Journal #1 – DFW
- If I could invite David Foster Wallace into our classroom, I would ask him many questions about his essay. I would ask him if he thought that age/generational differences had anything to do with the perspective of the Maine Lobster Festival. Does he think the festival will eventually fade away as people become more aware of what they are eating (and the process of getting it to their plates)? How big of a role does the gourmet/professional food industry play in downplaying animal suffering? I would also be curious to hear if he thinks people were given misinformation at the Maine Lobster Festival on purpose. Was this a case of ignorance or negligence?
- The disadvantages and limits of written discussion stem from not being able to actively interact with your audience like you would if it was a spoken discussion. This leaves your writing vulnerable to misinterpretation, since any additional clarifications are not able to be provided in real time. To anticipate your audience’s questions when you write, try to evaluate your own work from a third person perspective. If you were reading this, what questions would you have? You could also have someone else – like a family member or friend – read your work and interact with it. This could give you insight into what needs further clarification so you may answer these questions in your writing.
Journal #2 – Writing and Revising Process
In high school, my revision process was minimal at best. I had a really bad habit of not starting a writing assignment until two days before the due date. I would do half the paper then and the next day – the day before the due date – I’d sit down and bust out the other half. I did this usually in one sitting per day, which was exhausting mentally and physically I didn’t go into most of my assignments blind. I usually made an outline before I sat down to type it up. It was nothing super detailed; it mostly just organized the structure of the essay. Obviously, this didn’t leave me much time for revising my work. I rarely revised my writing. At best, I’d read it out loud a few times before submitting it to make sure I didn’t make any stupid mistakes regarding spelling or grammar. I had to write essays that counted as a final exam for some of my English classes in high school and I took those more seriously. I started those papers a little earlier and put more into actually editing them instead of looking them over. My method of waiting until crunch time and then getting it all done worked pretty well for me. I never got a grade below an A on an essay. The downfall to this writing process was that it caused a lot of stress. I’d worry about the paper from the moment it was assigned to the due date. I struggle with starting papers and I think that is a huge part of why I procrastinated. Once I started, it was mostly smooth sailing. This semester I’d really like to try to change that because I definitely do not need the extra stress in my life right now!
Journal #3 – “The Art of Quoting” Response
I thought this chapter of TS/IS was pretty useful. I found it interesting how quotes were compared to orphans taken away from their parents. It drove the point home that you need to fully integrate a quote into your writing; you can’t just throw it in there and leave it with no context. I also had never given much thought to the fact that quotes can lose relevance as your writing evolves during the drafting and revision processes. The idea of a “quotation sandwich” is really helpful as well. I also appreciate the list of different ways to introduce a quote because I feel like I always repeat myself in an essay where I need to use quotes. It ends up feeling forced without the right introduction. The examples of good quote integration and bad quote integration are also incredibly helpful. Something I never realized was that introducing a quote by saying “A quote from [author] says…” can actually imply that the author is doing the quoting, not you (the writer). Overanalyzing a quote is also something the reading made me more aware of and it is something I’m sure I do often. I also thought it was helpful that they mentioned that blending an author’s voice with your own can help frame the quote in your writing.
Journal #4 – “The End of Food”
- The section on page 5 where Widdicombe says that humans have always strived to find a better and purer version of food. I find this interesting because she gives examples of how this has appeared in literature forever. She mentions the ancient Greeks writing about ambrosia, which granted the consumer immortality. She also gives several examples of more recent literature which shows this is something society still fantasizes about.
- On page 6, Rhinehart is quoted as referring to food that isn’t Soylent as “recreational food.” This is interesting to me because it shows that he still enjoys the experience of food. Replacing that experience was not the intention when he created Soylent. The carrots his roommate had bought as a “fun snack” were for enjoyment, rather than the nutritional value. This ties into the earlier quote from page 3 that Soylent isn’t coming for the experience of food, but rather for the food that is convenient to us.
- On page 9, the interview with the doctor brings up an interesting point. The quote, “We’re concerned about much more than just surviving” points out that there is a difference between surviving and actually living in optimal health. Yes, you can live on Soylent, but there are so many benefits to eating real foods that you don’t get from Soylent. These benefits are something you can’t make into a pill and put it into Soylent, either.
Journal #5 – “Entering the Conversation” Response
This chapter gave a helpful perspective on how to successfully present an argument in writing. The templates were incredibly helpful and are tools I will use to revise my own paper. This chapter made me think more about stating my ideas as a response to other people’s ideas. This can help engage the readers. Another way to engage readers that I learned from this was to make sure the “they say” that you’re responding to is representative of a larger group that your audience may identify with. This gives the readers a reason to care about your writing. Martin Luther King Jr.’s “Letter from Birmingham Jail” is a great example of the “they say / I say” style of writing. I also thought it was interesting that using these basic templates given to us in the book is not considered plagiarism. I have previously hesitated to use templates like these in the past because I thought my teachers would mark me down for plagiarism. It’s a new idea to me that these are almost like “community” phrases that anyone can use. My favorite idea from this chapter is the idea of writing being like a dynamic conversation. There can be many different views presented and being a critical thinker allows you to keep up with these conversations. These tips are all really helpful for writing my essay because there are several contradicting ideas that we were given to work with and having tips to turn these arguments and perspectives into an engaging conversation will benefit me in my writing.
Journal #7 – Choose Your Own Adventure
- The overall best global comment I got from my peer review group was that in the draft I gave them, I hadn’t made it clear what my stance was. They couldn’t identify my thesis and didn’t really know which side I was trying to argue. This was so helpful because when I was writing my paper, I thought my stance was perfectly clear and it all made sense to me. This gave me another perspective on my paper and I’m very glad they pointed it out.
- I think the best global comment I gave to my peers was go more in depth about the emotions involved with food. They all touched upon it in different ways that I thought were really interesting, but I thought it would add so much to the paper if they elaborated further. I hope they found that helpful, as well!
- One interesting discussion point that wasn’t captured on the paper that came up during our group discussion was the relevancy of Widdecombe’s article. In her paper, Julia had said “Recently, in 2014, the article ‘The End of Food’ by Lizzie Widdecombe was released.” I had made a marginal comment saying that it would be too redundant to say “Recently, in 2014…” and that she could either just say “recently” or “in 2014.” This brought up the discussion of how this article really wasn’t breaking news anymore and we sort of questioned how relevant it was to today’s technology. In the age of social media and 24/7 news cycles, it seemed a bit to us like “old news” and maybe there are more recent articles about this technology.
- Looking back over my peer review comments, I wish I had come up with more specific suggestions for changing things. I definitely could’ve offered examples when suggesting that they change or replace a sentence.
- This peer review was exponentially more helpful than any peer review I’ve ever had in high school. The comments I received from my group were thoughtful, appropriate, and offered me a new perspective on my writing. In high school, the only feedback I had ever received was sentence structure, spelling, and grammar. It was helpful for proofreading, but not helpful in the overall scheme of my paper. This was definitely the best criticism I’ve ever gotten of anything I’ve ever written, and it has made me look forward to the next peer review!
Journal #8 – Response to “Starting with What Others Are Saying”
I found this section of They Say/I Say to be really relevant to the project we just finished with. It offered some good advice on how to build credibility with your audience by talking about two different arguments to a topic. The anecdote in the beginning helped me to fully understand the importance of being clear about your point when writing or speaking. This was one of the biggest points of feedback I got back from my peer review of my essay was that I needed to be clearer about what side I was on. On page 20, the book also mentions the order in which things should be said to have the most effect on a reader. This is helpful and something I will keep in mind for the future. The templates are incredibly helpful. Sometimes, it’s hard to come up with phrases for ideas like these, so the templates are a great tool if I’m stuck in the future. They also provide templates for turning the view you’re responding to into one of your own. This is also really helpful to have on hand. This chapter also introduces the idea of starting an essay by introducing a debate between your opinion and a conflicting one. This tactic allows you to delve into both arguments, so you can figure out your position on the topic as you write it. I find it interesting that they included this, since it’s similar to the organization I used for my own paper. The templates included for this strategy are also useful. Another interesting idea I hadn’t thought of was the idea of reintroducing your own claims through what they call “return sentences.” I’d never thought of reminding the reader of my position as I go, although I may have done it subconsciously. Overall, this chapter had some good tips to keep in mind for future writing.
Journal #9 – In-Class Reflection
This drafting/revision process is so different than my usual process of revision in high school. It allowed me to take my time with this project and really turn it into something I’m proud of, rather than just throwing something together and turning it in. I spent the most time revising things on a paragraph level. I reworked paragraphs multiple times until I thought it reflected my ideas accurately. I focused on my transitions between paragraphs to make sure that my ideas flowed together. In terms of the expectations I had prior to this assignment of how much work it would require, I think my expectations were on par with reality. I was surprised how relatively stress-free this project was. It was stressful in the beginning getting started, but as I moved further in the process, I was surprised by how much easier this seemed than writing a paper in high school. The peer review process was probably my favorite part of revision. The feedback I received and the conversations had with my group were so helpful in seeing my paper from an outside perspective. It was much easier to approach this project when it was broken down into steps, versus my old approach of me trying to get the entire thing done in one go. The only thing I would change is that I probably could have started the paper a little sooner. I blame that on the amount of other assignments I’ve had in the time since we started this project, but I certainly did not procrastinate in any way that is comparable to my levels of procrastination in high school.
Journal #10 – Pollan Journal
The first passage in Pollan’s article that I found important is on page 3, paragraph 3 (goes onto next page as well). He notices that the rise of Food Network and people watching cooking for entertainment has coincided with the rise of fast food and a decrease in home cooking. I’m not sure if I agree or disagree with this. The rise in the popularity of the Food Network is certainly important to the culture surrounding cooking in America today. Obviously, people are more entertained by other people cooking. These shows bring intricate and sophisticated dishes to life and make them more familiar for the viewers. I can personally say that I’ve learned a lot about cooking through watching Food Network, but the amount of knowledge I’ve applied in the kitchen is minimal. I’m not sure if the rise in fast food is a result of this. Fast food and home-meal replacements developed as technology developed. I think it would have happened eventually, but maybe Food Network catalyzed the process.
The next passage in Pollan’s article I found interesting was on page 13 paragraph 2 (the second full paragraph). He brings up that humans have an attraction to food. This is different from the emotional attachment we have to food. He describes it as almost primal. We are drawn to food like “hungry wanderers” drawn to a campfire’s flames in the forest. I agree with this completely. I think there’s something about watching food being prepared that is satisfying to us. I can relate to this. Short cooking videos always show up on Facebook and no matter what I’m doing, I have to stop and watch it. I think we are attracted to food because we associate food (obviously) with eating and eating gives us endorphins that makes us feel good. This is something hardwired into our brains.
The last passage in Pollan’s article that I found interesting was on page 20, paragraph 6. Throughout the article, Pollan references Harry Balzer, veteran food marketing researcher. This passage is Balzer’s take on the diet that will help Americans battle obesity and bring back the culture of home cooking. His solution is “Eat anything you want – just as long as you’re willing to cook it yourself.” I agree with this statement. The rise of fast food and home-meal replacements have made Americans lazy. It’s a lot easier to make yourself a frozen pizza after a long day of work than it is to go to the grocery store, pick out ingredients, and make something from scratch. When we want pizza, it’s so easy to pick up the phone and order one to be delivered to our door. It is a lot more effort to gather all the ingredients and make yourself a pizza. The effort you would have to go through to make something yourself is a pretty effective deterrent. When I was a child, I would crave a certain food (grilled cheese, quesadillas, etc.). I’d ask my mom and she’d tell me to make it myself. This resulted in me having something that required way less effort to make.
