1. How would you describe your own voice in this essay?
I would describe my voice in my essay on Marian Wright as expositional, and also authoritative. There are not areas where I write to say “I think” or “I believe” the information is presented as factual, has sources to indicate this and even the opinion part where I mention the rhetorical appeal of the article, is presented as a statement of face. When I write, “The rhetorical appeal in this article is that despite being one of the most developed countries in the world, some America citizens are still undergoing a challenge of getting basic requirements,” I do not say, “The rhetorical appeal for me.” I am making an assumption here, that this would be the rhetorical appeal for most.
2. Your tone?
My tone in the essay is confident. It is formal, and written in the third person, so it is much more detached and void of emotion than if this were a personal essay type piece of writing.
3. How do they contribute to the effectiveness of your rhetorical analysis?
If I had used a friendly tone, or an informal tone, this would have gotten in the way of what is supposed to be an objective analysis. Friendly and informal tones have their place in writing, but not in rhetorical analysis. For that you should employ a formal academic voice that is written in a standard form that is recognized as being an essay.
4. What one revision did you make that you are most satisfied with from the first draft to the second?
I would bring the rhetorical analysis front and center. As it is the paper focuses a lot on the history of who she is without going into a great depth in the rhetorical analysis. I would use more quotations from her article and cite certain words that she uses that help her achieve her rhetorical goals.
5. What areas do you think still need to be addressed?
I still need to apply the terminology of rhetorical analysis. I say something is ironic, but it is also a fact, so Marian Wright is not employing the rhetorical device of irony here, but she does take on an ironic tone in her article, which helps Americans relate to the absurdity that we are providing aid abroad while domestically there are people going hungry. I should point this out and make the distinction clear in the essay.
6. How could your peer readers help you more on your next assignment?
They could skip discussing more what worked for them and get right to the heart of what didn’t work them. It somewhat goes without saying that if they are not bringing it up as a criticism that there is little need to say “I liked this,” since if they have nothing bad to say about it, I can assumed that it worked from them.
7.What “writerly habits” have you developed, modified, or improved upon as you constructed this writing assignment?
Being able to look at the entire writing as a whole and think about that as well as the individual components, like the paragraphs.
8. How will you change your future writing activities, based on what you have learned about yourself?
I will set specific times aside to write, and even if the words are not coming sit and think until they do.
9. What aspects of the rhetorical analysis do you have questions about?
How to always identify the devices being used.
10. What areas, if any, confuse you?
This is similar to the question above. It is not always easy to pick out a rhetorical device in a written argument.
11.What are you most proud of in this paper?
That it is finished and I don’t think there are any grammatical errors.