This paper was different in the fact that I was not allowed to just write it and send it in. I had to draft, and redraft and critique others and think way more than I am used to for every other paper. Usually I read the piece that I’m supposed to write about, then I rant and rave for a few pages and that worked for me (for the most part). It’s not that I don’t like thinking about the piece and my honest to goodness opinion of it, it’s just that if the drafts aren’t an assignment then they don’t get done. I might revisit my paper right before I turn it in to double check for whatever nonsense I might have added. I think that the most important thing I learn in revising is that my madness needs a method or at least some kind of linear way to follow to make a point that others can understand.
I like peer response. I used all of their advice because they understood that it was a (very messy and unorganized) draft and they just wanted me to clean it up more. They both enjoyed my different viewpoints and thought I should elaborate on them more in order to show the reader my thought process. Close reading was important in this essay. The Love of my Life printed off in 3 sections and I had to read through multiple times to attempt to find all the evidence I needed. I mainly used the first and beginning of the second because they had the most about suffering and how Strayed felt about it. She made claims that made it easier for me to agree or disagree with, but I had to really look for them. The most rewarding aspect of this paper is the accomplished feeling I have after sending in my rough draft to Prof. G. I feel like I made good points and since others agreed with me, it really feels nice to have some back-up. The most frustrating was worrying that I wasn’t going to be able to crank out all these rough drafts on time and that they wouldn’t have made any sense. I’m used to working on my paper a little at a time and not having people checking to make sure I was following the plan to get it done.