The short story, "Writing About General Apache," seems like a very pointless reflection piece. Obviously it covers a story about someone's experience but it doesn't seem like something that matters to a lot of people. It's more of an expression piece that the author produced. However, the one thing that the author leads to is that he becomes a better writer when he learns what stimulates his students. In other words, once he understands his students, he can write about them with a better quality. This article does a decent job on setting the scene and descriptions of events, but in relating it to the reader is where it lacks. Besides the one sentence claiming how the author writes quality work after understanding his student, it becomes a so what sentence. I want to know what happens before, during, and after the process, not just some little quick story to tide the reader over. I want details on what the author was going through and what he thought his student was going through. Then talk about how he was right or wrong, or if his view of the student, writing or anything else changed.

"Simplicity" is a hypocritical article. It claims that writers write in a confusing manner. It tells of how authors use big words that confuse the reader. According to the article we need to simplify our writing, bold words for an article that also struggles with long drawn out sentences and big vocabulary. A better article might be the words, "We write too much. We need to take out unnecessary aspects that impede the topic." I just summed up an entire article on simplicity in two sentences. That's the type of writing that should be done according to the article. It has great examples to back up its thesis, but no practice. The author even states that the reader may be too lazy to finish. An improvement would be to have one concise paragraph about the readers habits and continue on to why it's important to write with simplicity. This article was meant for writers in the first place, not for readers.