I’ve developed more as a writer this semester than I had in any one semester during high school. Part of this is simply maturity. As I grow as a person, writing follows. This semester, I’ve been assigned papers longer than those that I was used to writing. High school writing focused on structured, five-paragraph essay, with a three-point thesis. Now, there’s nothing wrong with have a three-point thesis. The problem is when structure dictates content. Early in the semester, that is something I struggled with. The rough draft of the first paper I wrote did exactly that, and it was awkward. It took a lot of rethinking about how I should be writing to improve. I learned, through much trial and error, that the content of the paper should dictate the structure; not the other way around.
As I began to realize this, I started noticing that it was taking less time to write longer, smoother papers. This was accompanied by the fact that much of what I was writing simply weren’t meant to be in standard essay form. I think the biggest improvement that I made as a writer was simply because I was writing about things I cared about. I care about politics and social issues much more than summarizing short stories I just honestly don’t have passion for. This semester bettered my ability to write papers that are clear, concise, and passionate.
The first thing that changed in my writing this semester was the relative length of the papers I was assigned to write. Specifically, a book review I was assigned to write in my political science course and the historical context essay I was assigned to write in my English course. Both were designed to be about 1500-2000 words, and when I sat down to write them, I actually had to go back and cut words out of the final copy to get them down to length. I also noticed, as a result of simply learning how to express myself more clearly, it took less time to simply sit down and type out a rough draft. The most difficult process wasn’t spending an afternoon typing out 2000 words, but rather editing the paper down when it ended up at 2500 words.
Prior to starting school at Miami, I’d done relatively few creative papers. I’d written a short story my junior year of high school, but other than that, most were simply critiquing or analyzing themes from various novels. When I got the opportunity to be more creative, to write op-eds or book reviews, my writing improved by default. While I’m not very creative in a strict artistic way, I do feel that my opinions are best expressed when I’m not told to simply analyze one part of a book that, to be frank, I didn’t enjoy anyway. In writing about “The Lottery,” my understanding of how a thesis statement should look changed. In my zero draft, the thesis reads,
“It becomes clear that ‘“The Lottery”’ is a prime example of a dystopia, because propaganda is used to control the citizens, the protagonist realizes there is something desperately wrong with the world she lives in, and information is heavily restricted, to the point where citizens from different towns rarely speak with one another.” This thesis is wordy and leaves very little room for creativity in the following paragraphs. This thesis then changed to “One must question why this information is restricted, (or rather, has it simply been forgotten?) How it came to be this way, and why the citizens don’t work to change it.” (The Lottery)
While this is still a three point thesis, it leaves the rest of the paper much more open. It asks the reader to a begin to form their own ideas about what the paper is going to be about and it poses the thesis as an open question, not a closed statement.
A few weeks ago, I came across the opportunity to participate in a College Democrats vs. College Republicans debate regarding the role of government in reducing poverty. It was an experience that I felt was incredibly worthwhile. My opening statements were the most formal “writing part,” and much of the rest of the debate was focused on bullet points that I used to talk about issues and solutions in more depth. Below is an excerpt from the opening statements that night.
“In 2013, 14.5% of the population, 45.3 million people, lived in poverty. Even more alarmingly, 16 million children, more than 1 in 5, lived in poverty. Meanwhile, the CEO to average worker pay ratio is more than 300:1, after-tax corporate profits as a share of the economy are at an all time high, and labor compensation as a share of the economy is at its lowest point since 1948. We believe that the best and most permanent solution to poverty is a good job, and our country should strive to create as many of those jobs as possible. When businesses, however, hold on to profits and reward those at the top of the economic ladder on a scale that we have not seen since the 1920s, creating jobs that pay well is difficult; the vast majority of the money generated through economic activity goes straight to the top.” (Introduction to Debate)
The idea was to use facts that both built upon our point (that government does need to have a strong role in reducing poverty), while also explaining that our current economy simply isn’t generating the kinds of jobs that we need to stop the collapse of the middle class. The debate helped me grow as an intellectual in the sense that in the op-eds I write, I argue a point on paper. In this instance, I argued it aloud, and that allowed different way of arguing a point. I felt that it is both bettered my writing, because if I read something aloud and it is powerful, it will likely sound good on paper as well. It helped me to teach myself to better convey the tone of my writing, because I knew what I wanted it to sound like aloud.
Overall, I felt like during this semester I developed as a writer, and through that, as a person. I started caring more about what I was writing simply because college has allowed me to focus on topics that I actually have a passion for. In one last example, I wrote a letter for my Social Justice class to my congressman back home. An excerpt from it follows:
“I have trouble understanding your justification for voting against reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act. Your website states that you supported the House version of this bill, and not the Senate version of it and the statement that you released claims that you felt that the house bill would have been the most efficient way of ensuring every dollar spent is spent effectively. Yet, the 23 Republican senators who voted for the Senate version of the bill voted for it despite any objections that they saw in how efficiently some money would be spent. Furthermore, when it came to vote on the Senate bill in the house, 87 Republicans crossed the partisan aisle to look at the bigger picture: supporting a bill that the majority of our elected members of congress believed would do the most to help victims of sexual and domestic violence.” (Letter to Rep. Wenstrup)
I went on to ask him to consider changing his mind the next time the law comes up for reauthorization. I felt that it was an important letter to write, and one that, again, I have passion about. The biggest thing that I’ve learned as a writer this semester is that a good writing has to have more than just words behind it. It has to both invoke and evoke an emotion in the reader. For it to do so, at least for me, it must do the same. I have to feel that what I’m writing about is important. When I do feel that I have emotion behind what I’m writing, I feel better about how it turns out, and readers generally agree that the work is much better.
Works Cited
Zach Hazzard. “Letter to Rep. Wenstrup” SJS 165. November 14, 2014. Microsoft Word.
Zach Hazzard “Introduction to Debate” College Democrats. November 18, 2014. Microsoft Word.
Zach Hazzard “The Lottery” ENG 112. September 22, 2014. Microsoft Word.
Inquiry 4: Reflecting on this Semester's Writing 