Monday, April 11, 2011
Reflecting on our first assignment
To start class today, I’d like you to take a few minutes and reflect on what it was like to write your first essay for this class. Describe your writing process and tell the rest of us about how your piece changed from your initial ideas to your final draft. How did your research shape the argument you made about the primary text you analyzed? What observations or feedback did your peers give you about your draft that helped you as you continued drafting and revising it? Ultimately, what did you learn about rhetoric, research, writing, or yourself by completing this assignment?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Initially, I think that I approached this essay with too broad of a frame of reference and no true, focused direction. When I sat down to write the beginning draft to be peer reviewed, I was still lacking solid examples and what I would actually say, yet my opening paragraph had some direction. My examples and where I was going to take my paper through the body paragraphs were unclear. Since I had no true direction, I ended up rambling a lot and most of that draft sounded like my own voice instead of what the author of my primary text was expressing. Over the weekend, I basically rewrote all of the body paragraphs. I felt that at this point, I finally had direction and ample examples of rhetorical tools, so much so that I had to cut some things out so that my paper wasn't ridiculously long. I think the main problem with my writing strategy the first time around is that I had no true direction and wasn't analyzing the article in an appropriate frame of reference for the assignment of this essay. Once I more fully understood what I needed to do, and the tools I needed to use to get to the correct destination, writing came much more quickly, smoothly, and eloquently. At first, I think I was just overanalyzing the prompt a bit which caused my writing to get very off topic and "preachy" sounding. The peer editing helped because it gave me an opportunity to hear feed back from readers, as did sitting down and talking with Prof. Bateman after my initial draft. As a result, once I went home and began rewriting on my own, I felt that I had more direction and was able to write about my article without my paper sounding as if it was my opinions instead of the author of the article.
ReplyDeleteWhen starting my essay, I had some struggles with writers block and feeling like I had nothing to talk about. However, once I started looking at specific songs, I started to notice little similarities between Dylan’s writing styles that gave me areas to expand on. My initial idea for this paper was to focus on different techniques Dylan used in each song. However, overall, the techniques used were relatively similar between songs so my paper became more of a compare and contrast between two of Dylan’s songs. Towards the end of writing my essay, I started to realize I could have probably focused solely on “Masters of War” and still had enough to say, but I decided to keep the argument I had already developed because I felt it was very strong. In my research, I found a lot of quotes by Dylan which contradicted what I personally found in his lyrics. I thought the difference between how a song is interpreted and how the writer intended it to be perceived was interesting. I found the peer review very helpful. I got some advice on problems with my paper that I never would have noticed on my own. It was nice to hear feedback from someone who didn’t have all of the background information on my topic that I did. Overall, in writing this paper, I learned that sometimes when I have writers block, I just need to take a step back and break the paper down into little steps so that I don’t feel overwhelmed.
ReplyDeleteI initially was very intimidated by this first essay. This changed as I kept finding more and more articles evaluating different parts of Michele Bachmann's rhetoric. I became increasingly interested in my subject and always loved finding new secondary sources to analyze her SOTU response speech. Being as Bachmann is a political figure that has an impact on much of my family’s life in Minnesota, it was easy to get interested in her rhetoric to see why half of my family loves her, and the other half hates her. It was also really beneficial for me to go through my paper with my peers because they offered beneficial ideas and feedback to expand my writing to make it clearer and more detailed. For example, Jarron proposed I take a more detailed look into the Tea Party movement's rhetoric as a whole to compare to Bachmann's own rhetoric. This was an enlightening point for me when I started looking at other Tea Party members’ rhetoric such as Sarah Palin's for example.
ReplyDeleteMy whole writing process was a learning experience. I would keep coming across more and more sources that would offer beneficial information to my primary source every time I worked on my paper. It was a habitual process of finding a new source and going back into my paper to add it where it would strengthen my arguments the most. I kept adding more to my paper little by little almost every day because I was not ever completely satisfied with my work. Even today, I went back and revised parts of my essay. This has taught me that writing and rhetoric too, are processes that do not really ever have an end. They can always be expanded on or re-worked.
This paper was an interesting process for me because I started out writing some of the “shell” of the paper (basic rhetorical elements) in parallel with or before all of my research. Then, after doing some research, I realized that the direction I had been going would not lead to the destination I wanted. Therefore, I switched directions and tried to establish a theoretical framework that interested me within which rhetorical analysis could occur. Perhaps because of the fractured writing process or because of the general complexity of the issue, it was difficult to integrate the first line of thinking with the second and, while I think it improved greatly from the first draft, it still hasn’t really “come together” exactly the way I had hoped. One significant challenge (one that could have been seen coming) was that the scope of the assignment wasn’t ideal for as much research as I had hoped to get done. As—a reflex, if you will, I attempted to put the analysis into a larger framework (i.e. what does this rhetoric mean in the real world, etcetera) which is what really interests me in terms of analyses, but I’m not sure that it was accomplished effectively. Overall, I still have feeling that I short changed certain pieces of analysis, and wish to develop it further.
