Also not in the original draft. I think I was far too scared of beating my audience over the head to the point that what I actually wanted to say didn't come through. I really like this sentence because it connects the new, personal aspect of the essay with the ideas of the stop mentioned earlier. Also, I think it sounds nice, bar incorrect usage of "nauseous."

None of this was in the original draft, mostly because I feared writing myself into it too much, making it more about me and less about the Stop (the intended subject of the piece). When I thought about it more I realized how flat-out idiotic that line of thinking was; experiences are inherently personal, so I can only really talk about my perception of the Stop, and therefore writing myself into the essay wasn't only permissible but necessary in order to truly capture the power of the place.

Originally "ambitious." These two words aren't so dissimilar, but the difference is clear enough that the change makes sense: there's no ambition in a freshman taking the Comm Ave. bus - no lofty goals or ridiculous confidence - but there is adventure because the Comm Ave. bus is generally seen as a home to upperclassmen.

Originally "assume." The important difference being that I wanted the Waiter to have some active role in the genesis of these emotions, and "assume" doesn't quite cut it, as well as not really working in this context. "Manufacture" is clearer and better accomplishes my goal.

The final clarification here was absent from my first draft; the metaphor made so much sense in my mind that I figured it'd click immediately for my audience too. The problem being that "people who've taken a fleeting interest in one particular exhibit at a zoo" actually behave in numerous possible ways. Thus the addition of the semicolon and final phrase, which I actually quite like now because it gives a more concrete image of the Walkers.

This short phrase's original incarnation was as "its inverse," which on first writing I thought had a certain mathematic quality that I enjoyed, and seemed close enough to the meaning that it wouldn't be unclear. When I went back I understood Mr. Z's confusion; "its inverse" is unnecessarily clunky in its attempt to be smooth. Opting for this new phrase helps clarify this, and contributes to the casual tone I'm going for.

This came from the first freewrite of the year about what it means to be lost. This iteration is almost totally overhauled, mostly because of the focus on the phrase "infantile oblivion." I decided to come back to this writing in this way because it felt cathartic to do so. I've gone through a lot personally this semester, and I've been drawing a consistent parallel between my assignments and writing in this class and the real life happenings in my life. Returning to the original question with a new perspective and voice felt too poetic to pass up; luckily, I had found this theme to be increasingly present in my life throughout the semester, so I had something I really wanted to say; writing this was the most fun and satisfying writing I've done in a good while.

This wasn't in my original essay, mostly because I hadn't made this connection yet. I discovered a lot about myself this year, among them why I found this phrase so compelling - made my headspace a much more sound place in the end. I included it because my discovery of this happened over the course of this semester, and I found it sort of allegorical to my work in the class. It's a purely personal connection, but one I felt like sharing.

Lepore makes an effective connection between the ideas of intellectual property and the way the accounts of abuse of many women seem to be repeating themselves. She does so through diction; her use of the word "copying" in a slightly unusual way - typically, one wouldn't use "copying" to refer to independent events that aren't similar on purpose - keys the reader into the parallel she's trying to draw.