The Russian State has made global headlines in the past year with its sudden aggression towards neighboring nation Ukraine, a territory within and about there has been conflict for over a decade. What began as a standoff initiated by the positioning of 100,000+ Russian troops on the border escalated into armed conflict when the Russians began a ground invasion and continues to evolve in real time. In his essay “Towards Conflict or Cooperation? The Ukraine Crisis and EU-Russia Relations,” Cristian Nitoiu argues that the crisis in and surrounding Ukraine has prompted higher tensions between Russia and member countries of the European Union; the author credits this worsening relationship to three areas of discussion: a lack of a unified approach to handling Russia on the part of the EU, the overestimation of power for Russia and Europe (Nitoiu), and a more apparent disparity between the two culturally. While the publication predates the ongoing conflict in Ukraine, the author’s claims as to how tensions arose provides context for western spectators as to how it arose. To promote these assertions, the author utilizes diction that provides insight to his purpose, as well as by organizing ideas through topical discussion in the order given above.

To truly understand a publication and the author’s intention in writing it, one should first understand the author. Cristian Nitiou, PhD, author of “Towards Conflict or Cooperation?”, is an expert in the international relations of Europe and Eurasia. Nitiou has published a number of essays of this kind, his more recent works focus more on Russia and her relations with the European Union (EU). The writer has a background in both the learning and teaching of international relations, serving numerous leadership roles in educational organizations that coincide with his field of study; his address to the conflict in the Russia-Ukraine region, only two years following the 2014 seizure of Crimea, is likely fueled by current events. By including an approximately 4-page-long citation list, the author proves his thoroughness in his knowledge on the topic, thus creating credibility in conjunction with what the reader may know of his background. The subject article was originally published in the journal of Southeast European and Black Sea Studies (SEEBSS), a self-proclaimed “multi-disciplinary journal based on the analysis of conditions of and events in the territories in these regions (Taylor & Francis). According to parent website Taylor & Francis Online, SEEBSS has annual download/views of 86,000, arguably high for an online journal of a specialized topic. A diverse collection of authors publishes to the site to discuss current and past matters of importance to the region, Nitoiu being one of them. The source provides insight by subject matter experts to any interested party, likely cited by scholars when writing on an associated issue. The popularity of the journal with individuals of high education builds its credibility as a source.

Most indicative of a problem’s severity in most contexts is how reports connotate descriptor words, especially so when discussing a political and humanitarian issue. In the passage the author demonstrates a clear position on the matter of Russia and Ukraine with the verbiage used; the extended use of dark, negative word choice suggests the graveness of this threat. In reference to relations between the EU and Russia he frames the future as “achieved on unstable foundations, with the constant potential of the three tensions arriving again at the boiling point and causing a new, possibly even more severe crisis” (Nitoiu). This does not promote optimism in the reader, instead mongering fear to convey the rockiness of the EU-Russia relationship as relying on the development of Ukraine. Regarding the potential consequences of the heightened tensions described the author suggests the possibility of a potential “second Cold War,” furthering his emphasis on the possibility of both political and military fallout. This comparison is not unique to Nitoiu’s piece, however—it has been prominent in the narrative of western news outlets, more so even as the fighting in Ukraine worsens. The deliberate characterization of the aspects of Russian-EU relations with the author’s word choice provides the reader a western perspective of negativity surrounding the Ukraine conflict, tying each point to Russia’s actions in the region. By choosing to be selective with his words Nitiou not only conveys his feelings, but also possibly relates with the audience, likely in a good part western. To confirm the feelings of the reader around the Ukraine conflict could contribute to his comprehension of it.

