Different Ways of Responding to Writing

From Peter Elbow and Pat Belanoff, Sharing and Responding, Random House

Two Paradoxes of Responding

When we talk about collaboration between peers, whether that’s in peer review or in a writing center session, we have some expectations, whether implicit or explicit, for how participants should behave. These expectations can create tension, confusion, or even frustration, especially if we try to push back against them. It’s important that we learn to work with these paradoxes rather than against them. In order to do that, we must avoid a “one size fits all” method of responding to each other’s writing.

First Paradox: the reader is always right; the writer is always right.

The reader gets to decide what’s true about their reaction: about what they have seen or what happened to them, about what they think or how they feel. It makes no sense to quarrel with the reader about what’s happening to them (though you can ask the reader to explain more fully what they are saying).

But the writer gets to decide what to do about the feedback they get: what changes to make, if any. They don’t have to follow the reader’s advice. They should listen openly–swallow it all. They can do that better if they realize that they get to take their time and make up their own mind–perhaps making no changes in their writing at all.

Second Paradox: the writer must be in charge; the writer must sit back quietly too.

The writer must be in control. It’s their writing. They should not be passive or helpless. They need to decide what kind of feedback (if any) they need for this particular piece of writing. Is their main goal to improve this piece of writing? Or perhaps they don’t really care about working more on this piece–their main goal is to work on their writing in general. Or perhaps they don’t want to work on anything, but instead just enjoy sharing this piece and hearing what others have to say. They need to make decisions about what kind of feedback can help them and not let the reader make those decisions.

Types of Responses

From Peter Elbow and Patricia Belanoff, A Community of Writers: A Workshop Course in Writing, McGraw Hill

Here is an overview of different and valuable ways of responding to writing, and a few thoughts about when each kind is valuable. Try to incorporate some of them into your sessions. Always be explicit in discussing with the writer what type of response would be most helpful. Never assume.

Sharing; no response

The writer reads the piece aloud to listeners to simply listen and enjoy. Simple sharing is also a way for a writer to listen better to their own responses to their own piece, without having to think about how others respond. They can learn an enormous amount from hearing themselves read their own words–or from reading them over when they know that someone else is also reading them.

No response is valuable in many situations: when they don’t have much time, at very early stages when they just want to try something out or feel very tentative, or when they are completely finished and don’t plan to make any changes at all–as a form of simple communication or celebration. Sharing gives a writer a no pressure setting for getting comfortable reading their own words out loud and listening to the writing of others.

This method can provoke some anxiety from tutors, who think they’re wasting the writer’s time or not doing enough by just listening. Ultimately, the writer may just be looking for encouragement or validation.

Pointing and center of gravity

• Pointing: which words or phrases or passages somehow strike you? stick in your mind? get through?
• Center of gravity: which sections somehow seem important or resonant or generative?

You are not necessarily looking for the main points, but rather for sections or passages that seem to resonate or linger in your mind or be sources of energy to continue improving the project.

These quick, interesting forms of response are good for early drafts and writers who are struggling or who lack confidence. It helps a writer establish a sense of contact with readers. A center of gravity response is particularly interesting for showing a rich and interesting part of a writer’s project that they might have neglected, but which might be worth exploring and developing. Center of gravity can also help a writer see their piece in a different light and suggest ways to make major revisions.

Summary and sayback

• Summary: summarize what you have heard. Tell the writer what you hear as the main and almost-main things.
• Sayback: summarize what you have heard in a somewhat questioning or tentative way as an invitation for the writer to reply with their own restatement of what you’ve said.

These are both useful at any stage in the writing process in order to see whether readers “got” the points the writer is trying to give. But sayback is particularly useful at early stages when the writer hasn’t yet been able to find what they really want to say. When readers say back to writer what they hear–and invite the writer to reply–it often leads the writer to find exactly the words or thoughts or emphasis the writer was looking for.

What was almost said?

This kind of response is particularly useful when the writer needs to develop or enrich their piece, when you sense there is more here but you haven’t been able to find it yet. It gives the writer concrete substantive help because you can give them ideas to add to theirs. This is not a bad thing, as expressing your interpretation and where you think the piece is going can help spur the writer into generating more idea. What the writer implies but doesn’t say in the writing is often very loud to you, but unheard by the writer.

