When reviewing my work in this class over the past year, I find that it is easy to see where I have grown. It is very easy to observe if my first essay is compared to some of the supervised writings. Though the supervised writings are themselves of an unfinished and relaxed nature, they display broader thinking and deeper analysis of the works and techniques selected by the author than the Comparison Essay did.
Even though it was an earlier piece, I still see my found poem as being an instance of success that I am rather proud of. If anything sticks out to me as a significant failure, I would be tempted to say that it is again the Comparison Essay. It does not address effects. Also I would consider the TEWWG Exam subpar, due to my lack of connection of the passage to the work as a whole. The key point of this all though is that in the end, I have gained a lot of experience in writing these particular types of essays, and am beginning to find it much easier to do well with them. My ideas have become more complex and clean, and I now know to focus more on the author’s choices and the effects on the work and reader as opposed to focusing on characters and plots.
While I would say that as my papers progress my vocabulary becomes cleaner and to the point, it also incorporates more literary terms. My voice has altered to become more scholarly, something beneficial for my coming years of schooling.
Another key moment of improvement can be found in viewing my supervised writing for Wislawa Szymborska. As far as analyzing poetry is concerned, it is clear that I improved a lot from the beginning of the year. I address more in-depth topics, and my use of literary terms appropriate for poetry has expanded immensely.
Attention to detail was nearly impossible to not pick up. Analyses, I found, require such attention almost unquestionably. Whether that was needed when researching the cultural values that Yukio Mishima felt were important, the symbolism within August Strindberg’s Miss Julie, or decoding the inner complexities of Annie Dillard’s For The Time Being, it has become so ingrained in my mind that it is nearly impossible for me to avoid it while reading a text.
I think it must be said that as a literary scholar something that truly improved over the year was my ability to appreciate the choices made by the authors of the texts that were being read. I went from slight dislike and bitter resentment to a much more appreciative stance that allowed to me to take even texts that I did not necessarily enjoy and pick them apart for their aspects. Being able to appreciate the author’s choices is what has greatly helped in the process of developing cohesive arguments that are thorough and original.
Along with that, it is clear that I developed the ability to make connections. My comparative essay for Annie Dillard appears disjointed, whereas the later works appear cohesive. I was able to draw connections between the upbringing of Yukio Mishima and his novel in The Sound of Waves IO, Annie Dillard’s use of time and how it contributed to the message within For The Time Being in my IOP, and the similarities between the works of Wislawa Szymborska and Annie Dillard simply upon a first read through.
Arguably my work has grown more this year than it has in many of the past ones. I had to adapt to an IB mindset and I believe my work shows that I did so successfully. I’ve grown not only in my writing capabilities, but in my effectiveness while reading, annotating, and analyzing. I’ve know how to properly support my theories and statements that come from the work using not just what is within the text, but what might have possibly influenced the author to make the literary choices that they did. I have delved into pastiche and found poetry, two forms of creative writing I had not done before, and have spent a lot of time dedicated to crafting a worthwhile and effective essay.
All in all, my overall understanding and ability to work with literature has increased immensely, and I hope that growth prepares me for the work ahead.
Even though it was an earlier piece, I still see my found poem as being an instance of success that I am rather proud of. If anything sticks out to me as a significant failure, I would be tempted to say that it is again the Comparison Essay. It does not address effects. Also I would consider the TEWWG Exam subpar, due to my lack of connection of the passage to the work as a whole. The key point of this all though is that in the end, I have gained a lot of experience in writing these particular types of essays, and am beginning to find it much easier to do well with them. My ideas have become more complex and clean, and I now know to focus more on the author’s choices and the effects on the work and reader as opposed to focusing on characters and plots.
While I would say that as my papers progress my vocabulary becomes cleaner and to the point, it also incorporates more literary terms. My voice has altered to become more scholarly, something beneficial for my coming years of schooling.
Another key moment of improvement can be found in viewing my supervised writing for Wislawa Szymborska. As far as analyzing poetry is concerned, it is clear that I improved a lot from the beginning of the year. I address more in-depth topics, and my use of literary terms appropriate for poetry has expanded immensely.
Attention to detail was nearly impossible to not pick up. Analyses, I found, require such attention almost unquestionably. Whether that was needed when researching the cultural values that Yukio Mishima felt were important, the symbolism within August Strindberg’s Miss Julie, or decoding the inner complexities of Annie Dillard’s For The Time Being, it has become so ingrained in my mind that it is nearly impossible for me to avoid it while reading a text.
I think it must be said that as a literary scholar something that truly improved over the year was my ability to appreciate the choices made by the authors of the texts that were being read. I went from slight dislike and bitter resentment to a much more appreciative stance that allowed to me to take even texts that I did not necessarily enjoy and pick them apart for their aspects. Being able to appreciate the author’s choices is what has greatly helped in the process of developing cohesive arguments that are thorough and original.
Along with that, it is clear that I developed the ability to make connections. My comparative essay for Annie Dillard appears disjointed, whereas the later works appear cohesive. I was able to draw connections between the upbringing of Yukio Mishima and his novel in The Sound of Waves IO, Annie Dillard’s use of time and how it contributed to the message within For The Time Being in my IOP, and the similarities between the works of Wislawa Szymborska and Annie Dillard simply upon a first read through.
Arguably my work has grown more this year than it has in many of the past ones. I had to adapt to an IB mindset and I believe my work shows that I did so successfully. I’ve grown not only in my writing capabilities, but in my effectiveness while reading, annotating, and analyzing. I’ve know how to properly support my theories and statements that come from the work using not just what is within the text, but what might have possibly influenced the author to make the literary choices that they did. I have delved into pastiche and found poetry, two forms of creative writing I had not done before, and have spent a lot of time dedicated to crafting a worthwhile and effective essay.
All in all, my overall understanding and ability to work with literature has increased immensely, and I hope that growth prepares me for the work ahead.