RA Showcase
What is the RA Essay?
The Rhetorical Analysis Essay is a thesis-driven, academic essay that the class as a whole has been working towards this quarter: all of the course readings, class discussions, metacognition practice, and short writing assignments that aimed to have us begin thinking about the conversation on immigration and the American Dream have all been in preparation for this major assignment. For this essay, there are two approaches we are allowed to choose from: comparative rhetorical analysis or contextual rhetorical analysis. In the former approach, we choose two course readings and compare how each rhetor approaches a similar idea about immigration and the American Dream based on the rhetorical techniques each uses; in the latter approach, we take the historical and cultural contexts of a text and analyze how they are reflected within the text, or how the rhetor produces the text considering the influences of their respective historical events and cultures. Nevertheless, no matter the approach we choose, the RA essay has us break down each text to its parts and analyze those parts to see how the authors use specific rhetorical techniques to convey a certain message and connect with their respective audiences-- all while considering their respective rhetorical situations. In totality, this essay is about six to seven pages and will require the use of at least three supplemental sources that will support and add context to our claim.
The RA Process (Weeks 1-6)
In this section, you will be able to find five artifacts that represent my progress towards the RA essay--that is, my progress in certain modes of thinking and types of writing that relate to the RA Essay throughout weeks 1-6 of the quarter.
Artifact 1: "A Letter to My Son" Annotations
Opening My Mind to New Perspectives and Becoming More Objective
This image is an excerpt from my annotations in "A Letter to My Son." In this particular moment, I am taking more notice of Coates' tendency to use negative words and phrases, such as the ones outlined by the white boxes.
This first artifact is from our assignment on metacognitively reading “A Letter to My Son” by Ta Nehisi Coates. From this specific assignment, I learned more about the varying perspectives about immigration and the American Dream, for this was the first text we encountered that truly portrays this topic in such a heavy, negative light. From annotating the text, and upon reflection of my annotations, I noticed that, throughout the entire letter, Coates solely uses words that have negative connotations attached to them. For instance, in one part of his work, he uses the phrases “random manglings” and “rape so regular” to convey his message about the destruction of the black body. By paying attention to these details, I realized that he purposefully chooses these words to create the heavy atmosphere that surrounds the text and the reader as the text unfolds in front of them, and I realized that Coates’ text was a darker, grim perspective on the American dream compared to the others we have been studying in class. For example, even Holt talks about the suffering and oppression that the black community has to endure, but at the end of his text, even he tries to create a message of hope by acknowledging that if the education system were to change, society could further encourage the black community to pursue a higher education, to pursue their own American Dreams. Contrasting this with Coates, however, Coates solely focuses on the dark reality of America, the reality that white society lives to destroy the black body, and this drastic difference in perspectives opened my eyes as a reader to the varying thoughts and opinions other scholars have on immigration and the American Dream; it made me appreciate the value behind the differing perspectives because, now, I am able to encounter any new text or conversation with a more open mind, with a mindset that refrains from biasing the topic in a positive light as I used to do. Before Coates’ letter, I was not even aware of my bias, but upon this realization, I am now able to read a rhetor’s work with a more objective lense, and this ability is vital when it comes to both the RA Essay and being a member in the discourse community. With this new perspective, I can write more objectively--which helps me achieve for one of the conventions of academic writing-- allowing my analysis for the essay to be constructed without bias, and this adds to my overall voice as an academic writer. In addition, having the ability to write objectively allows me to effectively contribute to the academic discourse community, since my work can now be viewed with more credibility, which, in turn, inclines more scholars to be genuinely invested in my work.
