Hi Class, I’m combining the last two posts so this is it! (Blog Post 9)

Post your response to the following prompt below:

Choose a passage from your rough draft and pair it with one of the author’s we’ve read this semester. In your comparison identify one key similarity and one difference between your writing and the selected author’s writing.

Print Friendly


  1. Darwish’s “The Moon did Not Fall into the Well” and my Supreme paper have a multitude of common characteristics. One of them is the passion behind the paper, the misery is felt in both papers, in his case being he lost his home, and mine being that I can’t keep up with the competition of getting clothes branded by Supreme. Much description is used in both our writings, him using them ton describe his village and mine obviously describing iconic logos within the fashion industry. Similar to what Darwish states, “History cannot be swept clean like a blackboard”, I state what the brand means to me and that even though its meaning now is opposite of what it was years ago, I still follow it as the culture is created for our youth back in 1995.

  2. A piece of writing that I thought resembled my final paper would be Oppression by Marilyn Frye. When I was reading, I have noticed that there were lots of facts and clear statements that helped bring out important information from the essay. It had a lot of background information and in a way, that was like my own essay. She talks about experience and examples about oppression and kinda makes the reader question themselves and even think of times where they were in a situation like the ones that she states. She starts the essay by giving a clear definition of what she wants to talk about and then ends it by making the reader think about the oppression by giving out a metaphor. I though this essay was pretty similar to mine because of the way that it is structured. I would say that my essay introduces my topic pretty well and then segmented into different parts for the body paragraphs. I also thought it was similar towards the way that I ended it because rather than stating my own opinion I made it so the reader can sort of build their own analysis of my topic. In both essays, we used a lot of description and gave facts. A difference that I noticed between both is that I use exact quotes from an article into my essay while I think the author paraphrases it or uses a word or two.

  3. I’ve thought about this a a good deal, and I don’t think any of the works we’s read and discussed this semester resemble my paper closely enough for me to really discuss it in depth. What was great about the course was that we discussed types of nonfiction writing that might not be the first things that come to your mind when you hear nonfiction, like newspaper articles or a biography book. This was great because it broadened the definition of the label “nonfiction” for me. However, I feel like my paper’s subscription to this label is a bit more traditional.

    In my paper so far, I discuss the various models of the welfare state in Europe and compare them to welfare in the United States. I use different sources for background and I ultimately argue that certain sentiments exist in the United States that lead to the major differences between the two systems.

    Out of all the works we’ve read this semester, if I really have to compare my draft to one, I would compare my paper to Said’s Orientalism in the sense that they are both addressing global/political issues. Said places a real focus on the relationship between culture and politics (especially in his discussion of how European novels were influenced by imperialism). I can say that my paper does this a little bit in its drawing on the connection between the American cultural idea of the American Dream and welfare in America. That being said, I think Said’s argument more strongly rings throughout his work as opposed to my paper which, while containing an argument, is also focused on informing- giving background and assessing different writers’ analyses of the welfare systems in Europe and the US.

  4. I would compare my writing to Roland Barthes, “The Death of the Author” as I consider my paper to also be a critical piece of writing much like “The Death of the Author” is. Where I diverge from Barthes is that my writing is not literary criticism but is still criticism nonetheless. Barthes in his writing is impassioned to explain how the author’s interpretation of their work is not superior to the reader’s interpretation. In my paper “The Danger of Smartphones” I hope to explain as impassionedly as Barthes did his argument my own argument about how smartphones can be a negative influence on people’s lives. Moreover, like Barthes I value the interpretation of the reader over the author’s interpretation of their work. That’s why in my paper I challenge the meaning of some of the evidence I used and instead give my own interpretation that is contrary to what the author of the evidence intended. For example, I include evidence in my paper about how the “Night Shift” mode Apple has updated the iPhone with is beneficial and has a positive impact on users. While the author of the evidence I use portrays “Night Shift” as a benefit I instead dismantle that interpretation and point out the flaws of “Night Shift” and how it really is not beneficial at all. Here is the excerpt from my paper:

    “The “Night Shift” feature works by reducing the “blue light” produced by iPhone displays because “blue light” leads to a loss of melatonin production which makes it much harder for someone to fall asleep at night (Gould and Loria). On the surface it seems like a good feature that Apple is providing and that they have the best interests of their consumers at heart but I disagree. The ideal solution is to simply not use your phone while lying in bed at night. Apple with their “Night Shift” feature is encouraging people to use their phones at night in bed and justifying their screen use when they should be sleeping.”

    I acknowledge in my writing that while the reduction of “blue light” is a benefit to the user I still challenge the idea that the feature itself is beneficial at all. My argument is that using a smartphone while in bed and prior to sleeping is simply something that should be avoided and by Apple providing a feature that encourages smartphone use before bed they are not helping their users they are hurting them. Thus, I am using my own interpretation of other people’s writing as a reader like Barthes encourages in order to further my own argument.

