The ethnography field notes project for this course was focused on giving us a space to reflect on the various forms of writing we have engaged in during the semester, and to observe whether or not we notice certain patterns of writing styles arising for different topics or types of writing that we have done. By reflecting on the many ways we have written in the past, this allows us to take away lessons from each of our different kinds of writing that we may not have realized if we hadn’t taken the time to look back on our writing itself, as well as the different factors that contributed to this writing, for example what our setting was like, whether or not our writing was going to be judged by someone else, if we were interested in the given topic, etc.
REFLECTION:
Writing my ethnography field notes entries was my second favorite project from this course, just behind our commonplace book entries. Again, I felt that it was a great reflection exercise to not only think about the quality of writing that we had written, but also to acknowledge and learn from how we were feeling throughout each of these forms of writing. For example, one thing that confirmed my previous thoughts was that I am much more anxious and on edge when I am writing something that is going to be submitted. I even learned that this feeling of uneasiness was not simply because of large implications of writing, but was solely because of the numerical grade that would be attached to my writing. For example, for one of my field notes entries I discussed a text that I sent to my uncle about internship/shadowing opportunities at the hospital he works at. While this could be considered a pretty important piece of writing, I was not nervous or anxious while writing it. I even noted in my entry that I was excited about the opportunity. It is interesting to me to see how I can sort of “clam up” and not write freely and naturally when I know my work will be graded and affect my GPA. For the future, I want to work on the ability to write without worrying about the possible grade I will receive. Without these ethnography field notes entry, I might not have come to this conclusion or made this realization, and for that reason, I feel that this portion of the course was extremely helpful for me to learn more about myself as a writer.
To me, the Read Write Do (RWD) assignments each week sort of acted as a “central hub” where we were to practice various different tasks related to the course and improving our writing skills, whether it be reading certain essays and texts and filling in reading analysis templates (practice for reading summaries and essay), annotating various articles (close reading skills), grammar work and sentence structure (for cleaning up our essays), or simply peer reviewing our classmates work during the introductory rounds of our essay brainstorming and drafting.
REFLECTION:
After completing our RWDs, I felt that they were very beneficial to me because they all didn’t focus on one aspect of the course only, but instead included many different subsections with various ways of engaging the course material. I think that if we were to practice reading summaries early on in the course and then completely move away to a different topic, I would have slowly slipped out of the mentality of being clear and concise with my writing, which in turn would have hurt my essay. Similarly, if we had just touched on grammar and writing structure for a few classes and moved on, I think that my clarity in my final essay would not have been nearly as good as it is due to the RWDs. This is because of the nature of each RWD focusing on multiple different aspects of the course, so that we are constantly working on different skills that will help our writing, and are keeping them fresh in our minds each week, as well as reinforcing these skills through repetition and practice.
At the beginning of the semester, the commonplace books project was introduced as a space to simply get all of our thoughts from the week out onto paper, so that we can think deeply about them, analyze them, or even perform variations of “close readings” on certain passages or texts that stood out to us during the week. I think that the main aspect of the “Course Goals” that these commonplace books supported was the idea of writing as a means of exploring and inquiring. These weekly commonplace books gave us a space to foster our own curiosity and inquisitiveness to unpack and be more thoughtful about some of the texts, songs, ideas, shows, etc. that we had recently encountered. In the “Writing is…” Infographic for this course, one of the answers is “A reflective method for exploring, inquiring, and learning.” I think the reflective aspect of this response is perfectly fitting of the commonplace books project, as not only did these weekly responses encourage us to write down our thoughts from the week, but to reflect on them as well.
REFLECTION:
The commonplace books were probably my favorite of all of the projects we completed in class over this semester. I really enjoyed the “free-form” nature of these projects, as we were not stressed or required to format our thoughts in any certain way, but instead we were allowed to simply write what felt right. Some weeks I might have reflected on a book I was reading, and other weeks I was including song lyrics that stuck out to me, but either way I was able to simply write whatever thoughts I was thinking from that week. This was almost a peaceful experience for me to get some of the things I was thinking about out onto paper for me to reflect on. Not only was it a peaceful experience to express my thoughts, but I felt that I was also able to get much more out of these thoughts by going through them and analyzing them more deeply than I would have if they had simply stayed in my head and eventually been lost from my memory. I felt that this project had a similar feel to journaling for me, and I will definitely be incorporating aspects of these commonplace book entries into my life going forward.
