Before I began this course, I was a very formulaic writer. To craft an essay, I simply plugged in new information into a preexisting outline in my head, and this resulted in somewhat dull writing. I was more focused on moving from one point to the next instead of making them vivid and interesting for the audience. Throughout this course, I have learned to create more engaging writing that not only addresses all of my points, but also fleshes out what I have to say.
One of my main issues was providing concrete details. I had a bad habit of making a claim but not backing it up with specific examples. A good example of this was in my first draft for my Meditation on Place. I would make an observation about my dorm room, address it, and move on to the next example without elaborating. This was particularly noticeable in my descriptions of my whiteboard, the view outside of my window, and the events that take place in the room. By doing this, I created an essay that felt like a list of details without substance, and fixing this issue in my final draft greatly improved it. Now, the final draft creates a vivid image that makes the reader feel as if they actually visited the room. All of the changes I made to add more detail to the essay make it more engaging and concrete for the audience.
Another issue I had was clarity. My writing sometimes did not sync up with my thought process and resulted in generic claims that seemed vague and meaningless. Though it was not my intent, it occurred anyway, and it made my essays feel empty and bland. I have since improved upon this, but it still can be found in some of my one page responses. This problem was extremely prevalent in my analysis on Rachel Carson’s “The Marginal World”, and this makes it the piece that I am least proud about. This writing was filled with empty statements whose only purpose seemingly was to fill up space. The first draft not only did not directly reference quotes from the source text, but it also included vague statements that were either redundant or unnecessary. My second draft aimed to clarify my original analysis. Redundant statements were removed and any vague claims were substantiated with evidence from the text. Now, the analysis is much more complete and meaningful.
These two pieces of writing were chosen because they reflect my two biggest changes as a writer. Sticking to my robotic style resulted in writing that suffered from a lack of detail and clarity, but this was avoided when I began to step out of what I knew and explore as a writer. Now my writing sounds completely different than it did before, and this change is truly for the better.
Brian Rust's World 