... the panel of reviewers is assembled, and
their work is set before them.
The goal of the
WritersWorkshop is to
improve the work while validating the author.
But reviewer input should be validated, too.
Reviewers come in good standing because
the
WorkshopComprisesAuthors, but
reviewers should become familiar with the work so
their specific feedback is credible.
* * *
Everyone who critiques a pattern should have
read it. It's possible to critique a pattern
from expert knowledge of the subject matter,
but here, we presume that AuthorsAreExperts
and that the presentation, the "experience" of
the pattern, is the focus of the review.
A reviewer can spend many hours thoroughly
reading a pattern and studying for its review.
A reviewer may research references and track down
every possible lead. But most of the leads will be
dead ends, and most relate to technical details
beyond the technical scope of the review.
On the other hand, many reviewers tend to give
a paper only superficial review, or may pore
over the work in real time.
These reviewers are not only a distraction to the
review process, but they do the author a disservice.
If some reviewers prepare thoroughly,
their detailed reviews are likely to swamp
the input of other reviewers.
The volume of well-considered input may
easily mask the sublime insight produced
by a spontaneous review.
Therefore:
Reviewers should read the pattern just before
reviewing it. The pattern will be fresh in
their minds; the pattern's emotional impact
remains with the reader. This is sufficient
to assess the literary and aesthetic qualities
of a work.
* * *
Some reviewers may read and annotate
other author's
works far in advance. If the author permits,
such reviewers may provide written comments
to the author, but only after the workshop is done.
NEXT: AuthorReadsTheWork
--
JimCoplien 1996/08/26
[
WritersWorkshopPatterns ]