original paragraph 1:

Another pattern noticed throughout the many true victim narratives, was the tendency to either see oneself as an entity or incremental learner. An entity learner views their problems as a part of their identity, something that will not change. These learners take every challenge to heart, and tend to have more difficulty succeeding. This was seen in Danielle Usko’s narrative, “I Hate Reading,” when she explains the impact of literacy on her later life after the victimizing event. She describes assignments as being harder due to her nature to procrastinate. Apparently, assignments “took a lot of my time because [she] procrastinated. [she] was a big procrastinator in high school” (Usko 2). Instead of viewing her procrastination tendencies as a challenge to overcome in her identity, she accepts it as a fact and expects the rest of the world to work around her. In total, Usko’s work would be an authentic entity narrative.

Alternatively, there is the incremental learner, the individual that views their victimization as a problem that they can work to make better. Although the individuals still do not possess the reflective abilities needed to not blame an outside source, they still may work to avoid further punishment rather than dully accepting their fate. They may even thank their teacher in the end, like Alexis Criss did in her narrative, “Burdo’s Lesson.”  Criss comes to terms with Burdo being an apparently awful person (non-authentic), and then states that “after this moment, [she] was driven by my own desire to do better; [she] wanted to succeed” (Criss 3). Criss believed that her behavior could be changed, and this makes her an incremental learner. At the end, she was successful in that endeavor. In total, Criss’ narrative would be a non-authentic incremental learner. Whether or not there is a link between the two new patterns themselves has not been observed as of yet.

Revised Paragraph 1:

Aside from the pattern of blame, another pattern was observed within the class data set. The new pattern was split into two subcategories, entity or incremental. An entity learner views their problems as a part of their identity,, whereas the incremental learner, the individual that views their victimization as a problem that they can work to make better. The entity perspective  can be seen in Danielle Usko’s narrative, “I Hate Reading,” when she explains the impact of literacy on her later life after the victimizing event. She describes assignments as being harder due to her procrastination. Apparently, assignments “took a lot of my time because [she] procrastinated. [she] was a big procrastinator in high school” (Usko 2). Instead of viewing her procrastination tendencies as a challenge to overcome in her identity, she accepts it as a fact and expects the rest of the world to work around her. These learners take every challenge to heart, and tend to have more difficulty succeeding. Alternatively, the incremental learner, the individual that views their victimization as a challenge. Although the individuals still do not possess the reflective abilities needed to not blame an outside source, they still may work to avoid further punishment rather than dully accepting their fate. They may even thank their teacher in the end, like Alexis Criss in her narrative, “Burdo’s Lesson.” Criss believed that her behavior could be changed, and this makes her an incremental learner. At the end, she was successful in the behavior changing endeavor.

Changes?:

For this revision, I attempted to combine two paragraphs to bring the word count down. To do this, I combined two ideas into one paragraph, and tried to trim unnecessary quotes and reiterations. I still think I might need to trim even more, but it is hopefully a good start into the process. Some of the wording in the beginning was changed as well, to make the ideas more succinctly clear. I also took out the sections that my peers found confusing, because they weren’t actually necessary for the point of this specific paragraph.

original paragraph 2:

To further categorize and understand victim narratives, I split the writings into more specific patterns that I observed. The first pattern observed was the authentic versus non-authentic identity. The authentic identity is one that displays outward blame towards something that is not another person, such as reading or writing itself. These writings tend to lack the delusion, because it is about their own dislike of the subject and not the misperception of another person. This can be observed in Danielle Usko’s literacy narrative, “I Hate Reading.” The narrative contains many little victim narratives, but is focused around Usko’s dislike towards boring books. “That was the reading that [she] HATED. [she] did not like to read books that did not interest [her]” (Usko 1). She clearly blamed external forces, however, it is believable and authentic that she just didn’t enjoy reading books.

