For Writing Assignment Two, I
proposed changes for the ASU Academic Bowl. I enjoyed dealing with a subject
that I was passionate about. It eventually made the paper a breeze to write,
and I think it made me a feel like a stronger part of the ASU Quiz Bowl
community. My original interactions with a number of my sources had been
relatively perfunctory, but now that we have engaged in email conversations
regarding something other than when competitions were taking place, they have
become compelling people worth mingling with rather than hostile vesicles of
trivia. I realize something more academic would be a better thing to take away
from a writing assignment, but as I tend to get lonely, these newfound
compatriots will probably leave the longest lasting impact upon me.
As the
culmination of the English class’s second unit, the paper fulfilled its
function. It provided legitimacy for practicing many useful skills: research
techniques, persuasion, peer editing, and balancing counter arguments. In
particular that last one was challenging not only because my project did not
lend itself to having a complete opposing argument but I was not used to
dealing with counter arguments in a persuasive format. In general I tend to
play up the straw man as opposed to tackling divergent forces in a paper, but
in the end I realized that this was not the most important part of my paper.
The balancing act of showing all sides of an issue is not meant to detract from
the primary idea one is trying to purport. There are so many better things to
focus on in writing a paper.
I was
somewhat peeved by the peer editing process as I was not sure if it was
effective. It certainly made revision much simpler, as all I had to do was look
at troubling spots that other had pointed out; however, the recommendations
were all coupled with the question of their authority in this subject. I think
I prefer the conferences. The buck kind of stops there.
No comments:
Post a Comment