Revise your analysis of Daisey. (Required) 1 a) At a minimum, this is an opportunity to further develop your argument, introduction, conclusion, check or rethink the organization, add evidence and a c

Revise your analysis of Daisey. (Required)

1 a) At a minimum, this is an opportunity to further develop your argument, introduction, conclusion, check or rethink the organization, add evidence and a counter-argument, check for logical sequencing of your evidence, better integrate quotations, and clean up grammatical, punctuation and citation errors. You can also go through to revise for style (see OWL conciseness handout Link ).

b) You can also do a wholesale revision and reworking to compare Daisey's story to Matt Stopera's Brother Orange Odyssey. If you do this here are some questions to think about: What precipitates each guy's trip to China? What are Stopera's expectations and what are Daisey's? What does each journalist actually produce? What is the public reaction to each? What is the larger story each initiates with their work? What ultimate outcomes or effects does each have?

Process: read over your paper and see what you already have about Daisey that works with this new comparative prompt. It should be almost everything. Then think about introducing Stopera in a comparative manner and covering his story. You'll need to revise your argument, but I'd wait to do this until after you've written more about Stopera. Remember to use your response to Brother Orange.

c) Or you can read and incorporate one of the following academic articles on Mike Daisey. Check these out--they're academic so they're a more of a challenge to read, but they serve as good models for how a story you've written about is handled by several academic disciplines.

M. B. Willard, Jennifer Kokai, " ‘A Kind of Magic’: Theatre, Transportation, and Moral Persuasion."

Journal of Dramatic Theory and Criticism, Volume 28, Number 2, Spring

2014, pp. 7-27

‘A Kind of Magic’-.pdf

Shannon Steen, "Neoliberal Scandals: Foxconn, Mike Daisey, and the Turn Toward Nonfiction."

Drama Theatre Journal, Volume 66, Number 1, March 2014, pp. 1-18

Neoliberal Scandals.pdf

Ashley Barnwell (2014) ‘Unpacking the complexities’ of authorship on This

American.Life , Continuum (Journal of Cultural and Media Studies), 28:5, 709-719.

Unpacking authorship.pdf

Process: If you do this you'll need to introduce the article and characterize it (remember your precís process) and then relate it to your analysis in your original essay. This will take some work, but you don't have to address everything in whichever article you use. Look for parts that analyze what you do. How does the author reconceive your topic? Where does your work converge with theirs? Where does it differ?

2) There are two other parts of this assignment in addition to the revisions themselves. First, annotate the significant changes you've made. Use Google Docs "add comment"--it's the comment box with a plus sign in the middle on the toolbar (or command option m). Highlight what you've changed and annotate with a note in the comment box. For instance, if you added a couple of sentences about Mike Daisey making up the on-ramp to nowhere, highlight them and leave a note that says something like, "Added another example of a complete lie to further substantiate my argument." If you end up adding a whole new ¶ just leave a note to that effect. You can leave my comments if they are about a major revision. Also, for minor or repetitive issues just annotate the first correction, not every single one. For instance, if you needed to put the punctuation outside the citation (a common issue), just annotate the correction once.

3) Secondly, part of the outcomes for Writing 2 are: "6) Reflect critically on how to apply [your] processes for writing and analysis to writing projects in other contexts, within and outside of the university." Thus you are to reflect critically on your entire process for the piece you're revising for this assignment. Look at your peer cover sheet and drafts and the cover sheet for the draft I commented on, as well as your notes, dialectical journals, and other pre-writing ephemera. Look over each draft of the essay as well as the articles you used to help you compose it. Discuss how you read and revised according to my notes in the margins (the "marginalia"), comments, and the rubric. If you've been working with tutors at Learning Support Services or the Westside Writing Center be sure to discuss what transpired in those sessions as well. The same goes for the conferences we've had. Also, be sure to reflect on what you learned from each part of this assignment and, importantly, what you can and did apply to future assignments for this class (such as the investigative essay) and writing you'll do in the future. I expect 1-3¶s. It can be single-spaced.

Note on my rationale: Aside from the metacognitive aspect (#3 reflection), I think we learn the most by revising and developing drafts over time. I know we often don't want to go back to drafts we're "over," but it is my hope that at a minimum if you take the first option you can deepen and develop your first final draft into an excellent paper. And if you choose #2 it might be fun (of a sort).

Note on my evaluation of this assignment: The rubric included is for the minimum--revision of the first draft. If you choose to do b), or c), I'll take that into account and comment accordingly. As I hope you know by now I really value ambitious writing and appreciate it when you take intellectual risks.