Brendan Donohue
ENG. 123 D
Prof. Cripps
10 May 2018
Framing Statement Project II A & B
In reflecting on my engagement with the six learning outcomes in my earliest projects, I cannot help but feel accomplished. My engagement in these processes have not come quickly nor easily. I have actively exercised these outcomes in nearly half a dozen independent projects over two semesters. Examples of my most recent complete and successful execution of these outcomes can be seen in my works titled “Added Language for the Complication of Argument” and “The Role of Revision”. These two works combined made up Project II of English 123D with Professor Cripps. I will be conducting an analysis of my engagement with these two papers to evaluate my involvement of the six learning outcomes.
- Writing as a Recursive Process
One of the most crucial parts of a paper is the introduction. It’s purpose is to entice the reader, introduce authors and literary works, as well as layout the thesis the paper will be discussing. As part of writing as a recursive process I made significant changes to the introduction of both my papers.
In “Added Language for the Complication of Argument”, I removed the following sentence from my introduction:
What started out as logographic stick figures and phallic symbols has evolved to a practice of deeply complicated exchange.
Upon revising my paper I felt this sentence offered very little in the way of bolstering my ideas and setting up the paper. Thus, I elected to remove it and instead move more quickly into introducing authors Miller and Jurecic.
Further more, in an effort to simplify my introduction of the authors Miller, Jurecic and Gay, I added a standalone introduction sentence for Gay. This way my thesis could be more clearly presented and understood.
My initial draft read as:
Authors Richard Miller and Ann Jurecic discuss the complexities of language in their book Habits of the Creative Mind. In an effort evaluate the ideas of Miller and Jurecic on complexities of modern language, I will examine Roxane Gay’s Bad Feminist.
My final draft read as:
Authors Richard Miller and Ann Jurecic discuss the complexities of language in their book Habits of the Creative Mind. Roxane Gay is an American writer and professor most noted for her collection of essays titled Bad Feminist. In an effort evaluate the ideas of Miller and Jurecic on complexities of modern language, I will examine Roxane Gay’s use of and, but, or in Bad Feminist.
I believe these simple changes in my introduction alone, had a significant impact on the readability success of my entire paper. My paper “Added Language for the Complication of Argument” is truly centered around the use of the words “and, but, or”, so by revising my paper and adding these key words into my thesis, I feel my introduction, thesis, and overall paper was strengthened.
Similar evidence of revising my introduction can be seen in my paper “The Role of Revision”. After stepping away from my rough draft for a few days, I revisited the piece and felt as though my thesis could be improved.
My initial draft thesis read as:
In an effort to thoroughly understand the process of revision and how it has evolved over time, I will be discussing the ideas of Miller and Jurecic in context of Fehrman’s history of revision.
My final draft thesis read as:
In an effort to thoroughly evaluate the process of revision and how it has evolved over time, this paper will evaluate the relationship writers have had with revision throughout the evolution of literary technology.
In revising my thesis I elected to remove the authors names, and instead be more precise and specific about exactly what the aim of my paper was. In adding “this paper will evaluate the relationship writers have had with revision throughout the evolution of literary technology”, I felt my thesis more adequately represented the goal of my paper.
Later on in the main body of my paper I decided to remove and add evidence and claims that did not smoothly and thoroughly support my thesis. Some of these changes included:
The introduction of my second paragraph went from:
Writers were no longer shackled to tinkering due to the cost of revisions. New technology increased printing rates by 800% in Britain over a thirteen year period (Fehrman). With the new mass production of material, came a new wave of mass revision. “… writers like Hemingway and Eliot insisted on not having just a second chance, but a third, fourth, and fifth” (Fehrman).
To then:
By the 20th century writers were no longer using quill and ink to pen their masterpieces. Although writers such as Hemingway still preferred to commence their writing process on paper, they now had the ability to type their works by typewriter. This evolution in technology also enabled writers to revise their works more thoroughly. New technology increased printing rates by 800% in Britain over a thirteen year period (Fehrman). With the new mass production of material, came a new wave of mass revision. “… writers like Hemingway and Eliot insisted on not having just a second chance, but a third, fourth, and fifth” (Fehrman).
