1) A summary of the essay's contents.

2) The writer's perspective on the essay's contents, style, ideas, emotions, word choices, observations on society, and other aspects.

An essay critique or analysis involves the critic's viewpoint, intellectual faculties, emotional responses, taste, and value system.

In other words, a critique may support or affirm a writer's viewpoint; denounce an author's stance; totally repudiate or reject or denounce the ideas and/or approach of an essayist. A critique is like an editorial--except it has more of a firm basis in analysis, form, literary artistry and debate. It is not a free-for-all of opinion based solely on opinion. It is a formalized response to an essay.

Writing a powerful critique requires that the student have a strong comprehension of the essay and a strong sense of his/her own ideas, opinions, view of the world, literary taste, and general knowledge. The student should also have a sense of persuasion/argument writing, which makes a critique or analysis more convincing.

Learning to read critically will protect you from two dangerous habits.

1) One is the habit of accepting everything you see in print, regardless of the writer's qualifications or special interests or your own previous knowledge and experience.

2) The other is the habit of rejecting without consideration any position that seems to challenge your own convictions.

1) Begin with an open mind. Do not approach a piece of writing with any bias--against the topic or author or title or such. Don't carry in any pre-conceived notions or unsubstantiated rumors of the essay.

2) Read the essay closely. Form some general impressions. Some critics like to take notes as they read. Others like to suspend critical judgment the first time through and wait for the second round before taking a critical or analytical approach.

3) Read a second time through. While reading, ask such questions as the following:

--What is the writer trying to say? How do I feel about those ideas? What do I think about them? Do I agree with the author or not? Why?

--Does the author have a personal interest in the essay topic? If so, what? Does that interest make him/her less capable of writing the essay, of treating the topic with objectivity? Does that interest create a bias?

--Where is the writer coming from? How does that compare with my perspective?

--How does the writer try to convince me of his/her points? Are those points convincing or persuasive? Are the so-called "facts" verifiable? Why or why not?

--How does the author organize his/her information? Is that the clearest way to get his/her points across? Could there be any improvements?

--Did the author leave any questions unanswered or any points incompletely dealt with? What more did I want from the author in terms of information?

--Did the author's writing seem sincere? Why or why not?

--Did the author show any biases or blind spots? What weaknesses did he/she show? What strengths did he/she show?

--Was the essay difficult to read or understand? If so, why? Where could improvements have been made?

--Were there any lapses in logic? Did the author fall into using emotional language, red herrings, ad hoc fallacies, name-calling or other unprofessional argument devices?

--What was the tone? Was it fitting for the subject matter and likely audience?

--What was the social value of the essay? Would others gain some knowledge or spiritual benefit or emotional uplifting from reading the essay? Did the essay fulfill its assumed purpose?

and others...

4) Form a stance you want to take in your mind (and on paper--in terms of notes, if you'd like). Support your stance with information from the text. Quote where you need to. Attribute statements. Be sure that your points may all be supportable from within the text which you are critiquing. If you have a point which is insupportable based on the text being critiqued, then you may be hard-pressed to defend your stance.

5) Write your response clearly.

The length should not be greater than the original text, although there is no official rule that says it has to be any size. It just seems somewhat tasteless to totally overwhelm an original work in an analysis of it--especially when one is only dealing with an essay-length essay. (Things might be different if an intellectual is trying to dissect the text of a short story which has many aspects to it. Such intellectual works often do overwhelm the original work in size.)

Its minimum length is determined by whether you've been able to include a basic information (author, essay title, basic summary of theme and approach) and your complete germane response to the essay based on most of the questions above.

6) Revise. Edit. Re-write the final draft.

--responds to the major points made by the author;

--carries on an intellectual conversation with the author;

--maintains and expresses the student's own opinions (even disagreements with the essay writer) in a balanced, objective way;

--brings in outside information from "society"--and does not only remain in the realm of the essay's ideas;

--is well organized; and has no mechanical errors.

(Revised 1998)