I definitely identified with the Lamott’s essay. I personally was not offended but I could see someone who doesn’t like to stray too far from conventional writing possibly being offended. Lamott’s style is beyond casual and definitely feels like a private conversation you may have with someone. She takes the unfiltered inner monologue and puts it to paper which is very in the spirit of the first draft. The key difference here is she polishes it but still keeps a jagged edge to it if you will. This essay did surprise me a bit she was able to make an intellectual argument on the roles of first drafts while still having the piece ooze with personal style and voice.
My revision plan at its core is a basic one but I’m a firm believer in the fundamentals. I plan to strengthen my points by drawing upon the texts directly with quotes. I will expand further upon my argument strengthening the connection to the prompt. Of course surface level revisions are needed all my commas must be in their places with bright shiny faces. My intro paragraph needs to address the thesis a bit more directly and must Introduce my sources better. There are several issues with my closing paragraph. It does not flow as well as it should and it’s written in a way that makes it feel I have more to say. So I need to improve flow and either write more or use more “wrap it up language” as my peers put it. Much of this can be accomplished by taking a deep look at the comments of my peers and by reading my whole essay aloud in order to catch mistakes. At some points in the essay I state arguments without clearly representing the fact that they are my own opinion so I must state in clearer language what I believe on these topics. Finally I need to further the conversation in the essay by expanding my argument then rebuttal format.
Good. Keep up the self-reflection. You got this!