The way in which a writer introduces information often conveys the priority order he chooses. It is possible Nitoiu’s method demonstrates this concept, as there is no pattern recognizable to the reader in the thesis, and thus in the essay. The sorting of the information presented is standard discussion by topic, labeling each area of discussion by the respective assertion from the thesis, such as with “Division among EU member states” and “The geopolitical tension: the EU’s expansion in the post-Soviet space” (Nitiou). Each section is designed to elaborate on the broad label it is given, each containing a subtitled passage to further examination of a specific talking point; this is seen with section “Division among EU member states,” subsection “United but still separate during the Ukraine crisis,” “The geopolitical tension: the EU’s expansion in the post-Soviet space” and “The Ukraine crisis: boiling geopolitical tension,” as well as with “The clash of values and worldviews between the EU and Russia” and “Deeper polarization and clash of values?” (Nitoiu). Though this communicates the argument effectively, and there is thus no fault with this style, an alternative for the author to consider is a chronological or causal pattern; both methods are proven to provide a sturdy base for a line of reasoning, and are therefore often preferred by history and policy writers. Additionally, these structures may better give the reader context to the situation with how and why it has evolved over time, rather than just lead a topical discussion through which a reader simply observes ideas.

In order to deliver an argument to a desired audience it is imperative to use strong rhetoric. This becomes apparent in the political world especially, writing remaining a dominant medium in policy and communication. When analyzing the development of the relationship between Europe and Russia by both past and current armed conflict in Ukraine, Nitoiu utilizes clearly connotated diction in addition to an informational organizational structure. The use of these devices, though arguable in efficacy of application, educates the audience on both the subject and the writer’s feelings about it. This article, designed to examine the complexities associated with the dispute of independence between Ukraine and Russia with focus on the EU, seemingly aligns with the implication that the latter demonstrates Soviet-like territorial aggression. Moreover, because of the devices included in the passage, it might be fair to describe the author’s position as concerned with the issue, like many other westerners. Due to these qualities, the essay may contribute to one’s argument regarding the consequences of Russian military action in Ukraine.

Works Cited

“Cristian Nitoiu.” Belgrade Security Forum, https://www.belgradeforum.org/speaker/cristian-nitoiu/.

“Dr Cristian Nitoiu.” Dr Cristian Nitoiu | Loughborough University London, https://www.lborolondon.ac.uk/about/staff/dr-cristian-nitoiu/.

Nitoiu, Cristian. “Towards Conflict or Cooperation? The Ukraine Crisis and EU-Russia Relations.” Taylor & Francis, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14683857.2016.1193305.

“Southeast European and Black Sea Studies.” Taylor & Francis, https://www.tandfonline.com/journals/fbss20.

During a state of political polarization so extreme as the one in which we live today there are not many agreements on hot button topics, such as the news, between both sides. Despite the rarity of these situations, one that shows up consistently is the media’s ability to use facts, scientific or otherwise, and narrative to push a particular objective or speak to a certain audience. This is often used to promote political agenda but is also present in the field of medicine to express one’s perspective on treatment data; this is the case with the relatively recent approval and employment of gilteritinib (branded Xospata), a pill developed by Astellas Pharma to combat the FLT3 Acute Myeloid Leukemia (AML) mutation. With the official lab report data in one’s pocket, topics such as this can be reported on using various rhetorical patterns, thus guiding the message of a piece. This is evident with how a CNN health post and a segment on cancernetwork.com review the impacts of gilteritinib on AML cases, using the source paper published by those who conducted trials on the drug.

