I believe this paragraph— which is entirely new writing— exemplifies my growth as a writer in terms of being aware of my audience (essentially anyone) and my own voice and initiating the conversation between the two. Originally, this piece was a response that simply summarized the article and had brief analysis. However, by using a personal example that relates to the analysis injects my voice into the paper and lets the reader know of my presence. Upon doing this, lead my analysis up to a question, which invites the audience into the text. This effectively starts the conversation in my writing. And by answering my question, I continue the conversation and leave the audience with a powerful message (that we need to change our shallow ways) that allows them to also continue the conversation in the form of actually changing the world for the better. Overall, this writerly move to ignite this conversation draws the reader in and entertains them throughout.

I added this sentence to bridge the gap between the article and myself. The sentence serves as a transition into the similar emotions of isolation that I feel from my own example. This skill was something I adapted over the semester, especially exemplified in the inquiry essay. Sentences like these allow the piece to flow coherently like a narrative as opposed to two disjoint bodies of writing.

As noted in the first line, this piece is a response to Gene Weingarten's article about Joshua Bell playing the violin in the subway. For the most part, this first paragraph has the same framework as my original response. I decided to further work on this piece because I was intrigued to continue along the lines of my original insight (that we are all ghosts) and I saw that I could fittingly include my own experience into the text. Furthermore, this piece invites revision in areas that I have immensely grown in such as being aware of the audience and igniting the conversation with the reader through one's writing (and in this case through my personal example). In this part of the first paragraph, I simply reorganized a few sentences after omitting a few unnecessary sentences that summarized the article. Furthermore, I also condensed some of the sentences that summarized the important parts of the article that pertained to my analysis. Both of these skills were things that I grew confident using over the course of the semester.

My writing has always lacked clarity. A major component of this problem has been my lack of organization in both the ordering and transitioning between paragraphs. My first draft did feel really segmented and choppy. Some of my ideas did not flow and I struggled to find a way to present my ideas in a way that accurately reflected my intellectual journey through this inquiry. For example, in my rough draft, I had a paragraph that dicussed how hunter gatherer communities still exist today and how society could possibly adapt some of their ideologies and techniques to coexist with the environment again. However since I talked about hunter-gatherer communities at the beginning and I discussed possible solutions to coexisting once again in the latter half of my paper, this paragraph did not really fit in anywhere. As a result, I removed the paragraph completely and merged some of my ideas into my other paragraph discussing hunter-gatherers. Revisions like this helped me more precisely narrate my writing in a way that better traced the history of man and nature coexisting, which was more pleasing for readers to trace my intellectual journey through my question. Also I added sentences at the end of paragraphs to help transition into new ideas. For instance, I write, “This transformed the relationship between mankind and nature. As society evolved, populations continued to grow and more resources were required to fuel expansion. With breakthroughs in agriculture and technology, settlements became more permanent and cities began to form, distancing nature and man even further (Orland).” Not only did revisions like this help minimize the choppiness between paragraphs, but it also made my essay a lot easier to follow for the readers.

In addition to becoming more aware as a writer (in terms of igniting the conversation between the audience and myself), I also gained a lot of confidence in my ability to express myself clearly and concisely. Although writing can always be improved in terms of these things, I believe that my revision to this paragraph shows improvement in this category. In my first draft, this paragraph— which shows how humans have grown to consciously ignore their destructive actions toward the environment— heavily relied on quotation to prove its point. I failed to use the quotations in a way that would allow me to highlight my own perspective. This was a key skill that I had learned about in this course and had previously never really used. So in my approach to the final draft, I balanced summarizing and paraphrasing with direction quotation as a means of better projecting my argument. For instance, I write, “... humans have continually distanced themselves from nature and thus have developed a ‘willing ignorance of our role and relationship within it [nature].’ With the growth of cities and trade, mankind has moved from a subsistent, sustainable economy to one of greed and exploitation.” In the first draft, I simply left the quote in its entirety as the entire sentence. I did not use it in a way that allowed me to say something about it and this left my readers confused as to why I even included it in the first place. However, paraphrasing and injecting my own voice in terms of the article’s quote allowed me to advance the point in a way that transitioned into how the growth of cities and trade has transformed our economy into one marked by greed and exploitation. By doing this, I was able to convey my ideas in a much more direct manner that emphasized my own voice instead of the author of the article (that I quoted).

As with the audience, I needed to maintain the presence of my own voice throughout the paper. My first draft was largely void of my own perspective. There were a few moments at the end of some paragraphs where I briefly analyzed the writing in my own view. For example, at the end of the hunter-gatherer paragraphs, I noted that the hunter-gatherers coexisted with nature for some time. With this in mind, I argued that their coexistence provides the current generation with hope that coexistence is possible because we are all inherently the same in terms of human nature. Besides minor commentary like this, my paper lacked any sense of my personal opinion. My writing lacked a real conversation between myself and the reader. As a result, I used my conclusion to most clearly voice my own views and map my own intellectual journey through the inquiry— the basis of the entire essay. Not only did this continue the conversation with my readers and engage them throughout the paper, but it also allowed me to voice my changed outlook regarding conservation and how I now believe that society should approach conservation using a blend of traditional and contemporary policy.

In the first draft of my inquiry essay, my writing clearly lacked an awareness of the audience. I failed to both identify my audience and to engage them in the conversation. At the same time, my writing was void of my own voice. The inquiry essay— at its core— is concerned with tracing the writer's own intellectual journey of first coming to a question and then attempting to answer it (or coming to some sort of conclusion). With these things in mind, I aimed to engage both myself and the audience into the conversation in the final draft. By posing a question, I effectively let the audience know that I acknowledge their presence and it also invites them to enter the conversation. Furthermore, my response to the question serves to bring myself into the conversation. My answer also provides the readers with an idea of how I view contemporary conservation efforts, which allows them to be better aware of possible biases that I hold. Ultimately, without this commentary at the end of the introduction, my writing would simply be words on paper where there would be no conversation between me and my readers.

Becoming aware of my audience encompassed two things: first inviting them into the conversation (which I addressed earlier) and then identifying who exactly I was writing for. Upon receiving feedback from my first draft, it became clear that I needed to focus on who I was addressing. The assignment called for me to address a well-educated adult who likes reading thought-provoking prose. However, the debate over the conservation of nature includes various views and beliefs. And with this, I needed to make sure that I did not unnecessarily exclude anyone from the conversation. In my first draft, I almost exclusively addressed one side of the argument (the traditional conservationists) and this severely limited the scope of my paper. After talking with Brian, it became clear that I also needed to address the modern conservationists who believe in conservation but not to the extent in which traditional conservationists push for. Thus, this paragraph is solely dedicated to modern conservationists and how they believe they can make man and nature coexist once again. By pursuing my inquiry through both perspectives, I allowed my writing to engage people of all beliefs regarding the question of the conservation of the environment. Additionally, the new views that I explored fundamentally changed the path of my intellectual journey and it ultimately resulted in me changing my view regarding the issue of conservation.