Zoom Out
feel free to enjoy this piece while reading zoom out
In truth, my writing has not changed much(if at all) in my years at SC. I may alter my writing style to fit the brief, but it is mainly in a structural manner.
The writings and media I interact with change my style ever so slightly, as I tend to incorporate the words those authors frequent and may borrow their style of phrasing.
But things are relatively stable.
My best comparison goes to when I was in musicals in high school. Oftentimes, I would refer to the style in which the original Broadway actors played their role, mimicking to the best of my abilities how they moved and emphasized phrasing. In those cases, I was mesmerized by the performers, and although I wanted to try to find my own style, I fully believed nothing could top the professionals. Why would I try to play this role in a different way?
In writing, I believe school(before sc) instilled a sense of accomplishment in me. Maybe accomplishment is not the word I seek. Value? A sense of mattering? Regardless, I felt that I could indeed write. By the time I reached college, I had an idea of who I was as a writer. This is not a reflection on my pre-college writing, but I believe it is pertinent to mention it in order to see how I write. It is my life context.
That is not to say that I am free from the influence of a "good" writer. [Good, in this case, is my subjective conclusion that I enjoy how a writer composes, and as such, am influenced by it.] I would be closing my eyes if I were to say I compose in a hole devoid of thought besides my own.
Writing, in essence, is reacting. Even if I sat down and wrote about, say, whether dentists are money grabbers, I'd be writing based on my experiences with dentists and the experiences I've heard from others. Knowing me, I'd look into articles from The New York Times or NPR and see what they have to opine. It would not be a reach to think I would take bits from their respective writing styles and make them my own. As such, the question is how the circumstances have affected me and, therefore, my writing.
The mystery unfolds thusly.
All clues we survey today are, in essence, argumentative papers. While some(Broadway) ask for an analysis, all require that some argument be made and made well. Here are snippets from uncovered respective briefs:
"The objective is to analyze a historic site …Your paper should have an argument, clearly articulated in your thesis statement/introduction" [Hist 240]
"The hallmarks of an excellent paper are (1) original and critical argument."
The only exception would be a piece created for my ENGL297 course(to be discussed in further detail later). Otherwise, all papers have been argument-based. To be clear, I do not despise the concept of argument-based prompts; I find they help one think critically about a topic and assist the writer in gathering one's thoughts and formulating opinions. I would have expected a more diverse writing experience at this level. Even when writing an article-style paper, there is always an argument.
At times, these arguments feel far too forced. Take, for example, my Response 1 paper for a history course. In it, we were required to form a counterargument regarding the treatment of Californian natives in the 1700s by the Spaniards and Franciscans. My counter reads as such[reduced for brevity]:
"Thus, although one could make the argument that the indigenous people had some level of power themselves, the manner in which the missions abused their power through stripping the natives of rights further supports the idea that the missions abused their power over the natives."
Personally, these paragraphs have become the dreaded counterargument paragraph. I feel that these paragraphs often have good intentions- teachers want us to think about opposing views and how they work in the context we compose in. But I don't think a single paragraph lends to a fleshed-out thought rather than a simple topic sentence reworded a couple of times to fill the space. The encouragement of a counterargument serves a valuable purpose: to remind us that there are various views situated in the conversation we engage in. I know I am not free from exclusively searching for sources that only prove my argument. But when the purpose of the counterargument paragraph is merely to destroy other points, it closes the door for further research. This paper highlights and reminds me of a worry I've had when writing these counters: that I HAVE to be correct in my argument. That what I choose to include in my paper as a counter is something I must be prepared to squash rather than marinate in. While that does not mean I should write that an apple is red for five pages and then decide midway that an apple is indeed yellow merely for the sake of argument, there is something to be said about bringing in multiple points. An example in this sort of paper could have been that I brought up x, y and z. I may decide to completely disagree with x, but I wish to consider y and z. I don't have to decide exactly how they fit into the conversation, but it is an opportunity for both me and my audience to converse. It allows others to reflect and learn something new.
All clues were required work. I don't generally mind mandatory papers. I quite enjoy the activity of writing, seeing what I can come up with, and learning as I go. And yet… I have found the confines of the briefs given to me to be restricted in nature. A most egregious example comes from law 101. In it, we were given strict instructions on how the paper needed to be structured, bit by bit.
The paper felt especially drab to me. It was a chore, a sentiment I rarely feel in writing. I was in first grade all over again, being taught to detail my writing so that I could tell the reader how to make a sandwich. The introductory paragraph says it all:
"In this paper, I will argue that the movie … Rather than …. First, I will discuss how ... Through the utilization of the … I will illustrate the emphasis … Afterward, I will note …Finally, I will discuss how …"
Compare it with this first-grader prompt:
While I am sure this makes the paper simple to grade, it is insanely stifling. I felt this, though to a lesser extent, in 99% of my college papers. In writ 150, we were told to write our thesis clearly, use transitional phrases, and incorporate topic sentences. This was the case in virtually every class. You get the sense that if you do otherwise, even if it sounds decent, it won't be graded as such. At the end of the day, you get a grade. So I was not at all surprised when I created a table with all the transitional phrases used in seven selected papers and found…well:
This is not to be confused with a bashing of the use of transitional phrases or topic sentences. In some moments, they are necessary in transition. That's why they're named transitional phrases. But they should not be required.
