As I read my Project 2 draft, I could honestly say I was more or less satisfied with my work. I started off by reading it once in my head, once aloud, once aloud backwards (it was long and difficult, but really cool), and aloud again. On a side note, reading my paper backwards helped me appreciate my work much more than usual. Each time I read my paper, I found more technical error than anything, but surprisingly was not all that worried. Yes, a few sentences sounded awkward, but after switching a few words around, they made much more sense. I still need to work on sentence variation—my sentences are relatively long. I was able to follow my thoughts on paper and liked the way it flowed. I do not think it would have flowed as nicely if I did not keep up with my interviews and write everything as I went along while it was fresh in my mind.
In some spots, I thought it sounded like the “try hard” academic part of me starting to come out, but then would be balanced out with something that informal me would say—it just meshed. Towards the end of my paper, I thought to myself, “Wow, I can get pretty deep….there’s hope!” I loved how my paper ended; it was the first time I was actually able to be honest on paper and not care what people would think of me.
I am not the type of person who can write an essay while watching the Tigers game and expect to actually get work done. Every time I came to write my draft, I was either in the UGL or in my room at some insane hour at night (or early morning, depending how you look at it). I was focused, and was actually excited to write, which helped me power through my draft. Some sort of relaxing, classical Arabic music (instrumental only, the singing distracts me) would be playing in the background to get me “in the zone” and I would have that same song on replay until I lost concentration and decided to stop writing.
While hearing myself read my draft, I noticed that although it sounded together, it seemed to escape from the main point in different areas. I had a hard time incorporating my information to my question because I changed my question pretty late in the process. I feel like some of my input/reflection is irrelevant and am not sure how to go about changing it without changing the whole paper again. I plan on meeting with Mrs. Jankens and discussing a plan for revision. I want to work mainly on my content and organization, making sure all my information is relevant and make sure I actually answer my question without beating around the bush. I also want to work on my sentence structure and not have a sentence take up nearly three lines of the page. Additionally, I might add more detail when describing my research process if it will fit without seeming overbearing. With these revisions I think I will be on my way to an excellent paper.
After reading Elbow and Fulwiler’s articles on speaking/writing and voice, I found that I was able to relate to Fulwiler’s text on voice a bit better than Elbow’s article about speaking/writing. I liked how Fulwiler used rhetorical situation while analyzing his work (which I think could be a genre analysis, but this is a separate conversation) and found myself doing the same thing while reading my I-Search paper. I could “hear myself” while reading my paper, and found it to be a mix of private and public voice, with a little bit more public than private. I plan to take Fulwiler’s input on voice into consideration as I carry out my plan for revision (which is still in the works) so I can have the “perfect touch” of voice in my I-Search paper.