🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1993Jan27.193617.13732@eos.arc.nasa.gov>, kyrsten@eos.arc.nasa.gov (Kyrsten Swazey) writes:
|> 
|> When i am critiquing an individual's story, i look for craft ("does this
|> story unfold in a typical manner and, if not, are the deviations
|> enhancing?" and the ilk).  However, i am also very conscious of word-
|> choice, grammar, spelling and all those nasty details.  Our instructor
|> has repeatedly stated that any editor (?) can clean these up
|> effortlessly.  Most people use word processors and have spell, if not
|> also grammar, checks.  
|> Does this reliance upon a computer or someone else hinder ones actual
|> talent as a writer?  I believe it does--what else is a writer but
|> someone who can express themself in the most immediate and touching way?
|> Are they not supposed to be the best at what they claim to do?
|> Am i looking at this in the wrong way?

At what point in the process is the class critiquing a story?  I think that when
a writer working on early drafts, it is good to focus on a particular group of
goals or problems rather than point out every single thing that is wrong with a
story.  This is like the training process you go through when learning to dance
or learning to play an instrument.  When a person first starts learning a new
skill or art form, they can only improve on pieces at a time.  Concentrating on
too many problem areas at once can be discouraging and counterproductive. 
Perhaps the teacher is attempting to keep the focus on particular problem areas
at this time?

|> 
|> -kyrsten