Artifact 2: "Finding Sources and Making Connections Round 2"
Becoming a Rhetorical Analyst
This artifact comes from an assignment in which we were asked to research two outside sources that connect to a main idea in our course readings and create a two paragraph response that illustrates these connections. Although this assignment was designed to be in preparation for the RIP Project, what I want to highlight is the analysis I conducted while working on this task, for this type of analysis is one that is pertinent to the RA Essay and my understanding of it. This assignment helped me learn how to pick apart a work and examine its rhetorical techniques. One of the sources I picked was a video in which Trump reaches out to families who had members killed by illegal immigrants, and in addition to listening to what Trump was saying, I took notice to the environment in which his speech was presented in. Whereas I would normally maintain full focus on the words he was saying, this time, I allowed myself to observe Trump’s surroundings as well, for I have learned that the specific choices of a rhetor add to the way in which they convey their message, and I realized that Trump’s environment is a part of his speech, that the environment that surrounded him is just as important as the words he was speaking. Thus, I put myself in the shoes of his spectators, paying attention to not only what he was saying, but the backdrop he was standing in front of and the family members standing beside him, for these are things spectators are bound to notice as well. Upon seeing these elements, I was able to ask myself what seeing these visuals did for me as a viewer, and by doing this, I was able to analyze how these choices effected the message portrayed by the rhetor. Therefore, this particular part of the assignment was allowing me to exercise my rhetorical analysis skills, a skill that I must expertly demonstrate in my RA Essay, and because I was further developing these skills, I was working towards becoming an effective rhetorical analyst. In addition, because I noticed such background elements and analyzed their effects, I was able to communicate these thoughts in my own writing, which allows me to deeply connect with the academic discourse community and contribute more valuable perspectives, for the content I was writing about demonstrated critical thinking, rather than “surface thinking,” and this allows for my voice as a scholar to be taken more seriously. This learning moment helped me work towards one of our course objectives: using metacognition to confidently identify and write about the claims of a text, for with the mode of thinking I was using while viewing the video, I was able to pick apart Trump’s speech and clearly pinpoint the techniques he used to convey his message, which consequently allowed me to confidently write about it in the assignment.
This image is an excerpt from my "Finding Sources and Making Connections" assignment. The text highlighted by the red box indicates the moment where I effectively analyzed an element of the video (in this case, the backdrop and posters surrounding Trump during his speech) and explained its effects to Trump's audience.
This image is an screen shot from the video I used as a resource for the assignment. This image is placed here to serve as a visual for what I was describing in my writing.
Artifact 3: Connect Assignment on Commas and Semicolons:
Perfecting My Grammatical Skills
This image is a screen shot of my scores from my Connect Assignments. The red box highlights my scores for the assignment I reflected on in my analysis.
My third artifact comes from a Connect assignment on commas and semicolons; from this assignment, I learned how to accurately utilize these punctuations within my own writing. Although my score shows that I did well, it also shows that there is definitely room for improvement: I learned that, for the most part, I am able to correctly use commas and semicolons, particularly to avoid run-on or fused sentences; but I also learned that I am prone to using them incorrectly. This realization is important, for now that I am more aware of the types of mistakes I make in my writing, I can actively work to avoid such mistakes when it comes to future assignments, like the RA Essay. Punctuation is critical when it comes to writing because any misuse can dramatically change the message one is trying to convey, and it can hinder the flow of one’s work, for when coming upon a mistake, readers would have to constantly reread the text to understand what the rhetor is actually trying to say. And this particular assignment showed me that my misuse of commas and semicolons can possibly become a problem in my writing. Thus, it is important for me to utilize this learning moment to ensure such mistakes do not occur, especially regarding the RA Essay, for these mistakes can prevent readers from clearly understanding my analysis of the course readings. In addition, because I am developing my grammar skills, I am consequently building on my credibility as a writer. Thus, honing this skill evidently allows me to effectively contribute to the scholarly discourse community because by correctly structuring my sentences, I am portraying to my fellow scholars that I have the knowledge and ability to construct grammatically correct work, and therefore, my work would be taken more seriously by others. On top of this, the Connect assignment assists me in working towards one of the vital course objectives: using digital tools to become more confident about grammar and my own writing, for I am consistently working towards perfecting my grammatical abilities with the assignments and using these skills to create exceptional work.