Our “Project #4” of reading summaries was aimed to allow us to hone in our skills of reading a text and analyzing the information presented in order to write a clear, concise summary of the author’s argument. The main aspect of the question of “What is writing?” which was answered by our reading summaries was the concept of writing as a method of both analysis of information and the effective communication of this information. While we were not required to come up with our own arguments or ideas from the text to complete our reading summaries, these assignments did require us to use our own wording and form of communication to condense these various articles arguments into language that was easy to understand and interpret.
REFLECTION:
After completing the 6 total reading summary assignments this semester, I feel that they really have boosted my reading comprehension and analytical skills as they were designed to. The reading summary templates that we were introduced to throughout the course helped me to pare down my writing to only the most essential ideas of the article I had read. Also, going into each essay or article knowing that my goal was to consolidate the information into one or two key arguments, I felt that my reading was much more focused and efficient. These skills made writing my essay much easier, as I was able to incorporate many of the same templates and practices from my reading summaries into my analysis and body paragraphs analyzing Fish in my essay. Not only were these skills beneficial to me during my essay, but I feel that they will be useful to me in the future, whether it be when I am reading a current news article, or have to read another text for one of my future classes and need to cut out all of the excess information and get down to the heart of the text’s purpose. These reading summaries have allowed me to become both a more effective reader and clear writer.
Beginning our essay writing process, we were asked to utilize one of the writers that we have studied this semester, along with their ideas and views, to help us shape an argumentative essay with a separate topic. One of the goals of this essay was to get us to break down the fundamental concepts or teachings of the author/writer of our choosing, so that we could utilize these ideas to develop our own argument. One of the sticking points that I faced as I began writing my essay was understanding what I was supposed to be arguing about. I was confused as to whether I was trying to argue for my writer Stanley Fish’s ideas themselves, or to use Fish’s ideas simply as support for an unrelated argument. This confusion led my essay to lack a sense of unification, as some of my topic sentences seemed to be related to Fish’s arguments only, while others used Fish’s ideas in conjunction with my arguments about the GMO debate. During the writing process of my first draft, I received lots of great feedback from my classmates about the strengths of some of my body paragraphs, along with constructive criticism of some of my weaker paragraphs that needed work.
REFLECTION:
I have attempted to use Fish’s concepts as the lens to ready my essay through, rather than his ideas making up the essay itself. In my third and final draft, I refined my essay’s aim. Rather than oscillating between explaining Fish as my argument, and using fish to help supplement my own argument, I shifted my focus entirely to my own argument that the GMO debate is not making any progress, and then I simply used fish to support my thesis. This third shot at my essay really felt like things were starting to “click” in my mind. During the first two drafts, I seemed a bit conflicted on what the point of my essay was, but after completing my Draft 3.0, I feel that my argument is much more focused and my paper exhibits a cohesion that was not previously there. I am also proud of the fact that I have strengthened my essay by incorporating multimodal elements in my images. Professor Hoskins really pushed me to think about the “why?” of my essay. Rather than telling me what to focus on, his comments and advice on my drafts guided me through making this decision on my own. With each subsequent draft, I could see the small improvements in my writing coming together to create an essay that I am very proud of writing.
**Note that my final essay chose a different route than my 1 page draft, so the information discussed in this preliminary write up does not correspond to the material in my final paper**
In the work “Getting Rid of the Appearance-Reality Distinction” by Richard Rorty, I noticed that Rorty makes the insightful observation that reality is essentially ever changing, and mankind’s sense of reality correlates with our current knowledge and insights about the world around us. For example, as humans, we only can really associate the concept of “reality” with the current limits of our knowledge. In the present day, one may conclude that the reality is that the Sun is the center of our solar system, and that Earth and all the other planets revolve around it. In the fourth century, however, most would argue that the reality is that the Earth is the center of the universe. In a sense, all reality truly is is the knowledge of the world around us, with the “unknown” about our world being the limiting factor on a reality differing from our current reality. A connection I drew from this concept was a conversation that my chemistry professor and my classmates and I had last semester. We discussed the irony of how we currently feel so strongly about our ideas of reality, for example the fact that we believe protons and electrons are the smallest particles of matter in our world. This idea is OUR current reality, but the same cannot be said for previous generations, whose reality was that the atom was the smallest particle. We discussed the fact that it is humbling to think that one day, people will look back at our findings and theories, and laugh at the small scope of knowledge that we actually had, when at the time we currently think that we have it all figured out. It is safe to say that many years in the future, humans’ concept of “reality” will be much different than the concept of reality that we hold today. This work by Rorty was a bit complicated for me to understand, and I hope that I am at least grasping a portion of the point he is trying to make. What I took away from this piece of writing is that “reality” is not something that is set in stone forever, but instead changes and evolves over time as the knowledge of society adapts to the present day. This piece reminded me of the humbling conversation my classmates, chemistry professor and I had, discussing the fact that one day future generations will likely look back and laugh at the current knowledge, or reality, that we hold true about our world.