CNN is currently one of the most prominent national and international media outlets and disputedly ranks with Fox News as highest in political bias on a consistent basis, though this statement stands irrelevant when discussing gilteritinib and AML, as it is not a very politicized subject. This does not, however, rule out the featured article using experimental data to create a narrative—even if it is well-meaning. The first step in analyzing the position and communicative strategies of the article is to note the title; the title of CNN Health’s piece is as follows: “New drug represents ‘paradigm shift’ in treatment of acute myeloid leukemia.” The phrase “paradigm shift” suggests dramatic effects of the cancer drug, provoking interest and a sense of hope from the reader. In addition to the article’s title, it is worthwhile to learn who the author is and his or her relation to its topic. A woman by the name of Susan Scutti is credited for writing this segment; the website lists her without a prefix or suffix, indicating she does not carry a doctorate, nursing license, or perhaps even have any significant experience in the field of medicine. In contrast, the report from which Scutti based her article on lists not only the lead doctor of the trials, but thirty others of the same stature as well. This is important to realize as a consumer of information regardless of the topic, as it can be used to gauge an author’s reliability. A strategy used not only in this article, but in other secondary sources as well, is the converting of data and terminology into lighter, more easily ingested information for a broader audience; this is seen with Scutti’s reference to gilteritinib as “more effective and less toxic” than chemotherapy treatments, contributing to “an overall positive result” in the clinical trial; in the document published by The New England Journal of Medicine the reader is met with verbiage along the lines of “salvage chemotherapy group” and “thrombocytopenia” (Perl et al.). The same is observed when comparing “a 36% reduction in risk of death” (Scutti) and “hazard ratio for death, 0.64; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.49 to 0.83; P<0.001)” (Perl et al.)—there is a clear reduction in technicality based on the audience the writer intends to address; Scutti speaks to any party interested in cancer research and treatment development, whereas the NEJM report is designed for more medically literate consumers. Not having an expert understanding of AML, the drug, and its effects might cause a consumer to be more optimistic. A final feature of the CNN’s “paradigm shift” article is the author’s inclusion of comparison to build relatability with the reader. When explaining to the reader the effects of gilteritinib, Scutti describes it as “similar to a car that races forward without stepping on the gas pedal… [it] essentially stops the fuel from getting to the engine by directly targeting the gene.” This metaphor is credited to Dr. Alexander Perl, the aforementioned lead on the trials. The inclusion of this bit illustrates to the reader how the pill works, once more relating with viewers and straying from the facts-only format of the original essay. In sum, Scutti wrote for CNN with the purpose of simplifying the work performed by Dr. Perl and others to establish the efficacy of gilteritinib on AML and the odds of relapse, all the while connotating the data to induce hope and optimistic views of the treatment.

The tendency to use experimental data in ways other than originally intended is common in news media, but it is not uncommon for online publishers to write pieces summarizing said data as well. This is often seen as a service to a broad audience on popular problems or societal concerns (e.g. cancer and treatment progress). An article by Kristie L. Kahl on cancernetwork.com does just this; though the author is not credited with any medical or professional accolades, she writes on the processes and results of Astellas’ ADMIRAL trial that used gilteritinib to combat the relapse/refraction of FLT3 AML. The author does this in a way which, rather than generalizing and making the data more palatable to the average tabloid reader, briefs the consumer on the overall facts of both that trial and a similarly intended one as well. Kahl mirrors Astellas with the inclusion of specific statistics that reflect sufficient knowledge of the subject; the author makes mention of gilteritinib “demonstrate[ing] significantly longer median OS compared with chemotherapy (9.3 months vs. 5.6 months, respectively; HR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.49-0.83; P>.001)” in addition to other similar figures in the same paragraph. This is merely the condensation of the data given in the original report, communicating just how much the pill affects survival rates. Though not written by a medical expert, Kahl’s “Confirmatory Trial of Gilteritinib Meets Primary End Point of Improving OS in Relapsed/Refractory FLT3+ AML” cites the senior vice president of oncology development at the company that carried out the trial: Andrew Krivoshik, MD, PhD. The author includes Dr. Krivoshik’s testimony as to the purpose and accomplishments of the trial, establishing credibility she does not have from her own knowledge alone. This is akin to the way the source article includes a generous list of names of contributors in the trials—both instances of crediting these experts ensures the content is received as trustworthy. Despite the length difference between this summary article and the source publication, Kahl ends the piece with a borrowed quotation: “Treatment options for patients with relapsed or refractory FLT3-mutated AML are largely limited to various salvage chemotherapy regimens, and there is no consensus regarding an approach… We found that in this population of patients, gilteritinib resulted in superior overall survival and percentages of remission as compared with salvage chemotherapy” (Perl et al.). This statement brings the writer’s post to a close, bringing the reader back to the hypothesis of the experiment and concluding its success after being briefed on essentially all of the primary points of the original article.

