Intrigues of the Warring Readers

I am interested in the similarities and differences that exist in the responses to the essays we have been working on, both the class discussions and the actual responses from Twelve Readers Reading. What is most striking to me (and probably most informative, as well) is that I had more differences of opinion on "The Four Seasons" than on "The Right to Pray." In the first place, that tells me I'm pretty good at recognizing how to respond to what, amongst my friends, I would term "crappy writing." That, to me, is a pretty good accomplishment, and something to be glad I don't have to worry so much about learning that skill.

What interests me about my response to "The Four Seasons" is that my initial response, while not inaccurate, neglected some major flaws in the writing. I attribute this to the fact that the essay was written in such a way as to show a proficiency in word choice and organization that throws off the initial warning senses that are almost instantaneously present when I read "crappy writing." For instance, it was only after reading the essay a few times that I realized the author was attempting to change the assigned essay from descriptive discourse to a strange hybrid of descriptive and persuasive essays.

I think what I gain from this is that, as a reader and as a potential future professor, I need to be far more scrupulous with the essays of those students who are showing better promise than their classmates. This is not to say that I need to show any favoritism--quite the opposite. What it really says is that the students who are producing "crappy writing" have much larger, more apparent issues to work on than the others. Those who are doing better need to learn to pay attention to more of the smaller details. Translation: I need to make sure my comments are going to help all writers, not just the "crappy" ones.