Digging Beneath the Soil: Fish’s Argument Views Applied to the GMO Debate
Today, one argument that is constantly being debated is the issue of genetically modified organisms, or GMOs. GMOs are organisms which have their DNA sequences modified in order to allow them to flourish, whether that be growing larger fruit, being more resistant to insects, cold temperatures, or any harmful environmental factors. An example of this would be frost-resistant corn. On one side of the debate are those in favor of these genetic modifications as they feel that they are safe for human consumption and will be able to more efficiently produce larger quantities of food to feed our world. The opposition to GMOs question the safety and health implications of consuming these modified organisms and are concerned about the potential environmental aspects to producing these crops. We are exposed to the opinions surrounding this argument in a variety of different spaces, from the bright “Organic non-GMO” signs we see walking through the grocery store, to “influencers”on social media telling us what we should and shouldn’t buy. Both sides of this argument are heated in their views. On the pro-GMO side, people will argue that modified foods have allowed us to produce more food and more efficiently. By integrating outside DNA sequences into crops, these crops can flourish without the potential pitfalls of crop yields getting wiped out by an insect infestation or a cold spell. These genetic modifications can also allow for the crops to grow larger and more plentiful than their unmodified counterparts. On the other hand, the anti-GMO group have warned that these modified crops could be subject to harmful mutations that are detrimental to your health and could cause potential dangers to the environment if these modified organisms were to spread in an uncontrolled manner. Will this debate ever be settled? Will there come a time where everyone will decide to unite their opinions under one common agreement? Apparently, both parties involved think so. While most people think that there is the possibility of the world one day achieving a state beyond argument in which everyone’s opinions are in harmony, Stanley Fish, in his Winning Arguments,claims that argument is foundational in our world, and no matter our best intentions, argument will prevail in our day to day lives. He writes, “For all intents and
purposes, and as far as we know or can know, we live in a world of argument.” (8). I will apply this idea to the conflicting views surrounding GMOs to understand why this GMO argument will never be resolved.
Non-GMO Advertisement in a Whole Foods Market
Instagram user @mamainstincts promoting non-GMO Halloween candy
Fish helps in supporting my argument that the GMO debate is simply spinning its wheels and will never come to a unified conclusion. In his Winning Arguments, Fish explains that “a state of universal agreement … is not something we mortals will ever achieve.” (1) In other words, . . . Fish explains that we cannot escape arguments because we all have our own unique perspective (1). He recalls a time when he entered an argument with his daughter about playing with the dachshunds at the dinner table, which could have gone on forever, because his daughter had a different perspective towards all of Fish’s rules (5). Fish reflects, “This could have gone on forever: she would have been able to recontextualize any supposedly hard-and-fast statement
I came up with in a way that altered its meaning and evaded its intended force.” (6).
Fish’s ideas come together to illustrate that no human has the ability to see things from a “big picture” standpoint, and because of individualized views, there will always come people with different perspectives to argue with others. The question then arises, where is the GMO debate going? Do members of either side of the argument really think that one of their statements or points will hit home to the opposition and cause a mass shift in sentiment? We must come to the realization that there will never be one “sole winner” in this argument. After doing so, we can then begin to move forward in making sure that we make GMOs as safe as we possibly can, while also providing plenty of options for those who are hesitant to consume the modified crops. To uncover the answer as to whether or not a winner to this debate will be crowned, we must examine both sides of the argument and break down the details into their fundamental concepts through the lens of Fish, as his ideas reveal whether or not each side of the argument is truly willing to hear the other’s argument, or if they are simply exchanging blows at this point.
