First and foremost I would like to beseech Professor Kaufman to forgive for being two days late with this blog post. It has been a hectic week for me and this blog post completely slipped my mind. Well I’m done excusing now and now on to the task at hand.
At first I thought my paper was fairly decent and that I would not have to make drastic changes. However after my paper was read and analyzed by my peers I now see that I have major changes to make.
First of all I have to eliminate all parts of the paper where I summarize what Delany has previously said. Of course my intentions were not to summarize quotes but it is almost like second instinct for one to summarize a quote before going into deeper analysis of the text. To my liking, my peers did not find much “summarization” in my paper and these little pieces can be edited out and modified with no problem.
Another thing that I think would improve my argument would be the strengthening of my arguments through further analysis of my quotes. At first I think I did a good job of analyzing my quotes, however as I analyzed my paper more in depth I realized that I could do much more. My analyses of the quotes were on point but they could have been better. I feel as if I could have said much more than I did. That is something I will work on while revising my next draft.
While going through my peers’ papers I realized one thing that I could borrow from them was their use of anecdotes. The use of anecdotes in the paper not only strengthened their arguments but it added a sense of individuality to the paper. They helped by adding to the analysis of quotes and by bringing about outside evidence. I believe with the addition of anecdotes to my paper that my paper would overall be more successful. I know where the weak spots are for my paper and I have mapped out a quasi-affective plan to make it completely solid, from beginning to end.