ReplyDeleteI think that the peer-review bit was helpful particularly in the sense that it allowed/forced a reading of the piece in front of others, which tends to prompt reflection regardless of feedback. The feedback I received was useful, especially as, through discussion, we converged on another possible area of analysis. I would be helpful in the future to encounter a review that challenges the logic of the text itself; I think that would be an extraordinary way of improving the quality of the product.
Writing this essay, or working on it, was a frustrating experience for me. I found out how stressful and time consuming 18 credit hours of courses can be. I have 4 sources selected that which helped me form my interpretation of the text; however, trying to work these secondary into my essay proved too time consuming for this deadline. This was immensely frustrating for me because I want to learn and to try my best, but I just simply ran out of gas this weekend. My piece has transformed drastically from its humble beginning to its current state, but there is still a lot of work to do. My essay began as two separate blocks of text, one designated for appeals to logos and one for appeals to pathos. These blocks did not flow together whatsoever and their were few connections between them. With the help of our peer-editing session I was able to form a more fluid analysis of FDR's First Inaugural Address. Although I only turned in four pages and incorporated no sources, I feel that my essay has potential to be really solid. Although my paper is no where near finished, I have learned loads from delving into FDR's rhetoric. I set out to understand what about this speech made it convincing and my own thoughts combined with research have led my to what I consider to be an acceptable answer. Rhetoric is fascinating because it possesses power. What scares me about rhetoric is that those who can wield it effectively have power over others. Reading and analyzing FDR's speech has displayed this yet again. What would another rhetor in FDR's place said? What would have happened as a result? I have no doubt that through rhetoric men (and women, of course) can drastically change the course of history.
ReplyDeleteInitially, I wanted to analyze Obama's rhetoric--I wanted to pick up on patterns in his speeches to see if there were rhetorical devices which he generally relied on. However, as I began to look at only one of his speeches, "A More Perfect Union," I realized it would be impossible for me to analyze more than one. So, I shifted my focus from Obama's rhetoric in general to his rhetoric in the specific speech. While I still looked at secondary sources about Obama's speech-giving style, I also used quotes which commented on racial rhetoric etc. My concentration was more specific but it actually allowed me to use new information from my secondary sources.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I tend to know what I want to say and then look for quotes in my secondary sources which support that. I usually write a paper with all of my thoughts, and then insert extra information where needed. This time, however, I read my secondary sources before a began writing. I think it changed the direction of my paper slightly. At points, I chose quotes form my sources, and then formed my argument around them. I think this also made my paper stronger.
When I write, I like to edit as I go. It takes me a really long time to get my thoughts out, but when I do, it forms a fairly cohesive essay. Sometimes this hinders me because I don't go back and look over my work once I am finished writing a draft. The peer editing helped me do that review it though. My partner found problems in my essay which I never would have caught, and I was able to go back and fix those. I think my paper is stronger because of it.
In writing this essay, I learned that a highly specific topic is not necessarily a bad thing, and it doesn't always mean that I won't be able to write a lot about it. I also learned that it is imperative that I self-edit and peer-edit during my writing process and after it in order to end with the best paper possible.
For the first essay, I wanted to write about an article that I had a very personal connection to. I found an article that claimed Celiac Disease was a blessing. Originally, I was going to simply look at the ethos, pathos, and logos of the argument (as any traditional rhetorical analysis does). But, I came across an article written by a woman who has actually studied the rhetoric of gastrointestinal disorders, like Celiac Disease. This allowed me to analyze the significance of the piece, not just the appeals. I also looked at the kairos of the piece. This is important because kairos is something I have not looked at before. The fact that I incorporated the kairos element added not only historical context that would have otherwise been absent, but also allowed me to frame my conclusion. In the end, I am very happy that I chose to investigate an article that is directly related to my life because, as I researched, I learned more about medical rhetoric and also my own personal situation.
ReplyDeleteAs my paper progressed, it became less and less about ethos, pathos, and logos (although, I did use these appeals in my paper) and more about the significance and alternate rhetorical strategies.
When writing this essay, I originally sat down and simply wrote out a list of the information that I wanted specifically to include in paper. This helped focus my direction, and I then went on to research secondary sources for my paper.
ReplyDeleteBefore I originally started researching, I had only a vague idea of what I wanted my analysis to be. When I found some of my sources, they were all really helpful, I probably couldn’t have asked for them to be any more of exactly what I was looking for. Information about rhetoric in science in general, information about Stephen Gould’s rhetoric in particular, it was all I needed to get started. I proceeded to write three or four pages that made up my very rough initial draft. After some basic revision, cutting out some extraneous details, changing the way certain sentences and paragraphs were phrased, I had my draft that I took to be peer reviewed.
