Liam Vigdor's peer review

1) What is the overarching interpretive claim/thesis of your peer’s paper?

"This ability to connect, through ‘ordinariness’, is not only achieved from the plot, but also from the almost ‘unrefined’ and ‘rough’ artistic drawings, as well as from the use of slang in the dialogue."

In my own word: The plot, rough artistic drawings, and slang increases let readers connect on a personal level.

2) Is the thesis statement a strong interpretive claim? Identify any criterion that could be stronger.

The thesis is not an evaluative claim, which is good. The thesis is opinionated and therefore reasonable. The thesis can be supported directly from the observations of the literary work. Two of the supports "'rough artistic drawings" and "use of slang" has clear evidence that they come from re-reading and not plot retelling.

3) How does your peer use language to express the interpretive claims? Does the language seem too general or abstract? Too concrete and obvious?

The word "connect" might be too abstract. However, as "connect" is defined by the previous sentence, I think the reader will understand the meaning. I am more concerned about the word "ordinariness" and "plot". Specifically, "ordinariness" (or ordinary as its original adjective), needs a more concrete noun to be specific, whereas the word "plot" needs an adjective to be specific. If possible, you can combine them into an "ordinary plot". Also, to a reader, it is obvious that "unrefined" and "rough" have the same meaning. If possible, you remove either of them. Other than the suggestions above, the thesis is a concrete thesis.

4) Read through the body paragraphs and identify statements that count as “evidence” for claims and reasons. Then identify statements that count as “explanation” for that evidence. Point out any areas in the paper where you would like to see additional explanation and say why it would help your reading to see more explanation.

Claim1: The webcomic “Fried Rice” centers on Min, a young artist who wishes to explore the field that she loves and the obstacles that her environment places in front of her to do this.

Claim2: The author of “Fried Rice” further defines her story as ordinary by drawing in an ‘unrefined’ and ‘rough’ way, compared to the hightech realistic imagery of most webcomics.

- 1:
  - Evidence1: A picture implies perfectiveness of that picture, while life can not always be perfect and can’t always be seen through that picture. The drawings that Erica Eng draws bring the reader ordinariness by keeping the imagery and style unrefined.
  - Explanation1: The artwork brings a sense of closeness and smallness that highly realistic artwork wouldn’t be able to bring. This causes an intimacy between the comic and the reader and this intimacy allows the reader to feel that they are the same as the character.

Claim3: This intimacy and sense of regularness is also created through the author's use of slang. Slang is a way of speaking that is more informal and is common in speech rather than writing.

- 1:
  - Evidence1: The use of the word “Lit” (page 32 , bottom panel) by Mins cousins and the conversation of having to explain it to her mom who is both not american and not young...
  - Explanation1: ... is a precious feeling of normalcy and intimacy that can’t be created anywhere else.
- 2:
  - Evidence2: Furthermore, Min’s cousin's conversation with her friend using the slang “ang mohs” (page 37 , left panel) in a joking manner ...
  - Explanation2: ... creates an atmosphere of closeness and feeling that anybody could be speaking.

In Claim1: I think explanation1 need to be more elaborate since the connection from "ambition" and "rejection" to "everyday life" is weak. One who sees CMU as their dream school might assume that rejection to one's dream school is considered ordinary. You can mention something like "since the chance of getting into dream school is low for common people".

Claim2: Claim2 only has one evidence (evidence1) to support it, which might not make claim2 strong enough. (eg. find evidence to support that "drawing is rough")

5) Where do you find places in the body paragraphs where evidence and explanation—the informational details—are sufficient? Where do you find places where evidence and explanation are not sufficient? Please mark these for your reader.

Claim1: evidence is sufficient. But it may need more explanation (see above)

Claim2: Evidence1 might not be sufficient since "imperfection" is an interpretation, not an observation directly from the literary work. Consider pointing out a specific stroke that made you think the literary work is imperfect.

Claim3: both evidence and explanation are sufficient.


6) To what extent are high priority statements located in visible places? Did your peer position key ideas in helpful ways so that you could find them where you expected them to be? Why or why not? (Expectation: Interpretive essays are typically thesis-driven essays with topic sentences, a claims-evidence-explanation argument structure, and a meaningful conclusion.)

The essay generally follows the structure of topic sentences, a claims-evidence-explanation argument structure, and a meaningful conclusion except for the following points:

In Claim1: In my opinion, subclaim2, evidence2, and explanation2 can be simplified by changing the order of sentences by putting all evidence first, and explanation after. In this way, a claims-evidence-explanation argument structure can be made. If you intended to include 3 explanations and I have failed to separate your 2nd and 3rd explanations, then consider adding a concrete example.

Claim2 and Claim3 are in the same paragraph, consider separating them so that the reader can find your topic sentence3 at the beginning of paragraph4. I highly encourage you to fix this.

7) Are quotations framed within the text, or is your peer guilty of committing a “hit & run” crime with quotations? Point out a quotation that could be framed a little better, and say why, in terms of connecting to the surrounding text.

The author makes good use of quotations and framed them in the text in a way that is connected to the surrounding text.

8) What did you learn from reading your peer’s paper that you believe might inform your own understanding of the task?

  1. Having consistent structure allows the reader to quickly identify places to pay attention.
  2. Transition sentences or phrases help the reader to understand essay structure.

Table of Content