Morgan Clyburn
Major Assignment #1 – Rough Draft
There are many components that contribute to successful writing. Genre first and foremost is such an important aspect of writing, considering all writing pieces fall under a certain genre. Also, when you’re looking for a specific piece of writing, searching by genre is a safe way to start so you know you’re looking in all the write places. According to Merriam-Webster.com, the definition of genre is as follows; “a category of artistic, musical, or literary composition characterized by a particular style, form, or content”. So basically, genre is the category of what ever it is you’re looking for. Along with genre, the audience you’re trying to appeal to is extremely important. It’s important for how you deliver your writing. It’s important for what intellectual level you’re presenting it at. Who your audience is will really influence how you compose. Now the rhetorical situation is a huge piece of writing. It is the main course. The rhetorical situation is the circumstance of an event that consists of an issue, audience, and a set of constraints according to wikipedia.org. Rhetorical situation is really what you are writing for. It’s what has provoked you. All three of these are extremely important for your writing and go hand in hand throughout your piece. Your rhetorical situation will most likely place your writing in a certain genre, and your genre will most like attract a certain audience. The genre is what I first look for when I’m picking out a book, and a book that has an intriguing rhetorical situation is what draws me in.
In Anzaldua’s How to Tame a Wild Tongue, her essay was extremely personal and she established the genre very clearly. This was informative at the least. Anzaldua made it extremely clear who her audience is as well, and that it wasn’t just one audience she was appealing to. She was addressing people who, like her, speak a language that is different than majority of the population where they currently reside. She reached them personally and expressed the emotions that come with being shamed for something she held so close to her heart, and I’m sure the audience reading this who has ever been alienated for not being part of the majority could relate. The way she spoke so passionately definitely drew me to become more interested in her writing. I wanted to read more, I could relate to the feeling of isolation. She was also speaking to those who have been at the other end of the spectrum, those who have given the shaming to others, the “bullies” if you will. Anzaldua was opening up the emotions on the other side from those who have shamed people for not speaking English in America. Those who have shamed young, single mother’s for having a child before they “are ready”. Those who have spoken into racist and prejudice comments. She was also speaking to people of power. Showing these people why a change needs to be made, and who the change needs to happen to/for. The way she handled the rhetorical situation was bold. She jumped right into it, made it extremely clear that her language was being suppressed and there needed to be change. I respect how she made it so clear what the rhetorical situation was and what call of action she wanted.
Reading Collins Slowing Down, it was very apparent what his genre was, I mean, it says it in the title. It is a commencement speech. He is speaking directly to an audience filled with graduates ready to move to the next chapter in their lives. But not only that, he is also speaking to their parents, teachers, siblings, friends, extended family, realistically he is speaking to anyone who is sitting there in the auditorium. His writing is applicable to everyone I listed above, or anyone reading the speech like I did as a third party. Of course, majority of his writing is geared towards the students graduating, but a lot of what he says can be absorbed by others as well. He addresses the rhetorical situation very well, throughout the whole speech in fact. Collins definitely reaches the audience easily, his words are so smooth- you can tell he’s a professor. Like Anzaldua’s writing, Collins seems personal too. He seems like he is genuine about what he is saying to the students and the advice he is giving and I think this would be received well by his audience.
In Bitzers The Rhetorical Situation, he is quite literally informing and providing explanation as to why we have and need a rhetorical situation. He is stating that Rhetorical situation invites response and conversation. He gives great examples of this, one being the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. Bitzer states how there was an urgent response to the public addressing the tragedy. There were news reports going out and eulogies being provided. I think Bitzers audience here would be students learning about rhetoric, or anyone who is trying to further understand a unique perspective on rhetoric. He is teaching and informing, which is why I believe he is speaking to students. Bitzer goes into depth of what he believes calls for rhetorical situation, and what it actually is.
All three of these pieces bring up a wealth of information and definitely unique perspectives on writing. They are all three different pieces, from different people, for different audiences. The way Collins addresses his audience and appeals to him is so suave and appealing, its hard to not listen to him or really be drawn into his speech. How he spoke in his commencement speech was perfect for his audience – which mind you, was extremely broad. Bitzer brought a wealth of information through his article, and he used many real-world experiences that made his rhetorical situation very apparent, as did Anzaldua. Both Bitzer and Anzaldua were very clear about what they were writing for and the issue at hand. Anzaldua was very emotional about it, and I think her and Collins have that in common. They both were very genuine about their writing and also factual. All three made their genres very clear. I think that isn’t difficult to do.
Morgan Clyburn's Blog 
paragraph 1, line 4: “the write places.” just a small typo. It should be “right”, or you could even use “correct” if you want to speak like that.
Maybe break up your first two paragraphs a little bit. To me, they seemed like they veered off in different directions sometimes. I really like how you used Anzaldua’s text to describe genre. I think it gives a very good picture of what genre is.
