Song 1

Eunsung Song
UWRT 1102-26
Instructor: Fran Voltz
9 December 2015
Reflections
Given the challenge of reflective writing, the common course to follow is probably that
of identification, organization, analysis, and discussion of potential developments of past
significant events, ideas, or endeavors. The core exclusive purpose of addressing what has
already happened, by itself distinguishes reflective writing from some other kinds of writing (e.g.
narrative writing, and persuasive writing, when viewed in terms of the works objective rather
than execution). However, some (like myself) may understand reflective writing as almost
necessarily incorporating a personalized, self-oriented ties or views to past objects/elements. To
the end of self-discovery and its possible implications such as edification and extensive testing,
reflective writing can very well be justified and desired. To assign reflective writing as an
integral part of an academic curriculum is slightly more debatable, considering the current
system of education. In my opinion, the student choice or expectations in learning are not as well
met in the context of writing programs and communication studies compared to some other
fields. At times, it may take an active persuasive effort on the part of the administering party to
implement or maintain a generalized palette approach, particularly when dealing with
introductory writing courses. So then, it falls on the student to perceive and accept reflective
writing or any other type of writing, to which the student may initially have an adverse
disposition as having a nourishing or medicinal quality in attaining a clear, comprehensive
understanding of his/her world. As a personal takeaway from the UWRT 1102 course, I would
advise myself as well as my contemporaries to remember (as often as possible) that it is easy for
anyone to confuse what is pleasant or desirable with what is truly important.

Song 2
As part of the learning process, I was asked to conduct an Extended Inquiry Project.
From a connotative standpoint, the word Inquiry evokes a sense of open exploration, whereas
the term research paper leaves behind a stagnant impression. It seems inquiry, much like in
reflective writing, reserves some room for personalization. As a matter of fact, the briefing
documents encourage the use of unorthodox formats and devices such as multimedia (as a source
of information and/or as a presentation vehicle), plays, filmed stand-up routines, and stories that
would boost the presenters arguments or findings. When faced with a research paper on the
other hand, the format of the output is predetermined without recourse a paper. Moreover,
the focus may rest entirely on the basic information being presented, untouched and
undeveloped.
My personal process of composing the extended inquiry project began with an in-class
writing assignment that required the design of mental maps. Although the initial process
demanded great bursts of intuitive output (which incidentally caused me to pause and founder
about in the vast sea of my insecurities for extended periods of time), I managed to follow the
lifeline of likes, interests, and proficiencies to arrive at a short list of potential project topics.
Despite prior difficulties in writing about relatively abstract concepts such as those pertaining to
music, I chose to direct my analysis on the topic of program music. The self-initiated task of
indicating the significance of program music was admittedly very challenging; the topic ended
up being too broad and ambitious, and throughout the entire development phase, no apparent
alternatives or corrective strategies were discovered. It felt quite awkward trying to narrow down
the focus without having to modify the title of the topic altogether. In retrospect, the presentation
may have been far more reasonable and effective by selecting a composer, and briefly allude to
the importance of program music based on his/her works. In my initial drafts of both the

Song 3
proposal and the inquiry essay, there were numerous ideas and subtopics. I was well aware that I
would have to abandon some of them. Structurally, the essay was originally supposed to contain
program-related samples that were categorized based on the fundamental musical concepts:
tonality, timbre, volume, rhythm, tempo, and melodic texture (e.g. intervals/distance between
notes). Further into the development however, a critical flaw was found in that all of the
examples, in fact, demonstrated a complex integration of each of the fundamental concepts
mentioned above. The framework of the essay had to undergo a major operation, but time (or the
lack thereof) no longer permitted a careful, contemplative approach to the laying of a new
foundation. Regrettably, the resulting product is now an unsettling hybrid monstrosity,
consisting of brief history-oriented paragraphs loosely linked with two musical analysis
accounts. With regards to the proposal, most of the details since the completion of the original
draft remain unchanged, as it is only meant to show the conceptualization process. The Prezi
aspect of the presentation simply reveals and explains five of the most influential sources
referenced in the final draft of the essay. In conclusion, while some elements were certainly a
pleasure to work with (e.g. conducting personal analyses on works created by Maurice Ravel and
Charles Valentin Alkan), the project as a whole seems to have failed in delivery due to numerous
difficulties caused by a vague thesis.
Irrespective of success or failure, quality and depth of thoughts underlying each work
have always been a concern of mine throughout the semester. Clear presentation of thoughts was
also a perpetual issue. Of the two major challenges (quality and clarity), improving on the former
was slightly more appealing to me during the early weeks of the course, but over time I have
come to appreciate and favor the latter. Oftentimes I found myself substituting and confusing
depth with complexity. While revisiting some of my old works, I realized that I have spent a

Song 4
great deal of time internalizing my creative problems, or trying to make the entries seem
professional or polished by using my own arbitrary standards. Sometimes, the struggle was
so severe that the final document seemed pretentious, or conveyed a message that was far from
what I truly wanted to communicate. From this revelation, I also began to suspect if I was
subconsciously afraid of facing criticism from others. I do not claim that I have overcome the
issue of what I would describe as self-reliant, isolationist writing, but I am now convinced that
peer editing can easily become the most valuable resource in the practice of writing.
My weaknesses in writing aside, I would credit my second journal entry (5-Minute
Meditation) as my best piece of writing. Best in this context does not refer to technical or
stylistic finesse. Rather, it is associated with how well the words serve as vessels for my
personal, uninhibited thoughts. As I have implied before, I am guilty of hiding behind a wall of
words. However, the second journal entry more than any of my other works unveils details
and streams of thought that I would normally refrain from discussing. In a sense, this work
reveals the most about who I am as a person. It is this vulnerability, by which, I will stand
unapologetically.
Frankly, I do not like being asked what grade I think I deserve. It is probable that gaps in
opinion would exist between self-evaluations and evaluations conducted by others. Some may
try to attribute grades based on how much effort was placed in completing a task. While this
would seem agreeable to those evaluating themselves, objective merit is also a standard that
should not be ignored. Beyond this, I have nothing to say.