Peer Commentary – Stage Three

I’m going to focus on my analysis essay here, since I don’t think editing creative writing is particularly effective on a project like this. Or maybe I am just too protective of my own writing. Either way, here are the edits . . .


Essay: Tyranny, although negative, is directly connected to population control.

Editor: Who says tyranny is generally bad? Maybe it is necessary in extreme cases to bring peace and stop conflict.

 Me: I just looked up “tyranny’ on and got 1. arbitrary or unrestrained exercise of power; despotic abuse of authority and 4. oppressive or unjustly severe government on the part of any ruler. Sounds fairly negative to me. (Take that, peer editor!) Well, why I agree that powerful government can be helpful in extreme cases to protect and aid the population, I also think that any government that has fallen under the category of “tyranny” has gone too far. And my point is that the governments in both China and my rewrite have gone too far. Thus, I kept my sentence.


Essay: My rewrite of The Hunger Games could be called a satire of a satire or, perhaps, the transformation of a satire of one topic into a satire of another topic.

Editor: I don’t know if you necessarily need this sentence. It seems kind of random and informal.

Me: Valid point. I really like this sentence, mostly because I think it’s fun to think about (like satire-ception). But yes, editor, you are right. The sentence is unnecessary. And fairly convoluted. It won’t be appearing in the final essay.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *