Reflection
These past few months, writing has had its ups and downs for me. Of course there were the moments where I wanted to throw my laptop out my eight story high window, but those moments were always soon juxtaposed with ones where I took great satisfaction out of what I was producing.
There were some authors we read in class that really stood out or struck a chord with their approaches to writing. For example, Kurt Vonnegut, who I already admired as a writer, but never actually read anything by him about writing itself. He has such a distinct style, a kind of dark sarcastic tone that I wish I had the ability to emulate. In that piece, he gave straightforward advice about eliminating sentences that do not “illuminate” the subject in a new or useful way “no matter how excellent.” He says to avoid “Picasso-style” (2) writing, and strive to be understood. This was particularly useful because one of my biggest challenges is understanding that what is very clear in my head is not necessarily as straightforward in someone else’s. For example, especially when a topic is close to my heart, such as the process essay where I write about family history and circumstances in the Soviet Union, certain parts in the earlier drafts might have been lost on the reader in moments where I write about things that are already so familiar to me that it seems like as if they’re familiar to everyone. However, not everyone has a father who constantly rambles about living under a communist regime. I realized that I have to step back from my writing more, somehow mentally distance myself from it, and try to read it in someone else’s shoes. That way, I can spot more areas that could use more clarification. Vonnegut would say that I have to be “ever willing to simplify and clarify” (2) for the audience.
Others were liberating to read. The “Shitty First Drafts” section of Ann Lamott’s “Bird by Bird” felt essential for a class meant to help someone develop their writing. It was reassuring when Lamott very point-blankly said that all writers create shitty first drafts, and that “few writers know what they’re doing until they’ve done it.” (5) Sometimes you just have to hope for the best and let your fingers start typing away. You have to silence those voices in your head telling you that your writing is garbage, and just keeping going. Then, when you’ve gotten a substantial portion of writing done, you can go back and let those voices of criticism run free. This excerpt went hand in hand with Peter Elbow’s “The Process of Writing - Growing”. He claims that writing does not have to be so constrained in a two-step process of thoroughly planning out and then formally elaborating that plan. He believes that is a misconception about writing, and that the best route to take is actually the freest one where you don’t necessarily need to know where you’re going with it. This resonated with me because I would often trap myself in traditional writing methods and be too afraid to even start if I didn’t truly understanding the subject before I began. Now, I’m much more open to the idea of simply writing. It’s a lovely experience to be able to write without your mind constantly telling you to stop. I believe everyone should be exposed to this method of writing in order to break down that idea, as Elbow described, of writing as “the enemy.” (14) It took a while to let myself believe that nothing has to be perfect in the beginning, to let go, and simply write.
In the beginning of the semester I believed that my writing was about 50% transmission style. That’s still predominantly true; however, I think that number could be slightly lowered to accommodate for a greater openness to process writing. I’m more interested in the Social Constructivist model of writing, because it is fascinating to analyze the way that writing is influenced by outside forces and the way the writing affects people. For example, Diana George does an excellent job criticising the social forces that affect our perceptions of poverty. It is critical to understand the influences behind a writer’s work. My writing might not be at the level I’d like it to be at, but as Carol S. Dweck writes, one needs to have a “growth mindset”, the mentality that allows you to cultivate your work more through effort. She believes that people have a strong capacity for learning and development throughout their entire lifetime. In my moments of disdain toward my own writing abilities, that gives me the hope needed to remember that I’m not stuck where I am as long as I keep writing and allowing myself to grow.
One of the most challenging assignments was certainly the Frick essay because of the collaboration needed and the content itself; nevertheless, it was also one of the most rewarding assignments. My group and I chose to write about Jean Barbet’s Angel that stands amidst rushing water in the vast and lovely plant-filled atrium of the Frick museum. I’m more accustomed to working alone, but I thoroughly enjoyed having two other people to explore the life of a Robber Baron and his connection to this statue. Although it was sometimes difficult to coordinate times to revise the essay together, we made it work because we were all dedicated to hunting down as much information about this mysterious angel as we could in the time frame given. Together, we visited the Frick library where incredibly helpful and knowledgeable librarians gave us access to archives of old letter exchanges between art dealers that paved the way for the Angel to end up at the Frick museum, and stacks of historical research on this one religious figure.
