Blog Post #51 - Reflection on Project 3

Hall, Keith. "Horse in the mist". 9/3/2005. via Flickr
Attribution 2.0 Generic

Reflecting on My Revision Process

• What was specifically revised from one draft to another?
• My first revision was nearly a complete rewrite. I had a very difficult time with saying what I meant to say. The second revision was focused on making my points and topics stand out better and show more of my stance on the issue. The third and fourth revisions dealt mostly with punctuation and individual word changes to make things more poignant in certain places. The last revision was incorporating more of my personal feelings in the conclusion.
• Point to global changes: how did you reconsider your thesis or organization?
• Globally speaking, I never really reconsidered my thesis or organization. If this was for real and I had the mountains of data prepared that would be necessary to properly state my case, I would completely revisit how I was presenting to my audience. Because of the specific nature of the data, I would need to play with ways of presenting it that made sense. I imagine it would look something like a video lecture but that's not definite.
• What led you to these changes? A reconsideration of audience? A shift in purpose?
• As I stated prior, the audience has been a fixed point throughout. I seriously considered shifting my purpose a couple of times. More to make it easier on myself than anything. My topic has no resolution and therefore it's very hard to argue. Even with further study and investigation a resolution may not be found. Shifting the purpose may be the only logical conclusion if there isn't a data proven final verdict.
• How do these changes affect your credibility as an author?
• Since I can't prove a single aspect of my topic I probably sound like just another complainer. Due to the length of time this issue has been in existence I highly doubt I am the first person to present what I've presented. There is no shortage of people trying to end horse racing as a sport. And though I'm not in that category, skeptics could still initially view me as such and reject me outright.
• How will these changes better address the audience or venue?
• The changes I have made should endear me more to the audience. Just being grammatically correct goes a long way. My current position will give me a bit of credence with the audience due to the prestigious nature of the RTIP. Combined, they may be enough for somebody to actually take the time and read the entire paper.
• Point to local changes: how did you reconsider sentence structure and style?
• My audience is extremely knowledgeable on the subject so I didn't mind being more technical with some of my terms. I also include a lot of detail hoping to alter misconceptions with a group that thinks they all ready know it all. I did shorten specific sentences for emphasis and even threw in some punctuation to help with that.
• How will these changes assist your audience in understanding your purpose?
• Due to the expertise of the audience, I feel that providing more detail will assist with them thinking asymmetrically. This issue cannot be approached from one side or the other but must be looked at from a different view. As an audience with preconceived notions, they will think a certain way and not be open to other views that appear conflicting to their own. In this particular issue, 1 + 2 do not equal 3 and I have to get the audience past what's right in front of them to a place they are uncomfortable with going.
• Did you have to reconsider the conventions of the particular genre in which you are writing?
• Actually quite often. I believe to maximize affect I would need to give my audience a more clinical, scientific approach. My current draft is factual but when dealing with an emotional issue that often is not enough to persuade or sway the audience. A scientific approach would be extremely unemotional and could perhaps detach the emotion of the audience and allow a deeper focus. However, for this draft, I did not take that approach.
• Finally, how does the process of reflection help you reconsider your identity as a writer?
• I am not a touchy, feely type of writer. My process is simply identifying the facts, presenting local conclusions, and providing details of various aspects to possible solutions. My personalty works well within these confines so that is the style I write in. Emotion clouds judgement and so I attempt to remove it whenever possible to help my audience focus on the issue.