I think this peer review was really helpful, it confirmed some of my thoughts about my paper, that the introduction was too long, and helped assuage my fears that my academic voice wasn’t strong enough because I hadn’t written in an academic style paper in so long. After a few more basic revisions and a million readings, my paper was ready.
I think in writing this piece I learned a lot of unexpected things. I learned that despite the horror stories from some of my friends in various other writing classes, it is possible and in some cases pretty easy to find secondary sources that are helpful and informative. I learned that peer review doesn’t always have to be a bad or useless thing. Most of all I learned that if I have the chance to write about a topic I’m interested in, something I don’t always have the opportunity for, I will always be more willing, and will produce more work that is actually relevant and helpful.
I was very overwhelmed at the beginning of the writing process for this first essay, partly I believe, because I really like the primary document I was working with (Federalist No. 10) and I wanted to give it due justice. As is fairly common, I started out with a broad scope of material, intending on covering each aspect of rhetoric—pathos, logos, and ethos—in Federalist No. 10. However, I then hit a wall because as I was analyzing the work, it became obvious that James Madison (the author) primarily relied upon logos, so to incorporate ethos and pathos would be extremely challenging with either a) going into extreme detail on those two and only briefly covering logos, which was the crux of the piece or b) spending the majority of the time on logos and then briefly mentioning pathos and ethos, which seemed very unbalanced.
ReplyDeleteI planned out my essay with taking the second of the two evils—plan b—as I was concerned I would not have enough material if I only looked at logos. However, then while researching secondary documents I came across a teaching manual from University of Chicago, printed in 1953, that used Federalist 10 as an example of how a teacher could teach “the Topics” to his students. In the example, it looked at the overall form of Federalist No. 10—which although I had seen—the A or B pattern, I had not recognized it as an overall ephimeme. In my previous analyze of Federalist No. 10, I had looked at the basic assumptions that Madison employed and found MANY of them, but did not know how to use them in the essay without making the emphasis of my writing being simply to discredit Madison. I especially did not want to do this because Federalist 10 is such a good example of ephimeme used well. In terms of what I learned about rhetoric, I feel I have a much more comprehensive understanding of the skill—much more than ethos, pathos, logos. I feel now that these are three overarching umbrellas of rhetoric, but that there are other more specific tools of rhetoric that are employed to create ethos, pathos, and logos. Before this unit, I felt I could pin-point, the three types within an essay, but did not know how to use them myself. Looking at the specifics in Federalist No. 10, significantly helped this.
Recognizing that I have the tendency to make all essays that I do too complex, I chose a Hitler speech as my main text, as opposed to a more obscure source, because I was hoping that the wealth of information already published on his persuasive techniques would make me more efficient at completing the assignment. Unfortunately, once I truly started analyzing the speech that I had chosen, I found that his rhetorical appeals were not obvious and in order to understand what he discussed in his address, as well as the secondary sources on Hitler, I needed to refresh my memory on the extensive European political dynamics of the time.
ReplyDeleteThe approach I took to my writing process was to try to complete the more difficult sections first, in the hopes that, if pressed for time, I could finish the remaining sections quickly. As such, I started with the introduction because writing that normally forces me to address the historical context and to take a stab at the main claim of his argument. Normally, this is the best decision, because even the most elementary of my thesis ideas work if I defend them well. With this essay, though, I never felt that my thesis statement, even after some revision, truly addressed what Hitler was discussing. I plan to do significant revisions before I submit this to the final portfolio.
(I just managed to loose everything that I wrote, so this is an abbreviated, cliff notes version)
ReplyDeleteI found myself changing my thesis as I went, realizing that my initial premise was not nearly as rhetorically significant as I thought, and that it was more important to talk about the language and argument before that line than that which came after.
I found it challenging to find sources for a lot of what I said because I was taught it all over a number of years, and so had to remember and locate those sources. A number of things that I wrote about were best practices that I was taught, and are not necessarily codified or researched in a scholarly fashion.
I struggled initially with this essay because my primary text was a bit weak, rhetorically speaking, especially when compared to many of Friedman's logos-intensive pieces. What the peer review helped me to realize was that Friedman utilizes a very unique rhetorical strategy in which he engages with the audience to create a much more intellectually stimulating environment. I was able to expand upon this idea to create, what I believe to be, a very worthwhile paper. I actually found it extremely difficult to condense the content to fit the 5-6 page limit. Ultimately I learned that a text can be much deeper and stimulating than I had originally thought. It is very necessary to reread and think through the material multiple times before you give it up. It is easy to discard a text for a less challenging piece, but many great themes and ideas are buried beneath the text's surface.
ReplyDelete