If you find yourself in a mentoring relationship with another writer there will come a time when they will ask you for your opinion on their writing.
There are often two approaches taken with these types of reviews. The first response is to simply find all the good things about the work and give them praise. The second one is fairly brutal by pointing out every fault imaginable. You mark up every fragment, grammar error and misuse of the word ‘to’.
Whether you are a mentor or simply a peer, the method you use to critique another’s work is an important moment. How you respond may damage or enforce a fragile shell.
I would like to suggest your review take place in two readings.
Reading # 1
The first time you read the work you should read it only as a means of discovering if the story has all the ingredients. You are looking to see if everything connects well and if there is support for the premise of the story. Provide a thorough review based on the premise and story execution.
Reading # 2
The second reading can be directed toward fixing grammatical errors. Check for spelling and punctuation issues. This step provides a more complete technical look.
By tackling your review in two readings you can first look at the positives in story execution without stumbling on grammar or spelling issues. You can gain a sense for what the writer is trying to convey in their story without following a detour that disables your mind from taking in the totality of the piece on first reading.
It is possible that this same technique can be used for self-examination of your work. When you complete an article or story, review it first from the standpoint of one interested in story construction. Review the plot, setting, facts, etc. Once the first review is complete pay attention to grammar and spelling issues.
Self-review is a bit harder due to the fact that you will likely miss some of the errors in your work. The reason this is true is that you know what you wanted to write so your brain will often convince your eyes that what they see is correct.
The use of peer review is a positive way of fixing the things your eyes fail to see, gain new insight into your writing, and ultimately develop the confidence you need to submit your work to a publisher.
Scott Lindsay is a web developer and entrepreneur. He is the founder of FaithWriters ( faithwriters.com faithwriters.com) and many other web projects. FaithWriters has grown to become one of the largest online destinations for Christian writers. Members include writers from all around the world. Please visit the website at: faithwriters.com faithwriters.com