Among the comments he returned to me were these:
- I should write a booklet on runes based on my answers to Req 5
- A short article such as "Are the Runes a Magical Alphabet?" should be submitted to OL
- The creation of a bind-rune I did for one reading was, and I quote, "good cunning-work." This is an awesome phrase to me
- He and I go in completely opposite directions when it comes to public ritual, though: while you'll rarely hear me offer the names of runes, often giving only an interpretation, Ian only gives the name and translation and lets folks figure out the meanings on their own.
- Almost like there was something wyrd going on, innit?
Over the last year or two, I've become a lot more in-depth with my reviewing, returning positive comments along with negative ones (should they be necessary) and trying to help the student flesh things out if they'd like to. It's nice to get a response like this one, because it helps to verify that the system I've been developing is something worth doing.
I don't really feel that I can just say, "Oh, you passed." I find it important to highlight certain parts of the piece that I really liked, and discuss what I liked about them. By the same token, we can't just say, "Oh, you didn't pass. Re-write it." If something doesn't pass, I always explain why, and offer suggestions for passage if I can.
This sort of reviewing takes a lot more time, though, and sometimes it's downright hard: I've occasionally come across something so bad that I didn't know what to do with it and had to struggle to find some positives to return. Rare as that is (it's probably happened twice in the past several years), I've believed it important enough to ensure that I've done all I can to make it happen.
Attempting to do this little thing is part of what I do to make ADF a bit brighter, and receiving a review back that's along those same lines makes me feel great about what I'm doing with reviews.