Eportfolio

My name is Pratham Pokkula. I am a freshman from Troy, Michigan studying Finance and Business Analytics and this portfolio collects the writing I did in W131 over the course of the semester. Writing has never really been my strongest subject, so a lot of what you will see here is me figuring things out as I go.

This portfolio has four main sections. The first is my Reading as a Lens essay, where I compared Sylvie Kim's essay about Spam to Marjane Satrapi's Persepolis to think about identity. The second is my Inquiry-Based Research Essay on the Battle of Stalingrad. The third is my Creative Remix Project, where I turned that research paper into a podcast episode. Each section includes a revised draft and a reflection on what I changed and why.

My main goal with this portfolio is to show that I actually learned something this semester. Not just about writing rules, but about how to think through a piece of writing and make real choices. If you read through this, I hope it's clear that each project got better from draft to final version, and that I have some understanding of why the changes I made mattered.

Project 1: Reading as a Lens

Reflection

When I first wrote this essay, the main goal was to use Sylvie Kim's piece about Spam as a way to look at Marjane Satrapi's Persepolis more closely. The assignment asked me to use one text as a lens for another, which felt confusing at first. I was not sure how to connect a food essay to a memoir about the Iranian Revolution.

Here is what I figured out during revision: the connection was never really about food or Iran. Both texts are about how outside forces, like society, history, and culture, shape who you think you are. Once I understood that, the essay came together better.

One of the bigger changes I made was in how I introduced my sources. In my first draft, I was just dropping in quotes without much setup. My instructor pointed out that the reader needed more context before hitting a direct quote. So I revised to make sure I was actually explaining what the quote was doing for my argument, not just proving I read the text.

I also worked on my transitions. The original draft jumped between Kim and Satrapi pretty abruptly. In revision, I tried to slow down and connect the ideas more clearly so the reader could follow my thinking. Instead of just saying 'Satrapi also shows this,' I tried to say what specifically she shows and how it connects to what Kim was arguing.

The conclusion was another area I changed. My first draft just summarized the essay, which my instructor said was too repetitive. The revised version tries to say something about why any of this matters, not just what I covered. I think that made the ending feel more complete.

If I had more time, I would have worked more on the opening paragraph. I still think it does not do enough to pull the reader in. But overall, this revision helped me understand that revision is not just fixing grammar. It is actually rethinking how your ideas connect.

Revised Essay

In Sylvie Kim's essay 'The End of Spam Shame', Kim talks about processed meat, specifically Spam, and how it is an examination of how a person's identity is constructed through class, race and U.S. imperialism. At first, it may appear that Spam is nothing more than a food item, but Kim demonstrates that its weight is heavy, layered with culture, history and power.

With personal anecdotes and historical examples in 'The End of Spam Shame', the essay demonstrates how everyday actions that affect Asian Pacific American identity, such as eating, are shaped by a society influenced by imperialism and assimilation. Kim demonstrates that stigma does not involve items like Spam on its own. Instead, society creates it through cultural ideas that cause some people, foods, and cultures to be seen as having less value.

Kim begins with her own experiences. Processed meats, she explains, are 'inexpensive, easy to heat, and lasting nearly forever, essential for a family of five with immigrant parents who are struggling financially' (Kim). This shows how food of a lower cost is associated with class and race, since people's finances influence their eating habits. And the issue goes beyond poverty. According to Kim, 'Between about sixth grade and age 23, I had to eat my Spam in private,' and that Spam has become 'synonymous with poverty or trashiness in American pop culture' (Kim). This suggests that shame is tied to the way society views poverty. The actual food does not change, but its significance does to the person eating it. This means that identity is also shaped by society: Spam is not shameful on its own, but what you are taught about it changes how it is understood.

Race also influences the societal stigma associated with Spam. Growing up in a predominantly white neighborhood, cultural practices for Asians were already 'conspicuous enough,' Kim explains, so there was high risk of being ridiculed (Kim). Not only did she hide her love for Spam, she tried to hide her Korean heritage. This was a 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy on discussing my Korean heritage' (Kim). This shows that people can be silent about some aspects of themselves in order to fit in. What goes unsaid can be just as powerful as what gets said.

A useful way of understanding this is through the memoir Persepolis by Marjane Satrapi. Satrapi writes about having been raised in Iran during the Revolution, and demonstrates how she was shaped by political and social factors. As Satrapi points out, 'the veil was a symbol: a mark of difference between those who conformed and those who did not' (Satrapi 36). Like Kim, Satrapi shows that people adapt their behavior to escape stigma. The veil, much like Spam, is not bad in and of itself. Its meaning is rooted in society. Both authors stress that people must wrestle with social pressure to hold onto their identity.

