ENGL 298 B: Intermediate Writing Social Sciences   Autumn 2011, University of Washington

The first step I took to produce my draft was to brainstorm, to contemplate what it meant to write conversationally.  When I wrote my paper proposal, it was not at all what I actually wrote in the end, it entailed similar thoughts, but ultimately structurally it was entirely different.  The thesis that I wrote in my proposal was also different from the thesis I actually wrote.  This was because my original thesis was way too lengthy, it was too broad.  To sufficiently write a good paper on the thesis I had conjured would take up more paper than what was within my limit.  I had to change the thesis and in turn the entire plan for the paper itself.  I ultimately chose a thesis subject that was narrow enough write a good job on.  The thesis entailed whether it was just to die for the law or not, and I answered this question in my dialogue essay in two subsets, one being coercion, and the other stability.  Once I found out my thesis, the rest was easy.  The rest of the paper was bent on trying to write a good dialogue, from both perspectives and how one another would develop their character and carefully shape the content through their dialogue.  Through many edits and variations of the paper, I came to several themes that were constant, themes that were dialogue-esque.   These traits included development of character, clever exploitation of content, utilization of setting to exploit themes, and overall fluidity of conversation.  Ultimately, I think I did the best job I could, answering the question and staying true to the question of the thesis.