Journal #11 – Responding to “What’s Motivating This Writer?”
This chapter of They Say/I Say offers unique insight into a new way of analyzing a text. This is especially useful while reading challenging academic writing. The strategy presented here gives a reader tips and tools to break down a text into something easier to understand. I related to the students described in the first two and a half pages. It seemed like a lot of my experience analyzing and discussing academic writing in high school followed the trend of reading the text, being asked questions in class by the teacher, and then not knowing what to make of what I had just read or how to discuss it. One really helpful strategy given is to think of it as a conversation. The author is in conversation with someone who has a different view of what they’re writing about. Figuring out this other perspective can give you a new way to talk about the text, especially if you’re struggling to verbalize the meaning of the author’s words. This chapter also gives you helpful tips for when you’re struggling to figure out what argument the author is even writing about. The passage from Judith Butler is a great example of this. The strategy is to essentially translate the author’s words into vocabulary you can understand. The chapter describes it as “building a bridge” between you and the author. As simple as this sounds, it’s a tool I never considered to use when I couldn’t understand a reading. This chapter was overall really helpful and gave me a lot of new things to consider. It makes reading academic texts seem much less daunting now that I have tools other than to just look for the author’s thesis and try to decipher it.
Journal #12 – Peer Review Reflection
So far, I think my peer review falls mostly in line with preferring global comments over local comments. I did include a few local comments on both papers where I thought it was necessary, but I wasn’t spell-checking their papers or reviewing it for grammar. Between paper one and paper two, there were a few differences. Paper 1 was more polished when I had the chance to peer review, so the comments were really more focusing toward strengthening my peers’ arguments than restructuring their whole paper. Paper 2 obviously was more in a draft stage when we peer reviewed it, so my comments are more geared toward ideas of where the paper may go, how to set it up, etc. For paper 3, I am going to try to work toward giving my peers more organizational comments. I found these super helpful in paper 1, since organization is something I struggle with. Because I struggle with it however, I found it hard to give my peers help in that area. From my peers on paper 3, I’d like to see more of the organizational comments, as well, because they really are helpful to me. I also found it helpful when they tried to counter the claims and arguments I was making (idea and evidence comments), because it allowed me to strengthen my ideas.
Journal 12B – Podcast Response
After listening to this podcast, I feel like I have several things to reflect on. The guest, Caitlin Doughty, first talks about how honesty is the best policy when it comes to talking about death. This is interesting to me because in society, I feel like it’s really hard to talk about death in any kind of conversation. It’s really strange to hear her talk about her job so openly and casually. It’s not a job you picture someone doing, but then again, someone has to do it. She also talks about how families usually don’t want to be involved in the details after death (don’t want to be there during the cremation) or they don’t realize they have the option to. I think this plays into the taboo aspect of death and that it’s hard to deal with. Doughty also discusses the movement to not only bury a body straight into the ground with no casket, but to also take care of the body at home. This is kind of a gruesome concept to me. She views it as almost a bonding experience with the body (assuming it’s the body of a loved one), and she also sees it as a way to be open with yourself about your own mortality. For me, I think going to funerals are enough for me to accept the fact that I’m going to die one day. I do agree with her perspective on embalming a body. I definitely would like to be cremated because I just don’t see the point. She also is for more environmentally friendly options to dispose of a body. These are the ways I’d lean, personally, for myself. Doughty also talks about the emotional effect on her of her career. She stresses the importance of taking care of herself to make sure she doesn’t burn out. This goes with my earlier point of not really thinking too much about the people doing these jobs. It was very interesting to hear her talk about this industry in an academic way. It made it a little easier to listen to (and probably easier to talk about). This podcast wasn’t as painful to listen to as I had initially thought it would be. This may have been because of Doughty’s open and friendly nature.