Artifact 4: Annotations on "How to Tame a Wild Tongue"
Metacognitively Reading to Uncover the Rhetor's Message
My fourth artifact comes from a metacognitive reading assignment on “How to Tame a Wild Tongue” by Gloria Anzaldua. From this assignment, I learned the importance of metacognitively annotating a text. Through my annotations, I discovered that I was conversing with the text itself: I was asking questions, translating her spanish words, and writing down my own interpretations of what she was saying, and in effect, I was uncovering her message while experiencing the text with her. Now, to say that I am experiencing the text with her may sound absurd; but, the rhetor is “speaking” as the reader is reading the text. Thus, in a sense, the text in unfolding in real time as the voice of the rhetor is playing the reader’s mind. And for this assignment, having Anzaldua “with me” was particularly important, for as I was reading her work, it felt like I was talking to her, experiencing everything she wanted me to experience in the exact moments she wanted me to. More importantly, through my consistent annotations and translating of her spanish, I was feeling the exact emotion she wanted me to feel: frustration. Reflecting on my annotations, I was able to uncover her message the way she wanted me to; because I am not completely fluent in spanish, I felt overwhelmed with the amount of translating I had to do, and my frustration paralleled the frustration she feels towards white society, for the oppression her people face evokes this emotion as they always have to accommodate for white society. Therefore, by forcing me to accommodate to her, she was persuading me to feel exactly how she feels as an oppressed individual. This message would not have been clear to me if I did not annotate and converse with the text as I did, and doing so demonstrates that I am becoming an effective rhetorical analyst, for no longer am I solely reacting to a text, but I am realizing the effects of the rhetor’s specific decisions and applying it towards the text as a whole. This skill is vital when it comes to the RA Essay because this is the type of conversation I am expected to have with a text to be able to fully comprehend it and its elements. By being able to apply this analysis to Anzaldua’s work, I am showing my potential for developing the same type of analysis in my essay, which is essential for effectively supporting my claim. In addition, being able to conduct such analysis allows me to become a strong contributor to the academic community because I am able to contribute accurate analysis and valid interpretations. All in all, this assignment also helps me work toward a certain course objective: understanding the importance of metacognition in the learning process, for my annotations of Anzaldua’s text are the reasons why I am able to uncover her message.
This image is an excerpt from my annotations of "How to Tame a Wild Tongue" by Gloria Anzaldua. The annotations I made helped me keep track of my thoughts and reactions, and thus, allowed me to reflect on my reading experience and uncover Anzaldua's message.
Artifact 5: Comparative Rhetorical Analysis Exploratory Draft
Learning the Importance of Drafting
This picture is an excerpt from my first exploratory draft. In this paragraph, it is evident that I make a comparison between Barbaro and Holt's text, as outlined by the red boxes; however, I fail to connect my analysis to their respective audiences.
This artifact is taken from our first exploratory draft assignment in which we were asked to rhetorically analyze and compare one public discourse with an academic discourse text that we have covered in class based on a message they share about immigration and the American Dream. Through this assignment, I learned that what I write will not always be perfect, that I will constantly need to make revisions and learn from constructive criticism to create an exceptional piece of work-- for writing is truly a process. In this draft, it is evident that my rhetorical analysis was not remarkable. In fact, it was lacking, since I did not include a connection to the rhetors’ audience, and this was the very element that was supposed to make my analysis rhetorical. Upon seeing Professor Delany-Ullman’s comments and acknowledging my mistakes, I realized that my analysis skills needed improvement if I wanted to become a competent rhetorical analyst, and the only way to work towards this goal is if I constantly revise my writing to enhance my analysis. In this moment, I truly understood the importance of drafting: it serves as a means for me to continually refine my thoughts in my writing, strengthening the connections I need to make and eliminating irrelevant details that hinder what I am trying to communicate with my audience. This insight is pertinent when it comes to the RA Essay because it is the very reason why we are creating four drafts for the essay in the first place: our initial try at the essay is, in a sense, expected to be "rocky." Thus, this process inherently helps us refine our writing such that we conduct adequate rhetorical analysis and persuade our audience into believing our theses. In addition, learning the importance of drafting allows me to become a stronger contributor to the academic discourse community because by using the process of drafting to my advantage, I can create influential work that appeals to all scholars. Consequently, having this learning moment also demonstrates that I am achieving one of the course objectives: understanding and participating in the process of composing, for with this first exploratory draft, I am beginning my process of revision and enhancement for the RA Essay.
This image is one of the comments Professor Delany-Ullman made on my draft. In this comment, she is responding to the paragraph depicted in the other picture. Her explicit mentioning of me lacking a connection to audience was a red flag for me, telling me that I need improvement on my analysis.
