Strategies and ideas I learned through class, revision, and peer feedback:
- Make thesis as clear as possible
- Continue to connect back to thesis throughout
- Introduce/explain sources to increase credibility
- Concede weaknesses when appropriate
- Edit with the reader’s perspective in mind
Each of these strategies helped me to improve my writing throughout the term, from the first paragraph of my Lit Review to the last sentence of my Definitional Text cover letter. I used some of these strategies more than others, and some of them were only particularly relevant in one or two projects, but each added value to my work. For example, the major revisions I made to my Case Study all related to the specificity of my thesis and connection back to my thesis throughout the paper. Up until my full draft, I didn’t really have a thesis at all, because I was struggling to connect lots of information from my Lit Review to a more specific thesis topic. Another example of a particular instance where a piece of peer feedback was especially helpful is in my Case Study, where Grant pointed out that some of my statistics were not super persuasive because I put too much faith in something that was so hard to calculate (the specific revenue loss from piracy) and I didn’t concede this potential weakness to the reader.
The one strategy that I feel encompasses all others and helped me the most throughout the term is to always write and edit with the reader’s perspective in mind. In other words, I learned that I can’t assume the reader can follow an especially complex train of thought—so it’s important to work from least to most complex and build up ideas—and I also learned that the reader doesn’t automatically trust what I say or cite as an author; I have to build up credibility through effective arguments and counterarguments. One place where I didn’t initially keep the reader’s perspective in mind was the final part, or “end-goal,” of my definitional text infographpic. I assumed that the reader would essentially draw his or her own conclusions as to what I meant by “global community” when I realized that I didn’t even know exactly what I meant by that. If I didn’t know where the progression of my text was going, then how could I expect a reader to know? With this question in mind, I edited my definitional text in a way that I think (and hope) will make more sense to the reader: I instead made my end-goal an effective and dynamic social structure, which relates much more to evidence and ideas I used throughout the infographic up to that point.
Another time when I edited with the reader’s perspective in mind was in response to Tony’s peer feedback on my Definitional Text infographic: he suggested that I make my images more effectively reflect some of the statistics I used so the reader could visualize what I was explaining. This was such a good comment to receive because I helped me to use my chosen medium more effectively and also take a step back and imagine what I would find most effective if I were looking at someone else’s infographic. With Tony’s suggestion in mind, I changed a few of my images to visually represent my statistics, and I think it definitely added value to my infographic and my Definitional Text as a whole.
This idea of editing with the reader’s perspective in mind also applies to the idea of credibility, which I previously mentioned in relation to Grant’s peer review feedback on my Case Study. Until this course, I didn’t often consider that convincing a reader that an argument makes sense is only half the battle—the other half is getting the reader to trust you as a credible voice and author. I had to remember this concept when editing all of my projects, especially my lit review and case study, because I realized I sometimes put too much trust in statistics that could have weaknesses, and I also sometimes assume that a reader will trust one of my sources just because I do, which is not the case. When I discussed several views on Game of Thrones piracy in my Lit Review, I used a few articles by Paul Tassi, who often writes for Forbes about technology and popular culture. I initially had trouble establishing his credibility because I didn’t know much about him or his other articles, so in order to establish his credibility as a source for the reader, I had to do additional research on his credentials and also appropriately introduce his qualifications before using/citing his thoughts. Similarly, in both my case study and my lit review, I got feedback from several peer reviewers that my most convincing piece of evidence was the quote by the CEO of Time Warner, Inc, which owns HBO, saying that piracy is a good thing for the company. I chose to use this quote in particular because I thought from the perspective of a potential audience and realized that a quote from someone within HBO would be the most credible and most convincing.
This course definitely enhanced many of the writing strategies that I already knew and also introduced me to new perspectives/strategies to use in the future. The relationship and dynamic between reader and writer is one that I feel more familiar with now that I’ve had to put myself in someone else’s shoes and view my writing from another point of view. This course also facilitated the most successful peer feedback that I’ve ever received as a writer which I value immensely.