Journal #13 – Paper #2 Reflection
The process of writing paper 2 was a lot easier to approach having finished the first one. The process for the first paper seemed daunting, but for this project I was able to break the work down into pieces to make it more manageable. I definitely struggled a little bit to manage my time, as there weren’t so many specific word count deadlines as with the first paper, but once I got into the rhythm of writing it seemed easier. Getting started with this one was definitely harder. It was more open-ended, and I tend to have a slow start when I don’t have a specific direction to go in. However, I didn’t find the peer review as helpful as I did with the first project. This was probably because I was only able to get feedback on such a small portion of my paper. It had barely taken shape yet and I only figured out where I wanted to go with it after the fact. One of the biggest issues I have with writing is structure. The first peer review was really helpful because I was able to get feedback on my organization, which helped a lot. This was lacking in paper 2 and because of that, I feel like my ideas are a tad scattered. When it came to choose three favorite meal essays to use as sources, I feel like the three I picked fit my paper and ideas perfectly. I put a lot of effort into that aspect and read through all the available essays to see which ones I felt would support my paper.
In terms of engaging with my sources, I definitely engaged with Pollan the most. This is fair enough, because his article served as the anchor text for this assignment, but I feel as if I could have brought my other sources into play more. I made an honest effort to create those text-to-text moments, even though it felt weird because my sources mostly agreed with Pollan. There wasn’t any dramatic tension in this paper.
Overall, this paper was easier to write than paper 1 because I felt more comfortable with the process.
Journal 14 – “What the Crow Knows” Response
After reading “What the Crow Knows,” I’m not really sure what to make of it. It certainly made me think a whole lot about animal consciousness than I ever have before. I’m not sure I fully understood all of the religious stories; I think the meaning may have been lost on me as I don’t consider myself to be a super spiritual person. Prior to reading this, I had never heard of Jainism. I think the idea is interesting and provokes a lot of thought into our treatment of animals. Their religion goes so far as to not walk in puddles to not disturb the microbes that could be in there. It’s nice to be mindful of how you affect the environment as a human, but I do believe there are certain things that are unavoidable. It seems like an incredibly extreme form of veganism to me. The followers of this religion believe animals are conscious beings who feel emotions to some degree. As someone who eats meat, this is not something I often think about because it brings me down a rabbit hole of self-reflection. This article pulls into play the tension of western vs. eastern beliefs and how different they are. In the west, we tend to not think about animals as having emotions. In the east, this is something they consider. It also brings the tension of science versus religion. There is no scientific evidence that says that animals have emotions, but there is a religion that believes so. Many animals have shown a higher level of cognition. The magpie passing the mirror test is an example of this. Crows have been observed holding some sort of funeral for their dead – or at the very least recognizing that one of their own has died. The author also mentions fish “faking orgasms” to get away from less desirable males. This article obviously makes me think deeper about animals and their level of consciousness. I think it is much easier to process to start out by thinking about your daily impact on your environment than to directly go into thinking about whether the animals we ate suffered during their death.
Journal #15 – “Animals Like Us” Response
The first passage Hal Herzog’s “Animals Like Us” that is significant to his argument is the first paragraph on page 1. In this passage, Herzog talks about how Judith Black became a “vegetarian” at age 12, and yet still allowed herself to eat fish. She didn’t consider fish to be animals. This is significant to Herzog’s argument because it first introduces the tension of “what is considered an animal?” Why are fish not considered when choosing not to eat meat? Chickens and fish are not so far off evolutionarily where this distinction would be clear. This passage really introduces the gray area of considering animals.
The next passage significant to Herzog’s argument is the fourth full paragraph on page 4. He brings up here how most pet owners see having a snake as not as morally acceptable as having a pet cat, when in fact, cats have a greater impact on the environment and other animals than snakes do. Herzog lays out the facts: the average cat consumes around ten times more meat in a year than the average snake. Cat food maybe seems like it is more morally acceptable than snake food because cat food is usually processed and packaged, while snakes receive their food whole and alive. This brings up again the tension of why we see certain pets as “more humane” than other pets. What are the criteria for that?