A Briefing of My RA Essay
Reflecting on my progress towards the RA Essay, I am realizing that the prompt I am leaning most towards is the Comparative Rhetorical Analysis Prompt, for what has intrigued me most these past six weeks has been the various ways each rhetor talks about immigration and the American Dream. Thus, I believe that I can utilize my engagement to effectively compare the rhetorical techniques and their effects between two different authors, all while connecting them to one similar message regarding immigration and the American Dream. For my essay, I want to focus on comparing Barbaro’s podcast “Carlos’s Secret” with Anzaldua’s text “How to Tame a Wild Tongue." Even though both rhetors are speaking about two very different topics from very different time periods—2017 and 1987, respectively—to very different audiences, they come to the same conclusion about America: it labels to oppress. This message is engendered as Barbaro unfolds the story about Carlos’s deportation and as Anzaldua talks about the Chicano experience with oppression by white society; I will be comparing their mediums of text (e.g. news reporting through audio versus personal narration in print), focusing on how they use different rhetorical elements to invoke emotion in the reader as a means of conveying their message. For Barbaro, I will be concentrating on how his specific choices in music and sequencing of events in the report persuade listeners to feel sympathy; for Anzaldua, I will be concentrating on how she constantly switches between English and Spanish and uses an inconsistent structure in the text to induce frustration in her audience. All of this comparison will be in an effort to support my claim about how they come to the same, dark message about the U.S. while utilizing different rhetorical techniques.
Continuing the RA Process (Weeks 7-10)
In this section, you will be able to see my progress towards the completion of the RA Essay from weeks 7-10 of the quarter-- that is, you will be able to witness my drafting process and growth as an academic writer.
Artifact 1: Adding Context to Barbaro's Rhetorical Situation
Learning the Importance of the Reader's Perspective
This first artifact comes from an excerpt of my RA essay: in this section, I am rhetorically analyzing Barbaro’s specific sequencing of events in his podcast in which he purposefully characterizes Carlos, an illegal immigrant, as a beloved community member in the first third of his podcast, and then suddenly reports his deportation as a means of invoking sympathy in his audience. In my first draft of the assignment, I clearly demonstrated how this technique allows his listeners to recognize that, by feeling badly for Carlos, they are acknowledging the American government’s mistreatment of immigrants; however, I did not realize that simply stating the wrongful actions of the government was insufficient, for I did not clearly elaborate on HOW they were wrongful. It was not until Professor Delany-Ullman commented on my draft that I realized I had forgotten to take the reader’s perspective into my writing: because President’s Trump’s immigration policies are so publicized, and because we talk about them relatively often in our own class, I had assumed my audience would already know the historical context in which I was implying. But in hindsight, this assumption caused me to omit critical context to Barbaro’s situation, which is imperative to the rhetorical analysis itself. Upon this realization, I revised this section in my second and third draft, adding to the historical context surrounding Barbaro’s podcast with research about current immigration policies. By doing this, I was able to make my analysis stronger, for I was able to demonstrate how the podcast grew out of its rhetorical situation—how Barbaro crafted the podcast to be a response to Trump’s policies—which is one of the requirements of the RA Rubric and one of the course objectives. I also refined my mentality as a writer—that is, I was becoming more aware of my audience. By adding context, I was providing necessary background information that would help them understand my assertion in the essay more strongly: without these details, I was forcing my readers to infer the context I was referring to, and reflecting on this mistake, I now understand that my job as a writer is to create the atmosphere my audience is coming into, to clearly delineate the information I want them to know such that they can comprehend my position on the topic. Thus, not only am I improving as a writer, but I am improving as a contributor to the academic discourse community, for now I am able to create more intelligible work and formulate complete thoughts, all of which add to the credibility of my academic ethos .
These images represent the "before" (left) and "after" (right) of my RA essay drafts. The left image is an excerpt of my first draft, where I fail to provide context for Barbaro's rhetorical situation, as indicated by the red box. The right image is an excerpt of my third draft, and the red box outlines the section in which I add the context to clarify my argument.