We live in a world which provides all access to information on most any subject. The way in which said information is redistributed often depends on the agenda of those with the power to do so; this is indisputably seen in how different news stations describe current events, regardless of political affiliation, occurring in the scientific world just as much as any other. Though data is sometimes spun in a way to advance one party over another, it can also be to serve different audiences well; this is the case with both articles by CNN and NEMJ with regards to a study conducted by associates of Astellas Pharma. In CNN’s piece, the information is conveyed to reach the hearts and minds of a common audience with more interest than topical knowledge; as for the Medical Journal, the author just clumps the source’s data into an easier read so that those in the field or attached to it in some way may still have a complete understanding. With both publications, audiences are served positive news on a topic that impacts a great many people, acting as extensions of the very group that conducted the research.

Works Cited

Kahl, Kristie L. “Confirmatory Trial of Gilteritinib Meets Primary End Point of Improving OS in Relapsed/Refractory flt3+ AML.” Cancer Network, Cancer Network, 31 Mar. 2021, https://www.cancernetwork.com/view/confirmatory-trial-of-gilteritinib-meets-primary-end-point-of-improving-os-in-relapsed-refractory-flt3-aml.

Perl, Alexander E., et al. “Gilteritinib or Chemotherapy for Relapsed or Refractory FLT3-Mutated AML: Nejm.” New England Journal of Medicine, 4 Nov. 1970, https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1902688.

Scutti, Susan. New Drug Improves Survival for Certain Acute Myeloid … – CNN. https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/01/health/gilteritinib-acute-myeloid-leukemia-aacr-study/index.html.

To find one’s place is arguably one of life’s most challenging missions, present in most political, social, and occupational atmospheres; the consequences of failing to do this can be detrimental to his or her health and function in a society, as it provides the motivation and validation needed to succeed at most any goal. This is where acclaimed experts in the field of literature have identified the existence of groups of people that interact with each other for a united purpose or interest, regardless of the reason for their creation—these are known as discourse communities, or DCs for short (Swales 1990). Discourse communities provide the sense of belonging that all aspire to have and can take many different forms; these encompass all interests, workplaces, and activities. In order to qualify as a discourse community, associations must meet certain criteria set by language professor John Swales; in sum, DCs must hold interpersonal communications, use a unique lexis, and have a common goal, or goals, met through their own methods and expectations. This holds the term to cover only those groups which have active engagement between members, rather than speech communities, really only characterized by language use. Two that differ entirely, but still share identities as discourse communities are the “running community,” consisting of sports track and cross country, and the members of the Corps of Cadets at VMI.

Running is used as a metaphor for many things, and with valid reason; with running, both distance and sprinting, one faces total body engagement and overwhelming muscle burn, and, if performing at maximum effort, total body failure. This struggle is shared by all who run competitively, and to borrow from a common saying, common hardship is the key to strong brotherhood. This is apparent through how easily social connections at races can be made; if one is waiting for an event to start, it is almost an expectation to have small talk with his or her competitors. This is typically comparing how unprepared they are for the event, or just about how awful running is in general, but it initiates a fraternization that comforts both parties. According to Chris Ware, an avid runner in both sports, “[runners] are always communicating over the course of a race to make moves to pass people.” It is evident that not only is verbal communication necessary for the social part of running, but for the competitive side, too. Like any DC, the running community has a process (practice) and end goals (becoming faster); however, contrasting with other groups, this one is fragmented in order to be conducive to these goals. Depending on area, race times and physical conditioning fluctuate as a result of terrain and culture differences. Despite being so geographically and physically different, teams will most always embrace one another as pieces to a bigger whole and extend communications across the board primarily with social media. Arguably one of the running community’s most pleasant qualities is the care and comprehension that goes into coaching; obviously the treatment of runners is based on who is coaching, but the community generally welcomes inexperienced or struggling members and treats them with the patience and support needed to improve. Runners are united not only by what they do, but also by what they say. It is apparent how long someone has been running by their use of certain words, or lack thereof; these include, but are certainly not limited to: “heat,” “waterfall,” “PR,” “fast course,” and “fartlek.” This also applies to the equipment used in the sport, according to Mr. Ware. Many runners compare shoe brands and running short styles, and to non-runners, these brands ring a bell as much as the Walmart generic brand— like other lexis within, the brand names are common to the running community, but very specialized for the sport.

