Interesting piece. In the back of my the mind I agree with what you’re saying with using his horrific story as an illustration.

I think a component missing, for learning purposes, is the divorcement of the critiquer from the writer and their work. Regardless of the audience, he was writing to evoke emotion as all writer attempt to do. Seems he did well with that. Yet, he is beat down. As you say, it was well written. Or was it, is there something in that vein that is over the top? Perhaps. The students are assigned to assess the writing as though they never met the author. Authors, except for the famous, never get to explain their intent or motivation to the reader. It has to stand on its own merit.

The other students ought to learn that a well-crafted story that strikes a raw nerve is just that — a story. The market (audience) being targeted should be another topic. There he could use some direction. If the discussion is the writing then it ought to be left to that.

I suppose there is more than what meets the eye in the whole thing with him and the class. For instance, what was the exercise lesson suppose to cover? Conception, writing and marketing? Even if all three, it’s still the process not the author.

Great piece. Thanks for sharing.