It's interesting that experienced writers create the shape of their argument after they've already written a draft. When I'm outlining my paper/draft I always try to come up with the flow of my argument and how all of my points will fit together before I've even started writing. I think viewing the first draft as just getting all of your ideas down without worrying about how they flow and then revising them to fit together is useful and less stressful. It can be more time consuming and stressful trying to figure out your whole paper before you've gotten any ideas out at all.

When I'm writing a first draft, I usually use more informal or colloquial words and think to myself "eh I'll fix it later" instead of getting to caught up in finding the perfect word. Changing these words when revising then is a main focus of my revision process. I think instead of trying to change this by using more formal words in the drafts, I can still use the revision process to change these specific words as long as I am aware of and analyzing how they fit into my message/big picture.

Often, we think that the more evidence we have, the stronger our argument becomes; However, an excess of evidence can hurt our arguments if all it does is just drag the paper on. This is especially true if multiple pieces of evidence prove that exact same point instead of bringing a new aspect to the table. It's important to consider how each piece of evidence moves the conversation along and if the reader will get something meaningful out of them.

I think this is a very useful idea. It can definitely help you organize your thoughts if you can physically see them and how they connect to each other. Making a diagram can work for everybody because they are individual. Each sketch/diagram can be tailored to fit the writer's mindset and the purpose of the paper, so they are effective in working through personal, relevant ideas.

It's important to note that praise is just as effective as critiques. When we find something in a paper that we think works really well, we should comment about it and add why we think it works well. This gives the writer an idea of what sort of ideas and organizational styles work in specific assignments. Also, certain praise comments can be useful to the writer when looking through other critiques. The writer can consider what worked and then implement some of those techniques into what didn't work.

The use of the word "to" emphasizes that we should treat our responses to a peer's paper as a conversation with them. There is a big difference between talking to someone versus talking at someone. Many responses to papers can feel like the reader is talking at the writer instead of connecting with them and working through ideas. When the response feels like a conversation, it is more helpful to the writer because the it is more in depth and gives the writer a better understanding of how the reader perceives the paper.

It's important to remember that plans vary between people and between projects. Two people can have different plans for the same project, and one person can have two different plans for two different projects. Additionally, one person can create two plans for only one problem, in case one doesn't work out. Each plan is individually created based on personal experience and shared knowledge. Sometimes plans can negatively impact problem-solving because they become too rigid and don't leave room for error. Overall, personal experience plays a large role not only in the rules you follow, but also in the plans you create.

It's important to understand this because it leads to the fact that everybody follows their own set of rules. Personal experience can play a big role in the development of certain rules and in how a person approaches certain projects. There can be many discrepancies between rules people choose to follow in terms of flexibility, complexity, and applicability. Because of these discrepancies, everybody's writing process is individualized and can result in drastically different final products.

I think an important part of writing is getting all of your ideas out at the beginning and then later going back and refining or expanding upon them. This ensures that you don't forget any ideas you have. There is no harm, only benefit, in writing down all of your thoughts because they can always be edited.

I think Lamott's use of simile helps to connect the reader to the writing process. Most people know what it feels like to wear an x-ray apron, so Lamott utilizes this to relate to the reader. This bridges the gap between the excerpt and the audience allowing them to further understand the range of emotion often felt by authors.