In her article “Pandemics are not war,” Alyssa Wilkinson writes about the use of war as a metaphor for pandemics. The author argues that it is unfair to view pandemics as a force of terror rather than a disease that spreads rapidly and affects the lives of many citizens (Wilkinson, 2020, para. 7). The article talks about the current rhetoric of political leaders talking about the pandemic. Among other things, Wilkinson quotes Trump referring to the virus as an invisible enemy (Wilkinson, 2020, para. 11). By focusing on the word “war,” people are brainwashed that there are supposedly winners and losers, which inevitably leads to the division of society (Wilkinson, 2020, para. 19). Furthermore, the politician’s point of view is that the first priority should be to help people prevent the spread of the virus. This requires serious security measures to be taken before it spreads quickly and causes many deaths.
Her article mainly sheds light on how the coronavirus affects the entire country. This is a relevant issue because political leaders are simply manipulating people. The consequence is that there is a focus on winning rather than immediate intervention. Some people agree because this devastating virus has claimed countless lives. According to the agenda, those with strong will and immune systems are the winners, while the weak are the losers (Wilkinson, 2020, para. 19). However, this view fails to take into account many other factors, such as inequalities in access to health care. As mentioned in the article, “This virus does not discriminate. It strikes everyone, and it strikes everywhere” (Wilkinson, 2020, para. 15) This is a critical statement to consider as it shows how the virus is different from the war.
The article is particularly timely now as news of new variants keeps surfacing. It also raises new questions about what will happen soon as people begin to resume their social activities. My concern is the potential for new variants of the virus to shut down the country for a second time. I agree with the author’s main point that using ‘war’ as a metaphor’ gives humans a way to envision how the world might exist. The forced need to live with the virus forces people to find ways to describe this new reality. However, using metaphors other than ‘war’ may be a way to shift the accepted paradigm and look at the pandemic from a different angle.
Fixing my pre-semester post made me think about how much I have been able to improve my writing skills over time. I can confidently say that I have learned to produce much more literate and exciting texts. I started editing with the basics – some grammatical errors needed to be corrected. My mistake was not double-checking what I had written several times. Perhaps this would have allowed me to avoid grammatical inconsistencies and punctuation errors. Certainly, I did this quite quickly, but while I was getting rid of errors in the way the sentences were put together, I realized that their very structure needed to be corrected as well.
Every writer knows that it is difficult for readers to focus on a text consisting of long sentences. Moreover, it is often the case that a thought can be expressed with just a few words. The piling up of several speech structures in a single sentence can make some particularly picky readers think that authors cannot summarize their idea. This means, in their opinion, that writers have little idea of what they are writing about. I do not think one should test readers’ patience without the need for it. Using this logic, I have shortened some long sentences, replacing them with briefer ones. I was happy with the result – the text began to look more fluid and clear right away. Speaking of fluidity, there was not enough of it in the original version of my post.
I noticed that the sentences in my initial post were loosely connected — they all seemed to be excerpts from different parts. Using introductory words and changing the sentence structure allowed me to solve this problem. The output was a completely different text, in which one thought flows seamlessly into another. In addition, it seems that I was able to maintain a balance between the author’s position and my vision of the problem. In the new version of the post, I added more of Alyssa Wilkinson’s arguments so that readers would have a better idea of the essence of the text. Ultimately, I do believe that as time has passed, my writing skills have improved.
I structure my writing process in a step-by-step manner so that I can create coherent and engaging texts. First, I create an overview that briefly outlines what each part will be about. Then I write a draft of the work, and at the same stage, I find suitable sources. This is followed by the editing stage, where I correct mistakes and format the resulting text according to standards. Rereading and making final corrections are the final stage. I think I need to master such elements of academic writing as critical thinking, because often the author’s position seems so convincing that I find it hard to argue with it.
Reference
Wilkinson, A. (2020). Pandemics are not wars. Vox. Web.