My
Relationship to Writing
Last year I wrote a paper, “To What Extent is Offred a
Hero, If At All?” based on Margaret Atwood’s The Handmaid’s Tale, which was insightful and mildly entertaining.
I have also reflected on how I planned my directed self-placement (DSP) essay.
Through these works I learned how I would like to write, in one sense how to
plan, and in another how I would like to write from a stylistic stand point.
The DSP essay primarily helped me address how I plan and
execute my writing. The University of Michigan provided the DSP essay in order
to gauge what level of writing the students employ, and therefore what writing
class would be appropriate. The essay asked incoming freshman to analyze an
argument given by a professional writer and to defend, qualify, or refute her
argument with examples given in the written text. I used a similar process for
this writing assignment as I might have used in a high school writing class. I
first reread the assignment multiple times in order to be sure that I full
understood what the assignment asked of us. Next I wrote out a cohesive plan
including my thesis statement, examples I would include in the body paragraphs,
as well as a succinct conclusion. As I had learned in prior classes involving
academic writing, a comprehensive plan provides an essential path towards
success.
Numerous challenges also arose during the writing
process, perhaps most notably finding motivation to complete the assignment. I
learned as part of the planning process that a lack of motivation arises while
planning or completing a paper. Thus, I learned that for each stage of the
writing process, a writer must pursue time to simply sit down for an allocated,
completely free portion of time free of distractions to work through and
complete the assigned task. Among the greatest success for any procrastinating
writer is completing the assignment on time. Procrastination reared its ugly
head frequently during my planning, editing, and polishing the near completed
work. Again, the DSP essay not only enlightened me to these facts, but I also
grew through it in terms of how I combat such a lack of motivation.
I realize now that I did not take many risks. Other than
my general laziness which caused some typing errors, I took very few risks. I
started with an anecdote or allusion, then a clearly stated hypothesis,
examples in each of the body paragraphs which pertained directly to the thesis,
and then a succinct conclusion, so all in all a very conservative attempt and
execution of the paper.
Overall in my DSP paper, I played by the book through my
rigorous planning and example finding beforehand, to the lack of humor/
controversial statements within the work. I learned that I frequently
procrastinate at various points in the writing process and to address that one
must find a quiet place with time to work. I also learned the benefits of
rigorously planning beforehand to make writing the work easier.
Thinking about the process of planning my DSP reminds me
of my favorite piece of high school writing; my “To what Extent…” essay based The Handmaid’s Tale. The “To what
Extent…” essay represents how I would like to write not only from a stylistic
point of view, but also from a planning point of view. From the earliest points
after having received the assignment, I planned this essay to an even greater
extent than the DSP essay, knowing exactly what examples I would include, what
quote I would use to capture the reader’s interest, and knowing where to
attempt bits of humor. The work represented the perfect example of how I would
seek to plan in the future and how learning that would affect my future
writing. Interestingly enough, the paper initially seemed boring: another
boring essay on a book, however once the idea to deconstruct the main character
came to mind, I planned and wrote this essay with far more passion than any
essay before it. The passion I had while meticulously planning and writing made
the entire writing process for this essay semi-enjoyable. Perhaps the key is to
find an idea one is passionate about, and then it may not seem such a hassle to
carefully plan and write.
The best example from the essay comes where I discredit
an example which might have otherwise supported the opposite opinion. For me,
the “best” example is one that can both be entertaining to read, and can put a
point across. I write that the character of Offred in Margaret Atwood’s The Handmaid’s Tale, displays heroic
characteristics, but ultimately lacks the agency to truly be considered a hero.
In the dystopia of The Handmaid’s Tale
“handmaids” are required to try and reproduce with the “commanders,” and in the
book she develops somewhat of a personal relationship with the commander
society assigned for her. In it the two play chess together as the Commander
merely wants someone to talk to, and in exchange she receives lotion and works
of fiction. In my essay I joke that the books she request may have appeared on
a college reading list, instead of something like the Bible or the Feminine
Mystique which may actually motivate individuals to change. This assignment
helped me learn that I would like to continue to try and include witty jokes
like that one.
