Warwick University covers itself thus:
Students as well as academic staff, at Warwick and elsewhere, often ask the question as to how one marks creative writing. Indeed, they often wonder if it is even possible? Surely, they say, this is a subjective response, a matter of taste? After all, what mark would one give to The Divine Comedy?
We would attest that it is a matter, certainly, of experience and wide reading. And that we all, as readers and critics, "mark" creative writing every day in the act of reading and the act of criticism or writing reviews. That, even as we talk about books and authors in our seminars and in our daily lives, we are making judgements. We are placing a metaphorical "score" against our experience of reading. And, while it would be wonderful and humbling to have Dante sign up for the Masters in Writing, we are aware that writing of that level and focus is rare. Exceptionally rare.
When I first started teaching Professional Writing and Editing at TAFE, we marked students only as Competent and Non Competent – meaning that if a student was marked as Non Competent, they could always return to the module/unit and repeat it until they were deemed Competent. Under this system students could focus on the comments they received on their writing, rather than on a graded system.
Of course, you could argue that graded systems abound in the publishing industry; best manuscripts awards, awards for emerging writers, umpteen best book of the year awards in every category and the ever-present best-seller list. There are also readers’ reports, editors’ comments and reviews.
Aside from all this are the casual remarks from innocent bystanders:
‘You’re a writer! Have I heard of you?’
‘Oh,’ says the nearly-famous one, a little chuffed, ‘perhaps. I’m X’
‘Hmm. No, no, I don’t think I have. Unless – you didn’t write for that comedy show on Chanel 10 – or was it 7? Or am I thinking of the actor? I might be thinking of the actor. You have the same kind of stubble as the actor. That’s what it is. Of course. Except he’s much more…well, he goes to gym. I guess you’re not so much in the public eye.’ (said in a kindly tone.)
or (at a Festival)
‘Oh, you’re the bird who wrote the vampire story?’
‘Yes, that’s right.’
‘The one that was complete drivel, right? No shred of truth in the #$%^ plot, it was simply wish-fulfilment from start to finish?’
‘Well, I’m not sure about that. I mean, sure the plot may have been…and the characters were...but I have readers who…’
‘Yeah, that’s what I mean, love. There wasn’t any truth in it. Trust me, I know.’
I’ve worked as an editor and, in one publication where I worked, we had four piles: Over my Dead Body, No, Maybe, Yes.
The Maybe category often received a fulsome rejection letter – by fulsome I mean longer than a pre-typed letter: ‘Your submission may be perfectly acceptable elsewhere, but for a variety of reasons we cannot publish it in our publication.’
A fulsome rejection letter may have contained something like the following:
‘We loved reading your story but queried the narratorial voice in which it was written. Third person omniscient seemed like too large a voice for a very short, highly contained short story chronicling twenty-four hours in the life of a bedridden invalid. Was it strictly necessary to include three voice from her past, the voices of her three siblings and the (imagined) voices of the holy trinity? Perhaps if you revised this so the reader could focus on the poignant shift from past to present you’d have a stronger central character and a more credible plot.’
As a Prof Writing and Editing teacher I’m not allowed to return assignments marked simply Over My Dead Body (not that I did as an editor, either!). I have to justify my marks. So, I assign certain marks for certain elements of the writing piece and hope to balance the more subjective elements with the objective.
Before you become carried away that marking Prof Writing and Editing may be too subjective let me refer you back to the opening comment from Warwick University:
We would attest that it is a matter, certainly, of experience and wide reading. And that we all, as readers and critics, "mark" creative writing every day in the act of reading and the act of criticism or writing reviews. That, even as we talk about books and authors in our seminars and in our daily lives, we are making judgements.
The subjective elements, tempered by my years in the industry, working as a writer across a few forms and genres, as an editor and a long-time organiser of writing-related events such as festivals and spoken word venues, relate to style, language, charcter choice, plot and theme.. The objective relate more to the mechanics of writing and editing – proof reading, use of grammar, syntax and punctuation, character and plot development, structure, and use and understanding of writing techniques, such as narratorial voice, use of simile, metaphor and symbolism. Necessarily these overlap.
The marks, however, are just marks. If you want to learn more about writing, you need to pay attention to the comments – both on the overall comment, the marking criteria, and within your assignment. Please don’t make the mistake one student made which was to equate one comment with one mark lost. There will be some assignments I might make ten comments on – all in reflection of something you’ve said and that student might have an 18/20 mark, other papers might only attract five comments and be marked 10/20.
In the end, I think it pays to read the comments carefully and try to learn from them. When I receive a reader’s report, I might disagree vehemently with some of the comments from the reader but I’ve learnt over the years that my initial response is often too hasty and too defensive. If I let the report sit for a week or so while I do other things – walk the dogs, knit, cook soup or work on a poem – I can come back to it with my editor’s hat on and see where the reader is coming from. Sometimes I still disagree, in which case I take it up with my editor. I take it up without being aggressive. This is quite important to me. I prefer to be as courteous as I can when dealing with anyone other than telemarketers. An aggressive approach to my editor erodes the trust and friendship we’ve built up over the years and, in the end, achieves nothing.
It’s a similar process with reading reviews. After my initial, defensive reading of a review, I prefer to leave them sit for a while – sometimes months – before returning to them to see what I can learn from them.
I know students don’t have the time to let an assignment sit for months but what you can certainly do is try to overcome your initial defensiveness before you approach a tutor for explanations and you can approach tutors with courtesy. We’re on the same side, after all. We’re trying to make you better writers which is why, presumably, you’re doing the course. Working together we can achieve our common goal. Hostility, defensiveness and rudeness stand in the way of what we all want –a piece of writing which is as good as it possibly can be.
No comments:
Post a Comment