While many discourse communities are similar in how they communicate, their organizational structures, or the lexis they share, the Corps of Cadets at VMI is unlike any other. It is a pyramidic hierarchy, with a high number of freshmen at the lowest level and few seniors at the top; the order is inverted for power, as first year students are treated as subhuman—otherwise known as “rats”—while fourth years are seemingly immune to the Institute’s complex system of regulations. The term “rat” is a prime example of VMI’s original lexis, as even though other military schools have terms for basic cadet, this is arguably the most demeaning one, reinforcing this hierarchy. An aspect of the lexis within VMI is its highly contagious nature; new cadets, or rats, are susceptible to terms such as “sick,” “gym dyke” (though it could be class, parade, or guard dyke depending on the occasion), or “strain” within a week of induction. This is a double-edged sword, as it in allows simple, familial communication between cadets, but can strike an outside listener as strange and cultish. While other DC’s, such as the running community, typically communicate conversationally in-person or on social media, information is distributed at the Institute over a turnout speaker or through email. Additionally, it is the expectation to refer to upperclassmen by rank and/or last name, maintaining a strictly formal environment. This removes much personality from communication and ensures the integrity of the anti-fraternization rules at VMI. The choice to spend one’s college years at VMI is the choice to face unparalleled difficulty for the sake of character and leadership building; to do so requires one’s full-fledged physical and mental perseverance, as the tasks are challenging, and emotional support is limited to others in the same position. Unlike being a member of a cross country team, cadetship at VMI means facing harsh criticisms and negative reinforcement on a day-to-day basis. In Ware’s words, “VMI enforces a lot of rules, whereas the team is more laid back.” Ware speaks on this as a runner, but also a cadet; though simply put, his view on the atmospheres of the two communities suggests that they both serve to develop the individual through interaction and teamwork, but the basis upon which they operate differ greatly. It is a popular saying at the Institute that everything has a purpose, for which one might not yet know; with this phrase those above oneself, staff or student, work to make life as difficult as possible so that a rat can develop into a proper cadet through problem-solving and discipline.

To label a population as a discourse community, like much else in the literary world, is subjective to how one defines it. If one is to base the definition on the common criteria laid out by John Swales (Swales pp. 553-555), both groups explored above are exemplary. It is remarkable how the VMI and running communities be two sides of the same coin, both falling under discourse communities, yet sharing few defining qualities. To reiterate the differences previously mentioned: runners work for quantitative accomplishments (i.e., race times), have a base of friendly competition, and communicate directly and personally; members (especially new ones) of the Corps at the Institute face constant scrutinization from the community, focus on developing more intangible skills and qualities, and have less personal communication between members. A difference removed from Swales’ criteria is that runners perform and interact differently depending on who they train under, creating a less fixed identity within the community; this is negated in some ways, though, when cadets enter VMI via the track or cross country teams, forming them under one unit, and therefore with less thought diversity. Perhaps this is why, despite being polar opposites, the communities can mesh well; with members of both, such as Ware, focused on individual and team success, there is a common grit and spirit required to fulfill the communities’ expectations.