The third passage significant to Herzog’s argument brings man’s best friend into the discussion: dogs. Most people, including myself, wouldn’t consider there to be any “moral complexities,” as Herzog describes it, that come with having dogs as pets. Over half of dog owners consider their dogs to be family – definitely myself and my family included. Herzog brings up that on average, 4.5 million Americans are bit by dogs every year and two dozen people are even killed by them. These are certainly facts that I feel most dog owners ignore (again, myself included!). The tension is brought up that dogs can be problematic for humans, but we still would think of them as family members. It certainly highlights the gray area in the topic of human-animal relationships.
The fourth passage that is significant to Herzog’s argument is the third full paragraph on the last page. This passage is basically a summary of Herzog’s entire argument. It shows Herzog’s perspective on human-animal relationships. The quote, “I oppose testing the toxicity of oven cleaner and eye shadow on animals, but I would sacrifice a lot of mice to find a cure for cancer,” is especially interesting to me. It seems a lot of humans are against harming animals for some purposes (cosmetics testing, etc.), but it is okay in other situations (biomedical research). Where do we draw the line? I think that is one of the biggest tensions in this article.
Journal #16 – Reconsidering “Consider the Lobster”
After rereading David Foster Wallace’s piece “Consider the Lobster,” and after rereading my first journal response to this, I see a lot of similar ideas I had originally that we have been thinking about with the last few reading assignments. In my first journal, I said that I would ask Wallace “How big of a role does the gourmet/professional food industry play in downplaying animal suffering?” I think this is still an important point to consider. In the fast food industry, restaurant industry, and even the processed/frozen food industry, it is designed so that our involvement as a consumer is very hands-off. We have no part in any of the process. We don’t slaughter the cow, prepare the meat, and cook the burger. We simply are just handed it and we enjoy it. This idea is in tension with Wallace’s piece because in “Consider the Lobster,” as a consumer we are very hands-on when it comes to lobster. There are options for us not to be, but most people aren’t squeamish about boiling a lobster alive like they maybe would be if it were slaughtering a cow to make cheeseburgers. After rereading this essay, it’s very clear to see the instances of humans ignoring – or maybe not considering – animal suffering. Wallace also brings up the point that it may be easier for people not to consider themselves morally in the wrong. Many people also just don’t consider lobsters conscious, much like how people didn’t consider fish to be animals in “Animals Like Us.” This again brings up the question of what are the qualifications to be considered conscious? Where do we draw the line? Why are ocean creatures not considered to be animals?
Journal #17 – Response to “Planting a Naysayer in Your Text”
In chapter six of TS/IS “Planting a Naysayer in Your Text,” I found many helpful ways to make an argument stronger. The main focus of this chapter is to demonstrate that acknowledging critics’ views can actually support your argument if done correctly. Several templates are used in this chapter that I found extremely helpful, as well. It definitely is not intuitive to give your critics a voice within your own argument, but it can actually neutralize their views. One way to do this is during the writing process, reflect on your own work and try to target areas of weakness. This is a great strategy because not only do you not have to rewrite your whole piece, but just rephrasing those areas of weakness and openly addressing them will make it stronger. This chapter also mentions the importance of labeling your critics to better identify them. While reading this passage, it crossed my mind how some people would not like to be labeled. This was addressed in the next passage by saying you could qualify the labels (for example “…not all Christians…”). This chapter also brings up an informal way to address the objections through directly using the skeptic’s voice in almost a sort of dialogue. This needs to be done correctly though, otherwise your readers will just be confused. A final important point I think this chapter addresses is that you can agree with parts of a skeptic’s argument but disagree with others. I quite like this point because it allows you to explore a gray area (maybe troubled middle?) I feel we’ve been exploring lately in some of the reading assignments.