In my paper “The Role of Revision” I continued to carry out the practice of writing as a recursive project by adding significant evidence to support my claims. Towards the end of my final paper I added a significant paragraph to support my thesis:
Fehrman describes technology surrounding writing having shifted in the last 30 years, and with it, changes in our ideas on writing and revising have been congruent. In his piece Fehrman quotes Hannah Sullivan on how she believes the computer has impacted the way writing and revising occurs. “The ideal environment for revision is one where you can preserve several different versions of text” (Sullivan). Fehrman goes on to say “With only one-in-progress draft on a computer, lose lose the cues that led the Modernist to step back from their work and revise it.” The claims of Sullivan and Fehrman seem to allude to the fact writers are regressing in the way they revise and edit their pieces. Practices such as “restructuring” and “rethinking” promoted by Miller and Jurecic have fallen out of favor due to newer automated literary technology. The computer has offered some benefits though, such as word processing technology that checks for spelling and grammar, as well as instant sharing of drafts across the globe. Despite these attributes however, evidence seems to show thorough revision of literary works has declined since writers have moved away from working with hard copies.
Following this paragraph I went on to significantly strengthen my closing thoughts and ideas in my conclusion. I felt by improving my conclusion I could do a much greater job of informing the reader about ideas and evidence discussed. I believe that it has the ability to help aid the reader in retaining the information as we as influencing the reader to hold the paper in higher regard.
My initial draft conclusion read as:
Writing has evolved immensely over just the past few centuries. Most of this is attributed to the evolution of technologies used to facilitate drafts and published works. With the ability for authors to more easily procure writing appliances it can be theorized that the face of revision will continue to change and become more thorough and possibly even automated.
My final draft conclusion read as:
In following the history of revision from quill to computer, technology has had a significant impact on how writers interact with their works. The reality that writers are no longer are no longer scribbling in the margins is undoubtedly a positive advancement. I believe writers will find a middle ground on how the interact with their works when it comes to revision and editing. Until then, it will be most beneficial for writers to slow down in their process and work with hard copies as Sullivan proscribes. Regardless of the direction and rate at which technology changes moving forward, it will forever be beneficial for writers to engage in the processes of “rethinking” and “structuring” instead of simply “tinkering”.
- Integrating Ideas With Those Of Others
The quality of a paper is primarily based on the relationship a writer has with the authors they are discussing. It is not only important for a writer to thoroughly understand the works they are discussing, but it is valuable for a writer to be able to dissect texts and discuss the finer points of the authors. This relationship is based on the writer’s ability to agree, challenge, or extend on the ideas of the authors. My analysis of the “Integrating Ideas With Those of Others” will evaluate how I actively engaged with authors in my works “The Role of Revision” and “Added Language for the Complication of Argument”.
My paper “Added Language for the Complication of Argument” is based on developing a relationship with authors Richard Miller and Ann Jurecic who author “Habits of the Creative Mind”, as well as Roxane Gay and her work in “Bad Feminist”. I initially introduce the ideas of Gay by giving a minute summary of “Bad Feminist”. I then immediately set up a quote of her’s in order to juxtapose it to the ideas of Miller and Jurecic on the use of “or”.
Roxane Gay is a self proclaimed feminist who struggles to fully embody what other female figures to consider to be “essential feminism”. She weighs the pros and cons of what modern feminism is supposed to be and how she feels aspects of it obfuscate her. In her take on “essential feminism” Gay suggests it represents “anger, militancy, unwavering principle… or at least a proper white, heterosexual, feminist woman.” In her description Gay uses they word “or”, which is “on the three most important words in the english language” according to Miller and Jurecic.
Later in the same paragraph I move to break down Gay’s use of “or”. I provide my own thoughts on how I agree with the idea of how Miller and Jurecic suggest “or” should be used.
Miller and Jurecic say that “or” has the power to enable alternatives and possibilities. I believe Miller and Jurecic are correct is their assessment of what “or” is capable of doing, as Gay’s claim of “essential feminism” uses “or” in that exact manner. “Essential feminism” can “anger, militancy, unwavering principle” or as an alternative, “essential feminism” can “at least a proper white, heterosexual, feminist woman” (Gay). Gay goes on later in her paper to again use “or” in the same capacity to complicate her argument on modern feminism.