Fish’s fear of overly persuasive language helps to identify the dangers of this languages’ effects to those uninformed in the GMO space (8). The anti-GMO group is concerned with the harm GMO’s may cause to humans and the environment. They warn against the risk of genetically modified seeds traveling to unforeseen locations and then cross-pollinating to create “superweeds” that threaten the outlook of other plants and animals (Debating Europe). Debating Europe, in its cross-section of the GMO debate, writes “…scientists say that GMOs have decimated butterfly populations in the United States…” . From Fish’s view, we need to beware of this persuasive, emotionally moving, or “eloquent” rhetorical language (14). Fish writes how while rhetoric is a good thing, we also must acknowledge the potential dangers, for example the ability for proficient speakers and communicators to use rhetoric to their advantage and to the demise of their opposition (8). More specifically, Fish writes, “Their common fear is the one expressed early on by Aristotle, that a sufficiently skilled speaker may make the worse appear the better and so turn humankind in the wrong direction” (13). Therefore, it is essential that the overly persuasive rhetoric from both sides of the GMO debate be reduced, so that outsiders may make an informed decision on their stance, based on fact and reason rather than fear or emotion.
In the case of the GMO debate, the phrase “decimated butterfly populations” is emotionally stirring, utilizing this rhetorical or hyperbolic language to enforce the anti-GMO argument (Debating Europe). This aspect of the anti-GMO argument contradicts the idea of utilizing language that is completely unbiased and objective, as Fish discusses. In his view, this contradiction is inevitable, as he says “We can disarm the siren songs of fascism and communism by hewing to a vocabulary that immediately registers them as nonsense. If only it were that easy.” (10). Fish writes about Orwell’s desire for a use of language that transcends argument, stating “So while Orwell is right to link the deployment of a polemical vocabulary to the assertion (and perhaps imposition) of a political vision, he is wrong to think that there is a vocabulary that embodies no political assumptions at all, a vocabulary that just tells the truth, a vocabulary that will, if we attach ourselves to it, allow us to escape angled seeing and thereby neutralize politics.” (10). In sum, then, Fish argues that there is no such way of detaching language from any and all bias and that no matter how hard we try, our words will always carry our own personal viewpoints to some extent. The pro-GMO side is not opposed to using this persuasive rhetoric in their own arguments either. From the Cornell Alliance for Science, the argument for genetically modified organisms uses the term “halo-effect” when describing the benefits of using insect-resistant corn. Just as Fish argues, we humans will never be able to fully remove all persuasive and unbiased phrasing from our language. With this in mind, we can first acknowledge or address these biases and opinionated viewpoints within our language to better communicate our thoughts and ideas with one another. In terms of the GMO debate, we can cut through the opinions and emotional language of each side in order to evaluate the facts, instead of being misled by over-the-top warnings, or the downplaying of certain risks.
Fish’s viewpoints of bounded argument spaces and constraints provide additional insight into why the GMO debate will continue to stay unresolved (“Political Arguments” 15). Understanding these concepts can help us outsiders not grouped into this argument space to figure out what the implications of GMOs versus non modified organisms mean to us, and how this debate affects our own lives, so that we can take from it what we choose and do not have to continue to stay wrapped up in the argument. To Fish, a bounded argument space is a place for argument in which all sides know what is acceptable to use in their arguments and what “just won’t fly,” in his words (“Political Arguments” 15). For example, Fish explains that in politics, it might be acceptable to try and talk down about your opponent, or insult their character, while exhibiting these behaviors in any other space of argument would be considered crossing the line completely. For example, Fish writes “Before, one could invoke moral principles and have them determine legal arguments. Now moral principles are out and liberal principles—fairness,
In a courtroom, you would lose all credibility if you tried to personally attack the other attorney, instead of focusing purely on fact and reasoning. Bounded argument spaces also tie into Fish’s view of constraints, in which members of these spaces are constrained to all of the minute intricacies and rules of their space’s argument (“Legal Arguments” 2). In “Legal Arguments” of his Winning Arguments, Fish writes “The existence of exceptions does not make the rules less strict, but more strict: the lawyer is not liberated by the exceptions, but further constrained by them because there are more things to remember and more ways to go wrong.” (2).In other words, . . . Therefore, . . . Just as attorneys may be held to certain constraints, so are members of the GMO debate, as any personal or non-scientific reasoning for or against GMOs must be left at the “doorstep” before entering into debate with others.
