Tuesday, January 25, 2011

Destiny and Frustrations:

    One of the reasons I joined a class for writing consultants was to not fall into a writing rut. The other reason was destiny. When I was about six, my mom sent out a Christmas card that would haunt me to this day. Normally Christmas cards say things like "oh Lauren will only wear overalls and lost her two front teeth, she looks like the neighborhood hillbilly". Or, "on our last family vacation to St. Martin Rich noticed a cafe sign "The Equator" and yelled to everyone around him that we had finally made it. We hadn't". Christmas cards, like all good literature have the ability however to be prophetic. When it came to me, "Caroline is a space cadet, she writes her own stories and brings home books with titles like, Indonesia: the monsoon land,  she's either going to be a world leader or an English major". After spending a good amount of time telling everyone who asks, and with a great deal of annoyance on my part, I have no intention of majoring in English, here I am at the University learning to write and loving it, with every intention of becoming a writing consultant and English major, whatever that means.

The transition to college writing has been intimidating and I certainly haven't come near to completing my metamorphosis yet. High school writing is spending three years in terror and hype for that one gigantic senior seminar paper (fifteen pages only), and sitting through lecture after lecture in the chapel of my school thinking about the dead bird in the stairwell rather than bibliographies. College writing is reading my assignment on the syllabus, and doing it, or at least doing my best, maybe with a few late library nights. There is a marked lack of handholding that I both fondly miss and briskly proceed without. I think the experience that sums up my general frustrations with my writing is a conference I had with my First Year Seminar teacher about a hefty paper. She sat me down in her office that could have been Prof. McGonnagal's had it not been for the impressive floor to ceiling bookshelves stuffed full with classic novels mostly, some that I recognized. Spred out on the table were six well-written pages on God knows what. I certainly didn't. I thought I had a thesis, but sitting there staring at the pages and listening to my professor ask me questions on the topic I realized I had no idea what I wanted to say. It was then that she ventured to tentatively say, "Caroline, I think your thoughts in class are a lot more mature than your papers". I wanted to scream. Yes, I knew that! That is why I had asked to schedule the meeting, that was why I was there getting extra help, that was why I hadn't aced every last paper and why I was in college. She might as well have said, "You can't write very well" and I would have readily agreed. It's so easy to recognize something that isn't deftly crafted, but I have no delusions of greatness in my writing and I'm rarely interested in the opinion of others when it comes to whether or not something I write is "good" or "bad", hopefully I can recognize that for myself. What I'm interested in isn't nearly as passive as this sort of label. The comments that i'm far more likely to be receptive to are progressive, and address how to improve and move writing forward,  not what I can't or didn't do, but what can be done. 

Tuesday, January 18, 2011

“What If Drugs Were Legal?” ...Because I said so

           The entire premise of this essay, "What if Drugs Were Legal", and the essay in response is a bit ridiculous. The second essay lacks any solid support and I think it was the ending that really got me.  “Drugs are wrong, therefore, should not be legal!”, the exclamation mark added on the end of the sentence as if it makes it extra true.  I agree that drugs aren’t in the best interest of people, that they generally aren’t healthy or safe. But even so, with my general bias in favor of this essay I found myself unconvinced, and a bit resentful even of the statements made. Rather than feeling like an intellectual undergrad engaged in debate, I felt more like an elementary student again, presented with rules I’m expected to follow in spirit in the “because I said so” mentality without the opportunity for discussion, debate, or inquisition.
          
        

"What If Drugs Were Legal?" A Writing Consultant's Response to a Response



Though an intriguing idea, there is much room for improvement in the essay “What If Drugs Were Legal?”  While the assignment didn’t ask for anything particularly lengthy, a topic as debatable and controversial as the legalization of drugs begs iron-strong arguments, and credibility through flawless grammatical structure. Instead of writing this assignment as a three paragraph essay, the author could more easily craft a short and neat response or review of LeMoult that counters his ideas without making his or her own assertions on the topic. The title, organization, and grammar of the text could be improved upon in the following ways.
        
The title, which corresponds with the first sentence, could be changed to reflect the content of the essay more. This text is not exploring the hypothetical world of legal drugs, or its outcomes. Rather, it is supposed to serve only as an agreement or disagreement in response to LeMoult.

Structurally this essay needs a thesis, and support within each paragraph. The first paragraph, for example, is not yet complete in its purpose as a roadmap for the rest of the text. The author does state that he disagrees with LeMoult, a step in the right direction, but has not yet said why. The reason, or reasons missing would strengthen the layout and thesis of the text. The second paragraph goes on to regurgitate the, “background of the legalization of drugs”. While I don’t consider myself very well informed with world events, I hope drugs haven’t been legalized without my knowing! The historical facts are unnecessary because they serve to back up LeMoult’s thesis, not the author’s. All that the author need include is the clear statement already embedded in the text, “By explaining this (history) he made the reader feel that society was the cause of (drugs).” Is it? The author never takes a clear stand in response to this convincing statement. This happens elsewhere in the essay too. The author presents a lot of ideas that LeMoult has stated, which he or she overall has trouble responding to and refuting.

The biggest sin the author makes perhaps is the presentation of their own unsupported opinion, rather than simply disagreeing. Writing off drugs as “wrong” without support, even to people who already agree, can be a fatal blow to the opinion of any reader. Any person interested in the title of the article would be willing and interested in exploring both sides of the argument and support given from either perspective. Writing off drugs as wrong closes the subject in a didactic way that could be insulting to the intelligence of the reader.