Artifact 2: Creating Impactful Conclusions
Understanding the Importance of Leaving the Reader Thinking
This second artifact is the conclusion of my RA Essay. Upon writing this section for the second draft, I knew that ending my essay with an important insight was vital, for the entire purpose of my essay all came down to one paragraph that demonstrates the importance of my comparison between Barbaro and Anzaldua. I constructed the conclusion with this in mind, and after completing it, I thought I had made a nearly perfect ending with just the right amount of “umph.” However, as I was revising for the third draft, I realized that I had barely created any lasting impact at all: my sentences were out of order, causing the train of thought that outlined the conclusion to be muddled. Thus, this unclarity took away from the impact of the insight I was trying to create. Realizing this, I focused my efforts into restructuring my conclusion, switching around the order in which the sentences appeared and adding detail to elaborate on the insight. By doing this, I created a much stronger conclusion, one that clearly outlined the relevance of my comparison between the two texts and leaves the reader pondering about America’s habit of “othering.” Through this moment, I learned that the message of a conclusion is not the only thing that is important to an essay, rather it is also the way in which the message is constructed that matters, for if the conclusion is unclear, its purpose will be too, and this diminishes the lasting impact it is supposed to give to readers. By learning how to write a meaningful conclusion, I am improving the quality of my writing, allowing me to become a more influential writer and adding to my academic ethos. In addition, this allows me to contribute more persuasive work to the academic community, which in turn, enables me to be a more prominent member, for I am able to influence other scholars as I provide valuable insight in my writing. In regard to my RA Essay, revising my conclusion allowed me to achieve one of the requirements in the RA Rubric pertaining to “Arrangement, Organization:” creating a conclusion that goes beyond summary, and because of this revision, I became more aware of the importance of the drafting process—one of the course objectives—for without this opportunity to edit my draft, my essay would have been substantially weaker.
These images are excerpts of my RA Essay drafts: on the left is the conclusion I had written for the second draft, and on the right is the revised conclusion I had made for my third draft. From comparing the two, it is evident that the latter conclusion is much more impactful than the former, allowing my work to end more strongly and influence my reader to a greater extent than if I were not to revise at all.
Artifact 3: Progress on the Works Cited Page
Learning How to Properly Format
My third artifact is a “before” and “after” of my works cited page, showing my revision of the section from the first draft to the third: from this revising, I learned how to properly cite sources in MLA format, and more importantly, that easybib.com is not the life-saver as we former high school students have thought it to be. While creating the works cited in my first draft, I knew that something did feel a little “off,” for as I was manually inputting the sources’ information into Easy Bib, a lot of the material was repetitive, such as the publisher and author, and if the source did not provide information that I needed—for instance, like the publication date—I had to improvise and create the citation to the best of my knowledge, using outside-help like from Owl Purdue. But even then, I knew I had to seek personalized help for this section, since I feared that if I improperly formatted a citation, I may accidentally give the impression that I am plagiarizing. Thus, I went to the professor’s office hours, and as she reviewed this section, she agreed that some citations were improper and even had repetitiveness. Fortunately, she helped me edit it, looking over the sources with me and showing me how to properly find and cite the correct material. Without her help, I would have kept my incorrect works cited page, and if I did, I would be demonstrating to the academic discourse community that I lack the knowledge to properly follow the conventions of academic writing. But since I sought help and learned from my mistakes, my RA Essay now more strongly validates that I am a capable member of the community, able to effectively build off of fellow scholars’ work to contribute more knowledge. Consequently, I am learning how to become a more prevalent member of the community and am working towards enhancing my writing skills to align with one of the academic conventions: citing credible sources, which, in turn allows me to meet one of the requirement of the RA Rubric: citing the works cited page in MLA format and correctly incorporating proper in-text citation based on this section. Evidently, my academic ethos is now more credible, for I am able to properly show that I can correctly cite other academics.
The image on the left is an excerpt of my first draft's works cited page; on the right is an excerpt of the revised page from my third draft. Here, you can notice substantial revision in some of the citations, as noted by the red boxes and arrows.
Artifact 4: Peer Review
Discovering the Power of Constructive Criticism
This fourth artifact comes from my experience in both participating in peer review and receiving feedback from others. Throughout the entire quarter, our class has been actively engaging in peer review activities, providing constructive criticism for one another and receiving feedback from not only each other, but the professor as well. To be frank, peer review has never been a new thing for me, because my past English teachers have also tried to engage us in these activities; but it was not until this course that I genuinely learned how much giving and receiving feedback can help me develop my writing abilities. From hearing the critiques of my peers and the professor on my work, I gained a whole new perspective about writing with a targeted audience in mind: I learned that crafting my writing to tailor to my readers is not as easy as it may seem, for my writing style is one thing, but to be able to align this style with my readers such that they can understand the purpose behind my work is a whole other world. Peer reviews have allowed me to see this side of academic writing; they provided me the opportunity to hear other scholars’ perspectives on my work, and using their perspectives, I am able to revise my writing to better suit their needs and portray my message. For instance, Professor Delany-Ullman helped me acknowledge my bad habit of being “wordy” in my first draft of the RA Essay, and learning about her view about my work caused me to think about how my writing affects other readers— how whether or not this characteristic also impedes others’ understanding of my work. Thus, because of this one moment, I became conscious of this habit, revising all subsequent work to ensure that I refrain from portraying it again. Similarly, my experience with providing feedback also helped me strengthen my writing abilities: by analyzing my peers’ writing, I was able to pinpoint things like citation, grammatical, and content errors, and because I was able to distinguish these things, I also became aware of whenever I made these mistakes in my own writing. Consequently, I was becoming a better writer by just commenting on others work, and overall, these exercises have helped me develop my voice as a writer, allowing me to use my enhanced skills to revise my RA essay and contribute more effectively to the academic discourse community with both stronger works and my new peer editing abilities. In addition, these learning moments have contributed to my achievement of one of the course objectives: becoming a capable peer reviewer and understanding the importance of constructive criticism.
