<p>Yes, thanks for the critique. Perhaps you’d like to smash apart my other two essays too. :p</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>But they’re representative of the people that maintain my country’s authoritarianism! I don’t think autobiographies have to be constantly centred around the author at every page, necessarily; I was just trying to represent my country’s political climate (and “our national debate that shouldn’t be”). </p>
<p>Now that I read it from your perspective I can see how it is dry. This version is restructured differently too. (The Penn version didn’t start out that way.) What I also regret was trying to fit the crux of the whole conversation into one page. But I also didn’t take notes from the conversation/“interrogation”, so all I had were 4-year-old impressions. </p>
<p>But I do wonder if every admission essay that uses a narrative has to use a suspense-building format. To me, the opening lines didn’t reveal much either – it was just what I was “charged” with. I suppose something must have worked since I wasn’t rejected. 
Well, if I ever do wish to tell this tale again, I will change a lot of things.</p>
<p>And I think you scared the others away with your caveat :p. Where are you currently going, may I ask?</p>