  5. I chose to compare my final paper with “A People’s History of the United States” by Howard Zinn. My paper along with this piece is a history paper. Both structured similarly in that sense. The major difference, of course, is the topic. Howard Zinn’s discussion is by every means more important, severe, and serious. I’m not trying to argue that, mostly any history-based document would have worked in this comparison. In any of these cases, it would be strange to compare any of the documents to a popular franchise.

    “A People’s History of the United States” by Howard Zinn

    “There is not a country in world history in which racism has been more important, for so long a time, as the United States.”

    Compared to my final paper:

    “This powerhouse quickly became a household name across the globe, sparking a quickly spreading wildfire from this simple idea. Of course, like anything that has any sort of impact on our world started as a simple idea.”

  6. I decided to compare my rough draft to Marilyn Frye’s essay “Oppression”. Both Frye and my essay are factual with evidence. Frye includes examples throughout her essay such as “Another example: It is common in the United States that women, especially younger women, are in a bind where neither sexual activity nor sexual inactivity is all right. If she is heterosexually active, a woman is open to censure and punishment for being loose, unprincipled or a whore” (Frye). Frye does this in order to support an opinion or idea. Similarly, I use examples in order to support my thesis. My essay is about whether or not cosmetic surgery is good or bad. Therefore, I explained the pros and cons of cosmetic surgery along with factual evidence such as scientific articles. One difference between my writing and Frye’s writing is that Frye puts her opinion into her writing. I didn’t or at least avoided to put my opinion into my writing by stating both sides of opinions on plastic surgery. It may be hard to do that since everyone has a bias. However, Frye’s bias on the topic is very obvious which I avoided doing in my essay.

  7. I think that my rough draft for my research essay most reflects the “Background info on the Scopes Trial.” Although my essay is mostly factual based, it is most like the Wikipedia page due to the information and research involved in both. My essay and the article both have facts that talk about the subject at hand. At times my paper and the “Background info on the Scopes Trial” might seem dense and boring because it regurgitates evidence.
    Something that both my essay and the Wikipedia page have in common are the details in the claims and the facts. We both did not just state a statistic or something that had happened and wrote it down, but we went into detail about it to make it more understandable; which may seem why its dense.
    Something that was different between the two works were that my research essay was more broad while the Wikipedia page was more specific and focused on just the actual topic.

  8. I would like to compare my rough draft (autobiography) with the George Orwell’s writing “Politics and the English Language.” Since I write the autobiography is has to be 100 percent my opinion. And I believe that In “Politics and the English Language.” Orwell’s opinion is dominated in the whole piece. And he also stated “Never use a metaphor, simile, or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print.” In my rough draft of my autobiography I didn’t use metaphor nor simile. What difference is that Orwell stated “If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out.” In my rough draft I said “Not only my grades but also my personality changed a lot.” Since I explained about my grades I could have just say “My personality changed a lot too.” But I decide to mention about grade so that I can emphasize about it. Unlike what Orwell said, it will not lead the readers to misunderstanding.” As you can see, there’s a similarity and difference between my rough draft and Orwell’s writing “Politics and the English Language.”

  9. I am going to compare my second paper to “Culture and Imperialism” by Edward Said. One of the concepts in “Culture and Imperialism” by Edward Said is that authors tend to have a message/ meaning behind their texts that are showcased as stories. I think that idea connects to my second paper. My paper is an autobiography that tells a story about what led me to getting the gastric bypass surgery and how my life changed after getting the surgery. However, there is a deeper message behind my autobiography, in fact, it has multiple messages. One of the messages being that one should do what is right for them and not let anyone get in the way of his or her happiness. As for a difference between my paper and Edward Said’s “Culture and Imperialism”, it would be that my paper is an autobiography.

  10. In my second paper I am focusing on the effects of social media has on teenagers. I use data and analysis of other scholarly sources to use for evidence to back up my thesis. My main focus is for the reader to be informed about the various negative and positive effects social media has on teens today. I relate my writing to The Death of the Author because my paper is allowed for opinions to be made by the reader. The reader is allowed to interpret my writing in two different ways. The reader can agree or disagree with my argument. The reader can also ignore all my suggestions and create a whole different interpretation than my original.

  11. I feel like My second paper is something that resembles the reading we did on 80 books no woman should read. i say this because of the opinionated yet informative tone that is in that article i feel is carried out throughout most of my paper. At first I didn’t feel my paper resembled any of the readings because i felt it was not different but just way to simple to be so creative in the non fiction field. Like 80 books my paper tells the does and dont’s of dealing with divorce. It states the facts and reasons behind choices and opens the door for those who have not yet experienced or read on the topic discussed to want to create their own opinions. Divorce and children are topics that are capable of creating a conversation that could be had for a long time similar to a horrible book that offends a specific gender.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Spam prevention powered by Akismet

Skip to toolbar