Knowledge Gained from the Initial Assignment

        One of the first major assignments given to the class was a prompt that asked the students to analyze the message and significant choices done by Tom Godwin in his “The Cold Equations.” The class would then describe these decisions and relate it back to Judith Merril’s definition of speculative fiction. Another source that the class had to work with was Vint and Bould’s “There is No Such Thing as Science Fiction;” in the article, the two authors analyzed the perspectives of many other science fiction critics that presented their point of view regarding Tom Godwin’s message. Overall, the essay could have improved greatly through the expansion of the analysis and further details but I am still satisfied with the quality of the sentence structure and the vocabulary choice regarding the essay. 

        As I began exploring the many ideas I had about the prompt, I found myself rambling about nonsensical detail, hoping to find a hidden connection that would tie my analysis to Judith Merril’s definition of speculative fiction. I looked at Godwin’s decisions regarding gender, space, and the immutable laws of physics before I started writing my exploratory draft. I continued to write until I found that defining moment that would detail the thesis of my actual essay.

        With the help of a fellow classmate during the writing workshop, she pointed out a sentence that stood out to her. After looking at it more closely, I noticed that I have finally found the sentence that I would use as my thesis and would become the focal point for my entire response. I decided to discuss the cruelty of the human laws that governed the space frontier in hopes to show that the gender of Marilyn Cross did not matter and the fact that space was a dangerous place that did not show any bias to anyone.

        After comparing the two theses, once again, I confirmed my decision to choose the one I felt to be stronger, the one that portrayed my message more clearly. Previous theses that I have written usually listed out the facts and the topics I would discuss in my paper. The thesis would basically outline the entire paper and message in one sentence. On the other hand, the new thesis portrayed what I believed to be the message was and introduced the topic of conversation without revealing the details of my paper. I avoided surface level thesis I often turned to that would introduce the three points that I would argue and the purpose of Godwin’s story.

        One detail that I was proud of myself for doing was deciding to follow my instinct and write a piece that would challenge the popular notion that Marilyn Cross’s gender influenced the message presented by Tom Godwin in his short story, instead of conforming to the fact. I set out to counter the idea by trying to think of a scenario where the same sympathetic feeling would be emitted by the readers. For that to occur, I decided to change the character portraying Marilyn Cross into a young innocent boy. As I continued to write about it, I began formulating a stable foundation of evidence. Although in the end, some of the details failed to fully support my position, I was still satisfied that I took the risk to travel beyond the comfort zone and tried to argue against a popular fact.

        After rereading my paper once again for the reflection, it became very apparent how surface level the ideas presented in my paper were. I simply stated a fact, described the fact, and provided a one or two sentence analysis of the evidence. I failed to bring in my own voice and expound on how the decision the author made affected the message of the story. I could have greatly improved the paper if I expanded more regarding Marilyn Cross’s gender not mattering and avoiding stereotyping to present my viewpoint. For future papers, I should aim to write sentences within the same complexity as the thesis in this paper; I should avoid listing out the facts that the reader will eventually encounter from reading the paper. Every sentence should provide meaningful insight instead of a restatement of the same information presented in the previous sentence.