Brixley Leieritz

December 6, 2019
Tym Chajdas
Final Portfolio: Reflective Essay

Through the revision of two of my writing projects, I was able to reflect on the choices I

intentionally made in both the first drafts and the final drafts. When I was looking for

improvements I could make, I first considered what changing my writing would do to the overall

essay. To do so, I had to fully grasp the concept of genre conventions.

Since the beginning of Writing 2, I have grown in my ability to identify the role genre

conventions play in defining practices within discourse communities. By reading like a writer, I

can see the choices writers have intentionally inserted into their writing to convey their message

in the best possible way. As I worked with different conventions and genres, I understood that

“When you read like a writer, you are trying to figure out how the text you are reading was

constructed so that you learn how to ‘build’ one for yourself.”1 The idea that one can enhance

their writing by studying the writing of others helped me approach my third writing project. I

now also understand which conventions define genres and which can be altered, or excluded

entirely, without changing the genre in question.

My understanding of writing has developed in that I know better than to settle. There is

always something that can be revised in writing. With that in mind, I try to write an outline

based entirely on the guidelines provided in the prompt, then broaden my writing from there.

After a thorough outline has been written, I can write a first draft. While my ability to write has

not truly changed over the course of this quarter, my attention span for a writing project has. By

1
Mike Bunn, “How to Read Like a Writer,” in Writing Spaces: Reading on Writing, Volume 2, ed. Charles Lowe
and Pavel Zemliansky (Anderson, SC: Parlor Press, 2010). 74.
giving myself set amounts of work to do as preparation for each writing project, I was able to

attain my goals and not become burnt out.

I have always been good at writing a strong first draft. This is my greatest strength, but

also my greatest weakness. I despise revisiting my essays and revising, so having a good first

draft ensures I will not have to change anything. However, this course emphasized the necessity

to change writing choices to improve style and overall quality of writing, so I had to revise my

work. The final portfolio actually proved to be fairly challenging because of my distaste for

revision. However, as can be exemplified from the changes I made for my WP2 and WP3, the

changes I made in my writing did actually make it better. Now that I know I can do better, I will.

Through the process of writing and revising the writing projects this quarter, I have

learned to manage my time with writing. In high school, I would always leave my writing

assignments to the last minute because they were easy for me to accomplish well. However, this

quarter I wanted to do my best in first college writing class, so I spread my work out over the

course of the week in order to put forth my best efforts. This included reading and responding to

the assigned readings, which I always tried to annotate and analyze. I started reading

analytically, and my attentive writing grew as a result.

My personal writing style is very conscious. I always know which choices to make, and

why I should make them. This makes it easier for me when I do choose to revise. I have to

rationalize to myself why or why not I should make a revision. For the writing projects 2 and 3,

I had to choose to change my diction in a few paragraphs and lengthen my conclusion

paragraphs. I also had to choose when to listen to the feedback I received, and when to disregard

it. In my drafts, I typically write short conclusion paragraphs so that my wording does not get

convoluted and my argument does not become redundant.

 I revised the second and third writing projects because I felt like they had the most to

work with. While I received an excellent grade on the second writing project, there were a few

parts of the essay I was unhappy with prior to turning it in. I chose to change a few words which

did not best convey my argument, which added to the clarity of the work. I also decided to break

up a long paragraph into three smaller paragraphs to improve the flow of the essay. The best

suggestion I received for the second writing project was that I needed to work on my conclusion.

While the paragraph was fine as it was, it was only a few sentences and I did not reiterate my

argument as well as I should have. So, when it came time to revise my essay, that was where I

started.

I did not feel confident when I turned my third writing project in. Even though I earned a

good grade, I felt there were significant augmentations I could make. I began by completely

changing the introduction in my translation to make the writing less stale and awkward. The

introduction is still not perfect, but the focus has been sharpened. For the rest of the translation, I

made small changes to the diction and syntax so that the individual sentences would have a better

flow. In the reflection on the translation, I completely re-wrote the conclusion paragraph in

order to re-establish the argument and include the idea of unity between different discourse

communities. One of the biggest issues I ran into while revising my writing projects was the

feedback. I honestly felt as though much of the feedback my peers gave me would not improve

my writing. As we all have distinct styles of writing, their advice did not sit well with me, and I

chose to omit it in my final draft. This made the process more arduous as I had to figure out

parts of the essays that I needed to adjust by myself. I think that I could still evolve my

conclusions. I have always disliked lengthy conclusions, but I find that they are widely regarded
as a norm in academic writing. While I develop my writing, I will work on creating stronger

conclusions.

The work in this portfolio reflects my conscious decisions on writing style and genre

conventions. Through the progression of discussing genre, identifying genre conventions within

my discipline, and then writing in an entirely different genre, I was able to gain knowledge about

genre conventions and that knowledge into practice. While my writing is typically cognizant,

this writing course improved upon my reflections about my writing as a whole. Before, I would

generally pay more attention to the diction and length of my writing. Now, I try to focus on the

style I choose to employ. It is not enough to have a strong argument. A paper with a poor flow

is difficult to read. With the emphasis on style in this course, I have identified the weak links in

my essays. Given more time, I would work more on the creative aspects of my writing. The

third writing project was the greatest challenge for me due to my inexperience with creative

writing genres. I ended up changing a great deal of the introduction to my script as a result.

As I continue to advance as a writer, I will work on how I format and style my essays. It

is important for me to understand my audience and write in a way that is easiest and most

comfortable for them to understand. I discovered throughout this process that “when you read a

scholarly work, you are participating in a conversation.”2 I had to engage in one half of a

conversation with an audience that I hoped to address. When I revised my writing, I understood

that “Every discipline has its own range of acceptable jargon, diction, and tone to be learned and

applied.”3 Being a good writer does not always ensure that the content will be conveyed. Now

2
Karen Rosenberg, “Reading Games: Strategies for Reading Scholarly Sources,” in Writing Spaces: Reading on
Writing, Volume 2, ed. Charles Lowe and Pavel Zemliansky (Anderson, SC: Parlor Press, 2010). 212.
3
James Boyd, “Murder! (Rhetorically Speaking),” in Writing Spaces: Reading on Writing, Volume 2, ed. Charles
Lowe and Pavel Zemliansky (Anderson, SC: Parlor Press, 2010). 92.
that I understand rhetorical situations, I will be better prepared to address the concerns of my

target audience in my writing.

Works Cited:

James Boyd, “Murder! (Rhetorically Speaking),” in Writing Spaces: Reading on Writing,

Volume 2, edited by Charles Lowe and Pavel Zemliansky. 87-101. (Anderson, SC: Parlor
Press, 2010).

Mike Bunn, “How to Read Like a Writer,” in Writing Spaces: Reading on Writing, Volume 2,
edited by Charles Lowe and Pavel Zemliansky. 71-86. (Anderson, SC: Parlor Press,
2010).

Karen Rosenberg, “Reading Games: Strategies for Reading Scholarly Sources,” in Writing
Spaces: Reading on Writing, Volume 2, edited by Charles Lowe and Pavel Zemlianksy.
210-220. (Anderson, SC: Parlor Press, 2010).