June 9, 2009
Brian Gutierrez
Department of English
North Seattle Community College
Seattle, WA
Dear Mr. Gutierrez,
English 101 certainly did not convert me into a professional writer. However, it accomplished
something far more beneficial to my personal needs. I entered the class fearful and nervous, but
I left the class confident; not just in my ability to write an academic paper, but in my ability to
share information and articulate a particular viewpoint in a way that will be respected by those
above me. I learned that nitpicking the tiny details of a particular paper is far less important than
ensuring that the paper adheres four basic, yet extremely useful outcomes. I’ve chosen four of
my papers which I feel do an excellent job of adhering to these outcomes, which are the
awareness of writing strategies, the purposeful use of texts, the development of complex
arguments, and substantial and effective revision.
The first course outcome for English 101 can be summarized by the word “audience.” It
recognizes that a writer has an obligation to ensure that the language and ideas put forth in a
paper are suitable for the intended audience. I feel that my second short paper, entitled “The
Role of Imaginary Dialogue in the Writing Classroom”, accomplished this task. I came up with
the idea of a writing assignment in which the students of a class respond to a prompt as if they
were each a CEO of a major company. The intent was to illustrate that if the students were to be
granted an imaginary power at an early stage of their lives, they would in turn write more
confidently. Knowing that my audience would, in fact, be a writing instructor, I wrote the paper
mindful of the fact that my audience understands what makes a successful writing prompt, and
how they may not be as successful in practice as they are on paper. For example, I explicitly
state “If this prompt successfully encourages writing that is on the whole more creative and well
thought-out, then the lesson plan could be extended to incorporate more scenarios.” My second
major paper, entitled “The Culturally Determined Body”, also successfully fulfills the first
outcome. It uses a formal tone, appropriate for a synthesis of the ideas of two acclaimed
philosophers. Most importantly, I attempt to make the ideas easier to understand, since the paper
itself is a call to action for our society as a whole, not just instructors.
The second outcome, which deals with purposeful use of texts, is the way by which conclusions
in argumentation are drawn. Multiple sources of evidence must be properly synthesized if a
thesis is to be well supported. “The Contact Zone of White and Black America”, my third short
paper, accomplished this task especially well. It draws on ideas from both James Baldwin’s
article, as well as Mary Louise Pratt’s “Arts of the Contact Zone” in order to claim that
Baldwin’s article is written from a contact zone. For instance, I write “Though the more
powerful society will almost universally prevail over the weaker, by maintaining language and
culture specific to themselves, a weaker society can gradually alter key facets of the dominant
culture.” This is Pratt’s idea of transculturation applied to the practical example of white and
black culture in America discussed by Baldwin. The conversation created between these ideas in
my paper is what allows my ultimate conclusion to be taken seriously, and thus allows “The
Contact Zone of White and Black America” to be an effective paper. “The Culturally
Determined Body” also adheres to the second outcome. It creates a conversation between the
ideas of Michel Foucault regarding the Panopticon prison, and the representations of the body in
our society discussed by Susan Bordo. I discuss the layout of the Panopticon prison, and its
effectiveness in surveillance, and use this to tie in Bordo’s ideas by saying “The cultural gaze is
the modern application of the panoptic model of surveillance.” The texts are used very
strategically, in that my paper reaches a synthesized conclusion that can only be drawn from the
ideas of both Foucault and Bordo together.
The third outcome, involving the development of complex arguments, is the outcome which I felt
that I was most successful with in this course. All of my papers, to varying degrees, adhered to
this outcome. I did feel, however, that my first short paper did this especially well. The paper,
which is titled “Writing to be Read in the Academic Community”, uses the ideas of David
Bartholomae to conclude that writing in an academic discourse is necessary to success in the
university environment. I specifically articulate why this argument is important, by explaining
that a common mistake of writers is forgetting that the primary intent of writing is to have your
words be read by another. The argument is also organized effectively, beginning with a thesis
statement, and then supporting the statement with evidence from Bartholomae’s text. I revised
my conclusion to not simply reiterate this argument, but to draw from it in a thoughtful manner.
My second major paper is also heavily based around the third outcome. I introduce the texts of
Bordo and Foucault, and quickly lay out a summary of my argument, by saying “Thus, the ideas
of Foucault and Bordo come full circle, suggesting that the power itself is exerted through the
practically omniscient, ever-present gaze of others upon the body.” This is a complex argument
because it is philosophical in its nature, but also has very clear societal application. I articulate
exactly why this is such an important issue in our society, by saying that the prevalence of eating
disorders and the unhealthy emphasis on beauty in our society are direct consequences of this
gaze. It is also organized especially well. Foucault’s model of the Panopticon prison begins the
paper, so that a graphical depiction of these surveillance methods can be considered throughout
the rest of the paper. Finally, the conclusion poses a question which allows the reader to
internalize the bulk of my paper, and hopefully elicits some action on this important issue.
Finally, the papers that I’ve selected for this portfolio have undergone significant and substantial
revision over the course of the quarter. “Writing to be Read in the Academic Community” did a
poor job of tying in the ideas of Bartholomae into a conclusion of my own. I revised this paper
rather significantly to better reflect my voice as a writer. My second short paper was initially
stronger, and required a bit less revision, but I also failed to explain in clear terms the exact
societal impacts that my exercise would have. By making this more clear, I not only achieved
the fourth outcome, but I also helped improve my achievement of the third outcome. Since the
societal impacts are now more clear, the argument that I make in the paper regarding imaginary
dialogue carries more weight. In my third short paper, there was a bit less content than in my
first two. I revised my paper to better tie in Pratt to the ideas of Baldwin in his article. Initially,
much of this was implicit, and probably would’ve made more sense to those who had previously
read Pratt’s article. This, naturally, was not my intended audience, and so my revision helped to
achieve the first outcome. I also revised the paper to bring in David Bartholomae, whose ideas
are applicable to the thesis of my third paper. It helps to tie together the idea of the power of
language which is discussed by Baldwin for the first half of his article. Lastly, my 2nd major
paper underwent the most significant revision of all my papers. The first important revision that
I made was to make the connection between the Panopticon and experimentation more easily
understood. This helped my further ideas in the paper to have more clarity. The most fatal flaw
of my paper, however, is the way in which the questions of the prompt were addressed in a
linear, point by point manner. I revised the paper to have a more organic structure, in which the
questions are answered in a way such that they build off of one another, allowing the ultimate
conclusion of my paper to be made more well supported. Naturally, this helps achieve the first
outcome by making the paper more understandable to my intended audience of our society.
Ultimately, all the revisions I made in my papers were made with an understanding of the four
outcomes, and all have benefited as a result.
As mentioned, I cannot in good faith claim that this class has made me into a flawless writer. To
the contrary, the class has helped me to recognize the flaws that my writing does possess. In
doing so, however, I have also come to recognize that these flaws don’t hinder my ability to
express myself in writing. I have unintentionally written with respect to the four outcomes
throughout my life, but this class has helped me to internalize their importance, and assess my
writing choices with them in mind. I hope that these four papers sufficiently capture the essence
of the writer than I am.
Sincerely,