To Whom It May Concern:
First I would thank you for taking time to read my selected works in the portfolio. I choose five essays in my portfolio—reading log, draft one, draft two, draft three and the final timed-writing, which record my improvement in English academic writing. Under the guidance of my instructor Mr. Ron I have read four stories in International Story this semester. In the story of The Necklace, I discussed the character of a vain woman called Loisel, who spent ten years just for compensating a fake necklace. And I wrote a reading log to express my admiration on Shadrach Cohen’s success in blending into the American society and his steadfast adherence to his original religious after reading the story of the Americanization of Shadrach Cohen. Then in Dead Men’s Path I made comments on an ambitious headmaster and discussed whether he was responsible for a woman’s death. And I also analyzed the deep social reasons for Ajit Babu’s misery after reading The Grass Eater. All of these analysis and comments are presented in my reading log in the “Nicenet”. And I choose one of them—the reading log of the Americanization of Shadrach Cohen in this portfolio. Also, based on that story, I wrote the essay--“Was Shadrach Cohen Americanized?” And you can find how I have revised this essay through Draft One, Draft Two and Draft Three. You can also see how I perform in the final timed-writing in the portfolio.
At the beginning of the semester I considered writing was a process to record what one thought freely. In that period, I preferred to connect a topic to my daily life and inserted my experience to interpreter that topic. For example, when I was working for the topic of “which story do you like best and why” in timed-writing one, I frequently related Cohen’s experience with that of China and me specifically. However, as Mr. Ron pointed out, too much of this was about that and not the story. So most reasons I wrote intending to support my contention were too personal to be persuasive. Yet, after the studying in class I have learned that before one prepares to analyze a story the most important task is to make a clear and strong thesis statement and then find evidence in the story to support it. And too many subjective judgments or comments would undermine an essay’s reliability and credibility. While for me making a strong thesis statement is not an easy procedure, since I always cannot find sufficient and valid evidence to bolster my thesis and even some evidence serve in reverse direction. For example, before I worked on Draft One, I made a thesis statement that “It is Shadrach's original beliefs as a Jew and his inborn intelligence which is closely linked to Jewish religion that lead him to gain economic success, respects from others and self identity”. While for most readers this statement is obvious and thus not strong. Furthermore I did not explain how inborn intelligence is related to the Jewish culture. Then I read the story again and again. Based on more details found in the story I rewrote my statement: “Actually, Shadrach Cohen had been little Americanized”. Although I find plenty of evidence to support this statement, the word “little” makes it weak. And Mr. Ron advised me if I argue that he was not Americanized it would be stronger because I would be challenging the title and the author. So finally, I set the thesis statement as “Shadrach Cohen was actually not Americanized”. During Draft one to Draft three you can find that I have made a clear and strong thesis about the story I analyze, which helps me develop the essay further.
Before I take the writing class, I did not pay enough attention on language error. What I thought was if these errors did not impede one to understand the author’s ideas, then they can be omitted. In timed-writing one, although I wrote a lot of long, complex sentences and “profound” vocabularies, I made numerous language errors, such as fragment, run-on and subject-verb agreement. In fact, errors shift readers’ attention away from my meaning and prevent readers from understanding what I am saying. This can be substantiated that when Mr. Ron was making comments on my timed-writing one he could not well understand my words and thus used many question marks. From that time, I realize the importance to avoid language errors in my writing, especially in the formal writing. And in the class I have learned how to proofread my essay: read word by word; look for typical errors and try to avoid making them in future. Although such procedure is tedious, it helps me a lot and you can find few errors existing in my timed-writing two and in my selected works in the portfolio.
After the whole semester’s study I find that the most effective and efficient way to improve one’s writing competence is to revise again and again. Revising not only helps me to dig out language and logical flaws I overlooked before, but it also aids me to become a critical reader of my own writing. In Draft One, I write a syllabus and cite several contentions to support my thesis that “Shadrach Cohen is not Americanized actually”. Yet the whole essay fails to be organized into a logical sequence. My assertion that “It is Shadrach’s individual talent and capability rather than his Americanization, which lead the success in business realm…” has little connection to my statement. Meanwhile, numerous language errors exist and some words are not using appropriately. In Draft two I replace that assertion with “Shadrach was not americanized concerning his ways in running business” and explain that it is unjustifiable to judge Shadrach was Americanized because of his impressive performance in business. It is more reasonable and related to the thesis more closely. And I change the order of several paragraphs too—make the most obvious and persuasive contention that “Shadrach’s appearance and habits did not change” as the first evidence to support my thesis. However, Mr. Ron points out that there are so many quotations in my essay and I had better to use my own words to paraphrase them. It is true that in Draft two I became too dependent on the exact language of the story, which breaks the flow of my own discussion. Then I learned how to select and paraphrase a quotation and made them well-incorporated into my ideas. You can notice that in Draft Three I cite fewer words directly from the story and most time I paraphrase them and connect them to other points made in the paper. Through this process my essay become more cohesive and cogent. Meanwhile I cut out repetitions in Draft Two, changing the contention that “Shadrach had not been americanized since he insisted upon a strict observance of every tenet of the original religion consistently…”, which was already covered earlier in the paper, into “…Shadrach had not been americanized by realizing his consistency in instilling his sons the fundamental values and principles as a Jew”. Then each part of my essay can support my thesis statement from different aspects.
Through Daft One to Draft Three, you can detect how I progress in academic writing this semester. Except Mr. Ron, I would like to thank my teammates Fanyi and Eileen, who provide me supportive and valuable advice in revising my essay. By peer review, I discover errors that I probably omit by myself and get familiar with the criteria for evaluating written work. It is undoubted that such criteria would help me to assess my own writing in future.
Thank you for taking time to read my selected work in the portfolio. I hope you enjoy reading my essays and make comments on them. I would like discuss and share my opinions with you!
Sincerely,
Student Baggio Hou