In the GMO argument space, members of either group are constrained to backing all of their claims with scientific authority. Both anti-GMO and pro-GMO advocates cite various esteemed researches, scientific studies, and well known organizations to back their claims. If these scientific arguments are confusing or irrelevant to the average consumer, listening to either side cite various scientific journals will not provide you with any meaningful takeaways. Just a few lines I’ve gathered from both sides of the debate from the Cornell Alliance for Science supporting my assertion are: “Recently, a meta-analysis of 20 years of data found that…”, “The USDA Pesticide Data Program reported…”, and “According to British agricultural researcher Davide Bulgarelli…” (Cornell Alliance for Science) It is clear that in the academic bounded argument space in which the GMO debate resides, credible authoritative figures, organizations, or data samples are key to an argument that is taken seriously. Arguers are constrained to staying within these confines, just as we saw in Fish’s argument.
Two final concepts of Fish: interpretive communities and rhetorical authorities, help understand how GMO detabers discuss genetically modified organisms, as well as why they feel their claims are valid. If we are able to understand the backing behind the arguments laid out by each side, we are better equipped to make our own opinions about the topic without being swayed by certain biases or “cherry-picked” information. The first concept, of interpretive communities, is important in understanding the ongoing GMO debate. This term coined by Fish attempts to describe a group of people who due to their backgrounds, experiences, and expertise, have all come to live by certain norms that are widely accepted in their circle of competence (“Academic Arguments” 1). In Fish’s words from his “Academic Arguments”, he eloquently describes an interpretive community as being “made up of those who, by virtue of training, experience, and practice, have internalized the norms of some purposive enterprise—law, education, politics, plumbing—to the point where they see with its eyes and walk in its ways without having to think about it.” (“Academic Arguments” 1) The key here is that those in an interpretive community do not need to consciously choose to think a certain way; rather, it is simply ingrained into their behavior. Returning To the debate of GMOs, then, this particular interpretive community includes people like scientists, doctors, researchers, PhDs, environmentalists, or simply an individual well versed in science. Those arguing for or against GMOs all do so having already internalized the various norms in the scientific community. To an outsider, it may sound ridiculous to hear some of the terms and phrases that are used so casually. Anti-GMO proponents will exclaim that the use of pesticides for GMO crops is “harming the soil microbiome”, while those in favor of the modified plants will refute that GMO crops can be used to “accelerate their rate of photosynthesis.” (Cornell Alliance for Science) Without applying Fish’s concepts, someone less versed in these types of scientific jargon would be baffled at what is going on in the GMO debate, and wonder if the two sides are just trying to use intimidation tactics by using complex language. When we look at this scenario through the lens of Fish, we soon realize that for those engaging in argument, these phrases and concepts are second nature to them, and they do not think twice about them. This is not because they are smarter than the rest of us, but simply because they are all a part of the same interpretive community.
One final concept pertaining to the argument that Fish explains is the idea of “rhetorical authorities”. He talks about the strange paradox of how authority is created. Fish feels as though the only authorities we have on earth are rhetorically created, and that “absolute authority exists only in a heaven we may hope someday to see…” (8) With this being the case in Fish’s mind, how can we judge the authorities in the GMO argument? Why do those focused on this issue feel that certain studies, scientists, or organizations have authority in this field? Has there been a universal acceptance of these figures, have we rhetorically shaped them? People utilize doctors, researchers, PhD’s, and the like in order to bolster their arguments. Yes, these figures have proven themselves through the means of higher education and academic achievements. But one could argue, who decided that completing extra years of schooling causes you to become more credible? This cycle could be repeated over and over again, which is why Fish argues that there are no absolute authorities in our world. For that reason, humans will always argue. We all cannot come to a mutual agreement as we all look to different rhetorically created authorities among us. Coming from Fish himself, we must accept that “argument is everywhere, argument is unavoidable, argument is interminable, argument is all we have” (2).
Works Cited
“Arguments for and against GMOs.” Debating Europe, www.debatingeurope.eu/focus/arguments-gmos/#.YD_dpGhKhnI.