Even if gathering the information was difficult, the beauty of working in a group was the way that each individual member interprets and uses that information. Each member might have his or her own idea about the angel’s rhetorical impact. Each brought a different perspective on the religious, technical, stylistic, and historical lens of the piece. Thus, when we put together our separate paragraphs on different elements of the statue, the next challenge was creating cohesion throughout the essay. Together, we had to shift sentences around, remove some while adding others, and ultimately ensure that our ideas were connected and flowed well together.
The individual research paper was also no simple task. I chose a completely unfamiliar topic--identification in Kenneth Burke’s Rhetoric of Motives, and its connection to how college students manifest their personalities in their dorm rooms. The assignment certainly helped me develop my research skills, as I hunted down books from the library and multiple databases in order to break down Burke’s often complex and abstract theories. It often seemed like more research I did, the more research was required to unpack his work, which often became daunting and overwhelming. Still, there were small, sporadic moments of realization and understanding that helped me use his idea of “consubstantiality” in my study. This was my first experience setting up the methodology to my own study. I really enjoyed taking a theoretical framework into practical application, because applying the theory reinforces my understanding of it.
After focusing mostly on research, it was a relief to take on a creative angle with the movie assignment. Even though the movie was about the research, the medium of the movie allowed for much more freedom in regards to how to represent it. I enjoy making small movies and learning about the technical aspects of iMovie because of all the different ways you can manipulate a video clip, photo, and sound. Short films force you to condense the information you need to convey, so figuring out how to simplify Burke’s theories in an entertaining way also helped me further comprehend the connections between identification and self expression.
Even if a majority of my writing happened between midnight and 2 AM, there has certainly been progress between those late nights. Throughout the semester, I could feel my writing style growing, with a better idea of how to improve with each new wave of feedback. With the knowledge I’ve acquired in ENG 120 and throughout the academic career, I hope to continue to keep writing until someday there’s a published book of mine sitting somewhere on a library shelf.
There were some authors we read in class that really stood out or struck a chord with their approaches to writing. For example, Kurt Vonnegut, who I already admired as a writer, but never actually read anything by him about writing itself. He has such a distinct style, a kind of dark sarcastic tone that I wish I had the ability to emulate. In that piece, he gave straightforward advice about eliminating sentences that do not “illuminate” the subject in a new or useful way “no matter how excellent.” He says to avoid “Picasso-style” (2) writing, and strive to be understood. This was particularly useful because one of my biggest challenges is understanding that what is very clear in my head is not necessarily as straightforward in someone else’s. For example, especially when a topic is close to my heart, such as the process essay where I write about family history and circumstances in the Soviet Union, certain parts in the earlier drafts might have been lost on the reader in moments where I write about things that are already so familiar to me that it seems like as if they’re familiar to everyone. However, not everyone has a father who constantly rambles about living under a communist regime. I realized that I have to step back from my writing more, somehow mentally distance myself from it, and try to read it in someone else’s shoes. That way, I can spot more areas that could use more clarification. Vonnegut would say that I have to be “ever willing to simplify and clarify” (2) for the audience.
Others were liberating to read. The “Shitty First Drafts” section of Ann Lamott’s “Bird by Bird” felt essential for a class meant to help someone develop their writing. It was reassuring when Lamott very point-blankly said that all writers create shitty first drafts, and that “few writers know what they’re doing until they’ve done it.” (5) Sometimes you just have to hope for the best and let your fingers start typing away. You have to silence those voices in your head telling you that your writing is garbage, and just keeping going. Then, when you’ve gotten a substantial portion of writing done, you can go back and let those voices of criticism run free. This excerpt went hand in hand with Peter Elbow’s “The Process of Writing - Growing”. He claims that writing does not have to be so constrained in a two-step process of thoroughly planning out and then formally elaborating that plan. He believes that is a misconception about writing, and that the best route to take is actually the freest one where you don’t necessarily need to know where you’re going with it. This resonated with me because I would often trap myself in traditional writing methods and be too afraid to even start if I didn’t truly understanding the subject before I began. Now, I’m much more open to the idea of simply writing. It’s a lovely experience to be able to write without your mind constantly telling you to stop. I believe everyone should be exposed to this method of writing in order to break down that idea, as Elbow described, of writing as “the enemy.” (14) It took a while to let myself believe that nothing has to be perfect in the beginning, to let go, and simply write.
