IWA 1/23

Summary: Allen explains to her audience that nobody is ever a perfect writer and every scholar she has ever encountered has admitted they are by no means innately good at writing. She also tells us that every scholar has struggled with the writing process and many feel guilty and worthless when in reality they probably are not. She states how oftentimes we look to other writers for guidance on how to write and that, when their formulas do not work, we need to try something new and have it reviewed by someone professional. Allen tells us there is also a process to revising a paper which involves talking with a teacher as well as peers. In addition we learn for every piece we write there will always be some sort of response which is always a good start.

Synthesis: Allen’s piece reminds me of Brandt’s in that there are moments she brings up actual people and their experiences to prove her argument.

Afterthoughts: I found this piece enlightening. As a writer I know how frustrating writer’s block can be and how scary it is that someone will be judging my work one day and possibly degrade it quite a bit. Allen really captured my attention at the end when she mentioned that despite the fact people view themselves as bad writers at times any reaction to their piece can be seen as a good sign. In a way her piece gives me hope that mine will have some sort of positive outcome, even if it’s hidden in someone else’s ridicule.

IWA 1/23

Summary: Lamott tell the reader the process writers go through when drafting out their papers, making sure to include that hardly any of them actually can sit down and feel confident about their first piece. The first draft she calls the “child draft” in that it’s the one a writer can put down whatever they want, knowing that they most likely will not be putting it in the final draft. She tells us how she was a restaurant reviewer and would write down everything possible then go back the next day and take out all the unnecessary parts. She also tells us the best way to start a paper is to one by one remove the voices that criticize you (put the mice in a jar).

Synthesis: This piece is a lot like Allen’s because she tells us that nobody can sit down and write perfectly and that nobody believes they are a good writer from the thought.

Question 1: By using the word “shitty” I believe Lamott is getting down to her reader’s level and saying from the start, “Hey I was once in college too and I understand this stuff is typically dry. Let me speak in your language.” At first glance I thought it made her seem less credible but considering she was once a restaurant critic and understands a college student’s brain, I think it makes her more credible.

Question 2: The voices I would stash away in my jar would be the teacher telling me my writing style is awful and that it would take me nowhere. Basically from then on I would think of everyone who told me I couldn’t do anything and slowly fill the jar up (like a manager, teacher, fellow student, bully, director, etc.) Really it could be seen as a good way of anger management even and like I get the final laugh.

Afterthoughts: I found Lamott’s piece very relatable. It was the first article that I read and actually felt I could understand the whole way through without a problem. I believe she really understood her audience and decided to write more at a college level which is really important to me.