook discussed. I feel rather unsure of the process detailed so far though. It feels like something I would to organize information, identify lines of inquiry, and produce a thesis - not after I have constructed my thesis.

This introduction of the first-person actually startled me and momentarily brought the ethos of the article in question purely because it's not obvious who the author is. Looking at the bottom, I can guess it's coming from a Professor or some person in a teaching position at Dartmouth, but I'm not sure the "I" here is necessary.

This reminds me of a comment made in the previous piece we read, about the rules of writing. The most effective writers regularly took opportunities to test their writing by getting reactions from readers and then improving their writing incrementally. I think this ties into this piece as well; the point of peer reviewing is not to "grade like the teacher," but to provide an honest reaction to the piece you're reading, engage with it, and provide commentary that helps the writer grow.

At this point, I feel inclined to mention that I really enjoy the organization of this article. I like how it's broken up into many small pieces and actually headed by all of the questions a peer-reviewer may have.

It creates an encyclopedic feel, and also makes the information very digestible.

Great mindset to have!

These are good examples because they match with earlier advice given in this article: they are helpful without hijacking the writer's piece.

there is definitely a balance between the "ever supportive friend" and the "cruise missile"

Pathos! Especially effective considering most readers (who are or have been students) have experienced at some point in high school or college.

I've never used this, but it takes sense. Even a peer review should have a summary for the key points!

I think this is the biggest point where most students cut corners, and where most peer reviews fail. It's hard to offer actually useful advice as-you-read without the context of what the rest of the paper looks like.

This is a good rhetorical trick. I guess the point of this section is: if you're telling the author what to do, you've gone too far.

I've definitely had this problem before. I find it difficult to offer constructive advice without infiltrating my peer's work with my own voice and vision, which isn't what the review process is really about.

From the start, Straub does a great job of "keeping it real," mostly through his conversationalist tone and immediate responses to the reader's possible rebuttals to his points (e.g. "no one has time to give a peer review lots of effort" - every student ever). Because of this, the reader is more willing and interested to hear out Straub's full argument.

key note: not an imperative

I remember at one point I used this rule. Then, I had a teacher who insisted that use of transitions made a paper seem juvenile. Much like Sylvia, I had a lot of trouble balancing out these clashing rules

big idea. I feel like my style of analysis in humanities is vaguely similar to Martha's, and I've never thought of an issue like this.

of course, one "thinking style" doesn't work in all generality!

college is mostly learning how to think in a fashion conducive to your chosen field of study, so this int surprising

this is an interesting thought. Ideation isn't exclusive to the "brainstorm" part of the writing process! It can happen during writing if we ignore grammar for a bit!

I think this is an important point. The rule of "a good essay always grabs a reader's attention" isn't actionable. Of course, one would like to interest the reader. But the beginning of a paper exists in symbiosis with the body and the conclusion, and it doesn't make sense to try to write the intro without knowing what's following it!

Set seems like a condition possibly instantiated by over-reliance on certain heuristics (?)

an issue is, of course, that sometimes we don't even use heuristics. Instead we fall back on instincts, which if not finely-tuned via experience can be a mistake

as a math major, I wish this section were true

earlier in the article, the author mentions that some of the students were turned away from the composing process specifically because of issues in this period. They may have eventually finished the process, but not on time so they never achieved closure. From a problem-solving perspective, this explains why it was so easy for them to build up negative emotions toward writing for no fault of their own. They weren't being allowed to complete the cycle.

this is really intriguing. I've associatde creativity with problem-solving, and creativity with writing, but never problem-solving with writing!

In my opinion, non-scientific analysis is a lot more important than people admit. We need something to guide our experiments, and science isn't the only method of knowing :)

Over my three-and-counting years of college I've had to accept that Write's Block is unavoidable. You can work to overcome it, but you can't hope to avoid it forever. The best advice a professor ever gave me (and this was in a poetry class) was to not think of it as a "block."He would tell the class that "you're just simmering. You'll get there."I think that the importance of relieving myself of the demands of immediacy is the most important lesson I've learned at UCSB.

The author does a really good job of making the reader feel the anguish of the writing process up until this point. It contrasts really well with the freedom inherent in shitty first drafts.

This is an important point. Compared to how writing or creative processes are portrayed in popular media, where there's a "eureka" moment where the writing flows, the author seems to take the reverse position - the eureka follows only after a draft is finished.

This is really fun and evocative imagery! It also bequeaths physical aspect to the writing process. Creativity comes from the body as well as the mind.

The author tries to emphasize her message by relating the obstacles the reader may be facing with the struggles that plague professionals. It makes the advice a lot more grounded in reality.

I think a common misconception people have is that happy people are able to work productively and be successful. In reality, it's people to have a good process whether that be routines or good practices that are able to be successful and happy. It's natural for us to compare ourselves to those around us, but it's important for one to focus on oneself and just find what works.

In the morning, almost immediately after I wake up, I like to journal anything and everything I can think of to declutter my mind from last night and prepare myself for the day. I think this is similar to the effect Lamott desires when she endorses writing shitty first drafts to achieve clarity later in the process.