In the beginning of the semester I believed that my writing was about 50% transmission style. That’s still predominantly true; however, I think that number could be slightly lowered to accommodate for a greater openness to process writing. I’m more interested in the Social Constructivist model of writing, because it is fascinating to analyze the way that writing is influenced by outside forces and the way the writing affects people. For example, Diana George does an excellent job criticising the social forces that affect our perceptions of poverty. It is critical to understand the influences behind a writer’s work. My writing might not be at the level I’d like it to be at, but as Carol S. Dweck writes, one needs to have a “growth mindset”, the mentality that allows you to cultivate your work more through effort. She believes that people have a strong capacity for learning and development throughout their entire lifetime. In my moments of disdain toward my own writing abilities, that gives me the hope needed to remember that I’m not stuck where I am as long as I keep writing and allowing myself to grow.
One of the most challenging assignments was certainly the Frick essay because of the collaboration needed and the content itself; nevertheless, it was also one of the most rewarding assignments. My group and I chose to write about Jean Barbet’s Angel that stands amidst rushing water in the vast and lovely plant-filled atrium of the Frick museum. I’m more accustomed to working alone, but I thoroughly enjoyed having two other people to explore the life of a Robber Baron and his connection to this statue. Although it was sometimes difficult to coordinate times to revise the essay together, we made it work because we were all dedicated to hunting down as much information about this mysterious angel as we could in the time frame given. Together, we visited the Frick library where incredibly helpful and knowledgeable librarians gave us access to archives of old letter exchanges between art dealers that paved the way for the Angel to end up at the Frick museum, and stacks of historical research on this one religious figure.
Even if gathering the information was difficult, the beauty of working in a group was the way that each individual member interprets and uses that information. Each member might have his or her own idea about the angel’s rhetorical impact. Each brought a different perspective on the religious, technical, stylistic, and historical lens of the piece. Thus, when we put together our separate paragraphs on different elements of the statue, the next challenge was creating cohesion throughout the essay. Together, we had to shift sentences around, remove some while adding others, and ultimately ensure that our ideas were connected and flowed well together.
The individual research paper was also no simple task. I chose a completely unfamiliar topic--identification in Kenneth Burke’s Rhetoric of Motives, and its connection to how college students manifest their personalities in their dorm rooms. The assignment certainly helped me develop my research skills, as I hunted down books from the library and multiple databases in order to break down Burke’s often complex and abstract theories. It often seemed like more research I did, the more research was required to unpack his work, which often became daunting and overwhelming. Still, there were small, sporadic moments of realization and understanding that helped me use his idea of “consubstantiality” in my study. This was my first experience setting up the methodology to my own study. I really enjoyed taking a theoretical framework into practical application, because applying the theory reinforces my understanding of it.
After focusing mostly on research, it was a relief to take on a creative angle with the movie assignment. Even though the movie was about the research, the medium of the movie allowed for much more freedom in regards to how to represent it. I enjoy making small movies and learning about the technical aspects of iMovie because of all the different ways you can manipulate a video clip, photo, and sound. Short films force you to condense the information you need to convey, so figuring out how to simplify Burke’s theories in an entertaining way also helped me further comprehend the connections between identification and self expression.
Even if a majority of my writing happened between midnight and 2 AM, there has certainly been progress between those late nights. Throughout the semester, I could feel my writing style growing, with a better idea of how to improve with each new wave of feedback. With the knowledge I’ve acquired in ENG 120 and throughout the academic career, I hope to continue to keep writing until someday there’s a published book of mine sitting somewhere on a library shelf.