Comparisons

1) I think it would be interesting to compare the change in writing style that occurs after the man is shot in "Bullet in the Brain" and after Katrina has hit in "Salvage the Bones." Both of these events are dramatic and story-changing, and it would be interesting to see if the diction changes as well to reflect this.

2) It would also be interesting to compare Esch to the main character in "The Most Girl Part of You." They both seem very similar -- they are both weak female characters who are taken advantage of sexually. They are also very soft-spoken, and seem to not have a strong opinion about anything.

3) Finally, I think many comparisons can be drawn between Big Guy in "The Most Girl Part of You" and Big Henry in "Salvage the Bones." First, and most obviously, they are both defined by their physical size. Others look up to them for advise and companionship, and are viewed as more mature than others. Their mannerisms, roles as characters, and physical characters all have a lot in common with each other, so I think an effective paper could be written about their similarities.

Baxter

     One reason that Charle's Baxter's "Full of It" is such an effective and inspiring piece is because of the feeling of normalcy that comes across in his honesty. It is easy for us as readers to view the writing of a full novel as something of an almost supernatural accomplishment -- it seems incomprehensible that so many of us can struggle to write a page long essay for class yet someone can sit down and pound out 500 eloquently worded pages. Consequently, it is often times hard for us to really personally sympathize with an author, because we may instinctively view them on a higher -- or at least differently functioning -- mental plane. We need to remember that even the Hemingway's and the Beethoven's and Piccasso's of the world, though extremely talented, are still nonetheless people just like ourselves.
    In "Full of it," Baxter effectively tears down this barrier between the reader and the author. Baxter, an accomplished author, outlines his immense difficulty in becoming a writer -- how he experienced so many failures as a writer that his first success came from actually documenting these mishaps. He writes of how misconceived his earlier stories were, and how he came precariously close to quitting writing altogether and becoming a small-town teacher. All of a sudden, it doesn't feel so intimidating to think of an author as a "person" instead of an "author."
   Additionally, I don't think that his point extends merely to authors. Although he is talking directly about writing in the piece, the same standards can be extended towards artists of all kinds. There are plenty of extraordinary musicians and artists in the world that struggled greatly to get where they are -- are is never a smooth journey, even for the most talented among us.

Similarities

            I find Esch very similar to the protagonist of the “The Most Girl Part of You,” particularly in chapter 7. They both characterize a feeble female main character, who get taken advantage of by other men. Even though they are taken advantage of sexually, neither of them speak up against it or do anything to resist. In addition to not standing up for themselves, their general willingness to concede things and not voice a strong opinion is evident in both passages. In “The Most Girl Part of You,” the protagonist sympathizes with all of the self-harming things that he does to himself, and never makes an effort to disagree with him or speak up against something. Throughout “Salvage the Bones,” but particularly in chapter 7, Esch leaves the arguing to others, even when it concerns herself. She is too afraid to openly admit, even to her own family, that Manny has harmed her, and she leaves the fighting over it to others. In the confrontation between Manny and Skeetah, she doesn’t say a word. The conceding nature of both characters is similar between the stories.

What do I like best about what happened in the revision?
      I am happiest about how much more succinct and to-the-point my paper has become since my rough draft. As I go back and read over the earlier copies, I tend to go off on tangents and have trouble focusing on any main point. Now, as I read my final copy, it is much more lucid and relays my main points in a much more effective manner.

What were frustrations revising?
     It was frustrating to take out big chunks of passages that I spent time writing. It is naturally aggravating to erase work -- it feels like time that has been totally wasted. However, it is an essential (maybe the most essential) part of any good revision.

What helped most?              
      I think the most helpful strategy was to figure out what each paragraph's main point was and how they related to each other -- much like what mapping out our paper's encouraged us to do. This allowed me to have a better understanding of the flow of my paper, and to reorganize it in the revision process as to be more coherent.