Dear Valentina,

Looking back at these past ten weeks, there is so much to reflect upon, almost too much. I

began the course feeling pretty insecure about my writing skills for the reason that I had not

taken a writing class in almost two years. To put this in perspective, before these two years, I had

never gone a full year without a writing or English language course since Kindergarten!

Therefore, this inconfidence that I brought with me to Writing 2, was proved right after the first

day when we were asked to define writing. I remember sitting at the table with my hands on my

head, realizing that I had lost my practice of writing. For this reason, I am very glad that I took

this class during this quarter because it gave me a necessary boost in writing skills that go way

beyond the classroom setting. I will admit that before taking the course I was extremely hesitant

because I expected this course to involve large and boring readings, just like writing classes that

I had taken in the past. To my surprise, this course was both entertaining and extremely

instructive. I was able to discuss interesting writing topics with my peers and apply new skills

that I had developed to ideas that actually interested me, without getting discouraged or

intimidated by the curriculum. It was a win-win situation.

Both of the writing projects that we worked on throughout the quarter, served their

purposes in making me a more disciplined writer. Writing Project 1 asked us to choose a

scholarly conversation about writing that we could relate to, and interpret that conversation to

family or friends. Initially, I didn't quite understand the instructions for this writing project, as I

created an elaborate essay about Translingualism. Notably, the problem was not just the genre,

but the extremely formal tone by which I wrote it. Using feedback from my peers and yourself

about how my project was too formal and hard to read, I embarked on a mission to restructure

my writing project 1. This included: changing my genre from an essay to a letter, adjusting
jargon by using less formal sentences, and adding a sense of personal relation since the letter is

addressed to my brother. In doing so, I realized that I followed Lamott’s (1994, p.25) algorithm

for arriving at the final draft: the first draft is the down draft where you just get it down, the

second draft is the up draft where you fix it up, and the third draft is the dental draft where you

get specific with the details. Similarly, my first draft was shitty in that I did not follow the proper

instruction. I then fixed the genre, tone, and jargon for the second draft, and continued to focus

on style and grammar for the third draft. The perseverance and dedication that I showed in

revising my Writing project 1 will serve as great experience for revising assignments in the

future.

Although I scored better on Writing Project 2, I will admit that the reflective essay was

the toughest assignment for me. In general, I would consider myself a pretty self-aware person as

I constantly reflect on choices that I make day-to-day, but when tasked with writing a cognitive

essay about the active choices I made during my translation, I got stuck. I was so scared of

creating an introductory paragraph during my first draft, that I actually did not make one. In

addition, sometimes I found myself typing ideas that were not coherent because there was so

much information to analyze from the translation. I knew that I had to write about style, genre,

tone, rhetoric, etc., but it was difficult to choose what to write for each one and what examples to

use from my presentation. For example, I confused tone during my first draft as I talked about

format and audience without mentioning the rhetorical purpose for the writing. This confusion

made me appreciate peer collaboration because reading other essays and writing feedback for my

peers allowed me to address my areas of improvement and how to fix them.

Nevertheless, much of my revision for WP2 had to do with prompt and organization. I

decided to first talk about genre and audience because I realized that in choosing those, I could
accurately answer the questions from PB5 on Eli Review. As Boyd (2011) establishes that

“every time you go to write anything [...] you are making decisions about which words to use

and what tone to establish [...] based upon what is appropriate for your intended audience in that

context,” I learned to appreciate the audience. While I can still improve on establishing tone or

being consistent with jargon, I feel like this course has given me a proper foundation for what it

means to know your audience and how to appeal to them. Whether it is writing emails, text

messages, school essays, or letters to my grandma, this course has instilled a subconscious

audience analyser in me that will help me improve my writing.

If someone were to ask me what I would want to learn more of, I would previously have

said that learning how to differentiate the introduction from the conclusion was my main desire. I

say this in the past tense because when I wrote to you about this issue I was having, you offered

an intricate solution that inspired me to finish my Writing Project 2. Instead of starting the

introduction right away, I first wrote my thesis, then developed my body paragraphs, and finally

finished my introduction and began my conclusion. I gained an understanding of synthesis versus

summarization, and I applied it to the best of my abilities.

That said, I would like to know more about the freedom that is allowed in formal writing.

For example, in this letter I used the word “shitty” because of Lamott’s title, but is this allowed?

In addition, sometimes I find myself writing similes because they allow me to entertain myself

while staying focused. In academic contexts, how would my audience respond to these? Also,

why is creativity and freedom so restricted in professional writing? I understand that

professionalism is challenged by creativity, but I believe creativity allows the audience to

recognize the author of the writing. In the Rhetorical Situation Poster (2010), “Composer”

(author) is one of the three main requirements for establishing a rhetorical situation along with
context and audience. So why do we focus more on context and audience then on authorship?

Maybe I am overthinking this, but as a creative person myself, sometimes I feel restricted by

writing conventions which cause me to feel discouraged to write.

A common academic stereotype is that people are either talented in linguistics or

mathematics, but never both. I admit to supporting this stereotype because English and Literature

were always a struggle for me during high school, always producing my lowest letter grades.

Part of the reason for this was that most classes would assume understanding of how to write

essays, whether it was the five-paragraph essay or other miscellaneous forms. In contrast, this

class made me feel like all of the students started at similar writing levels. I never felt like I knew

too much or too little because I kept on constantly learning new things and discussing them with

my peers. In hindsight, I feel like this class was the opposite of a waste of time. I have improved

my introduction and conclusion writing, I learned to acknowledge my audience and how to

appeal to them, and I practiced giving and receiving feedback from peers and from a respected

Professor. While these skills are derivatives of working on the writing projects, I am not

suggesting that I have only learned them in the context of Writing 2. Instead, these are

generalized skills that can be applied to several disciplines. Overall, this course has made me

realize that there is no “instructions manual” for writing; instead, one must adapt to different

environments using the resources they have accumulated throughout their journey as a writer.

Thank you for creating a fun and energetic environment where students could advance

their writing skills and thank you for everything else you have done for us!

Sincerely,

Samuel Metta
 Works Cited

Boyd, J. (2011). Murder! (Rhetorically Speaking). Writing Spaces: Readings on Writing, 2,

87-101.

Lamott, A. (1994). Shitty First Drafts. Bird by Bird: Some Instructions on Writing and Life,

21-27.

National Council of Teachers of English. (2010). Rhetorical Situation.

https://prod-ncte-cdn.azureedge.net/nctefiles/resources/journals/ccc/0613-feb2010/

ccc0613poster.pdf