Reply

Simply explain what your thoughts are on the writer’s topic after you’ve heard what the writer has to say. This kind of response is useful at any point, but especially at early stages when the writer hasn’t worked out their thinking yet. This can even work in brainstorming. This is actually the most natural and common response in any human discourse. You can have a small discussion about the topic, and the writer can choose what to move forward with.

Voice

You can comment on the following:

• How much voice do you hear in the writing?
• What kind of voice(s) do you hear in the writing? Timid, confident, sarcastic, pleading?
• Is the language alive and human, or is it dead, uninteresting?
• What kind of person does the writing sound like? What side(s) of the writer come through?
• Do you trust the voice or person you hear in the writing?

This kind of feedback can be useful at any stage. When people describe the voice they hear in writing, they often get right to the heart of the subtle but important matters of language and approach. You don’t have to talk in technical terms (passive vs active verbs, nominalized phrases, etc.); instead, you can say, “You sound a little unsure in what you’re saying. Can you tell me about that?”

Movies of the Reader’s Mind

Tell the writer honestly and in detail what is going on in your mind as you read or listen to the writer’s words. There are three powerful ways to give a writer this kind of response. Make sure you ask the writer which way (if any) they prefer.

• Interrupt the reading a few times to describe what’s happening in your mind. (If the writer is reading aloud, make sure they know you’re going to do this.)
• Tell the writer your reactions in the form of a story or an experience you might have had related to the topic
• Use “I” statements. Instead of saying “it was confusing,” say, “I felt confused about.”

Movies of the reader’s mind make the most sense when the writer has a fairly developed draft, and they want to know how it works on readers, rather than when they’re still trying to develop their ideas. Movies are the richest and most valuable form of response, but they require that the writer feels some confidence in themselves and support from you as a reader, because when you tell them honestly what is happening while you read their piece, they may hear that you don’t like it or even that you’re mad at it (even if that’s not true).

Metaphorical descriptions

Describe the writing in terms of clothing (e.g., jeans, tuxedo, yoga pants), weather (e.g. foggy, stormy, sunny, humid), animals, colors, shapes. This kind of response is helpful at any point. It gives the writer a new view, a new lens. It’s particularly helpful when the writer feels stale on a piece, perhaps because they have worked so long on it.

Believing and doubting

• Believing: try to believe in everything the writer has written, even if you disagree or find it crazy. At least pretend to believe it. Be their friend and ally and give them more evidence, arguments, and ideas to help make their case better.
• Doubting: try to doubt everything they have written, even if you love it. Take on the opposing role and find all the arguments that could be made against the writer. Pretend to be someone who completely disagrees with their message. What would that person notice?

These forms of feedback obviously lend themselves to persuasive essays or arguments, though the believing game can help writers flesh out and enrich the world of a story or poem. Believing is good when the writer is struggling and wants help. It is a way to give a writer new ideas and arguments and improve their piece in all sorts of ways. Doubting is good after the writer has gotten the piece as strong as they can get it and they want to send it out or hand it in but first find out how hostile readers will fight them.

Skeleton feedback and descriptive outline

• Skeleton feedback: lay out the reasoning you see in the paper: main point, subpoints, supporting evidence, and the writer’s assumptions about their topic and audience.
• Descriptive outline: write “says” and “does” sentences for the whole project and then for each paragraph or section. A “says” sentence summarizes the meaning or message, and a “does” sentence describes the function.

Obviously, you can also do this in verbal discussion. Because they take time, you may only get through part of the paper, or you may need to have more than one session. These methods can give the writer the most distance and perspective on what they have written. They can help on late drafts when the writer wants to test out their reasoning and organization. Skeleton feedback can also be useful on early drafts when the writer is still trying to figure out what to say or emphasize and how to organize their thoughts.

How to use these kinds of responses in the Writing Center

You can absorb this list as a writer and as a reader/tutor. When in a session, ask the writer what kind of feedback they want most. You could even share this list with them and negotiate what would be most useful. Respect that choice. It’s important to realize that the writer will be more satisfied, and you’ll have an easier time, by not imposing your own preferred type of response or your own agenda on the session.

Things to think about

Think back to your previous experiences, especially if you have regulars. Under what circumstances could you use these kinds of feedback?
What could you do if the writer really doesn’t know what type of response they want or need?
What could you do if you and the writer disagree about the type of response that would be most productive?