Feel free to reflect here on the challenges of this last essay-writing assignment for the course, the rewrite/expansion of the second paper. What are you finding particularly difficult about revising Part I of the assignment? What difficulties are you encountering as you add in a second text? What writing issues continue to vex you?
Deadline: Friday (12/4), start of class.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
9 comments:
Revising Paper #2 was rather difficult, as I had chosen a pretty in depth topic about religion and had begun the paper before the assignment was revised that we could incorporate other works from the beginning of the semester. In some ways, I found the assignment more difficult because we already had material to work with. Normally, we are starting from scratch, able to formulate our ideas to create a entirely new thesis. But I found it difficult to piece together my old thoughts with the new. It was an exciting challenge though, because it's not one that we usually have to encounter in our assignments.
I found it difficult to find a second text that fits nicely with the first text I choose and continues to support my claims about religion in the Enlightenment Era. My first draft of the paper could have stood alone in and of itself as an essay, thus expanded proved to be a little difficult because I did not choose my second text until weeks after I wrote the original paper. Also, as with the first draft of the paper, finding a way to analyze the text in a way that is not too far cited was somewhat difficult.
I agree with the issues cited by previous comments. For me, I think that the biggest issue has been providing adequate analysis of my second text. My paper, even after significant revision and reworking, still remains heavy on the material regarding the first text.
Same with eoneal for me. I pretty much had to rewrite my entire paper because the second source kind of demanded a different thesis than the one I had for paper one. It was difficult to just try to 'expand' it, because everything had to be revised.
like whitney said, too, i think you start to think one way and go with it while you're writing the first paper (you're not thinking about what the second paper is gonna have to say), so it's hard to rework the way you think about it the second time around.
I agree with the comments already posted. When I started editing the first part of the text and whittling it down, I felt as if I am abandoning too much material. At the same time, I felt it hard to pick a second text that fit well. It was hard to elaborate on and tie in points. And the it is difficult to maintain a balance between the old and the new. To me, it also sounds like the parts were definitely written at different times. It's almost kind of a stretch to tie to them together. It may have been easier to write it as a comparison from the very beginning.
For me the biggest challenge is revising more original work. It’s tough taking criticism because what I originally develop, I deem to be good work. To have to redo such hard work is painstaking, but I also realize that I will be a better writer in the long-run because of such revisions.
The Enlightenment texts that we've covered thus far has been interesting and at times very hard to analyze author's key points. I chose to write about schools and education in my first paper, yet the second set of material we covered never really gets into details that well about my primary topic, so picking material was hard by itself, thus making the paper very difficult. I think I would have rather done it in one sitting.
I too had a hard time expanding paper 2 because I used the concept of knowledge during the Enlightenment, specifically Margaret Cavendish's article about magnifying glasses. This article was hard to compare or contrast with other articles we have read in class because it so specifically speaks on magnifying glasses. However, I do think I managed on getting a good comparison of knowledge and hopefully a broader understanding of it as well.
Expanding paper number II was pretty difficult. I found myself rewriting a lot of my original paper so that I could fit my second source into the paper. I ended up rewriting my thesis, and that made rewriting my paper a little easier. I am very happy that the time requirements for when we read the second source were lifted. This helped tremendously in choosing a second source that actually worked well with my topic.
Post a Comment