Letter of Introduction (writ 101Portfoio) RD

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 becomes a little different from the less. I am welcoming you to show my own growth in this short, fall quarter, by exemplifying my ideas towards writing and the strengths and weakness in the essays I have included in this portfolio. As my writing philosophy adapted, it has revealed both the strengths and weaknesses in my writing, allowing me to grow.


For me, in correlation to essays, my philosophy has been general and consistent throughout the years. I firmly believe that writing can often communicate what speaking and standing cannot: thought. It gives equal standing to everyone's thoughts and everyone's beliefs. In approaching academic papers, I had always begun by using the Jane Schaeffer format and loosely based, personalized derivations of it. While filling in the template, I usually just place whatever I feel would work best or flow nicely when regarding to my initial brainstorming for the prose. Upon the completion of a draft, I would then revise and edit the paper until I felt it completely 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 adequately prepare my thoughts for anyone to view. Thus, my attitude towards writing was simplistic 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. I began looking it over and finding out what exactly had happened to result in the pitiable work I had written. Soon, I realized how overwhelmed my argument was by the sheer number of information that had been used in it. Returning my attention to the outline we had been required to do for the essay, I noticed the overpowering length of information against the minute and bare argument and unfocused thesis. So, I began to re-write the paper after I had established this, reverting back to my writing philosophy in order to write a presentable piece. Yet, I still need to work on my general wordiness throughout the paper. The first of my essays was well written only after I noticed the drastic change in my philosophy.


"Federalists in New Hampshire" would be the second essay presented in this portfolio. In 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 permission to edit and revise by my group members, I was able to create a stronger voice - perchance even and overpowering one - and create a better flow for the entire piece. Unfortunately, we 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. After re-writing it, I can only report that now it works, if still - sadly - rather wordy. Thus, this paper was able to allow me to accept new challenges and adapt my writing philosophies to meet those of my group members.


While my philosophies and approaches reverted and evolved, I have grown 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 continued to use my philosophy. I will always, though, continue to stick strongly to my beliefs.

AoD#11: Avoided Negotiation

Art of Democracy

The other day I was watching Jimmy Netron the animated series. I recalled the key points that would, as Mary said, “shut the conversation down,” and noticed in the conflict on the screen, there was at least four of these items enacted. As thus, it left no room for a conversation and not even negotiation.

It all started over a lawn tool that Hue, one of the contenders, said he had borrowed from Mr. Wheezer, the next-door neighbor. The neighbor jokingly replied that he had given it back, but, twisting the man’s meaning of “it being in you’re garage” Hue said he would check the other man’s garage. And soon, they argued. Pulling a red herring in the middle of their less than creative conflict, Hue said that Mr. Wheezer’s ceramic sculptures were random, as he picked one up, and was rebuked by a sharp jab to his obsession with ducks (and duck sculptures). Soon, Sir Quack’s A Lot ( the sculpture Mr. Wheezer had picked up) was in pieces, being accidentally dropped by Mr. Wheezer when Hue shoved him, and Mr. Wheezer’s ceramic cat was destroyed soon after. The duo stalked off to their respective homes, declaring that their sons could never see each other again, and not even accomplishing the objective Hue had wanted.

If Hue had merely listened to Mr. Wheezer and checked his own garage first before using his suspicion to go into another’s private property, none of this would have happened. The argument would have been avoided and a peaceful solution attained. Thus, this example shows how key it is to attempt negotiation and avoid conflict over petty differences.