Reflection on Project 2

Reflection on Project 2

In this blog post, I am going to reflect on my Project 2 Rhetorical analysis.

What was specifically revised from one draft to another?

I needed to explain myself better. Sometimes I did not analyze the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of the strategy that my author used. This took away from the paper because I was unable to connect my paper together. I felt like a lot of it I just threw together because it had to do with ethos or logos. I did not really properly analyze why or how. Looking back, I know that I can still fix this even more than I already did. I don't want to write too much, but I think that it will be better if I did.

Point to global changes: how do you reconsider your thesis or organization?

I think my thesis is fine. I already put in a lot of time figuring it out and manipulating it. My organization is also okay. I only really needed to break apart a paragraph because it was too long. Other than that, everything seems to be okay organizationally. I did not really need to worry about my organization.

What led you to these changes? A reconsideration of audience? A shift in purpose? How do these changes affect your credibility as an author?

I made these changes because people pointed them out to me. People told me that I did not explain enough. I did not mention if something was effective or ineffective and I think that that is a big part in a rhetorical analysis. Therefore, as I went back I spoke with a more open mind. I tried to remove the bias because I had felt a lot while writing this. Eventually, it impacted my paper too without me realizing it until I had other people comment on it.

How will these changes better address the audience or venue?

These changes will allow the audience to better understand and effective strategy compared to ineffective strategies. I never really considered writing about that in my paper. However, now I know that it is very important because it basically is part of a fuller analysis.

Point to local changes: how did you reconsider sentence structure and style?

I sometimes wrote things weird. For example, I am unsure if I properly used parentheses at one point. However, they were correct because they served their purpose. I think that sentence structure was not much of an issue. At one point, I did not even finish my sentence; it was just hanging there. I think I did not properly go over my rough draft, but I hope that I fixed this enough for my final draft.

Gaspar, Joaquim Alves. "Reflection in Soap Bubble Edit." 10/05/07 via Wikimedia.
Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported License.

How will these changes assist your audience in understanding your purpose?

These changes will assist my audience in understanding my purpose because they did not really really understand everything I mentioned. For example, I mentioned chemicals in fake sugars, but I never said what they were exactly. I left the audience with the name of the chemical without them knowing what it was. I think I overlooked the importance of knowing what the specific function of the name was. I needed to also emphasize more the effectiveness and ineffectiveness in order for them to really grasp my purpose.

Did you have to reconsider the conventions of the particular genre in which you are writing?

No, I did not. I only have to work on citing my sources. I think that it was harder for me because I have not written a rhetorical analysis in a while. After writing the QRG, I had been hopeful that I would not have to write anymore rhetorical analyses. 

Finally, how does the process of reflection help you reconsider your identity as a writer?

Reflection made me feel very bad about my writing. It made me feel as if I need to spend more time writing things in order for them to come out better because I know I have the potential to write very well. I am unsure how I let myself write so bad sometimes, but it happens. I will just know for next time to give myself more time to write this paper.

Reflection

I read Jovanka Potkonjak's blog post. Her and I both needed to redo our introductions and conclusions. Also, we needed to fix how we addressed our audiences. Both of us lacked how we attempted to talk to our audiences because we focussed too much originally on our audience that the author was trying to reach. 

Also, I read Olivia Wann's blog post. Her and I both needed to focus more on what our peers had to say about our papers. We had done them in a rushed manner, and our peers' comments helped us see the flaws. Like her, I also understand where my flaws lie and how to address them. After reading her reflection, I am glad to know that I am not the only one a little flustered by this.