If I were just another person reading this not knowing that genre, rhetorical situation, and audience were ti be addressed, I would have maybe assumed that it was only about genre. I like it overall, it flows very nicely. However, the paper starting out only speaking about genre throws it off just a bit. Maybe you could put another introduction paragraph in front of your first paragraph to explain what you’re going to be talking about.
You definitely addressed all of the requirements, describing genre, RS, and audience. The only thing I have is that you only really compared the three texts in the last paragraph. I feel like maybe you should try to compare each of them throughout the whole paper rather than just at the end. I also feel that you should maybe just try to spread your points out more. I’m not sure exactly how to put it, but I know that doing that will add better balance and length to your text.
LikeLiked by 1 person
For your 5 concerns I think the organization of your content is fine, you make points after talking about each text and connect them even further. I also feel like you address all of the requirments. Something you could do is to go back and connect and explain some of the personal aspects you put into your paper. The length of your piece looks good but you could include more information into your third body paragraph to extend it. You also have a lot of information about Anzaldua, adding a little bit more of bitzer and collins and connecting him would make your paper even stronger.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I like how well you connect Anzaldua and Collins by saying they both give off a personal feel to their different pieces, it make you feel more connected to them. I also like how well you connect to Anzaldua with your personal experiences and ideas in your first paragraph, that’s something that makes your paper stronger and easier to relate to. Something else you do well is breaking down bitzers ideas in the third paragraph, it’s easier to follow and especially when you bring in the example of the assassination.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I think you should include more examples from the text. Also, go beyond summarizing and actually analyze and make more connections between the three concepts and text. Other than that it is a great start to understanding genre, rhetorical situation, and audience.
LikeLike
I think that your draft is a good response to the assignment and the main point of Anzaldua makes your paper even stronger. Bringing in the dictionary definitions into your introductions helps readers know that you are using genre as the topic and not just talking about the texts. Overall I think that your paper is well written and only needs a few changes to be great.
LikeLike
I think your draft successfully accomplished all the requirements of the assignment. I like how well you broke down the terms audience, rhetorical situation, and genre while relating them to the three texts.
To address your 5 major concerns I would say you did a great job. Your draft flowed and was organized. I don’t know how many exact words you typed but the length requirement seems like it was met. The draft was also well balanced for each requirement.
The draft does respond to the assignment. It is clear in the draft whose ideas are being presented. The writer’s own words were incorporated into the synthesis. The writer says while responding to “Anzaldua’s How to Tame a Wild Tongue” she can relate to the feeling of isolation.
LikeLike
After reading the article i felt like that the text and paragraph is really well structured and very clear on what you were trying to say. The essay seems met all the requirements that the teacher has asked for and also the depth of view is also rather deep, the length was fine and the balance was great on the different paragraphs. I really like the intro and the summary tie to each other. I think what you are trying to let everyone know is that even though these three pieces of article are from different people, they all can be related to well because of the method of writing that they are using. You made the concept look simple and easy to understand.
I love that you tried to put so much detail into the work but there is one thing I would like to mention, and that is next time try to break down the paragraph into several ones as it is easier to read.
The introduction of the essay was written quite well and clear as well as the conclusion. transition between sentences are smooth, I can see a lot of work and effort has been put into this essay. Ideas are being presented nice and clear, very easy to read through. The paper synthesize quite well with the three terms, and also your idea incorporated closely with your synthesis
LikeLike
Very detailed and well organized, and we agree on a lot of points which makes this easy!
I wouldn’t worry too much about your organization, it looks great for the most part.
Requirements seem good, and I think we’ be able to inspire each other a lot there.
You seem to touch on each piece of work enough.
Length is good.
Balance is well thought out.
I would probably not cite Wikipedia though and maybe weed through some of their sources and cite.
If you can sync these ideas together you got an A1 paper here!
LikeLike
At the end of paragraph one you stated “All three of these are extremely important for your writing and go hand in hand throughout your piece. Your rhetorical situation will most likely place your writing in a certain genre, and your genre will most like attract a certain audience. The genre is what I first look for when I’m picking out a book, and a book that has an intriguing rhetorical situation is what draws me in.” i believe this works very well as synthases and almost as a opener for what the audience has to expect in the next paragraphs
i love the way the piece is split up and organized it is a really good structure and helps greatly with the reading however i do believe that regarding your five concerns you should go a little bit deeper into what you thought and your believes i think you break it down very well but if you now just focus on building it back up into a more personal theory it would be perfect
your draft deed respond to the assignment, and your main focus is appropriate to are guidelines we received. however i do not feel like it is clear who points are being presented i feel like you do not speak enough about personal views i feel this way because did the same thing in my draft. i feel like as stated before you are on the right track towards syntheses but you are just a little off you connect everything and summarized it very well but go deeper into personal views and you will be there.
LikeLike