In a sense, running and the VMI experience are one in the same: both are long-winded struggles for the purpose of personal improvement. The discrepancies between the two have been discussed thoroughly above; their respective communities fall under an accepted definition of discourse community, but the ways in which they meet the criteria designed by Swales differ. The presented analysis of VMI and the running community is indicative of how, regardless of their individual qualities, all DCs share a sort of compatibility because of how malleable peoples’ personalities and interests are, and the lines between them are often blurred. Every discourse community serves as a home for unique features and interests, and every unique feature and interest has a home in a discourse community—therein is the answer to one’s question of belonging.

Works Cited

Swales, John M. “Reflections on the Concept of Discourse Community.” Writing about Writing,

edited by Elizabeth Wardle and Doug Downs. Bedford/st.martin’s, 2011, pp. 544-557.

Originally published in Composition Forum, vol. 37, Fall 2017.

In the eyes of what seems like every grade school English teacher, one ought to start to open a paper with a hook, such as a quote, statistic, or anecdote; the following is a hook combining the three of these things: “Creativity involves breaking out of expected patterns in order to look at things in a different way,” in the words of the inventor of “Lateral Thinking,” Dr. Edward de Bono. This is de Bono’s own definition of creativity, but due to the nature of the term, its definition is very subjective; regardless of how one defines it, though, creativity is the groundwork of any art, literature included. The encouragement of creativity is crucial to palatable literature and the development of one’s literacy, despite the restrictive nature education standards have created around writing. This has suddenly become evident to any student advancing to higher levels of writing, as one is not limited to the same rigidity, and the absence of creativity in earlier years of learning creates a vacuum of originality.

Naturally, I do not have every memory of my childhood stored like files in a computer, forever downloaded and available virtually for more than a lifetime — very few people do. Being only a man might be the root of this issue, having plenty of flaws for sure (particularly memory, in my case). Thus, I can only rely on those who were coherent before me, such as my beautiful mother, who always pushed me to read another one of her original release Harry Potter books, or watch another episode of Avatar on Nickelodeon; after all, these were things I was interested in, and they stirred up the creative chaos of my childhood. It did not matter if I was “cool” or if it was what the other moms did, she only cared that I wanted for myself, and followed it to fruition. According to Mom, I spent much time with my older cousin Darby, who was on the brainier side of our moshpit of children; one day, around the age of four, without any prompting or context, I began reading to Mom one of my many colorful little pre-K books, likely “There’s a Crocodile in the Garage,” or Karen Schmidt’s “The Gingerbread Man.” This was the beginning of my literacy, at least in the form of reading, and soon after writing. It was not long before my kiddie bedtime stories grew to be marathons of The 39 Clues in second grade and The Hunger Games in fourth; though long gone were The Berenstain Bears, that early time of life still allowed for imagination and freedom of thought.

