Doctor Carpenter’s composition class had been my first college English writing class (excluding high school advanced placement courses). This course has given me experience with writing genres I haven’t written before and writing styles I haven’t used in the past. Not only that, but I also got to ruminate about the diversity of this language and the consequences that it brings along with the hierarchy that it forms. In terms of growth and development of my writing, I’ve cultivated and improved on the skills expected from this class; my discernment of the language itself has ameliorated through the outlook of other groups of people and their experiences of survival, discrimination, and prosperity. 

My initial answer to the question Doctor Carpenter asked us on the first day of class, “What is writing”, was concise and direct: it’s a message from us to the receiver, our voice, thoughts, and psyche on paper. While this is correct, it’s not entirely right. Writing isn’t a one-way relationship nor is it exclusive to the writer and the viewer. For the longest time, we’ve been taught to write robotically. We follow prompts and keep in mind what to do in our writing for a good grade, from structure to the literary devices standardized tests look for. Our sole receiver is the grader and we cater to the education system, forgetting the universal messages and purpose of the texts we read because we don’t get the chance to connect with them. That’s why many youths feel demotivated to express their ideas on paper, that they’re not “good enough” writers for the education system. There’s a hierarchy that forms, discriminating against English speakers and writers, due to the form of the language people are accustomed to believing is correct. 

Works I’ve read this semester from writers like Judith Cofer, Robert MacNeil, and Ashanti Young, use their writing to give a voice to the “lesser” class of the language. Immigrants and bilingual speakers often get scrutinized for their “imperfect” practice of the language. Simultaneously, their adaptation to their new surroundings can make them ostracized in their own culture and get labeled as “Americanized”. Cofer argues that assimilation isn’t an erasure of our origin, it’s a means of survival. Differences have to be overcome for people to find common ground: literature. She uses literature to share her experiences as a bilingual English professor with an accent and wants her diverse students to find the same connection through their unique identities. Young talks about the issue of code-switching practiced in classrooms. Many black children grew up in households where African American vernacular English, an “inferior” variant of English, is commonly practiced. He asserts that users should have the choice of deciding when and where they can use their language, not institutions, offering a better practice called “code meshing”. My response to his claim of code-switching being a form of systemic racism and shouldn’t be practiced was: “If students aren’t expected to practice the form of English that is universal and more perceivable, how will they learn? How will they learn the grammar and intricacies of the language?” AAVE has influenced pop culture and consequently, the way many teens communicate with one another. One form of the language isn’t “better” than the other but its usage is more desirable in formal and casual environments separately. We’re not exactly catering to the people that expect us to speak in one correct way. We’re claiming the stigma around it. We’re doing this for the benefit of efficient communication that’s palpable with awareness of who our audience is; we can learn more about the language and utilize this knowledge. Many teens, like myself, don’t write or engage in public speaking like the way we talk amongst our peers, informally. Our generation also has been taken over by technology, a concern that MacNeil acknowledges. This concern has led people to worry our generation might evolve into a state of illiteracy as they continue to rely on audiobooks and videos instead of reading. His optimistic approach is the reason why he’s my favorite author I’ve read from this semester. He thinks the English language belongs to everyone, and that it shouldn’t matter if the way we practice is novel or anomalous to the conventional way. Variables like technology and diversity can be used to our advantage in understanding literature. The history of English is proof of this: America’s ideals were always connected to liberation and accepting change. The English language isn’t static because we’re the ones with power.

My understanding of eco-poetics was enhanced through the summary and response unit especially. It challenged me to look ‘in-between the words’ in correspondence to the author’s background and advocacies and negotiate my thoughts on the collection to elucidate the message Alexis Gumbs wanted to convey. Looking for a thesis within the different poems was challenging. I stated, “All share ideas of reforming yourself by disposing of societal conceptions, finding a connection in nature to find answers, and seeing the perspectives of black people, they approach the topic differently by discussing issues like mental health and environmentalism,” (Hossain 1). Revising the piece brought me to realize my thesis was lacking in specificity which could’ve made my argument stronger. The writing process of drafting, reflecting, and incorporating criticism has helped me to improve my novel approach to writing a piece of this genre. From the reflection of my eco-literacy narrative, I understood that “every narrative has a message that the author wants to convey and even if it’s not in the format of an informative piece, it is persuasive, either inclusively or exclusively.” Analyzing both genres has influenced me to recognize that writers won’t always be direct with their message and that through the implementation of rhetorical devices and anecdotes, we can have an understanding of their stance. I used this skill in my other works, one being the creative writing final piece. 

The collaborative podcast unit tested our literary skills in research, skeletal planning of our 16-minute presentation, and efficiency as a team. We used the CCNY database and utilized scientific journals to find concrete evidence for our argument. Doctor Carpenter had told us to be aware of political biases in the sources we encounter, even if they’re purely informational. We also researched the genre of podcasts, familiarizing ourselves with the different styles and determining who our audience is. We had to become professionals on our topic, hence why we needed to visit the site location and make an analysis of our observations. That’s why our topic of environmentalism wasn’t confined to just that, but the two-way relationship it has with the people surrounding it, politically and systematically. Our podcast shed light on the issue of environmental racism, giving a voice to minorities, in addition to, offering active solutions and appreciating the site for what it used to be and what it is now.

Throughout this semester, I have nurtured my rhetorical skills and apprehension of the English language, its disparities, and hope. My answer, now, to the question “What is writing” is a microphone used by multiple people. It’s not an exclusive story – fiction or nonfiction – of one person. It’s a collection and collaboration of voices that want recognition. It’s bravery; people will always reject ideas or find interest in a different piece of writing they perceive to be better, whether it be prejudice or something else.