Later in my paper “Added Language for the Complication of Argument”, I again breakdown the ideas of Miller and Jurecic and how they appear in Gay’s “Bad Feminist”.
Small summary element to establish context:
A significant attribute of feminism is to be independant and not shackled by the chains of a patriarchal relationship. Gay acknowledges her own desire to have this, however, Gay also admits to wanting to relinquish control and have someone else take care of her.
Explanation of the significance of Gay’s use of “but”:
Gay uses “but” to facilitate her contradiction in desire by saying “I want to be independent, but I want to be taken care of and have someone to come home to.” Later in the same paragraph Gay says “I want to be in charge and respected and in control, but I want to surrender, completely, in a certain aspects of my life.” Again in this example Gay acknowledges her desire to be “…in charge and respected and in control…” while simultaneously the desire to “surrender”. Gay makes this paradoxical claim fluid and understandable by establishing “exception” and “condition” through the use of “but”.
Relation of the text’s of Miller and Jurecic as well as Gay. I also provide my own ideas and opinion on the usage of “but”:
This insertion of “exception” and “condition” comes directly from Miller and Jurecic’s claim on the power of what “but” can accomplish. Gay repeatedly uses “but” exactly how Miller and Jurecic prescribe.
In my other paper of the second project I worked in a similar manner to open a dialogue between authors Miller and Jurecic as well as Craig Fehrman. Instead of discussing the usage of words for complication of language, this time I discuss the history of literary revision along side the the ideas of what Miller and Jurecic see as valuable revision practices.
I work to connect how advancements in technology lead to an increased involvement in active revisions by authors. Evidence of this can be seen below.
During this period of literary renaissance Hannah Sullivan describes writers splitting into two groups, those who “reduced their work massively, and [those who ] expanded it massively” (Fehrman). These technological advance allowed writers to make a multitude of new moves during the revision process. Miller and Jurecic highlight two of these major moves as being “rethinking” and “restructuring”.
“Rethinking motivates us to revise globally- to rework our ideas rather than to tinker away at surface corrections” (Miller and Jurecic). Meanwhile, restructuring is a process which is includes filling in gaps of research, refining attention of argument, and providing the appropriate amount of supporting information (Miller and Jurecic). Hemingway was evidence of a writer who used his drafts to engage in the process of “restructuring”. It was his philosophy that his work was strengthened by simplification, and describes this through his “principle of the iceberg”: “There is seven-eighths of it under the water for every part that shows. Anything you know you can eliminate and it only strengthens your iceberg” (Fehrman). New technology such as the typewriter allowed writers to slow down, and it was described by Fehrman as being an invaluable change in the revision process.
I believe my efforts to actively engage with the ideas of others is strong. I believe my latest works show that I am sufficient in my ability to simultaneously connect with multiple texts across papers. Looking forward it is my goal to more actively challenge the ideas and beliefs of the readers I engage with. It will be
- Active Reading, Critical Reading, and Informal Reading Response
As previously mentioned, the a great paper begins with the writer developing a great relationship with the texts they working with. The best way to open this dialogue is by breaking down the texts before you even begin to type your paper. Taking notes on the text in an effort to add, challenge, or agree is the quickest way to develop a deep and meaningful relationship with the text. This way as a writer you can write with much more ease as you have already pulled out and highlighted key ideas, quotes, and concepts.
I feel that both of my paper “The Role of Revision” and “Added Language for the Complication of Argument” grew roots from meaningful annotations long before I began working on my rough drafts.
Annotations from my first paper “Added Language for the Complication of Argument” include the following. The annotations of me actively, understanding, challenging, agreeing with, and extending on the ideas of Roxane Gay’s “Bad Feminist” and Miller and Jurecic’s “Habits of the Creative Mind”.
