Joseph C.

Carey
English-112-07
July 13, 2016
Prof. Intawiwat
Essay- Final Draft
Reflection
Entering into the peer-review session of our final projects, I was equally anxious and
confident about having my finished product critiqued by my classmates. I believe three of them,
or possibly four, each read a portion of my paper. There is understandably no feasible way
anybody could have read all of it in the time allowed; its quite lengthy considering the task we
were assigned. Regrettably, I didnt receive any constructive criticism from my fellow students
that I couldve used, nor any negative feedback that would have at least provided me with a
jumping off point. While I appreciate the kind words and positive assessments, those werent
necessarily the intended results that our in-class assignment was supposed to produce. I knew
full well that my paper could be improved upon. So keeping that on mind, I decided to consult
my most honest and worst critic- myself. That little voice inside my head had no problem
condemning and disparaging the piece while letting me know full well just what needed
enhancement or renovation.
As I alluded to above, it boiled down to length. While certainly above the pages allotted
for it, my piece wasnt fundamentally superfluous or awkwardly redundant. I had simply ended
up writing a paper for a different assignment. I was, and continue to be, exceptionally proud of
what I originally produced- like a pregnant author giving birth to his first creation. However, I
knew well and good that I needed to take the axe to it; I knew I had to self-edit. Not surprisingly,
in the heart of my reflection on the original draft, I speculated on not having that particular skill
in any reasonable fashion. So I set about addressing the complexities and attacked each section
individually: the introduction, the conclusion, and the two body segments. There was no set goal
or specific amount of words that I was hoping to remove, just the objective to remove all that I

could without damaging the substance and integrity of the paper. I made sure when first
composing the piece to avoid repetition as much as possible, but initially felt that there were just
a few salient points that related to multiple topics and opted to put those in. However, in my need
to reduce, I sliced those redundancies off with the rest of the fat, and rewrote around their
absence. I was also able to cleave off minute details, though valid and gratifying in the extended
version, they were simply clogging up the streamlined flow of this new installment.
It wasnt pretty. I played the part of reluctant executioner the entire time. There were
several moments where I simply called bullshit on myself, but on each occasion I was
somehow able to rein in my ego and toil on. My wife certainly helped- talk about partnering with
your spouse to recognize triggers. She knows all too well where my head can take me. All in all,
I was able to scale down the whole composition by nearly 700 words, a full two pages worth.
The result is a sleek and fast-reading essay on bipolar disability and functionality. In reality, I
believe I actually came closer to my original proposal with this second effort. Not that its stiff or
sterile, but it offers uncomplicated factual information without a lot of creative spunk. I wont go
as far as claiming that one edition is better than the other. They are simply two separate papers
written in response to two independent assignments. Considering only one of those tasks was
actually given, this second draft was a necessarily abridged interpretation of my theme. I
resolutely stand behind it and am equally as proud of this creation as I am of the original version.