Mark Mason made his paper better every time he revised it. The first draft was a shitty first draft, but that’s what we are apparently supposed to do. The second draft clears things up a little. He words things better and expands upon some of the main ideas and points of the paper, therefore slowly making in more interesting. Still, the opening was kind of boring and didn’t make the reader want to read the rest of the paper, even though the rest of the paper was quite swell. The third draft was a very big improvement. Mark Mason expanded his thoughts and ideas even more and added more detail. This made his argument and over all idea of the paper seem better formed, while also helping the reader understand what he wants them to- the comparison of the book, the graphic novel, and the movie. The final draft was like icing on a cake. He added actual text evidence from the book and made more comparisons with the pictures and art in the graphic novel. This all added to make the paper actually sound and feel like a research paper. The beginning was an improvement and added a little more personality to the paper, making it more fun to read. I think he knew people close to his age would be reading the paper, so the language in the opening paragraph fits just right. Switching around the idea order also made the paper more interesting to read. The final draft was over all a well formed and interesting research paper.
My revisions always help me. They make me actually look at my paper and see what I can do better on. I like when other people revise or comment on my paper because it helps me form more ideas about my paper. While also seeing other points that I had never even thought of. Plus, the constructive criticism makes it easier to take things out of my paper, without second guessing myself. To me, its harder to see what I can expand on, so seeing other peoples interests help show me with points to go on more about. Personally I don’t like switching my paragraphs around because it confuses me and then doesn’t follow my thought process and that frustrates me.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I agree with Chelsey, here. Mark’s paper really makes a twist for the better in that third draft of his. Chelsey points out that he uses REAL evidence this time, which I failed to mention in my blog. Real evidence, in my opinion, should probably be utilized at least in the second draft, but the most important thing is that he included it eventually in the end. Without that evidence, his paper would be useless. Also, I agree with the fact that he knew that his audience would be made up of people his own age. In the end, he tried his best to target that particular group of people by throwing in some slightly appropriate slang terms and also eliminates any words that might make him sound like a textbook. This does make it a little easier to read, because the law school terms usually just lose people’s attention and therefore render the text useless.
Dearest Chelsey,
Mark did have a pretty shitty first draft, but I still thought it was good. I agree that we are supposed to have shitty first drafts. I believe the way you analyzed Marks paper is pretty accurate. I think that you may have been pretty harsh. I didn't think his opening was so bad. I feel like we also had the same view point as to how the revisions help, but I really don't like just anybody critiquing my paper. You also say that you don't like switching your paragraphs around; who doesn't? I also have trouble making changes and seeing the problems with my writing. Overall I think that your ideas on the subject are pretty close in comparison to mine.
Post a Comment