Unfairly Forced to Rewrite

A paper, something you write on, and something you write. Of the many different kinds of paper, a particular one, the personal narrative, draws my attention the most. It’s a story in which you portray the person the story is based upon. We have all written one before, but recently I had to rewrite mine because my professor declared that it did not fit the requirements and parameters of the assignment. However, I completely disagree. My original personal narrative completely met the requirements; therefore, I should not have been required to rewrite it.

I wrote my narrative from the perspective of a clown. The story portrays how I decided to become an elementary education teacher. It details my life before Bellarmine, and talked about how it affected my decision to enroll for the fall semester of 2001. My paper discusses the trials and tribulations that I experienced as a clown.

The paper I wrote meets all the perspectives to be labeled excellent. The paper met the length requirements of 4-5 pages long. Contained a thesis statement, as well as an introduction and conclusion. The paper's detail and descriptive level deserved an excellent grade. It’s transitions allowed for an easy, non-choppy flow from one paragraph to another. The paper contained well-written sentences with excellent sentence structure.

The clown narrative had much more detail than the new paper. The opening paragraph to my clown story portrays this point perfectly. The opening paragraph to the two essays follows:

“Back then my day began as I heard the inevitable buzz of my alarm clock. Every day of my life seemed the same. I would get out of bed, go over to the closet and grab my day’s wardrobe. Then I would waddle over to the dresser holding my pants up over my waist until I could maneuver the suspenders in place. Next I proceeded back over to the closet. I reached in and grabbed the red shoes that always made my feet look five times larger than they really were. The last thing I took from my closet was always my wig. My hair was excessively fluffy then and many times it did not want to fit underneath the wig. But I never let that stop me; somehow I always managed to get it all tucked underneath the wig. Now I headed off to the bathroom to put on a face that many would recognize.”

“As we pulled into the parking lot of the Wal-mart I began to think that I should have taken my Aunt's joke seriously. My Aunt Judy, my Cousin Lesley, and myself walked into the store. The whole time I kept thinking she would not really go through with this. I was unbelievably embarrassed. I realized she was serious as we walked through the store heading for the bathroom. I also realized that I was not only a witness, but also an accomplice. Through out all the whole time we walked through the store it wasn’t until we actually reached the bathroom that I realized my aunt's seriousness about her decision to wash her hair in the Wal-mart bathroom.”

Compare those two opening paragraphs, which story do you want to continue reading? The first one, right? The first introduction has more detail and creates interest for the rest of the story. You can not wait to see what waits in the paragraph's that follow. The second one does not create the interest that the first one creates. If you can not stimulate interest for your paper, why bother writing the story?

I took a lot of time to writing a story I knew would keep peoples interest while meeting the requirements of the teacher. As we know the paper met all the original requirements; however, when I turned my paper in to my professor, additional requirements had been added. My professor told me to take out all of the “to be” verbs. This was not an easy task. I spent a lot of my nights meeting this additional requirement. I changed sentences like “Next it was off to the bathroom to put on a face that many would recognize” to “Now I headed off to the bathroom to put on a face that many would recognize.”

I did the same thing for my second narrative but the changes did not come through as affectively as the first one. For example, “As we pulled into the parking lot of the Wal-mart I began to think that maybe my aunt was not joking” was changed to “As we pulled into the parking lot of the Wal-mart I began to think that I should have taken my aunt's joke seriously.” The first paper can easily be seen as superior to the second one.

Although the narrative I wrote did not really happen to me, nowhere in the requirements of the paper does it say the narrative must be true. Most people assume that a personal narrative has to be due to the subject, you. However, as long as you portray the person in the narrative, the requirements of a personal narrative have been met. My paper should not have to be rewritten based on the true or falseness of my story. My narrative fit the guidelines and has something extra, creativity.

As a firm believer in thinking out of the box, I don’t see why a person should be penalized for it. Throughout life we need to take chances and be creative. To not be a follower, but to be a leader. I used my creativity, and am being penalized; consequently, I have to rewrite my paper. That’s hypocritical logic, and not very fair. How can you say express yourself through writing, but then not accept creative and different writing?

There are only so many events in a person’s life worth writing about. By the time you have entered college you have already written several narratives on most of them. This makes it difficult to write an exciting narrative about the same event. By creating a new story, a fictitious story, it made my life seem more exciting, and thus made for a better story. There was not nearly as much detail in the second essay and it was obvious that I did not enjoy writing it. The second paper fits the parameters and has all the requirements but it lacks the creativity and excitement that the original narrative had.

It could be said that I should have expanded on one of the narratives that I have already written. I wanted to write something new with excitement. Why repeat a story several times? Why write a story about something that you have already done several times? If the writer is not enjoying their assignment, it surfaces in the paper. No one wants to read something dull and boring, the byproduct of a bored writer. The little pieces that have been placed in this for argument sake shows that the first paper contains more feeling and emotion behind it.

While the first story I wrote does not represent fact, the outcome does, as well as the feeling behind it. My decision about my major came from what I wanted to be to children. There have been times in my life when I did not show the real me and had all the feelings expressed in the narrative.

The original paper can easily be determined as far more superior of a writing style than the second paper. It contained all the essential elements needed to fulfill the requirements of the paper. Whether the paper's story line was truth or false means nothing, an irrelevant fact. I thought out of the box, and caught on to the fact that a personal narrative does not have to be true and not one else did, I should be applauded, not penalized. I should not have had to rewrite the paper, based on the paper's truth. It was never stated that it must be true and two other requirements were met. Why should inventive thinkers in the world be punished for their ability to see around obstacles and think creatively? © buggo 2003