Crayon Critique (7 of 12)

Consider the material nature of the crayon response you are reviewing – this is not your own writing! Is the writer influenced by the writing implement s/he uses? Is the writer more expressive or less expressive as a result of the physical constraints of the crayoned page?

Is this writing any good? How do you know that it is good (or not)?

In this written response, the writer appears to be influenced by the crayon she is using. She seems to be less expressive in the volume (amount) of writing on the page, and her writing contains little to no grammar outside of simplistic usage of periods and capitalizing at the beginning of each sentence. While multiple contractions are intended, she fails to use the proper punctuation requiring this intent to become usage. Some words are spelled incorrectly as well. Regarding the volume of text on the page, she uses almost all of the space available on one side of the page, but only fills 13 lines of text. A lined notebook page, or even the standard 12-pt-font typed page uses many more lines of text to fill the page.

I think this writing is good, but seems juvenile beyond the usage of crayon. Her argument is an interesting one, and has the potential to be good, but there is a lack of support. There seem to be some missing steps of logic from one sentence to the next- as if her brain was thinking faster than she could write (or she couldn’t write as quickly as her thoughts came). It’s possible that the use of crayon impeded her ability to record her thoughts. A pen or pencil flow much smoother than a crayon, and can more quickly fly across the page.