The Twelve Readers' Responses (and a partridge in a pear tree)

Maybe it’s just me, but I preferred the responses to “The Twelve Readers” by our class over the ones created by the “professionals” – White, Stewart, Anson, and Gere (Richard?). Since I commented upon “The Four Seasons,” that was the selection commentary I was most interested in comparing. Except for Gere, all three responders made comments regarding tone or word choice and White even compares his phrases to a “greeting card.” I am very sensitive to these types of comments (yes, I received similar comments during my undergrad years) and I think that discussions about clichéd phrasing need to be contextualized and thoroughly explained or the writer, like I once felt, may feel that he or she is a cliché, rather than some of the wording he or she used. I remember one time I received a “cliché” comment on a paper and I had no clue that it was a cliché. I thought I had created it. How does one learn what the popular clichés are and how long does it take to learn them so you don’t use them? Also, I know tone is important when writing, but the tone shift in David’s paper was so subtle that I feel it was hardly worth mentioning. Stewart’s 1.5 page commentary manifesto is just plain ridiculous. His points are salient, but it was way too much. I like how after one page of commentary text he then says he won’t “go into excessive detail.” Keep in mind that I know David was described as an overly cocky student, who may suffer from the thought that every word he writes is stellar and there is no doubt he needs some clarification, but I don’t like the tone of some of the responders. It was cheeky and pedantic.