As much as I appreciate feedback on plot development and the highlighted areas that require tightening, I really value reactionary responses. Comments during high stake and tense moments let me gauge if I’m hitting my mark and how well these scenes are received. From there, I now have the option to either strengthen the moment, or use their response as marketable praise pre-publication.
After writing my Gothic-western novel, Iron Dogs, one piece of feedback I received was about a specific phrasing that the character used and the reader didn't understand what it meant. For example, at one point one of the characters says, "we're up the spout", which was a fairly common phrase in the late 1800s American West (when the story is set). It means, "we're in trouble". However, people back then would have used the idiom, and would know exactly what it means. The lesson I learned as a writer working on a period-piece, and trying to maintain authenticity in terms of language, culture, customs, etc., is that some of these things might be lost to today's audiences and need some form of explanation in the text. It can either be overt, as with another character saying basically the same thing but in a more modern way, or the method I chose, which was to describe through their actions and demeanor what the phrase means. So, for any writer using colloquialisms, slang, or archaic idioms, be aware that you'll need to clarify the meaning of the words in some way, beyond the words themselves.
Authors found it particularly valuable to receive feedback on improving readability and accessibility of their manuscript. Peer reviewers can suggest ways to make the writing more understandable to a broader audience by avoiding technical jargon, simplifying complex concepts, and incorporating clear explanations. For example, a reviewer may suggest replacing highly technical terms with layman's terms or providing additional background information to aid comprehension. This feedback helps authors ensure their work is accessible and impactful to a wider readership.
The feedback that encourages authors to consider alternative perspectives or counterarguments is particularly valuable during the editing process. This suggestion challenges authors to critically evaluate their work, address potential objections, and present a more comprehensive and balanced perspective. By incorporating different viewpoints, authors strengthen their arguments and demonstrate a deeper understanding of the subject matter. For example, if an author is advocating for a specific policy, the peer reviewer may suggest considering opposing viewpoints to acknowledge and address potential criticisms, resulting in a stronger and more persuasive argument.
Receiving feedback on the balance between exposition and storytelling is invaluable during the editing process. It helps ensure that the right amount of information is provided at the appropriate times, avoiding overwhelming or confusing readers. For example, a peer review may suggest reducing lengthy descriptions or clarifying confusing passages, allowing the author to refine their delivery of information. This feedback ensures a smoother reading experience and better engagement with the narrative.
One piece of valuable feedback from a peer review during the editing process was the suggestion to enhance the pacing and flow of the narrative. The reviewer pointed out specific areas where the story seemed to lag or where transitions between scenes could be smoother. This feedback prompted me to reassess the pacing of the narrative, ensuring that the story maintained a compelling rhythm and kept the reader engaged. Making adjustments based on this feedback significantly improved the overall reading experience and highlighted the importance of an outsider's perspective in refining the manuscript.