To the opposite effect, the non-authentic victim narrative is directed towards another person. These writings are typically biased, and slightly delusioned based on the writer’s misunderstanding and full reflection of the event. This was seen in Evan Dodge’s narrative, “The Rollercoaster,” when Dodge describes how one teacher ruined all of his confidence in writing with one paper criticism. “He tore my essay apart and there was nothing positive, only negative. That’s when my writing confidence went down the drain” (Dodge 3). This is clearly a non-authentic victim, as he is not correctly reflecting on the event. With proper reflective abilities, Dodge would understand that papers require extensive criticisms to improve. Strangely enough, the teacher at the school with a degree in teaching  may actually know what he is doing. Yet, Dodge cannot comprehend this as a non-authentic victim.

Revised Paragraph 2:

To aid in accurate comprehension of victim narratives, I created subcategories of more specific patterns. The first pattern observed was the authentic versus non-authentic identity. The authentic identity is one that displays outward blame towards something that is not another person, whereas the non-authentic victim narrative is directed towards another person.  Authentic writings tend to lack the delusion of grandeur, because it is about their own dislike of the subject and not the misperception of another person. This can be observed in Danielle Usko’s literacy narrative, “I Hate Reading.” The narrative contains many little victim narratives, but is focused around Usko’s dislike towards boring books. “That was the reading that [she] HATED. [she] did not like to read books that did not interest [her]” (Usko 1). She clearly blamed external forces, however, it is believable and authentic that she just didn’t enjoy reading books. To the opposite effect, the non-authentic victim narrative is directed towards a sponsor or other person of interest. These writings are typically biased, and  delusioned based on the writer’s misunderstanding and full reflection of the event. This was seen in Evan Dodge’s narrative, “The Rollercoaster,” when Dodge describes how one teacher ruined all of his confidence in writing with one paper criticism. Dodge is clearly a non-authentic victim, as he is not correctly reflecting on the event. With proper reflective abilities, Dodge would understand that papers require extensive criticisms to improve. Yet, Dodge cannot comprehend this as a non-authentic victim.

changes?:

I again tried to meld two paragraphs into one in order to decrease my word count. Quotes and evidence that I felt were unnecessary were removed, and unnecessary reiterations were either shortened or removed as well. The end point was unnecessary to the premise of the paragraph, so I got rid of it. There is still probably more that can be removed, but hopefully this will begin the process of editing it down to something more manageable. The wording in the beginning, and other areas of confusion, was changed and made more succinct.

 

Revised Working introduction:

Understanding the influences on other people’s ways of thinking can be difficult. The combination of individual temperament and life experiences can lead to a hurricane of differences in thought.  Literacy narratives are assigned to provide insight into the individual’s reflective abilities and sense of self-worth and entitlement. For most, literacy is liberation, literacy is a guiding force. For some, however, literacy did not guide them. Literacy narratives are placed into categories, to further aid the quest of understanding the different paths of thinking. Kara Poe Alexander takes on the brunt of this categorization burden in her piece, “Success, Victims, and Prodigies: “Master” and “Little” Cultural Narratives in the Literacy Narrative Genre.” Out of the many noted little narratives noted by Alexander, the narratives that take on the victim role seem to cause the most debate. Victim narratives are the section of the writer’s perspective in which the writer seeks to blame any and all outside forces in order to entertain the delusion that their actions had no bearing whatsoever on their difficulties. “In victim narratives, students wrote about negative school-based literary experiences that stigmatized and marked them” (Alexander 617). What is important to note, and is something that Alexander perhaps does not emphasize enough before providing examples, is that these narrative sections cast the blame outwards. This victim identity is further described in a article by Bronwyn Williams, “Heroes, Rebels, and Victims: Student Identities in Literacy Narratives.” In his paper, Williams includes terminology that may further confuse the general public. I agree with Alexander in that the victim little narrative does involve writings of stigmatization, however, I believe that the narrative is often overindulged.  To better communicate the necessary components for a victim narrative, I devised subcategories to better emphasize some of the key patterns of the little narrative.