Roxane Gay Annotations
Miller and Jurecic Annotations
My second paper “The Role of Revision” took roots in a similar effort by establishing a connection with the texts of Miller and Jurecic as well as Fehrman by annotating both of their respective works. “The Role of Revision” had a unique set of challenges in that my main connection of the texts was comparing the timeline on which the comparatively unfolded. Those annotations took form in the following ways:
Eric Fehrman Annotations and Establishing a Timeline
Annotations on Miller and Jurecic. An attempt to understand and differentiate rethinking, restructuring, tinkering and taking a break:
- Critique Own and Other’s Work
After procuring a rough draft of a paper, it is not only valuable to take time and step away from the work, but it is also invaluable to engage in peer review. During Project II with Professor Cripps I engaged with fellow classmate Tess Cartwright in peer review. We exchanged papers and spent time reading and critiquing each other’s work. I found it valuable to not only to receive advise from Tess but also it was helpful to read Tess’ paper. Specifically I found it eye opening to see how she introduced her sources, transitioned into source evidence, and tied together her thesis in her conclusion. I found reading her work enabled me to produce a better product of my own paper.
In peer reviewing Tess’ paper I gave her feed back in the way of both local and global revision. Local changes included minute changes like punctuation and word choice. Global revisions included restructuring her thesis, and well as reorganizing the order of her paragraphs.
I found that Tess’ rough draft was strong, both stylistically as well as the content it contained. However, it felt that she jumped too soon into what would ultimately become her main idea or thesis. I tried to convey to her that materialistically it was strong, but introduced too early in the paper.
Her first sentence was:
Miller and Juerecic’s And, but, or thinking gives Gay’s ideas in bad feminism power and complexity while also limiting her ideas in some aspects.
My feedback was:
Really strong and clear claim.
It is important to layout this clear “thesis” like idea early in your paper to set the tone.
Maybe move this later into your intro. Use the intro to setup authors and their respective works.
In conversing with Tess after reading her paper I stressed to her this really was a quality claim, it was just in the wrong place of her introductory paragraph. I also tried to convey to her she would be better off starting her paper with a much less specific claim or introductory element to grab reader’s attention.
Later in Tess’ introduction I recommended changes to her last sentence. What should normally serve as the location of her thesis instead was a generic topic sentence:
By acknowledging the power of these different words we can understand more deeply the message the writer is trying to portray to their audience.
I recommended this last sentence location should serve as her thesis and to instead replace it with the first sentence previously discussed above.
Later in Tess’ paper I recommended changes to her second body paragraph.
It read as:
Miller and jueric say that “thinking is the initial act of making connections” and that the connections can be made by language, sound, and images when gay is listing the things that make her a bad feminist they are a combination of all of these things. women get broken down into simple categories like what they are wearing or how they talk and then judged based on the connections made. when gay is building bad feminism she had these “connecting” ideas in mind and that’s what she uses to draw the conclusion that she is a bad feminist.
Although this paragraph of her’s contains some very relevant claims with supporting evidence in the form of quotes, I informed her that it was cumbersome to read and contained multiple run on sentences. By reducing the sentence length and restructuring the claims into a Barclay’s formula the material would be most easily read and understood.
My next piece of feedback for Tess came in her third and final body paragraph which read as:
Gay talks about “The sisterhood” “i’m not even sure what the sisterhood is, but the idea of a sisterhood meanaces me, quietly reminding me of how bad a feminist i am.” This indicates that the “sisterhood” must be using the idea that there are such things as bad feminists. Without this idea, there would be nothing to be afraid of. Gay doesn’t want to claim she is a feminist because she feels she doesn’t live up to the expectations of a feminist or she lacks the requirements to join the sisterhood.
I responded to Tess by saying:
I really like how you connect personally and offer your opinion/idea of sisterhood. Good analysis of her words as well.
I did my best to communicate to Tess that I thought she provided some wonderful textual evidence to discuss. Furthermore her analysis and contribution to Gay’s text was productive.
Later in Tess’ same paragraph I thought she really hit the nail on the head in terms of understanding the use of certain words for complication of language. Tess said:
This to me is almost but thinking “being a bad feminist, however, even a bad one…” Her however is another form of a but setting her up to continue her argument but bring it in a different direction.
