The definitions assignment was very educational, and I learned much about writing, peer-review, and editing. Reflecting on writing, I often explain as much as possible about a topic, making the reader well-informed. However, since the target audience here are non-experts, this amount of detail can hinder understanding. For example, in the assignment’s original draft, I explain sonata form’s “key change” aspect, but my peer’s review noted that concept is too much detail for those just learning the concept. Similarly, if the overall concept you define has multiple important terms, providing working definitions on top of an analysis of parts is a good idea. In my case, including a working definition of what a “key change” is, might have made my first draft more effective.
Concerning my writing’s other aspects, using parentheses to introduce terms is ineffective if the reader is glancing through the text, as parentheses are not eye-catching. What catches a reader’s eye are diagrams and other visuals. My peer-reviewer noted my sonata form diagram was initially confusing, using terms like “exposition” and “development,” which are only defined later in their view. It was true I had a more extended analysis of sonata form’s parts later, and that likely caught their eye second because I bolded the font. Yet, I first mention exposition and related terms in my sentence definition, but they likely did not see those, as the terms were in parentheses. Overall, the biggest lesson is a visual with terms should be preceded by a visually-striking explanation of those terms.
Peer-review meanwhile prevents over-detailed writing, and balance desire for depth with accessibility to non-experts. Likewise, peer-reviewing others work is invaluable, as you verbalize the effective and ineffective aspects of others’ writing, and then can apply it when self-editing, perhaps incorporating visuals or more concision. People can equate professionalism and authority with complex words, but often, immediately understandable writing is best, as readers will feel equal with the author, and thus more willing to respect them.
Lastly, concerning editing, deciding what to leave out of explanations was a tough choice. It can feel you are sacrificing truth and accuracy by simplifying, but from this assignment I learned it is better to give the incomplete foundation so readers can build it up themselves later, or ask further questions from that foundation. For example, while leaving out the descriptions of key change in sonata form feels incomplete, readers will likely feel less overwhelmed, and then can ask further questions like “What am I really hearing that gives Theme 2 such a different character?”