The Art of Good Commentary

Every semester, I give my Writing-Consultant apprentices the student essay "What If Drugs Were Legal?" from Richard Straub's essay, "The Concept of Control in Teacher Response." It is a poor draft, to be sure, were a Richmond student to submit it. When I give it out, I do not provide much advice except "write a set of comments" and then wait for disaster.

Likewise, every semester, disaster strikes. The commentary is mean-spirited, know-it-all, or gushing with praise that the work at hand does not merit. Thus I do not grade these first attempts by the apprentices. Novices in the program try to apply rules that may have worked for them but that may not apply to other writers or situations.

This page lays out the guidelines for flexible commentary that should work in our Writing Consultants program. Unlike other universities' programs, we do write--a lot, at times--on student drafts.  Compare how the example at the end, written from the perspective of a peer, differs from the graded example I have attached as a PDF.

Principle One: Never critique the professor, the writer, or the assignment

Principle Two: Limit your remarks by setting priorities for the writer

Principle Three: Watch your tone

If you read this far...good for you! Here's an example set of comments I prepared, using these principles: 

First, you'd prepare a few margin notes, but not too many. Short remarks from a reader's perspective such as this, beside an underlined passage: "See note 2. This section confused me." or "This interests me. See note 4 for why."

Then you would, TYPED and on separate paper, include something like this for "Nancy's" paper, "What if Drugs Were Legal?" 

PS: DID YOU write your name and contact information on the draft you return? ALWAYS do that. And staple all of it together. The materials will be lost in the harum-scarum lives of your writers. 

Example of Final Commentary

Nancy,

We’ll have met in conference about some of the issues I’m marking here, so I won’t put down some topics that we’ll discuss.

Overall, the paper shows a lot of passion about the topic, but as your reader I’m very concerned that the point most interesting to me, the reason for disagreeing with LeMoult, only appears in the final paragraph.  I’d recommend bringing it forward so the reader knows why you disagree.

In conference, we will first discuss this and other “big picture” issues and then I’ll help with some word-choice and grammatical issues that weaken the potential of the essay. I will rely upon you to help me to understand LeMoult's ideas, so we can concentrate on adding better support to the counter-arguments.  Choosing clear examples and reasons will need to be a priority when you revise, as the current essay did not completely convince me. As you revise, feel free to contact me at john.q.consultant@richmond.edu.

Notes: (Consultants: These numbers refer to spots in the margins where I had a SHORT note such as "I'm confused by this summary. See note 2)

1) The professor’s assignment asks the writers to focus on why they disagree or agree with LeMoult.  Readers expect reasons (and not just a yes/no statement) early on in the paper to work like a "roadmap" for the rest of the essay.

2) There’s an interesting sense of history about drug problems here.  As I read, I was curious about how this refutes LeMoult.  I was also unclear about where we place the blame now—society?  Drugs? If society, all of it?  If drugs, all of them?  Maybe the large amount of summary provided me isn’t showing strongly enough why you disagree.  I’m confused by how Chinese laudanum drinkers resemble users of illegal drugs today.

3) Like “society,” “we all” and “wrong” are pretty big generalizations.  Some probably cannot be supported, others need to be qualified. I suspect that like me, the professor expects explanations for all arguments.  It is a characteristic of all academic writing; I’m worried that unless you return to your main reason or reasons for disagreeing with LeMoult, the prof and other academic readers will dismiss these arguments as mere opinion (strongly held ones, which are fine as long as they are clearly supported with trustworthy evidence).

4) Here I saw a clear reason for why you disagree.  Did LeMoult even consider this?  Would this point, as your strongest argument, serve as that roadmap in the introduction?  Coming here, this late, I finally saw the map—but it is awfully late in the essay.

5) I’m worried that again the essay bites off more than it can chew. Prohibition, from all accounts, was a terrible failure.  The second point, however, would work better for me if narrowed and given more support.  Legal things are easier to obtain.

6) If “good and true,” why disagree with LeMoult?  Perhaps acknowledging his strong points more specifically will help.  Help me to understand why your reason(s) seem stronger than his best points?