Carpenter 1

Alexander Carpenter

ENC 1101

November 6, 2017

From Passion to Paper

Preface:

Writing is a universal skill. Rather than being innate, writing takes an extensive amount

of time, effort, and practice to develop into an effective medium for communication. What

makes writing so unique is its incredibly diverse range of applications. The ability to effectively

convey ideas and thoughts through writing is essential for success in not only academic settings,

but in the professional world. All students, including myself, wish to one day be a part of this

setting. In this auto-ethnographical analysis, I will be studying my own works of writing. One

work will be from my senior year of high school, and the other will be from the most recent

piece of writing I have written. The purpose of this analysis is to evaluate how my writing

process has fundamentally changed, and how those processes impacted the quality of the final

products. This analysis enables me to better understand what processes are effective and which

ones hinder the writing of an effective paper.

The Nature of the Assignments:

The two papers I chose to analyze were both academic assignments that held

considerable weight in terms of my grade. The first paper, known as the Extended Essay, was a

requirement to earn a diploma for the International Baccalaureate Program. This assignment was

defined as a four-thousand-word open-ended research paper, meaning I had absolute free reign as
 Carpenter 2

to what I could write about. Because of my fascination with music, I chose to write the Extended

Essay by analyzing Shostakovichs 5th symphony. The basis of the essay was a response to the

research question, Why was Dimitri Shostakovichs 5th Symphony highly regarded in the eyes

of both public and political critics? The second piece of writing I will be analyzing will be the

most recent piece I have written, entitled Leviathan. This assignment was presented with the

requirements that I choose a discourse community and elaborate on their customs through the

lens of the activity system. With the freedom of choice to pick any discourse community, I chose

a community of people who gather together to complete a specific task in a video game entitled

Destiny 2, the task being to complete convoluted challenges with a group of six players for the

sake of gaining individual rewards at the completion of each challenge.

Preparation:

The approach that I took to prepare each paper have conceptually similar methodologies.

Differences, however, arise from their respective step-to-step processes and the time frames for

preparation for each paper., In hindsight, these differences had drastic implications to the

structure and flow of the papers. In my most recent paper entitled Leviathan, for example, my

method of preparation was well structured with the help of my professor and my peers. Between

two and three weeks prior to the due date for the final draft, the more routine assignments for my

ENC 1101 class equipped my mind to comprehend and critically analyze the nature of discourse

communities through the lens of Donna Kain and Elizabeth Wardles Activity Theory. With

this knowledge, I was well prepared to implement whatever discourse community I wanted to

talk about into this theory and properly analyze it from that perspective. With the help of my

peers I was able to find a community that would be unique to analyze and compelling for me to

research, which would become the Leviathan raid community.

 Carpenter 3

To prepare for my Extended Essay, one distinct difference from my most recent paper

was the amount of time I had to prepare. In stark contrast to the Leviathan paper, I was given a

notice of between six and seven months before the final draft of the Extended Essay was due.

During that time frame I analyzed, and gained knowledge of the nature and expectations of the

Extended Essay. While I did not take total advantage of that time, this time-frame still granted

me the ability to carefully choose my research space and conduct a thorough investigation of the

topic I selected.

Research:

After deciding on Shostakovichs 5th Symphony, I quickly went to work to become fluent

with that piece of music. With a runtime of about forty-five minutes, I listened to the symphony

multiple times to gain insight into the essence of the piece, trying to determine which parts of the

symphony I would focus on and for what purpose. The second step I took in researching this

symphony was to explore the context which the symphony was composed, which involved an

examination of why Shostakovich composed the symphony and the political climate and context

of this time period. After finding that Shostakovich composed the symphony for the sake of

survival from the Stalinist Soviet Union, I purchased a physical score for the symphony and

listened to the symphony a second series of times. With this newfound understanding I had a

better idea of what to look for within the music. While listening and following the score, I could

write notes within the music marking important transitions and allusions Shostakovich was

making, (i.e. inserting excerpts from patriotic Soviet marches and Soviet folk-tunes). It was after

this contextual research that I began to consider a research question or thesis that I would address

as the focal point of my paper. To consolidate a thesis, or a niche as I would learn later, I further

examined the context which the symphony was written. What I found to be the most peculiar
 Carpenter 4

finding was that the symphony itself was successful not just in its goal to pander to the Soviet

government, so Shostakovich could save his career and possibly his life, but the symphony was

also well received by the general public, who at the time were infatuated with Shostakovichs

sense of ideological rebellion against Stalin as he made evident with his earlier works. It was this

appeasement of both sides that prompted me to ask the question, Why was Dimitri

Shostakovichs 5th Symphony highly regarded in the eyes of both public and political critics?

