The way Peter decribes cooking in the third chapter is somewhat confusing. I agree with his idea of desperation writing, where sometimes thoughts must be put on paper. It's also confusing about the way he explains internal and external cooking, but low and high gear on a bicycle analogy may explain what he is trying to say. Why he uses cooking to describe writing and then other examples to describe cooking seems like a bit of a stretch to me. My guess is that as a writer he chose to use many examples in hopes that one point would come across. Using this second analogy with bicycle gears seems somewhat disconnected from the overall topic of writing.

His tips for a teacherless writing class look good for those who can and would like to commit to writing. Everything from the people to the way members interact and the meeting proceeds can lead to more successful writing.

His ending analysis of the doubting and believing game concludes Writing Without Teachers very well. Particularly for college students who are taught to be critical most of the time, the flip side is often hard to see or understand. The starting assumptions and how one proves or disproves something makes all the difference. Having personally dealt with the critical doubting game a lot, I sometimes think this leads to a negative worldview. Finally, I'd like to say it sounds like a bit of a long truism, but it's easy to see why both are necessary and important to know.