Critical Conversation

I started this essay with a bit of ground work already accomplished which in turn helped me develop my ideas a little bit further than usual. I started this draft using the argument from my close reading draft alongside some other academic pieces.

Unlike some of the other essays this one was not difficult for me to start. However, the most difficult part of this essay was my attempt at weaving my ideas between other academic literary critics. As an undergrad non-english major this was definitely intimidating, but I managed to give it my best attempt.

Because I already had brainstormed an idea based off of my close reading essay, I started this essay with an outline of the content I wanted to cover. This outline featured very brief descriptions of what I wanted to cover from an argument by Deborah Willis. However, my attempts to understand and summarize Willis’ argument were not exactly the best which led to a pretty weak first draft going into peer review.

With what I brought to the table, my peer review partner had some suggestions that I took into consideration when revising my draft for professor feedback. Before submitting the draft for professor feedback I worked to tighten my own arguments about the similarities of Prospero and Antonio while attempting to fit in Willis’ argument to back my ideas up.

After getting professor feedback I realized that if I wanted to continue with this essay, I needed to continue to work on situating my argument alongside the arguments of other literary critics. I found that I was doing a lot of generalizing throughout the essay and that I needed to be even more specific to what my actual claim was. The more I worked on this idea and the process of situating it, the more complicated and frustrating it became. I realized that a lot of this was due in part to my lack of knowledge on academic writings, but also a lack of interest and evidence on the claim I had made.