Portfolio: Letter of Introduction

All life is but a growth of the self and all writing is but the growth of the mind. Writer's reform themselves and transform their styles as life progresses, and each thought evolves a tad more than from the last. I am welcoming you to show my own growth in this short, fall quarter, by exemplifying my ideas towards writing and the strengths and areas where improvement was needed in the essays I have included in this portfolio. As my writing philosophy adapted, it has revealed both the strengths and shortcomings in my writing, allowing me to grow.

For me, in correlation to essays, this philosophy has been general and consistent throughout the years. I simply believe that writing can often communicate what speaking and standing cannot: thought. It gives equal standing to each individual's thoughts and each individual's beliefs. So, in approaching academic papers, I had always begun by using the Jane Schaeffer format. While filling in this template, I usually just place the words that happen to come out first, believing they might be able to work the best or flow nicely in regards to my initial brainstorming.Upon the concluding a draft, it would then be revised and edited until it seemed adequately prepared to turn it in. Over this time, I felt the need to ensure perfection, or near perfection, in my essays. In this manner, I attempt to suitably prepare my thoughts for anyone to view. Thus, my attitude towards writing was uncomplicated in the beginning.

One essay written in my Writing 101 course, "Racism in Bacon's Rebellion," was written using this philosophy. It was not until after I had given the paper to my teacher did I realize how poorly I had done on it. Resulting from this I began looking these over to find what had gone wrong. Soon, I realized how overwhelmed my argument was by the vast amount of information that had been supposed to support it, even to the point where evidence and commentary could not be separated. As I rewrote the essay, I avoided the outline that had been required in the original version. So, I began with using a slight variation of the Jane Schaeffer method. After the draft, I know the paper was presentable. The thesis hat become not only strong, but focused, and the argument accompanying it playing off of the evidence provided instead of the other way around. Such as the detail "in the region of the Chesapeake colonies, where Bacon?s Rebellion took place, there were there races involved" paired with "polarization of hate was then made easier by the small number of diversity within the warring parties." Yet, in general, it was still as wordy as the first document. The first of my essays was well written only after I made a change in my approach.

"Federalists in New Hampshire" would be the second essay presented in this portfolio. While working with three other people, I was forced to adapt my approach to writing the paper. We brainstormed and pieced together the argument, and eventually procured the final document. Through editing and revising, I was able to elicit a stronger voice throughout the paper and an overall better flow for the entire piece. Unfortunately, ultimately ran out of time for the duration of these procedures, leaving the conclusion and introduction untouched, and eliciting a choppy feel from the work in both organization and much verbosity. In recent revising, it's format has changed little. The organization and transitioning flow at a much smoother pace than the original, such as "it was the Anti-federalists who were most against slavery but since New Hampshire was a northern state, the Federalists were against it as well, though not to such an extent" to "Yet, although the northern federalists were widely against slavery, as eight states had finally ratified the constitution, this political party became desperate for the ninth - and passing - vote. Thus, they were willing to commit almost any act." In this essay, the argument maintains a steady position, but is weak against the informative wall is was supposed to be built on. Also, it is, unfortunately, as wordy as the original version, saying "It was hard to ignore the ethics of slavery, though. As such, it was another controversial moral disagreement involved in the struggle over the constitution's ratification" instead of merely slavery being a large issue in the ratification; but, this has been due to my attempts to be poetic in my academic papers. Yet, this paper was able to allow me to accept new challenges and adapt my writing philosophies yo meet the needs of my group members as well as my own.

My writing 101 final is also included in this portfolio. While writing this paper, I misunderstood the prompt and deviated from my normal approach in writing by doing only a quick brainstorm and mentally calculating the information I used in the Jane Schaeffer format. I can happily announce, though, that my voice was continuous throughout the paper and clearly pointed out my bias with select, somewhat defiant phrases, one phrase is "to the question... I have but one response." Also, I can say the transitions between paragraphs were smooth and kept the paper moving, such as from paragraphs three, "Simply put, the past is life, the present is living, and the future is based on the life lived" to four "As I began to apply this concept to American history..." where one idea nicely fit into another. Unfortunately, I had more than a few major shortcomings in this paper. The first of which was the thesis in regards to the argument. While it was indeed focused, the paper did not follow through on building the thesis, rather gently touching on how " using my outlook on history... [helped] me understand the present with more depth" by making general assumptions and connections from the past to present instead of specifics relating to myself. Even this paper, I noticed, held the common traits of wordiness and my traditional long sentences. Moreover, the third paragraph incorporates two different themes together but, the introductory and concluding sentences mention only a generality of the two, showing my shortcomings in its organization. In short, my final paper does not show the improvement I have exemplified throughout the quarter.

While my philosophies and approaches digressed and evolved, I have matured as a writer over this quarter. From originally defining my philosophies to writing essays, I can tell the change. My ability to attribute the strengths and shortcomings of my papers has improved as I continue to use my philosophy. As I continue to grow in my works, it will be proof that I am still alive.