I added a lot to my introduction. I attempted to invite the reader in by making my thesis more of a discussion topic than a concrete claim. To give context, I opened with what people consider and don’t consider about food. To give context on the essays I would be digging into, I introduced and summarized Wallace’s and Pollan’s essays. I made my own moral senses about food clear, and ended the introduction with my thesis. In the body of the essay, I mainly focused on getting the main points of my paragraphs to relate to the thesis. I listened to what my peer review teammates said and trimmed down my quotes, merged sentences together, and made my writing smoother. Also, I tried to add some better topic sentences. I explained who Joel Salatin is and his importance. A small thing I revised was removing references to Mann’s essay, because I didn’t realize that I only needed to work with two essays. I added another Barclay paragraph between Wallace and Pollan on the subject of culture and background, and I contrasted them to exemplify how culture impacts how people consider animals. I made sure to introduce and explain each quote well. Finally, I added a conclusion. I made an effort to make my conclusion not sound exactly like my introduction. My writing process this time was a little different from project #1. I was a little off schedule with my drafts, and I wasn’t really in a flow. My peer review this time had less advice, and was more vague. I feel like I was given a little less direction this time. I learned that if I want to get work done on an essay, I shouldn’t wait for a “perfect moment”. I should just start writing and let the ideas come to me.
