Dear reader,

The following works in this portfolio, I’m presenting, have gone though many deliberate changes and stages of development. It consists of three different papers covering a large spectrum of ideas and researches. On one hand, the literacy narrative explains such personal issues as dyslexia, a learning disorder I’ve had for a while. On the other, both exploratory and critical analysis essays present a unique and different view on the archetypes in the Russian literature of the 19^thcentury, which happened to be much more, than most of the readers usually expect. However, at first seen as just three disconnected papers covering completely polarized from each other topics, they turned to be the best way demonstrate my progress and evolution as a writer. And this self-assessment is merely an attempt to critique, explain and connect all these essays and show the final picture they present.

There is a sense, in which, all of the papers available in the portfolio can serve as anchors of my general development and evolution as a writer and person. Back in September of 2018, when the semester just started, I was still fighting with the consequences of dyslexia. Generally speaking, even though my general intelligence wasn’t affected, such things as writing and reading were a big problem I needed to go through. Plus, I also happen to be Russian and English language for me used to be the same way as Chinese for the most of Americans. Even though I wasn’t terrible in it, such things as grammar nuances, articles and phrasal constructions were not that obvious for me. That’s why the beginning of the course was a complete nightmare. All the papers required tremendous amount of time and stress. However, as the semester was going, my general quality as a writer was progressing too. And at the end, I managed to come up with my own approaches on writing based on the experience though-out the course. The starting point of my development as a writer began with a literacy narrative.

The literacy narrative was the first big paper I was writing in English language. A perfect American Horror Story. Even though, now I understand, how small that project was, the amount time and thought I put in it was tremendous. Partially, that was happening due to the condition I was writing about. Dyslexia, for which I dedicated most the paper, was a big barrier for almost any writing progress. Since, it’s hard for the most people to imagine how learning and mental disorders actually function and impact your life, the paper provides a full detailed picture of that. And during the peer reviews, which were very useful in understanding, whether the direction you’re going is right, classmates, who read my paper noticed, that they didn’t even know, that such conditions even exists. Honestly speaking, I wouldn’t even write the literacy narrative, if it wasn’t a required assignment. Too many issues, it was including, were very personal for me.  However, as I was writing the paper, I realized not only the problems I was facing in the past, but a possible solution to solve them. Such complexes as bad writing, low self-valuation and other mental melodramas eventually started the development of my own writing process. The process, which would acknowledge and overcome all of the obstacles I was facing. Ironically, the paper even concludes with the beginning of such development with the quote by James Cameron, “We set a goal this high and we might fail, but our failure is going to be better than the success of others”.

The paper, of course, could be improved in many areas. Grammar, style nuances, and articles, which I hardly understand even today. All these things would be different now. Writing a paper, I caught myself on a thought, that what I’m actually trying to do is just to write and finish it. Putting words in sentences, sentences in paragraphs and paragraphs in coherent essay was the first and foremost goal I was pursuing. However, in a certain way, that also describes the process I was still going through, while writing the paper. If you compare that literacy narrative to other papers you will see a definite evolution in writing and logic of thought. And even though it’s not the best text you can read out there, its main value is not in the quality of writing, but in the content inside and its context around other papers, which makes it the first pillar of my writing progression.

The second major paper was the exploratory essay. As Neil Armstrong once said, “That was one small step for a writing course, one giant leap for my writing evolution”. Despite being bigger and covering a lot of research, I finished it twice as fast. And even though it still had some grammar problems, this time the content of paper was playing the dominant role, rather than the writing itself. The topic also happened to be very personal for me, since it was covering the ‘superfluous man’ archetype in the literature of my native country. Starting it as a simple article about the ‘superfluous man’, I eventually came to a much bigger picture, rather than the initial topic of the essay. Peer reviews also made me more confident, that I am going in a right direction. Historical facts, three classical Russian novels and political articles of past and present, united together creating a different perception of the literary character. And at the end, the research and analysis I was making, during the writing, led me from the description of the ‘superfluous man’ into the definition of the entire Russian nationality, as “an essential part of the national archetype in general”.

The research, started in the exploratory essay, took its final shape in the critical analysis paper. Instead of elaboration on already used sources I decided to go further. This time, the sources I was using were even more vast and even more specific. Covering vast areas of Russian culture, such as the history of Russian intelligentsia, psychological characteristics of Russian language and biographies of Russian classics it formed a large support of my general conclusion, to which I eventually came “an entire historical anchor, a pillar, telling us beliefs, philosophies, history and culture of the 19th century”. What I consider the main value in the paper is that it provides a unique research, connecting completely different from each other sources. This vast argumentative base, the analysis between writers and their connection with the literature, and personal experience of the Russian language helped to form a final picture of the ‘superfluous man’ character.

