Peer review has been listed as among the greatest tools for
improving technique. The act of reviewing itself, albeit tedious, has
been described by many writers as a useful practice bested only by
writing itself. You must disregard these shameful lies if you are ever
going to break away from this pack of bottom-feeders we call
“colleagues.”
In order to become a skilled reviewer, one must be practiced in the
art of sabotage. This being a literary digest, and we separated by
great distances, physical sabotage like stealing the writer’s computer
or breaking his hands is somewhat out of the question. The ambitious
reviewer may certainly take these methods into consideration. The rest
of us will need more practical tactics.
The most efficient weapon in a reviewer’s arsenal is the writer’s
own insecurity. Let’s face facts; us writers are a pathetic lot. We are
incredibly apprehensive, and we overcompensate by pretending to be
intellectuals and artists. Outwardly, we are guarded, distant, and
pretentious. Inwardly, we are scared, lonely folk with no real purpose.
We write for no other reason than to attain recognition in order to
build our confidence so we may one day be productive members of
society. The skilled reviewer can utilize these shortcomings to his or
her own advantage.
Contrary to popular belief, the reviewer’s purpose is to break down
the writer’s confidence by writing misleading reviews and comments. Any
line of text that is poorly written, contains grammatical errors,
and/or spelling mistakes should be praised, or at the very least,
overlooked. Conversely, each line of text that flows beautifully and
appears to trump even your best work must be derided.
For instance, given the line “I was at the store and my foots falled
off,” the reviewer will write, “Beautifully stated! The imagery of both
of your feet falling off simultaneously moved me to tears. Pure
Shakespeare!” On the other hand, if the reviewer was to read, “Before
she could protest, I pressed my lips to hers, enveloping her perfect,
supple body within my arms,” the reviewer must ignore the inherent
beauty, meanwhile focusing on any clichés. It might help the reviewer
to state that this passage comes off as pretentious and wordy. Do not
be afraid to emphasize your extreme displeasure. The point here is to
discourage the writer from trusting his God-given talent.
If you follow the preceding guidelines as you are reviewing your
fellow writers’ works of mediocrity, remember that you are infinitely
better than them. Do not let their inferiority stand in the way of your
success. Instead, simply debase their works, thus eroding their
tenacity to carry themselves forward.
