In his winning peer review, J Leo Kuhtz was praised for balancing useful suggestions for improvement with encouraging positive comments. “If you read the piece once while consciously focusing on only what you like, you get a better understanding of what works”, he says. “That can be really encouraging for the author, but it also helps you and them figure out what to do in sections that are still feeling iffy.”
Read on to learn more about J Leo’s approach to peer reviewing, his advice for providing positive and constructive feedback, and one of his favorite writers!
How did you choose which piece to peer review, and what was your approach to giving feedback?
I didn’t really go into it looking to peer review something. I was procrastinating on school things and it was the first piece of writing for the food competition I came across, so I decided to read it. And I really liked it. But I’m a pretty pedantic person, so there were certain errors or parts that read strangely which really stood out to me. So while I was reviewing I kept thinking to myself, ‘I really like this piece and I want it to win, what are some changes that would make that more likely?‘. I think when you’re in the right state of mind and you find a piece that really speaks to you, that’s something you should jump at. I know it sounds wishy-washy, but it’s the best way I can think of to explain it.
What was it like reviewing a piece in a unique genre like food writing?
It was new, but the guiding questions made it easy to know what to look for. Plus, the focus on narrative both in the piece and in the competition meant that I had this kind of universal aspect I could focus on. And the rest was informational, so human curiosity took the lead there. In the end, writing is just writing. Providing guidelines for a specific genre pushes us to explore into a different direction with our thinking, but within that, the writing is not too different..
Our guest judge, food writer Sally Sampson, was impressed with your “constructive yet encouraging comments” that provided the writer with some really helpful advice. Do you have any tips for other peer reviewers on how to balance positive and constructive comments when giving feedback?
I actually have trouble with this. I think positive things, but I only write down what I think should be changed. It helped that I was genuinely enthusiastic about the piece, but aside from that I would suggest doing multiple read-throughs. If you read the piece once while consciously focusing on only what you like, you get a better understanding of what works. That can be really encouraging for the author, but it also helps you and them figure out what to do in sections that are still feeling iffy.
Can you tell us about one of your favorite writers?
The first author that comes to mind is Katherine Rundell. She writes middle grade novels, but they read well at any age. My three favorites are Rooftoppers, Wolf Wilder and Cartwheeling in Thunderstorms. I love that she doesn’t push endings, but leaves the story to end naturally of its own accord. The stories feel whimsical and a bit like a fairy tale while simultaneously not feeling dumbed down or like the author is trying too hard. Cartwheeling in Thunderstorms was a bit confusing when I first read it but it has this natural narrative flow that I really appreciate and now it’s one of my all-time favorite books. To me the big takeaway from her books is that it really pays off when you let the story come alive, and sort of see where the characters and setting and premise take you. It’s something that really shows in the writing, I think.