The critical analysis was the breaking point in my writing experience. Not only because it came out as a paper I wanted to be, but it was also the first time, when I finally broke the language barrier between me and my writing. I don’t even mention the learning condition, which simply faded away after finishing the essay. Writing the paper, I finally discovered the way I can easily compose big texts for a fairly short time. Such things as emotional and anarchical thinking came out as a blessing, rather than the curse and instead of fighting with them, I just combined the ones in my writing approach. Dividing the text on the blocks, working on several parts simultaneously, constant using stream of consciousness, sometimes planning and other nuances eventually composed in one technique. If three months ago, the main concern of my writing was not the clarity of thesis, arguments or logic of thought I was putting in the paper, but the language and writing itself, today I don’t even think that much about it, concentrating my time on more important aspects of writing.

Social experience was one of the main parts throughout the course. And it would be a lie so say that it wasn’t significant for the improvement of my writing skills. Every peer review we had before the due date was not only a good platform to acknowledge the opinion of others, but also to realize potential problems. Readability of text, logical mistakes, citations or incoherent narrative, all these things were addressed in class in the most democratic and respectful way. And It was especially useful in last two papers, when the topics required more time and thought to be put in. So, an ability to have a second opinion is the last thing you should ignore.

I consider arguments as the strongest parts of my essays. There are several reasons for that. First of all, it is the combination of vast and in some ways even opposite articles and researches. I think, that the use of versatile texts such as general historical or cultural facts, psychological and semantical nuances of the language together eventually formed a strong foundation to support my theses and conclusions. The second, is my personal knowledge of the topic. Almost eleven years dedicated to the public school, where all the primary sources I was using today were analyzed even deeper, greatly helped me in the elaboration on them. Novels by Pushkin, Turgenev or Lermontov, which I can read in the original language felt very natural in the delivering of my point of view. The last, but not least, is my personal interest. Once I found out in the exploratory essay, that I see something more in the ‘superfluous man’, than most of the articles I was citing, it became my personal interest to write a good argument on that.

However, there were also serious mistakes I was making while writing the papers. The more ambitious they were becoming, the less I came to the understanding of the initial thesis. Even though I was changing it several times, at the end of some papers, I couldn’t really say for sure, whether my conclusion supports the original claim, or it goes even further. I must say, that I notice that problem of changing ambitions and proper planning in other creativities I’m doing aside from writing, like scriptwriting or editing. These broad theses and made me generalize a lot. And instead of unfolding certain things, I would just unite them into one group, assuming that the reader already understands what I mean. Plus, one of the potential mistakes which I’ve done somehow intentionally was adding “and maybe even more” at the end of my critical analysis essay. Instead of making things clearer, as I initially intended, it just made more thesis less clear. The last thing, which I also found to be very irritating, was MLA formats. It was really inconvenient, and I was making several mistakes, while citing the articles. Despite the evolution I have gone through, since the beginning of the semester was enormous, I still experience certain problems in expressing the thought in the exact way I want. First you think about the content of the essay, next you think about persuasive nuances and ways to make your work look more entertaining and valuable for someone who reads it.

Speaking of the reader, I wasn’t thinking about him in a sense a professional writer would do.  Not, that I didn’t want to, but there are certain stages you need to go through as a writer, before you are able to combine everything together on subconscious level. The social experience in class, peer reviews, and some consulting with students and teachers gave me a general idea what should be fixed and changed. After all, they were my main concerning audience, since I don’t have any plans to publish these works anywhere. In the literacy narrative I was making sure, that there were enough examples of how the learning condition was affecting my life. In the exploratory essay and critical analysis essays I was trying to be more concrete and less generalized. I think, that all the changes I was gradually implementing contributed well to the overall perception of the text.

Even though the papers I wrote through-out this course were not the perfect ones, I still think they possess a good amount of value for a potential reader. Despite not being an achievement in the English writing in general, they still possess original and unique content, including a deep analysis of vast and different sources. But most importantly, this portfolio demonstrates the evolution of me as a writer and the development of my writing experience. And since other people may also struggle with certain problems which prevent them from doing things they want, it is my hope, that this self-assessment and the works following might be not only an interesting information, regarding the Russian literary archetypes, but also show, that any mental disorder can be overridden. Now, when I’m connecting the dots of my past, I see, how useful and important were all the struggles I had, and how important are the obstacles we will face in the future. Eventually, they are the only drivers in our development as personalities and the more we have them, the better. I’m not sure, whether this self-assessment was very interesting to read, but I hope it helped you understand the context surrounding around my essays. Anyway, you won’t spend your time reading them.

Respectfully,

Gabriel Genesis