Spam became so popular in Korea and the Pacific because of the American military. Spam was given to civilians in Korea during the war's recovery, and foods like budae jjigae, or 'army base stew,' were invented (Kim). Persepolis shows something similar. Satrapi describes the way war and government regulations determined what people could consume, look like, and do (Satrapi 48). In either case, identity is tied to history and the routine of everyday life. The things people use and consume hold significance and influence how they see themselves.

The American view of Spam is that it is low class, while in other countries it is considered valuable. According to Kim, 'the nations that cherish and consume Spam the most are those that have been occupied or annexed by the U.S. and still host American military bases today' (Kim). Satrapi also illustrates how children and teenagers were pushed to conform to revolutionary principles, with their personal identities taking a hit as a result (Satrapi 62). Both texts show that identity is not something you are born with. It is formed by what society and history tell you about who you are.

Spam also serves as a reminder of history that has a lasting impact on identity. For Asian Pacific Americans, eating Spam represents 'layers of overlapping histories, migrations, and cultural changes,' Kim quotes Robert Ji-song Ku (Kim). According to Satrapi, identity is developed through the things that people do, such as what they eat, wear, and how they behave in society (Satrapi 101). Kim reflects that 'food is a form of identity, and to have that identity stifled in the name of racial, cultural, or class assimilation is pure nonsense' (Kim).

When looking at both of these texts together, the point becomes clear: identity is not just a personal thing. It is built by society, history, and culture, not by choice alone. Kim's essay shows how identity works through everyday life through acts like eating, while Satrapi's memoir shows the political and social forces that do the same thing. Together, they argue that identity takes its shape across generations of history and cultural pressure.

Project 2: Inquiry-Based Research Essay

Reflection

This essay started as a pretty straightforward research paper about the Battle of Stalingrad. My original question was: how did Soviet strategy and Hitler's leadership decisions shape the outcome of the battle, and why does it matter for the war as a whole? I wanted to answer that in a way that actually explained things, not just listed facts.

One piece of feedback I got was that my transitions between sections felt too abrupt. The essay jumped from Soviet strategy to Hitler's leadership without much connection between them. In revision, I added a sentence or two at the start of the Hitler section to remind the reader what we had just talked about and how it connected to what was coming next. It sounds small, but it made the argument feel more like one coherent piece instead of two separate reports stapled together.

I also tightened up my introduction. The original version was vague and spent too long setting up the general history of World War II before getting to my actual argument. The revised version gets to the thesis faster. Here is the thing with research essays: the reader needs to know what you are arguing before they can care about the evidence you are giving them.

Another change was in how I used primary sources. My first draft mentioned Wilhelm Hoffmann's journal entry but did not really unpack it. In revision, I made sure to explain what that quote showed about the larger situation. Same with the radio message from General Paulus. I had the quote in there, but I did not connect it clearly enough to my point about Hitler's stubbornness causing the German decline.

My conclusion also went through changes. The original just summarized the body paragraphs. The revised version tries to connect the battle back to the bigger question of how leadership affects military outcomes, which felt more like a real conclusion than a recap.

If I could go back, I would try to find one or two more primary sources from the Soviet side to balance out the German accounts I used. The essay leans a little heavily on German voices, which makes sense for talking about failure, but a Soviet perspective would make the argument stronger.

Revised Essay

World War II was a gruesome battle between the Axis and the Allied powers. Beginning with the invasion of Poland, the Nazi army looked unstoppable, with multiple victories in Russia and France. That changed at the Battle of Stalingrad. Fought between 1942 and 1943, this battle is arguably one of the most crucial of World War II, marking the slow decline of the Nazi army and the Soviet army's revival. The two sides were the Soviet Union and Germany. Adolf Hitler and the Nazis aimed to capture the city of Stalingrad, now known as Volgograd, because of its symbolic importance and its strategic location on the Volga River. This was a brutal, urban battle that tested both sides and their leadership. This essay examines the strategies the Soviet army used and how Hitler's poor decisions led to Russia's victory. By looking at urban warfare tactics, unexpected conditions, and last-second choices, the goal is to answer: how did these factors shape the outcome, and why was Stalingrad the turning point of the war?

One of the main reasons the Soviet Army succeeded was their deliberate strategic planning and knowledge of their own terrain. After losses in Odessa and Sevastopol, the 62nd Army and General Vasilii Chuikov were determined to shift things. According to David Stone's article 'Stalingrad and the Evolution of Soviet Urban Warfare,' the 62nd and 64th armies changed how they defended the city. Instead of protecting the outskirts where the Wehrmacht could operate at full strength, they decided to fight for the streets themselves. Defending the city block by block kept German forces in close quarters and prevented them from using their full mechanical power. The Soviets used their knowledge of the terrain to place anti-tank guns and ammunition from building to building, room by room. But this came at a cost. Supplies ran out fast, and talk of retreating spread through the ranks. Stalin responded with Order 227, which stated 'Not one step back.' The message was clear: the Soviet Army would exhaust every resource before letting the Germans take the city. That commitment paid off. The Soviets transformed Stalingrad into a symbol of Nazi decline.