In turn, I commented:
I love how you recognize the significance of “however”. Maybe elaborate on how “however” is similar to “and, but, or”.
At the end of reading Tess’ rough draft I felt it was best to leave her with a concluding or “end” comment. It read:
So far I think you have some wonderful claim and ideas. Primarily in your intro. Introduce the authors a bit more clearly and refine your thesis at the end of your intro and you’ll be in great shape.
I also think you offer some highly relevant and supportive quotes. Your’e starting to introduce your own voice as well. It is challenging to do but will be super well received by Prof. C.
- Document Work Using Appropriate Conventions
Once a writer has established a quality understanding and relationship, it becomes important to be able to introduce the evidence in an effective and supportive manner. This is done by making a claim, then introducing a source and signaling a usage of quotes. It is also important to properly cite the evidence and establish a proper works cited list that a reader can easily reference.
Examples of establishing quality signal and their proceeding evidence from “Added Language for the Complication of Argument”, phrases include:
She weighs the pros and cons of what modern feminism is supposed to be and how she feels aspects of it obfuscate her. In her take on “essential feminism” Gay suggests it represents “anger, militancy, unwavering principle… or at least a proper white, heterosexual, feminist woman.”
I believe Miller and Jurecic are correct is their assessment of what “or” is capable of doing, as Gay’s claim of “essential feminism” uses “or” in that exact manner. “Essential feminism” can “anger, militancy, unwavering principle” or as an alternative, “essential feminism” can “at least a proper white, heterosexual, feminist woman” (Gay).
Gay feels there are many issues with “essential feminism”, one of which is the way it limits the personal freedoms of the those who enter it’s discourse. “The most significant problem with essential feminism is how it doesn’t allow for the complexities of human experience or individuality” (Gay).
In Gay’s discussion of her ideal relationship she touches on the topic of sexual pleasure and uses “but”, which is the second of Miller and Jurecic’s “three most important words in the english language”. Gay says “I am a fan of orgasms, but they take time, and in many instances I don’t want to waste that time.”
Gay acknowledges her own desire to have this, however, Gay also admits to wanting to relinquish control and have someone else take care of her. Gay uses “but” to facilitate her contradiction in desire by saying “I want to be independent, but I want to be taken care of and have someone to come home to.”
Examples of quality and efficient signal phrases and evidence from my second paper “The Role of Revision” can be read below:
Fehrman’s earliest analysis begins with famous poet John Milton. Milton’s revisions involved loose sheets of paper, scribbling out words and adding sentences in the margins of his papers (Fehrman). In the eyes of Miller and Jurecic these revisions would be categorized as “tinkering away at surface corrections”.
Drafts of publication were kept to a minimum due to the price of paper and the incommodious process of riding by horseback to procure a print draft. “In the age of Shakespeare and Milton, paper was an expensive luxury; blotting out a few lines was one thing, but producing draft after draft would have been quite another” (Fehrman).
This evolution in technology also enabled writers to revise their works more thoroughly. New technology increased printing rates by 800% in Britain over a thirteen year period (Fehrman). With the new mass production of material, came a new wave of mass revision. “… writers like Hemingway and Eliot insisted on not having just a second chance, but a third, fourth, and fifth” (Fehrman).
“Rethinking” is a process that can occur during any stage of writing from first draft to final draft. It most often occurs early in drafting when ideas and position are put under scrutiny and writers question their original position. “Rethinking motivates us to revise globally- to rework our ideas rather than to tinker away at surface corrections” (Miller and Jurecic).
Hemingway was evidence of a writer who used his drafts to engage in the process of “restructuring”. It was his philosophy that his work was strengthened by simplification, and describes this through his “principle of the iceberg”: “There is seven-eighths of it under the water for every part that shows. Anything you know you can eliminate and it only strengthens your iceberg” (Fehrman).
Fehrman describes technology surrounding writing having shifted in the last 30 years, and with it changes in our ideas on writing and revising have been congruent. In his piece Fehrman quotes Hannah Sullivan on how she believes the computer has impacted the way writing and revising occurs. “The ideal environment for revision is one where you can preserve several different versions of text” (Sullivan). Fehrman goes on to say “With only one-in-progress draft on a computer, lose lose the cues that led the Modernist to step back from their work and revise it.”
