Unpacking Manuel’s Final Refelction

Throughout the Unpacking Manuel’s project I’ve learned that writing is a process. There are many steps that need to be taken until you reach your final product. It’s not a practice that takes one sitting. Instead, one has to research, write, revise, edit, and this process could be repeated forever.

When I first began my research, I felt lost. I had trouble finding details on my picture. What started out as frustration, turned into curiosity, as I felt like an investigator trying to gather clues, and put the entire puzzle together. I also had trouble distinguishing what could be considered as a reliable source because, believe it or not, scholarly data bases didn’t hold information about Bill Clinton’s 1992 visit to the tavern, but instead I was forced to turn to local web page articles.

The writing process was initially difficult. With a lack of information on Clinton’s visit and its significance, I found myself writing more about Manuel and the Tavern itself, as opposed to the actual picture and its meaning. This is where revisions came into play. After useful feedback from peer review and my 1-1 meeting it became clear that this was a serious problem with my essay, and I was given a newfound sense of direction.

I finally had an idea where to go, so the second attempt at writing became much easier. I had an idea exactly where I needed to expand my thoughts, and knew the areas where I could cut down a little.

Overall, I think revisions were the most useful part of the project for me. Throughout the beginning part of the process I suffered from a lack direction. I wasn’t quite sure where to elaborate or what connections to make, and having a new set of eyes read my essay resolved these issues. This type of collaboration is essential to improvement. However, even after writing a second draft that I feel good about, I’ve learned that there is no such thing as a complete piece of writing. It is a process that you can extend as long as you desire.

See my essay here!