Meaghan and Jessi both read my essay that I chose to revise and they had some very helpful advice. They both agreed that instead of writing my revision on "Homosexuality and Repoduction", I should write about the way sociobiologists view homosexuality and argue their thoughts with Lewontin. Meaghan thought I should use Wilson's "On the Nature" book as my academic article because he is the biggest sociobiologist. Jessi thought I could also use a New York Times article that supported Lewontin's views so it would favor my argument even more.
My essays were read by Irene and Sam who both gave interesting suggestions. Irene advised that I could provide a more narrow focus on hierarchy and from that provide many real world and relevant examples that tie in with my argument. Sam suggests that I choose quotes that add new information to the essay rather than reiterating what I already said. I think these are both good suggestions that I will definitely be taking into consideration, especially when examining possibilities for research.
Jonathan and Olivia read my essay. They both agreed the ideas presented were good, but the wording and justification weren't stellar. The last sentence in particular needs more explanation in my (and Jonathan's) opinion. However this is a good way to end the essay memorably. I also need more textual references and an outside source to support my claims about Oankali chemical identity, Incorporating identity and chemical traits into a narrower essay will be my focus, because my points already have a good amount of risk and a feasible counterargument. Cutting is essential here as well.
Joe and Jonathan read my outline for my new essay. They both liked my idea's and thought they were unique. Joe said I should tie my ideas of home into a persons identity, or the identity of each of the species. Jonathan gave me some excellent advice for my secondary source. Initially I had no idea what I was going to use, but he had the clever idea of getting articles of refugee camps. I think that will work really well into the idea that home creates an identity for humanity. I think I should not only focus on the Oankali's lack of home, but also on humanities lack of home. It would be a great way to contrast their reactions to not having a home.
Jessi and Madi read my essay on hierarchy and the differing motives of the Oankali people and made some suggestions. Jessi pointed out that while the Oankali said Lilith would be a caveman on the new Earth, she was also a caveman on the ship being that she was so different and unaware of their culture. I could bring in a kind of compare and contrast of her two possible lives (new Earth and the ship) in my revision. It was also suggested that I could bring more of the implicit in, discussing the similar and different beliefs of Butler and Lewontin regarding nature.
Matthew read my essay of choice about the definition of nature. It is a broad topic and hard to make centralized. We discussed that I needed a stronger presence of a counter argument and possible make that about Abbey because I do mention that our two opinions are very similar in the essay. After discussing with you, professor, about narrowing my essay, I decided to pick a few different points of view nature like; Locke, Darwin, and others (found in my research) and compare their philosophies of nature. But, my only problem is how do I not make this a strong compare and contrast essay?
I didn't know whether to chose between my third or sixth essay. Both my revisers decided that I should do my sixth, regarding what it means to be human. They suggested that I should start incorporating the new material of Dawn, where Lilith starts interacting with the humans, as an argument. They also suggested that I look up more "controversial" topics with which the essay applies, and make an argument about them. I'm considering looking up controversies on transhumanism.
Both of my partners for workshopping suggested that I combine my essays about Lewontin and Butler. Both have to do with cancer, so they thought that it would be easy to put them together. Also, cancer research is an easy topic to find other sources on because it is so popular. To combine them, I think I am going to connect the study of cancer to the human hierarchy and to the ego of humans.
Ruthie and Jonathan agree that I should go with my changed thesis of genetic determinism is incomplete. They offered adding background information on genetic determinism within modern science versus Lewontin's theories as well as structuring my essay in a more fluent concise piece. I need to do further research on genetic determinism and then compare with the Oankali's view point and my own. Both Ruthie and Jonathan agree I should continue with the more controversial idea that I agree with Lewontin and contrast to that with the Oankali's ideals and they both recommended I added more detailing of Lilith's Brood at the end to get my overall point across and thus have a more fluid essay.
Both Maddy and Meaghan thought I should expand my paper to include the second half of the book. Also, I may need to slightly change my thesis to make it more specific. Once I decide which direction I would like to focus more on, I should pick one main passage based on this new focus to strongly support my thesis. They both gave me a few suggestions on what I should focus on.
Samantha advised that I cut down on my representation of the counterargument of my essay. She also suggested that the first half of my essay could be shortened, and the second half elongated. As Butler's ideas about hierarchy and genetics are applicable to my topic, she suggested that I should try and include some of those ideas.
Sam said I should focus more on expanding the part in my essay that discusses the Oankali and their views on the effects of hierarchy and intelligence, and its roles in human society. He also said to provide some more counterarguments, but brought up the fact that he would not know how far to explain those counterarguments since my essay is basically a counterargument to the book's argument.