I believe these examples from both of my works during Project II to be solid execution of signal phrasing that leads in highly supportive and relevant evidence. In the way of appropriate conventions it is a goal of mine to continue to refine my citation usage. It can become a little tricky when using the authors name in the signal phrase and build up. I believe my execution to be fair, but certainly could use improvement.
Lastly, my works cited pages were done appropriately according to MLA, but this could become more challenging when working with an extensive number of sources instead of just two.
“Added Language for the Complication of Argument” works cited:
Literature Cited
Gay, Roxane. “Bad Feminist.” Roxane Gay, 22 Sept. 2012, www.roxanegay.com/bad-feminist/.
Miller, Richard E., and Ann Jurecic. Habits of the Creative Mind. Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2016.
“The Role of Revision” works cited:
Literature Cited
Fehrman, Craig. “Revising Your Writing Again? Blame the Modernist.” Boston Globe. 30 June 2013. Web.
Miller, Richard E., and Ann Jurecic. Habits of the Creative Mind. Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2016.
- Control Individualized Error Patterns
The Six Learning Outcomes of this course are based on measuring how an individual improves their writing. In my own opinion no outcome is more important and valuable than tracking Individualized Error Patterns. Over the past half decade of writing informative, scientific, and reflective literary pieces I am well aware of the patterns of my own errors. However, being aware of them is only half the battle. Throughout Project II I underwent two separate and comprehensive revisions processes. Both of which yielded a list of their respective errors.
In my first piece “Added Language for the Complication of Argument”, I corrected a series of consistent errors. These include properly citing authors in-text and including a comprehensive MLA correct works cited list. My final draft of “Added Language for the Complication of Argument” included proper usage of in-text citations and complete list of Works Cited in MLA format.
Additional Revisions to my final draft of “Added Language for the Complication of Argument” included revising the following complex sentences:
“The most significant problem with essential feminism is how it doesn’t allow for the complexities of human experience or individuality” (Gay).
“Essential feminism” can “anger, militancy, unwavering principle” or as an alternative, “essential feminism” can “at least a proper white, heterosexual, feminist woman” (Gay).
I believe Miller and Jurecic are correct is their assessment of what “or” is capable of doing, as Gay’s claim of “essential feminism” uses “or” in that exact manner.
In an effort evaluate the ideas of Miller and Jurecic on complexities of modern language, I will examine Roxane Gay’s use of and, but, or in Bad Feminist.
Gay feels there are many issues with “essential feminism”, one of which is the way it limits the personal freedoms of the those who enter it’s discourse.
In addition, I also made significant changes to punctual, style and MLA errors made in the process of writing “The Role of Revision”.
These changes included the addition of properly MLA cited evidence such as:
“The ideal environment for revision is one where you can preserve several different versions of text” (Sullivan).
Practices such as “restructuring” and “rethinking” promoted by Miller and Jurecic have fallen out of favor due to newer automated literary technology.
Proper punctual additions and corrections in comma usage included:
Despite these attributes however, evidence seems to show thorough revision of literary works has declined since writers have moved away from working with hard copies.
The computer has offered some benefits though, such as word processing technology that checks for spelling and grammar, as well as instant sharing of drafts across the globe.
Fehrman describes technology surrounding writing having shifted in the last 30 years, and with it changes in our ideas on writing and revising have been congruent.
Finally, my final copy of “The Role of Revision” included a properly formated Works Cited Page:
Literature Cited
Fehrman, Craig. “Revising Your Writing Again? Blame the Modernist.” Boston Globe. 30 June 2013. Web.
Miller, Richard E., and Ann Jurecic. Habits of the Creative Mind. Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2016.
I believe both of my final drafts to have improved sentence structure as well as proper punctuation use. I would like to continue to challenge myself moving forward to branch out and use more complex punctuation moves such as semicolons, colons and hyphen where necessary, as I do not fully feel comfortable with using these on a grande stage yet.
