Please read through your author drafts carefully and give feedback using the following guidelines:

1. Narrative. As you read through the copy the first time, please indicate (highlight and/or underline) the strengths you discover in the writing: clarity, voice, prose flow, continuity between event and comments. In 50 or more words, what is the strongest feature of the author's copy based on the strengths.
2. Identify the event. Is there enough information at this stage of the writing process to clearly picture the event? Is there outside information required: dates, short historical background, an ongoing issue, etc.? Please indicate one area of potential expansion within the draft at this stage. In 25 to 50 words, address this on the author's copy.
3. Imagination. What kinds of creative devices are being used: figurative imagery, sense imagery, sound devices, analogy? Is there one or more of these the author seems to prefer? Please write your observations on the back of the draft. (50 words min.)
4. Education. After completing the first three directives, what have you learned from the beginning of the author's paper? (50 words min. on the back of the draft)
5. Suggestions. Offer the author two specific points of constructive feedback regarding their work. Review the paper and write a paragraph of no less than 100 words indicating positive possibilities for your author. (Intelligent heart)
6. Back read. Read through the draft and mark any potential spelling errors or grammatical issues you can find. Congratulate the author for a job well done.

Fire, Fire, Burning Bright

The first amendment in the constitution of the United States of America is one of the most important parts of what makes America's government so unique. The first amendment works to provide protection for our ever loved "freedom of speech" that we have the privilege of having. What it does is outline rules for law making where no laws can made where they infringe upon one's ability to establish and practice the religion of their choosing, ability to communicate in all manners what they want to say, and one's right to assemble and petition the government. Many countries throughout the world do not have a specific amendment or something similar to America's first amendment, which doesn't grant them the freedom to do many things. You can look at countries like North Korea as an extreme example where freedom of speech is not present. In countries like that you can be imprisoned for speaking out against the government, having media that isn't allowed, and for practicing certain religions. Even just having a book that is not on an approved list can land you prison time in some countries, which is what makes the first amendment so special, that we get the freedom to read what genre we want, when we want, from the authors that we want.

When it comes to someone's freedom to read books, I feel like this would readily agree upon that it shouldn't be infringed. No one should have the ability to restrict or ban a book, anywhere in this world. We live in a day and age where we have the blessing of abundant ways to learn about anything. You could find a book covering almost any topic that you would like to learn about at a simple public library in your area. This freedom is worth more than many people can ever imagine, similar to how the second amendment is in relation to a citizen having a way to fight a tyrant government. This freedom, established by the first amendment, allows the country to be educated in what right doings and wrong doings their government has done. This freedom establishes people that can criticize their government and hold them accountable when they do wrong. An uneducated population that doesn't have the ability to speak out would be easier to govern, of course, but what kind of country does that build in the end? A country where everyone knows only what the government wants them to, no innovation from outside the box thinking, no imagination, no artistic endeavors. This is why no one should have the ability to restrict or ban a book in almost every circumstance that is possible.

Book burning is an act that I believe is protected by the first amendment, but not in the way that was demonstrated in Ray Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451, but rather where it could be done as a protest. Someone could burn any books that they would like, but other laws still govern the circumstances that this occurs around. You couldn't burn someone else's books, take their books, cause damage to other property while burning, etc. If you wanted to throw a book you had about almonds into a fire, in protest of almonds, then you would have every right to do so. On the other hand, though, taking someone's cookbook because it has a recipe with almonds in it and burning it would not be protected. Book burning is a first amendment right, but only to a certain extent, where it does not infringe upon others' rights as a citizen and simply a person. When it comes to this it is all about the circumstances, the message you are trying to send with the action, and if you harm others in the process.

The bible being a restricted work is a tough situation to try and handle. On one hand, it is a religious text that is followed by millions of people in America alone. On the other hand, there are moments within the bible depicting very mature situations, where a child may not be ready to mentally process such. This is where I feel like it should come down to parenting and the necessity of parental approval to have the book. This should not be the case with many books, but there are plenty of books, both fiction and non-fiction, that depict dire situations that don't always end up in a happy ending. I feel like anyone should be allowed to read it, but it has to be understood that the person should be of reasonable psychological development where they can process what's being said and the message it shares. Religious texts, in my opinion, fall under a category where anyone should be able to read it, but parental approval until age 13 may be a good choice to help the child, but not restrict their overall access too long.

I feel like 100% of written material offends someone in at least one way, majorly or minorly. The world is a massive place, with most people having never seen even 1/100^th of it. To try and write something that would please all cultural and societal formalities across the globe would be impossible. There would always be someone who doesn't like how something happens, doesn't believe that this could happen, thinks that it was something else, etc. This is a part of what makes writing so beautiful though, that people understand something or their imagination surrounding something is so variable and different from each other. It is this that leads us to having a wide variety of people throughout the world that all have so much to offer in so many different ways, because we write. Eventually, the world will become one large melting pot, where we have this huge abundance of mixed cultures and societies that provides us with the best of everything, but with that also comes the people who get offended by others.

The world needs to have the ability to share information, whether this is writing, video, live audio or video, etc. The first amendment being established in America is part of what has made this country so innovative and successful. In the world everyone should have the ability to practice the religion they want, read and learn what they want, the ability to criticize people and their government, and most importantly the right to be themselves. Without the first amendment people become simple molded creatures that don't know what they don't know and can't think about things that they don't fully understand. Book burnings have happened in the past and with that we only see tragedy come in the end. Literature is one of the driving forces that has allowed humans as a whole to advance to the point that we have been. Information should not be restricted or banned in any situation, people should be able to do what they want with their property, and the world should realize their way of thinking and life will not please everyone. If these things were able to come into fruition, I think we would see a very different looking world 25 years from now, with a very positive effect on the growth of the human race.