Fish, Stanley Eugene, “Winning Arguments: What Works and Doesn’t Work in Politics, the Bedroom, the Courtroom and the Classroom” (2016). Faculty Books. 9.https://ecollections.law.fiu.edu/faculty_books/9
“The GMO Debate.” Alliance for Science, 2018, allianceforscience.cornell.edu/blog/2018/08/the-gmo-debate/#:~:text=In%20summary%2C%20GMO%20crops%20can,promote%20and%20reduce%20chemical%20use.
Tk. “How Influencer Campaigns Create Social Media Buzz and Authentic User-Generated Content.” May Media Group, 8 Jan. 2019, maymediagroup.com/2018/02/influencer-campaigns-case-study/. “Viewpoint: Non-GMO Marketing Takes Advantage of Misinformed Consumers.” Genetic Literacy Project, 9 Jan. 2019, geneticliteracyproject.org/2019/01/10/viewpoint-non-gmo-marketing-takes-advantage-of-misinformed-consumers/.
For my final entry of our Ethnography Field Notes Assignment, I wanted to discuss a written homework assignment for my Problem of God course, which fulfills part of my theology requirement here at Georgetown. In this particular assignment, we were asked to read a portion of Saint Augustine’s “Confessions”, and answer some analysis questions from the text, as well as to relate the passage’s ideas to our own lives. As in my fifth field notes entry, this form of writing required multiple different conventions. On one hand, I had to use an analytical style of writing, as I was asked to answer certain questions about concepts I had learned from the reading. On the other hand, I also had to utilize more of an introspective approach to my writing as the second portion of the assignment was for us to relate these concepts to our own lives. The stakes were not too high for this assignment, as it would be getting graded, but would only count to our participation portion of our grade. My writing aimed not only to answer the given questions, but to think about what parallels I could make from Augustine’s experiences to my own. In terms of feedback, I will not be receiving any acute feedback on this one assignment itself, as I only will receive a grade for my overall completion of assignments. Overall, I felt very thoughtful during this writing. It took a lot of thought and consideration to think back to past moments in my life where I had maybe been feeling similarly to Augustine in that certain passage of the book. Overall, this writing assignment was one that I enjoyed more than some of the other homework assignments we have been given in my theology class.
After writing about my 20 page research paper in my previous field notes entry, I thought that for my fifth entry it would be nice to discuss a more informal and relaxed form of writing in my life. For this entry, I am going to be talking about a text that I sent to my Uncle Mike. He works for Rothman Institute for orthopedics, and currently I am on the “pre-med” track in college, and am hoping to be able to shadow some of the doctors working at Rothman this summer. I texted him just last week, following up on a conversation we had about me going into the facility a few times a week to shadow doctors, get to observe in the operating room, and things like that. In terms of the conventions required for this form of writing, I had to utilize both formal and informal styles, as I was talking to a family member and could be a bit informal, but I also had to write professionally as we were discussing a serious topic. There were not any large stakes for this text, as we had already discussed this opportunity earlier so we both knew that we were going to try and work something out. This writing obviously aimed to follow up our in person conversation, and start to figure out the logistics of this summer volunteering/shadowing experience. During this form of “writing”, I was much more relaxed than I would be if I were writing something like a paper or essay for a school assignment. I was also excited as such an opportunity to spend some time at Rothman is very exciting to me.
For my fourth entry in my Ethnography Field Notes Project, I am going to discuss my writing in the form of my 20 page end of year research paper for my class on US and Southeast Asian Relations. I started writing this paper on March 9th, so it has been over a month since I began the writing process. In terms of the conventions required for this writing, it is a very structured and facial research paper. This form of writing is much more rigid and formal than other essays or papers I have had to write in the past. For example, in high school I was used to writing persuasive essays and personal narratives, where elaborate descriptions and long winded explanations are rewarded. In this paper, however, I am required to mainly stick to facts and limit my personal views. For this paper, what is at stake is 40% of my grade in the course, and for that reason I feel quite anxious and on edge whenever I sit down to work on it. My paper is for my professor to read and assign a grade for, and what my paper specifically aims to do is to analyze the economic relationship between the US and Southeast Asia under Obama’s presidency. My paper is not due until May 3rd, and I am only about halfway done writing it, so no feedback has come my way quite yet. I am eager to finish this paper within the next few weeks, And hopefully I will receive a grade reflective of all of the hard work I have put into my writing!