I
go on to argue that despite these actions displaying agency, for the actions to
display traits of heroism, they must benefit someone other than herself, which
in the case of her request for lotion and works of fiction, they do not. I go
on to argue that she should attempt to learn potentially beneficial secrets for
the still forming rebellion. Then I do something interesting stylistically: in
italics I write a statement as if someone were arguing with me in person.
Specifically: “But if the Commander
suspects her of rebellion he could easily dispose of her and she would have to
die”. I go on to say that she would likely die anyway, just by nature of
the society (as if you do not reproduce, you get sent to the “colonies” where
you die).
Therefore, in my counter argument section where I
discredit the opposite the argument, I exhibit a few characteristics which I
would like to showcase how I would like to write. Firstly I joke that the
Charles Dickens novel Offred requests is completely harmless and something that
a university would place on its recommended summer reading list. Realistically,
this addition really did not improve the paper, though I feel the occasional
use of humor does leave a positive taste in the reader’s mouth. Additionally
this sort of joke made the paper significantly more fun to write. Secondly I
attempt to create my own style by arguing the opposite point in italics,
something I learned through this assignment. The use of this technique seeks to
give my work a unique sort of informal vibe, especially when used in
conjunction with the occasional joke. Thus the use of humor and my own
stylistic features evidence the claim that I learned how I would like to write
through the assignment.
Before the super-religious instituted the handmaid
system, they had to clear some obstacles first. Most notably, they (i.e. the
institutors of the super-conservative revolution) removed women from the work
place on the grounds that women should not work. She tells her boyfriend, “We
still have each other”. I go on to criticize that she displays zero agency as
she has just willingly accepted her termination of employment on the grounds of
being a women, in exchange for nothing. I go on to add that the conservative
revolution takes place in the modern world, why did she not unite with other
women and “bring down the wrath of Athena down on the still young and
vulnerable fundamentalist government?” This joke incorporates classical allusion
to the Greek goddess of wisdom while still questioning why Offred would have
done nothing to try and maintain her place in society. The joke also
encapsulates how I would like to write: I use humor and allusion making the
writing interesting, while simultaneously managing to express my point.
In the novel, Offred has sex with a butler, Nick,
repeatedly which breaks the rules of the fundamentalist society. I break this
down by initially noting that the act “screams individuality”, but in
totalitarianism there are no individual acts, which is the point of
totalitarianism. This supposed act of individuality may appear altogether
personal, but it fits the system’s desire for her perfectly. As in, the author
never mentioned any contraceptives in use, therefore she could theoretically
get pregnant any of the times she has sex with Nick (if the circumstances align
properly), and bearing children is precisely what the system wants her to do,
in fact, it is her entire purpose. I conclude, therefore, that “this is not
only selfish, but acts in favor of the system” thus yielding the action
unheroic.
To conclude, through my DSP essay I learned how to
properly plan and adapt as I get the urge to procrastinate, though I did not
enjoy writing the assignment itself. I found the planning and all aspects of
writing it incredibly tedious. Contrastingly, my “To what Extent” essay helped
me learn how I would like to write through its use of relative informality
through the occasional witty remark and frequent italicized counterpoints which
I rebuttal. This essay contrasted with the DSP greatly in its tone and
execution. One potential problem with pursuing an informal tone in future
writing is that it varies greatly in effectiveness from professor to professor:
some might appreciate a witty joke, while others may find in an unacceptable
variation from the standard, straight road of unexciting academic writing.
Regardless, in the future I will continue to try and use the planning I learned
through my DSP and the mild humor of my “To what Extent…” essay.
Unfortunately, though, I spelled a number of words wrong. "Contrastingly" is apparently not a word, nor is "unheroic", nor "institutors" (of a regime). This, again, reveals a certain stylistic element to my writing: that I like to make up words, which may or may not be appropriate for academic writing, depending of course on my professor.
No comments:
Post a Comment