Meaghan and Jessi both read my essay that I chose to revise and they had some very helpful advice. They both agreed that instead of writing my revision on "Homosexuality and Repoduction", I should write about the way sociobiologists view homosexuality and argue their thoughts with Lewontin. Meaghan thought I should use Wilson's "On the Nature" book as my academic article because he is the biggest sociobiologist. Jessi thought I could also use a New York Times article that supported Lewontin's views so it would favor my argument even more.
ReplyDeleteMy essays were read by Irene and Sam who both gave interesting suggestions. Irene advised that I could provide a more narrow focus on hierarchy and from that provide many real world and relevant examples that tie in with my argument. Sam suggests that I choose quotes that add new information to the essay rather than reiterating what I already said. I think these are both good suggestions that I will definitely be taking into consideration, especially when examining possibilities for research.
ReplyDeleteJonathan and Olivia read my essay. They both agreed the ideas presented were good, but the wording and justification weren't stellar. The last sentence in particular needs more explanation in my (and Jonathan's) opinion. However this is a good way to end the essay memorably. I also need more textual references and an outside source to support my claims about Oankali chemical identity, Incorporating identity and chemical traits into a narrower essay will be my focus, because my points already have a good amount of risk and a feasible counterargument. Cutting is essential here as well.
ReplyDeleteJoe and Jonathan read my outline for my new essay. They both liked my idea's and thought they were unique. Joe said I should tie my ideas of home into a persons identity, or the identity of each of the species. Jonathan gave me some excellent advice for my secondary source. Initially I had no idea what I was going to use, but he had the clever idea of getting articles of refugee camps. I think that will work really well into the idea that home creates an identity for humanity. I think I should not only focus on the Oankali's lack of home, but also on humanities lack of home. It would be a great way to contrast their reactions to not having a home.
ReplyDeleteJessi and Madi read my essay on hierarchy and the differing motives of the Oankali people and made some suggestions. Jessi pointed out that while the Oankali said Lilith would be a caveman on the new Earth, she was also a caveman on the ship being that she was so different and unaware of their culture. I could bring in a kind of compare and contrast of her two possible lives (new Earth and the ship) in my revision. It was also suggested that I could bring more of the implicit in, discussing the similar and different beliefs of Butler and Lewontin regarding nature.
ReplyDeleteMatthew read my essay of choice about the definition of nature. It is a broad topic and hard to make centralized. We discussed that I needed a stronger presence of a counter argument and possible make that about Abbey because I do mention that our two opinions are very similar in the essay. After discussing with you, professor, about narrowing my essay, I decided to pick a few different points of view nature like; Locke, Darwin, and others (found in my research) and compare their philosophies of nature. But, my only problem is how do I not make this a strong compare and contrast essay?
ReplyDeleteI didn't know whether to chose between my third or sixth essay. Both my revisers decided that I should do my sixth, regarding what it means to be human. They suggested that I should start incorporating the new material of Dawn, where Lilith starts interacting with the humans, as an argument. They also suggested that I look up more "controversial" topics with which the essay applies, and make an argument about them. I'm considering looking up controversies on transhumanism.
ReplyDeleteBoth of my partners for workshopping suggested that I combine my essays about Lewontin and Butler. Both have to do with cancer, so they thought that it would be easy to put them together. Also, cancer research is an easy topic to find other sources on because it is so popular. To combine them, I think I am going to connect the study of cancer to the human hierarchy and to the ego of humans.
ReplyDeleteRuthie and Jonathan agree that I should go with my changed thesis of genetic determinism is incomplete. They offered adding background information on genetic determinism within modern science versus Lewontin's theories as well as structuring my essay in a more fluent concise piece. I need to do further research on genetic determinism and then compare with the Oankali's view point and my own. Both Ruthie and Jonathan agree I should continue with the more controversial idea that I agree with Lewontin and contrast to that with the Oankali's ideals and they both recommended I added more detailing of Lilith's Brood at the end to get my overall point across and thus have a more fluid essay.
ReplyDeleteBoth Maddy and Meaghan thought I should expand my paper to include the second half of the book. Also, I may need to slightly change my thesis to make it more specific. Once I decide which direction I would like to focus more on, I should pick one main passage based on this new focus to strongly support my thesis. They both gave me a few suggestions on what I should focus on.
ReplyDeleteSamantha advised that I cut down on my representation of the counterargument of my essay. She also suggested that the first half of my essay could be shortened, and the second half elongated. As Butler's ideas about hierarchy and genetics are applicable to my topic, she suggested that I should try and include some of those ideas.
ReplyDeleteSam said I should focus more on expanding the part in my essay that discusses the Oankali and their views on the effects of hierarchy and intelligence, and its roles in human society. He also said to provide some more counterarguments, but brought up the fact that he would not know how far to explain those counterarguments since my essay is basically a counterargument to the book's argument.
ReplyDelete