In growing older, the content of English classes became less fantastical and more so analyzing bitter nonfiction, or digging through ancient, complex poems with little to no interest to all. Middle school began and so did the teaching of the one-to-two sentence thesis with three to four reasons, at least three body paragraphs (each with evidence and accompanying commentary), and a conclusion that in sum is a pirated introductory paragraph to tie the knot on the essay; this is what is also referred to as the “standard essay format,” but was expected for really any brand of paper. This was the strict code that my classmates and I had to abide by through high school, and it played a key part in the death of creative and stylistic writing, restricting the flow and malleability of every paper. Despite the impersonal form of writing that was pushed, it was during this time that I met some of the most significant sources of my literacy to date. At the beginning of ninth grade, I joined my high school’s Air Force JROTC, introducing me to semi-militaristic terminologies and concepts, such as standard operating procedure (SOP) and physical training (PT). One of my instructors was a Chief Master Sergeant, the highest enlisted rank in the Air Force, and a great mentor to our unit; he taught us to understand and practice the basics of leadership skills, a valuable literacy to have in the pathway to officership. Chief, as we call him, really just shows his cadets what it means to think for themselves, be a good neighbor, a decent citizen — after all, the primary mission of the Corps is to develop citizenship. Not only do Chief’s heavily-anecdotal lessons equip one with these tools, but they also allow for one to see an alternate form of teaching and a unique relationship with one of the most creative-minded teachers possible. In the field of language, I had the pleasure of studying German under a teacher whom we call Frau, directly translated to, but not connoted as, “woman.” She built the foundations of my comprehension of the German language, exploring various creative teaching techniques, and even chaperoning my exchange trip to Germany during the summer of sophomore year. These figures in my life, or “literacy sponsors” in Brandt’s words, reintroduced much needed creativity to my academic life. There is that word again: creativity. All notable learning experiences are rooted in creativity; in truth, I cannot fully remember one that fell into the ranks of standardized, inanimate education. The only exception to this rule is that in eleventh grade I took AP Language and Composition under the one and only Mrs. Jennifer Wenska, infamous for her harsh criticisms and stark sarcasm; Mrs. Wenska, also known as “The Father of Mankind,” also known as “The Vulture (from The Jungle Book),” or just simply as “Father,” taught the curriculum by the order of fascistic monopoly College Board, which did include the “standard essay format.” In conjunction, however, Wenska also allowed for engaging, comedic class antics, such as the nicknames listed above — this was the difference between her sponsorship (Brandt) and the usual grueling English course. This gave students a chance to express themselves, one seldom provided by standardized English education. Even in a class strictly regulated by AP officials, Wenska incorporated creative thought to build an environment that one would enjoy and retain worthwhile writing skills.

Acknowledging the “other side” in a paper, as taught by College Board’s AP, is admittedly an aspect of the regime that does not insult creative writing flow; thus, I will say the process of learning how to “properly write” under my various grade school teachers has benefited me, as each contributed to my development. In the early stages of my literacy, I wrote in a journalistic style, essentially blotting points and thoughts onto a page in the key of a subject. When presented with a structure, albeit prohibiting true style, it lent a hand in organizing my writing into a legible, logical work. Another example is this: I was raised by my strong, educated mother who has led a career in marketing and e-business analytics, and in turn, has a matching vocabulary. The key to marketing, essentially salesmanship, is selling with words; this principle decorated my papers through high school, earning myself the title of “Master of Bull****ing.” Entering twelfth grade, I believed that after acing my prior AP English class, I was a proficient, college-level author– and then came the first 3/5. It was under Mrs. Traner, my then-English instructor, that I removed the “flowery” language that plagued my papers, and thus I grew furthermore as a writer.

To restate, it is practically an unwritten law that worthwhile writing comes from creative process. This is overlooked by lower education levels, and is resultantly an issue for college-level writers, such as myself. Freedom of thought is to literacy as amino acids are to protein — the basic building block; I look to my own history in reading and writing, and there do not exist any true outliers. The development of my literacy, not only in English but in other languages as well, has been directly correlated with the use of out-of-box learning. “Literacy sponsors” (Brandt) and the experiences associated with them are instrumental in one’s story and the ability to understand his or her narrative. It is necessary for students growing as readers, writers, and citizens to be enabled in thinking for themselves and take on attributes of preference when doing so — also known as being creative. For an interest not only of my own, but also on a societal level, a proper education should entail the prompting of creative exercise, rather than the current system which dampens it, and ultimately sets students up for failure.

Work Cited

Brandt, Deborah. “Sponsors of Literacy.” Writing about Writing, edited by Elizabeth

Wardle and Doug Downs. Bedford/st.martin’s, 2011, pp. 244-265. Originally

published in College Composition and Communication, 2 May 1998, pp. 165-85.

Zalani, Rochi. “47 Creativity Quotes to Inspire the Creator in You.” ECM, 30 Jan. 2021,

https://elitecontentmarketer.com/creativity-quotes/.