Not all works have felt so stiff. A standout has been my ENGL297 class, Intro to Nonfiction. The course heavily based its efforts on discussing narrative nonfiction, a style pioneered by Joan Didion. I adored her work and those of other writers in the class. We were once given a prompt in which we would analyze our choice of nonfiction author and be inspired by their stylistic choices to create our own work. What resulted was a deeply personal piece regarding alcoholism in my family and how it affected my mother's childhood. This class, and therefore writing in it, was freeing. I was shown that not only were there different ways of writing things, but that it was encouraged. I look back on my writings there with pride, albeit a bit of cringiness. But I argue that cringing is a sign of change, a symbol of trying something new and seeing what works and what I like.
In all my works, I feel that I would've done things differently had I not felt so restricted.
To be clear, I do not despise my college writing. I have learned to think deeply about topics and how to write about them. But I think I came into college believing I would be in for major changes in order to be a great writer. What a great writer looks like, I am not entirely sure. I felt encouraged in a couple of courses, sure, but it is the fact that the inspiration was not further fostered that I feel I remain a bit stuck in my ways of writing, of tending to stick to a simple sandwich structure. Yes, I could have written on my own simply to write. Yes, I could have joined writing groups outside of school. But then, what is school for? Is it not meant to open further doors? The positive structure of the university is that, to some extent, you are forced to write- and therefore face yourself.
Even here, I wish to write more. This case feels open but unsolved.
Maybe that's the point.
Zoom In
In light of physical and mental circumstances, I took an Incomplete for my WRIT 150 course. I had worked on my WP4 briefly, with a possible framework created. For reasons unnecessary to touch upon in this piece, I did not work on my WP4 in earnest until a year ago. I make this note as my WP4 is a policy piece. Policy is constantly changing; bills get introduced and lost, and general opinions on matters can differ greatly within the span of three years.
The essence of my piece, however, did not change. For context, the work argues that as a result of the United States' direct part in climate change, the US owes reparations to Honduras, a country in dire straights as a result of climate-based destruction. I foremost discuss how it is that the US is to blame for Honduras' situation and the fact that Hondurans flee to the United States for asylum. While increasing refugee and asylee numbers for Honduras would decidedly result in some alleviation, I argued that it was merely an adaptation plan. As such, I proposed a two-fold plan: altering asylum and refugee numbers and working with the Honduran government to create well-worked plans to better farming efforts in an ever-heating environment.
Unfortunately, even today, I struggle to decide who this paper is intended for. The American government, perhaps? But I firmly recall being and seeing others in articles be frustrated by the lack of policy addressing either issue. To claim I am writing to the voters of America is also dicey, as I never set out steps or even suggestions as to what citizens can do to support the cause. I simply note what did not work(Plan Columbia, which aimed to end armed conflict and facilitate peace in Columbia), what could work(based on UN definitions of refugees and asylees, among other facts), and a declaration that
"we need to support Hondurans who come to the United States in search of asylum and understand that they are not a drain on our society."
"It is up to america to bring forth reparations that are long overdue"
In this way, I think my piece falters in footing. After all, should I not have a solid intended audience for a work in which I hope moved people to act? I believe the struggle may have come from an intention to make a statement; I want citizens to read this piece and believe they should vote for representatives who support aid to Honduras. I want to speak to representatives directly so as to teach and hopefully instill in them a desire to enact policy for government with the Honduran government. I want the president to alter the number of asylees and refugees accepted from Honduras. It is, evidently, a lot. My reach may have been too great, but I am unsure how I could've made these separate pieces to better address different audiences.
In order to create a visibly complex case, I directly incorporated around seventeen sources in my eight-page paper. I reference statements by the White House, IPCC reports, and a plethora of articles, among others. Generally, I tried to find works that would only support my arguments, searching for informational documents showcasing immigration numbers, finding articles that would explain to me the environmental situation in Honduras, etc. I fervently discount the notion that immigration, especially from countries in "hot spots"(a term for geographical areas that are hit harder by rising global temperatures), is a drain on American society. I could not, in truth, see things from a different perspective than mine. I ended up siding strongly with articles and speakers who claim that aid needs to be given to Honduras in order for the country to adequately improve the situation for farmers and citizens who rely heavily on farming for meals and money.
Given the time, I can imagine creating separate works for this topic. While I think the easiest transformation for this paper would be an academic paper, I believe it would be more prudent to transform my arguments into a multi-series of articles with a possible podcast or video inclusion. The topic at hand is, after all, vastly complex. With that in mind, pieces that deconstruct the need for Honduran aid and asylum changes could be best suited for the cause. The issue becomes, like most things, the search for time but also the finding or possible creation of a platform.