The Writing Seminar of Literature and Psychoanalysis was a challenging but enjoyable section of the FIQWS course to partake in. As a growing writer, this course pushed me to put to paper a critically thought-out analysis and interpretation of a variety of texts, taught me the importance of constantly revising my writing for readability and coherence, made me practice the systematic application of the appropriate citation conventions for the genre of this class, recognize rhetorical strategies in different settings and practice those strategies in my own writing, engage in the social aspects of writing by collaborating with my peers, utilize digital technologies to address a range of audiences, conduct research in an online database, and enhance my summarizing, synthesizing, and arguing capabilities.
A good portion of the semester’s workload was dedicated to the “Formal Paper” section of my portfolio, wherein my responses to texts I read in the content section of the course are exhibited. In my formal papers, I responded to “The Yellow Wallpaper” by Charlotte Perkins Gilman, “The Black Cat” by Edgar Allen Poe, and “Super-Frog Saves Tokyo” by Haruki Murakami. I made connections between characters from each of those texts to concepts from Sigmund Freud’s “Five Lectures on Psychoanalysis” such as Wishful Impulse, Repressions, Dreamwork, and other ideas that are part of Freud’s theory of the dynamic between the Conscious and the Unconscious minds. Then I responded to the prompts of each formal paper, while keeping in mind that the writing seminar instructor, Professor von Uhl, did not teach the literature nor the Freudian concepts. This meant negotiating my choice of summarizing, defining terms, and elaborating connections between texts to a manner that made it appropriately contextualized and articulated so that Professor von Uhl could understand.
As the semester progressed, I saw my writing follow standard writing conventions better. This was thanks to constantly proofreading and revising my writing and is seen in the better grammar usage and improved readability in my works from the beginning of the semester till now. Taking a look through my portfolio’s tabs, some of the earlier works contain grammatical errors with punctuation, which lessen and are practically null in the most recent works. Also, there is a growing difference in quality between my formal papers. My summary & response essay and exploratory both have awkward phrasing, whereas the CRA essay flows much smoother, thanks to consistent revisions and learning from the feedback provided by the instructor after each essay. This taught me the significance of drafting my thoughts on paper before diving right into the prompt– especially in terms of laying out my thoughts in an organized manner to create a complex argument.
On the topic of formal papers, I practiced systematic application of the MLA citation conventions in my formal papers through in-text citations and a work cited page. I also practiced in-text citations throughout journal entries and discussion boards which are present in the Portfolio. I learned the importance of using the MLA citation conventions as it organized when and where I accessed the source I cited, and what the credentials of that source were.
As for rhetoric, I first learned rhetorical concepts such as “audience” and “medium” with my peers in a group assignment under “Collaborated Works.” I also learned to recognize different rhetorical strategies that are used in the public domain, such as utilizing political narratives, as demonstrated by my discussion of how synecdoche was a rhetorical element used against Muslims in the 2016 election. I also discussed the significance of appropriately responding to a rhetorical situation, as seen in this excerpt that is found in the “Journal Entries” tab of my portfolio:
“The rhetorical response must work within the framework posed by the situation. Also, the constraints must be addressed after a certain exigence. For example, Trump and Biden, as presidential candidates, must address the exigence, the pandemic, and respond to the questions the public has moving forward with American life in the Coronavirus-era and beyond.”
As for engaging the social aspects of writing processes, the first time I collaborated with my peers was during our first assignment for the writing section, which was a group assignment wherein we each defined a different term that was related to rhetorical situations. This assignment introduced me to some of my peers as we communicated using a group-chat on Slack, which we continued to use throughout the semester. I also collaborated with my peers to enhance our writing using the TurnItIn PeerMark feature as we drafted our formal papers. Further, using the discussion boards on the Blackboard page for the writing section of the course, we shared our brainstorming with the mindmap of our responses to the prompt of the CRA paper. This discussion board benefitted me as it gave me a different perspective to approach the short story I was analyzing. Another shared writing process experience was the assignment to share any “floating citations” in our summary and response essay draft. Reading my peers’ drafts, I was able to catch on to any floating citations they had, and after reading theirs, I was able to apply that same critical reading to my own draft.
As for understanding and using print and digital technologies to address a range of audiences, I have definitely been able to understand the digital technologies I had access to in order to appropriately approach this class. For instance, after the library sessions with Emily Pagano, I learned how to access the school’s online database and to filter the search results in order to find what I needed in a manner efficient manner. Also, I learned to use blackboard to engage with peers. However, I was not able to make use of any printed technologies as I was constrained to digital materials due to this course being held online.
Referring back to Emily Pagano, after attending two library sessions hosted by her, with the content and writing sections respectively, I learned to efficiently locate outside sources in the library’s database using tricks she taught us. For instance, she gave us the“CARDIO” method, which helped me assess what were appropriate sources for me to look for, considering my need for the source’s currency, authority, documentation, type of document, and objectivity. Using this method, I was able to quickly find appropriate outside sources cited in my CRA essay.
Lastly, after having found the appropriate sources, I applied them to my short stories as needed, whether by summarizing, analyzing, and arguing in order to convey my interpretations and thoughts about the short story I was working on. For example, after finding an article to contextualize Japan around the time that Murakami published “Super-Frog Saves Tokyo,” I composed the following analysis in my CRA essay:
“Katagiri’s lack of meaning is not merely to trigger a catharsis in his readers, it is reflective of the identity crisis that Murakami witnessed enveloping the Japanese youth in the early nineties… [Japan’s] Bubble economy was expanding greatly, it was ‘a suitable model for economic and social development”… However, this was only a gilded surface; much like Katagiri, Japanese youth were facing an “existential homelessness.” This was put to the spotlight after the Sarin gas attacks in Tokyo in 1995, two months after the Kobe earthquake which demoralized the country (Welch). The gas attack was the product of an overwhelming psychological toll, like the one that caused Katagiri’s neurosis… When the Bubble economy burst, students graduating from the ideal schools felt “alone and unprotected,” and would join cults, one of which was behind the gas attacks. Much like Katagiri, Japanese youth, viewing their society as a “numbing mindlessness” (Welch), lacked a sense of belonging and meaning.