With that research question as a base, I was prepared to begin drafting the Extended Essay.

Likewise, research for my Leviathan paper also involved directly experiencing my

research space in a repetitive fashion. To better understand the Leviathan raid community from

the perspective of a member, I participated and learned their traditions and formalities as a part

of the community. I also played the game as a team member on multiple occasions and was able

to experience first-hand how the community operates as a whole, and how individuals of that

community carry out their respective roles and responsibilities. The ability to study this

community from both the lens of a member as well as an observer of an activity system gave a

great amount of insight into my research space and how I would later propose to make the

system more efficient.

Growth and Development of Writing:

The drafting and writing of each respective paper is where the greatest divergence in

writing methodology takes place. I had a great amount of help in terms of outlining and drafting

for my Leviathan paper. There were multiple opportunities to receive in-class peer-feedback at

different stages of the writing process. I first received feedback from my colleagues after writing

a basic outline of the ideas I wanted to talk about and the order which I wanted to deliver them

in. The most critical feedback I received was to shape my paper around the idea of making a
 Carpenter 5

more efficient system for the community by supplementing ideas throughout the course of the

paper as opposed to a straight description of how the community functions and then addressing

how to make it more efficient separately. I also received feedback from three of my colleagues

on the first draft of the paper. This granted me an even greater sense of comprehension of my

writing practices and how to utilize my personal techniques in a more concise and impactful

manner. This constant review and feedback on my work proved essential to the final drafting of

my paper. Implementing the comments and feedback from the peer review process permitted me

to give a more organic flow to my paper and allowed it to be examined as a critical commentary

of the Leviathan raid community that presented ideas that were both unique and insightful.

My Extended Essay, on the other hand, did not have such strong collaborative support.

Despite the greater amount of time I was provided to write this paper, that time was not enough

to overcome all the flaws in my writing and to make the paper of the highest quality. The most

significant flaw in the writing of this paper I found was not a lack of expertise on the subject

matter of Shostakovichs 5th Symphony or a lack of understanding of conventional writing

standards, but the absence of feedback and basic revision. After reflecting on how I wrote my

Extended Essay, I came to the realization that I did not take full advantage of the resources that

were available to me. Not once did I ask one of my peers to read and give feedback on my paper.

In addition, I did not take the opportunity to receive possible feedback from people who were

also well versed in understanding Shostakovichs 5th Symphony such as my father, who is a

professional musician, or my orchestra director, who has a doctorate in music education and

history. Consequently, the final product of my Extended Essay, while full of depth and

substantial knowledge about the symphony, lacked direction and focus on the question that was

supposed to be addressed. , This resulted in a four-thousand-word stream of consciousness style

 Carpenter 6

analysis of Shostakovichs 5th Symphony that only addresses the research question at the

beginning and end of the paper.

Final Remarks on My Writing Practices:

In the span of one year between writing these two papers, my vocabulary and writing

style has not changed substantially. The paramount difference in my writing process instead

derives from the inclusion of others perspectives as I write and revise my work. Reflecting on

my past writing tendencies has revealed that I can only revise my own writing to a certain extent

before becoming ineffective or even hindering the quality of my writing. When revising my own

work, I can much more easily follow my own thoughts than an objective observer, which has

significant implications if my audience is not as well versed in the subject matter as I am. For

example, the audience for my Extended Essay was European Scholars. I was unaware if this

audience possessed expertise in music history and interpretation., The intended audience for my

Leviathan paper was scholars who may have never played a video-game. I have found that

feedback is crucial to the writing process because it provides perspective to writing in a way that

the author cannot always intuitively think. With this newfound knowledge, I will continue to

move forward writing with intent and openness to the critical feedback of others.