Journal #18 – Response to “Against Meat”
- Foer describes some of his happiest childhood memories as involving meat. He had sushi lunch dates with his mother, grilling turkey burgers with his father, and of course his grandmother’s chicken and carrots. These are all important memories for him, but by giving up meat, he is giving up that part of his life. He loses the memories with his family that are inherently associated with these foods (meat). He is also giving up the taste of these foods, as well – although the taste is perhaps what brings the memories back for him. With giving up meat, he also gains some things. He gains a sense of his values again. He has held these values since he was a child that animals should not be harmed. Giving up meat allows him to follow his values and also gain a sense of peace for himself, perhaps.
- The question Foer presents holds some tensions. It questions why we prioritize one sense over all the others. I’m not sure I can answer the question. I guess it would be because raping an animal may cause harm to it. Then again, trapping and killing an animal also causes the ultimate harm (death) to it. I think the reason is because of the end goal. The end goal of raping an animal would be for your own pleasure. This pleasure is not necessary to survive, and you also can’t pass on your genes and reproduce from it, either. Killing an animal to eat gives you a means of survival. Humans need food to survive. Granted, we don’t necessarily need meat to survive, but if that is the only thing available, it’s what you have to do. This is the best answer I have, which honestly says that my value system is just as screwed up as everyone else’s is.
Journal #19 – Process for Project 3
- My process for this project has definitely been a little weirder than the process for the first two papers. It seems like the time on task that I spend actually physically writing down words is less than the last two so far. I have had to do a lot more contemplation this time around. There are so many topics and directions to go in that I feel like I’ve spent most of my time for this project just thinking about what to do, which has definitely been the biggest challenge of this paper. I’ve dedicated a small amount of time each day to at least look at the paper. Some days I’m able to write more than others. This project is definitely weird in that I think about it more often, and not necessarily during class or while I have dedicated writing time. Some of my ideas for this paper have come to mind while I’m doing random things, like showering or trying to fall asleep. I’ve been writing mostly in my room at my desk, unless my roommates are too loud, in which case I’ll go to the silent floor of the library or to my boyfriend’s room (he has a single in East and it tends to be a good place to do homework).
- This is so much different than my processes for the first two papers. The first paper seemed really clear cut and I didn’t find it too hard to come up with ideas for. The second paper was slightly harder, but nowhere near as difficult as this one is so far. With that being said, my processes for the first two papers involved more writing at the start. I obviously spent some time thinking about it, but I found it was easier to write things down. I wrote the first two papers in the same places that I’ve been working on the current project (my room, commons/library, boyfriend’s room). Anywhere where I had the least amount of distraction usually works for me. I faced less challenge during the processes of the first two papers because I knew exactly how I felt about each of the texts we were supposed to use, and I had a good idea of what I wanted to say. This is not shaping up to be the case for paper three
Journal #21 – Paper #3 Revision
I got a lot of helpful feedback from the peer review workshop last week. The overall theme of the comments seemed to be that my paper and my ideas didn’t really flow. They were all related and connected ideas, but they lacked transitions to really connect everything together. Thus, that is what I spent this weekend revising. I liked my ideas, so there wasn’t any that I wanted to necessarily subtract from the paper. The peer review definitely helped me see some holes in my overall organization, though. I have two kind of introductory paragraphs on the first page that needed a transition between them. I started out introducing David Foster Wallace and Hal Herzog, and then jumped straight to Caitlin Doughty. I worked to connect these authors in a way that sort of previews what I go more in-depth with in the body paragraphs. My thesis also needed revision to make it stronger, but that is still in progress as I also struggle to write a solid thesis until the end of the paper. My peer review also pointed out that I used a lot of questions, some of which were probably unnecessary, so I deleted the ones that didn’t help me. I worked a lot on transitioning my paragraphs and making sure the paper flowed smoothly.
I also needed to introduce my topics more in my introduction paragraph, rather than jumping straight into introducing a source. This is something I am still in the process of doing, because I find intros really difficult to write until the end of the paper.
Lastly, I started working on a conclusion. This is just a “draft” of my conclusion, as I probably will not have it finalized until the last minute when my ideas are locked in.
