Reflection on Project 3

This blog post will provide answers to a short list of bulleted questions provided in Writing Public Lives, page 520. It will also be a reflection on the final project that was just published and submitted (yay!).

Waits, Chris "Tuckered Out," May 7th, 2011
Generic License 

1) What was specifically revised from one draft to another? 
Between drafts I did general revisions. Fixing irregular quotations, general grammatical errors, smoothing out some of the more choppy writing. I re-wrote the subheading under the title, narrowed my focus more specifically to Rome and Pompeii in my introduction, and added more opinionated commentary to ensure my paper clearly made an argument.

2) How did you reconsider your thesis or organization?
I didn't necessarily change my thesis, but I narrowed down what I would be more specifically discussing as examples. This meant I narrowed down some pieces of my organization and expanded further on other pieces of evidence.

3) What led to these changes?
Partially my own revisions where I realized there were some areas that my ideas were not clear, but mostly from peer reviews and conference meetings. As a writer, you can maybe get attached to a work you've written and miss some flaws within it. Speaking and hearing comments from other writers helped me see the areas that needed work.

4) How do these changes effect your credibility as an author?
 I believe they make me more credible. The more feedback I get on a paper, the more aware of the flaws that may exist. Even when looking over several papers. If the same sort of comments generally re-appear, then I have a consistent flaw in my  writing that needs to be addressed and make me a better writer.

5) How will these changes better address the audience?
Laurence, in his comments on my draft, actually suggested a stronger appeal to my audience. I carefully tried to appeal to the generally upper middle-class and intelligent audience without seeming too preachy. There was one point where it felt as though I was pressuring the audience to donate to the sites, and I was unsure if this was the tone I wanted.

6)How did you consider sentence structure or style?
I tried to make sure my language was generally formal and made it more or less structured in my revisions. I tried to vary the structure of my sentences a little more, but I mostly did general edits for my paper.

7)How will these changes assist your audience in understanding purpose?
The more clear my writing is, the better my audience is going to understand my argument. Revisions are helpful to do that and allows me as the author to help clarify to my audience what exactly I am arguing.

8) Did you have to reconsider the conventions of your genre?
In all of my revisions and edits from other people, my conventions were described as generally in line. It had the right amount of photos, about the right length, and had the appropriate formality in writing. I adjusted the size of the photos a little, but otherwise I did not reconsider my conventions.

9)How does reflection help you consider your identity as a writer? 
Revision is an important part of the writing process, and helps authors learn about who they are as writers as well. Seeing your strengths and weaknesses pointed out can help an author really grow and figure out how they write. Reflecting upon how your revision process works can see where you should be revising more and what you revised successfully. It's an important part of the process.