My goal for this paper was to allow my readers to understand the true meaning of "good writing". That everyone is entitled to their own opinion on what that really means. We are all born with the ability to come up with our own opinions, and therefore we use those thoughts in order to back up what we believe is "good" or "bad". I referred to discourse communities as my main source because in each community there are specific rules and preferences as to what "good writing" is. It is hard for people in a discourse community to come up with their identity and to explore amongst their taste in different types of writing. I used my imagination in some parts of this paper, because I think I was able to tie myself into my paper more that way. I'm not worried about people disagreeing with this paper, because I believe it can be thought out in many different ways. It is for the public-eye and I hope my readers will get different things out of it than I thought was possible. I think if I had more time, I would've interviewed a handful of my classmates in order to get more of a feedback on what they really think about "good writing".
http://www.scribd.com/doc/78823952
http://www.scribd.com/doc/79058235/Scott-Peer-Review
ReplyDeleteLanie- I really enjoyed reading your paper and I thought it was very good! What I got from it to be the main point was that no one can judge what good writing is except for yourself. People can view good writing as two entirely different things like what you said with the poet and chemist example. There were only a few things I think you should change, the paper could have had a few more counter-arguments and you had a few confusing sentences. The paper met all of the criteria that Professor Whicker asked for including the engaging introduction which I thought was one of your strongest points.Your conclusion was also very strong and I think both of those definitely met the criteria he was looking for. Overall I think you did a really good job! -Scott