The top image is an example of when I demonstrated my ability to effectively peer review other's work. In this moment, I am pointing out to a classmate an aspect of their work that I think may be incorrect: one of the in-text citations. To help them revise it, I offered them what I think would be the correct way of citing the source and provided them a link to an outside resource that may also help them in the process. Knowing that this aspect was incorrect was not instinctive, however. I actually learned about proper citation because I, myself, have made the same mistake, and it was Professor Delany-Ullman who pointed it out to me, as indicated by the bottom image. Thus, by learning from her, I am now able to help my fellow peers whenever they make the same mistake as I did.
My RA Essay and Understanding of the Writing Process
After constant revision, my RA Essay is finally now complete and demonstrates both my ability as a rhetorical analyst and as an improved writer. In summation, it outlines how both Barbaro and Anzaldua utilize the power of emotion—sympathy and frustration, respectively—to portray the message that America’s habit to label and categorize people has not changed at all. Barbaro induces his listeners to feel sympathy with his editing of the sequence of events in the report and incorporation of somber music, and Anzaldua persuades her readers to feel frustration by switching between Spanish and English and disregarding the common organization of an academic text. By comparing these texts, it becomes evident that white society still has a substantial influence in how American society operates, for their choice in who to label ultimately leads to the systematic oppression of these people, and this is precisely what my essay attempts to persuade my academic audience into believing as well.
​
From writing this essay and participating in activities that related to it, I have learned a multitude of vital lessons. Not only have I become aware of the power of peer review, as indicated by my fourth artifact, but my overall ability to write for an academic audience has grown so much from when I first stepped into Writing 39B: I have learned how to use my ability to metacognitively think to enhance my analysis of texts. I have learned to be less wordy, and yet at the same time, provide sufficient analysis and background to help my readers understand my message more readily. I have learned that writing is truly a process, for there is always room for improvement. But, ultimately, I have learned that, as Professor Delany-Ullman says, there is such thing as “over-revision.” After finishing the first draft for this assignment, I developed a mindset that constant revision would always help enhance my work. And although it is true in certain circumstances, after finishing the third draft, I have found that constant revision is not always appropriate, for after rereading and editing so many times, there comes a point where revision can hurt my writing. If the professor had not pointed this out to me, I would have revised my essay even more, when deep down I knew that I felt as if I could not do any more to improve it. She helped me listen to my gut, and because of this, I am able to think about my work and my abilities as a writer differently. In terms of my essay, I do believe I provided sufficient rhetorical analysis of Barbaro and Anzaldua’s text, and I believe that I contributed a new angle to looking at these works, because I, myself, have never really thought about podcasts or academic works in the way I demonstrated in my essay. But, is it true I really accomplished these things? I may never know, for my work is always subject to others’ opinions and their interpretations may not align with mine. However, I do always welcome feedback from others. Because of this, I cannot completely tell you whether or not I truly believe my essay has lacking parts, since my experience with possibly “over-revising” demonstrated to me that I believe I created the essay with my upmost ability, and the need for improving on my essay is now subject to others’ views on my work. But upon feedback, I know I can utilize others’ comments to open my perspective of my writing, and from this, enhance my work and writing abilities. I apologize of this endless loop between me being confident in my work and me being unsure if my essay needs further improvement is confusing…but I think this is one of the most powerful things about the writing process overall—that is, it is an endless cycle between the writer and their audience.