On the other side of the battle, things were falling apart for the Germans, and Hitler was making it worse. His plan to take Stalingrad was an aggressive push, similar to what he had tried before with Operation Barbarossa on June 22, 1941. That operation attempted to defeat the USSR in two to three months and failed, partly because of Hitler's underestimation of Soviet resilience and the onset of Russian autumn. But Hitler did not learn from it. At Stalingrad, he repeated the same approach: charge straight in and expect a fast victory. The well-prepared Soviet Army forced the Germans into a war of attrition instead, a long grinding battle where both sides depleted their resources. This is exactly what the USSR wanted. A German soldier, Wilhelm Hoffmann, described the reality in his journal: 'The soldiers look like corpses or lunatics. They no longer take cover from Russian shells; they haven't the strength to walk, run away and hide.' The Soviets had drained the Germans of almost everything, including the will to fight. In a situation like that, retreating or calling for more supplies would have been the smart move. But Hitler refused.

Obsessed with the strategic importance of Stalingrad, Hitler overruled his generals and ordered the army to hold the city at any cost. The Soviet forces launched Operation Uranus in November 1942, encircling the German Sixth Army and cutting off all supply lines. General Friedrich Paulus sent Hitler a desperate radio message: 'Effective command no longer possible... Collapse Inevitable... Army requests immediate permission to surrender in order to save lives of remaining troops.' Hitler refused, claiming the Luftwaffe would supply the troops from the air. That plan failed badly. Little to no supplies made it through, and German soldiers suffered through a brutal winter with no food, medicine, or adequate clothing. Many died of frostbite, malnutrition, and exhaustion. Hitler's stubbornness and obsession with holding Stalingrad at all costs destroyed what was left of the Sixth Army. Paulus surrendered on January 31, 1943, and the remaining forces gave up on February 2, ending the battle with catastrophic German losses.

In the end, the Battle of Stalingrad came down to smart leadership versus stubbornness. The Soviet Army's knowledge of the terrain, the discipline enforced by Order 227, and the success of Operation Uranus gave them the edge. Hitler's refusal to adapt, learn from past failures, or listen to his generals did the opposite. The battle resulted in an estimated 1.7 to 2 million casualties on both sides. The Axis lost approximately 650,000 to 800,000 troops, including 91,000 captured. The Soviet Army suffered close to 1.2 million losses, including 470,000 killed, making it one of the deadliest battles in history. If the Soviets had not held their strategic positions, or if Hitler had allowed a tactical retreat to preserve his army's strength, the outcome of this battle and the war itself could have looked very different

Project 3: Creative-Remix Project

Reflection

My Creative Remix Project was a podcast episode based on my Inquiry-Based Research Essay about the Battle of Stalingrad. The goal was to take the same historical argument from my research paper and present it in a way that felt more like a story than an academic essay. I wanted people who would normally skip a history paper to actually want to listen.

The original goals were to keep the key arguments intact, specifically the Soviet strategy and Hitler's leadership failures, while making the delivery feel more natural and conversational. I also wanted to use primary sources in a way that felt dramatic without being over the top. Hearing a direct quote from a dying soldier hits differently than reading a statistic.

One of the biggest challenges was deciding what to cut. A podcast episode has to move, and some of the detail in the research paper just did not work in audio form. For example, I cut a lot of the specific casualty numbers from the middle of the episode and saved them for the end, where they could land harder as a kind of final weight to the story. Dates and operational names also had to be simplified. Saying 'Operation Uranus' with context works fine in a paper, but in audio you have to make sure the listener understands what it means before you move on.

Between submitting the podcast and putting it in the portfolio, I went back and re-recorded two sections. The opening felt too flat and did not pull the listener in the way I wanted. I also re-did the section on Order 227 because I was rushing through it and the tone did not match how significant that moment was. The second take was slower and felt more intentional.

If I had more time and resources, I would have added ambient sound or background audio to specific parts of the episode. Silence can work well in a podcast, but a little texture during the descriptions of battle would have helped the listener actually picture what was happening. I also would have brought in an outside reader to deliver the primary source quotes, since having a different voice would have made those moments stand out more clearly from the narration.

This project taught me that the medium really does change the message. The same argument that worked in my essay required completely different choices when I moved it into audio. Knowing your audience and what format they respond to is just as important as knowing your material.

Project Description and Link

This project is a podcast episode that covers the Battle of Stalingrad, focusing on Soviet urban warfare strategy and Hitler's leadership failures. It uses narration, primary source quotes, and a chronological structure to tell the story of why this battle changed the direction of World War II.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8sj_i1LG8k8

Conclusion