You should post critique letters for two peers: the draft posted just before and just after yours (in the Module 5 first draft submission topic). Make sure you are viewing these sorted by date, or you may end up reviewing the wrong stories!
Note: If you were the first person to submit: review the draft posted just after yours and also the last draft posted in the topic. If you were the last person to submit: review the draft just before yours and the first draft posted in the topic.
Formatting instructions:
Title each post “Peer critique letter for [student’s name].”
Please do not comment or respond in any way to feedback that you receive here, as per The Booth workshop method described in the modules.
Remember, I’m looking for suggestions focused on specificity and macro-revision (i.e., the major elements of narrative, such as narrative arc and character development, not just sentence-level suggestions). A one-paragraph critique letter is rarely useful; please go into depth by using examples and offering the type of helpful letter you’d like to receive about your own work.
If you did not submit a first draft, you can still earn full credit in this workshop by posting peer critiques for any two student drafts.
- Thanks for offering each other thoughtful critique letters that will be helpful as we head into revision!
Following the workshop protocol detailed in this module, write personal letters to the authors in your peer workshop group. The letter should be 250–500 words (approximately one page).
1. It’s important that you start your letter with what’s working well in the story. In the first paragraph, quote a specific moment that has stayed with you, and explain why, in terms of craft. Giving specific praise is important because authors need to discover their strengths, so that they can nurture those aspects of their writing.
2. Next, give the author your brief synopsis of the story. Remember that a story should have a beginning, middle, and end. If there is something missing (like a clear conflict), then indicate the problem.
3. In the next few paragraphs, talk about how the author could improve the story. Point out places where you struggled with the story or where you saw revision opportunities. Use the following list of questions to help you figure out what you want to say in each of your peer letters:
Does the author start the story in medias res? A story depends on tension, which is usually the product of conflict. Is the conflict compelling? Are the stakes high? If there is no conflict, where do you suggest the author create conflict or increase the stakes for the protagonist?
Who is the story about? Who is the protagonist and who are the other characters? What does each character want?
How is the protagonist different at the end of the story from the beginning? What has changed for them? Remember, a narrative chronicles change.
Does the tension lead to a crisis or turning point and resolution? If not, what are some possibilities?
Does the story attempt to cover too much ground? How could the author focus the story and narrow the scope?
Is the author using sensory details and active verbs? Give an example of your favorite description. Give a suggestion of something you would like “shown, not told.”
You don’t need to answer every one of these questions. Instead, choose a few and go into detail.
- 4. Finally, end your letter with questions for the author. The questions should provoke the author as they begin to revise. Don’t ask a question out of curiosity, such as “Where did you come up with this idea?” because that won’t help the author. Think of useful questions that let the author know what you found confusing or what you’d like to see developed.
0 comments