November 19, 2025 | 10:15-11:45
This session marked the first draft sharing for the course. Rather than traditional feedback, we focused on the gap between what writers think they’re communicating and what readers actually receive—particularly around instability, costs, and readers.
Opening Discussion: What Do You Want When You Share Writing? (10:15-10:40)
We began by asking students to reflect on what they actually want when they share unfinished writing.
Responses included:
- “Tell me if it makes sense”
- “Tell me what’s missing”
- “Tell me it’s good”
- “Tell me whether to keep going”
- “Find the problems”
- “Understand what I was trying to say”
- “Tell me if anyone would care about this”
The key insight: These are completely different—and often incompatible—asks.
Some requests assume the idea is right and just needs clarity (“tell me if it makes sense”). Others question whether the whole project is worth doing (“tell me if anyone would care”). Some ask readers to decode the writer’s intentions (“understand what I was trying to say”) while others ask readers to challenge the work (“find the problems”).
The tension: Most writers want readers to validate what they’re trying to do while also telling them what’s wrong. But you can’t have both simultaneously.
The discussion surfaced:
- Feedback that serves writer anxiety vs. feedback that serves the writing
- Feedback about what you meant vs. what readers received
- Feedback that assumes your frame is right vs. questions the frame
The reframe for draft sharing:
Readers should NOT try to understand what the writer meant. Instead, readers report what they actually received.
Not “I think you’re trying to say X”—but “Here’s what I understood.”
Not “This is good/needs work”—but “Here’s where I saw instability” and “Here’s where I didn’t see why I should care.”
The writer’s job: Listen to the gap between intention and reception.
Pair Reading: Mark What You Receive (10:40-11:20)
Students paired up with someone whose topic was different from theirs.
Phase 1: Silent Reading (20 minutes total, 10 per draft)
One person reads the other’s draft in silence, marking three things:
- ✓ Where you see the instability (what doesn’t fit, what contradicts)
- $ Where you see costs/benefits (why this matters to readers, not to the writer)
- ? Where you can identify who the readers are (who cares about this?)
If the reader reaches the end without marking all three, that’s important information.
Phase 2: Report What You Received (20 minutes total, 10 per draft)
The reader reports back—but with strict constraints: Only report what you marked. Don’t interpret. Don’t suggest fixes.
Examples:
- “I saw instability here where you said X contradicted Y”
- “I didn’t see costs until page 3, and even then I wasn’t sure if they were costs to me or to you”
- “I couldn’t tell who I was supposed to be as a reader”
The writer’s job: Listen. Don’t explain. Don’t defend. Just hear the gap.
This phase made visible the often-significant distance between what writers thought they communicated (instability, costs, specific readers) and what readers actually received (confusion, vagueness, unclear stakes).
Small Group Pressure Test (11:20-11:40)
Groups of 3-4 (mixed topics) took turns reading their openings aloud (first 1-2 pages).
The group’s role: Be the skeptical reader. Push on everything.
Questions:
- “Where’s the instability? I don’t see what doesn’t fit.”
- “So what? Why does that matter to me as a reader?”
- “Who am I supposed to be? What community cares about this?”
- “Is this a gap (we don’t know X) or a problem (not knowing X costs us Y)?”
- “At what sentence would I stop reading? Why?”
This phase pushed beyond politeness. Students practiced being honest readers—the kind who are busy, skeptical, and will stop reading if they don’t immediately see value.
What emerged:
- Many drafts described interesting observations but didn’t establish instability
- Costs were often implied rather than explicit
- Readers were frequently unnamed or too generic (“people interested in Berlin”)
- The gap problem vs. the gap itself remained unclear in many drafts
Assignment for December 3
You’ve now tested your draft with multiple readers. You know where the gaps are—between what you thought you were communicating and what readers actually received.
Revise your 3-4 pages based on what you learned today.
Your goal:
- Make the instability visible in the first two paragraphs
- Show costs that readers bear (not you)
- Make clear who your readers are (even if implicitly)
The test: Between now and next session, give your revised draft to someone outside this class—a friend, a colleague, anyone. Ask them: “Where would you stop reading and why?”
If they stop before they see the instability and why it matters, keep revising.
Bring the revised draft printed on December 3. We’ll go deeper into how instabilities actually work and how to construct them effectively.
Key Takeaways
- Intention ≠ Reception: What you think you’re communicating and what readers receive are often very different.
- The gap is the learning: The distance between what you meant and what readers understood shows you what needs work.
- Readers report, don’t interpret: The most useful feedback describes what was received, not what the writer “really meant.”
- Instability must be unmissable: If readers have to work to find your tension, it’s not clear enough.
- Costs must be explicit: Implied stakes don’t work. Readers need to know specifically what they lose if this stays unresolved.
- Generic readers = no readers: “People interested in X” isn’t specific enough. Name the actual community.
- Skeptical readers are generous readers: Honest pushback helps more than polite validation.



