Second Writer’s Letter

During the revision process, I found myself going through a continuous loop of frustration which later turned into a lack of motivation. I chose artifacts that talk about modern systemic racism, one being a Ted Talk and another being an article. Having to dissect and pinpoint areas of these artifacts that used rhetoric and genre conventions was difficult. Distinguishing what was just a detailed summary of the artifact and what was actually the use of rhetoric and genre conventions through me through a loop. I took from what my peers said on the Peer Review worksheet and the comments posted on Thursday and pasted them on my paper. Putting them on the areas that needed work somewhat helped me to see right in front of me, what I had to add or change. I added things in to make my points clearer and took out minute details that didn’t pertain to the overall analysis of each artifact. With all of the switching around and adding details, I found myself getting anxious about what was enough from the perspective of someone who hasn’t seen or read these artifacts. 

However, something that scared me was the minimal amount of change that I made to the paper after the revising process. Compared to the first draft, I feel as though the organization aspect was relatively the same other than combining smaller paragraphs together to make my paper seem more together. Before the peer review process, I had a lot of shorter paragraphs that talked about more minor genre devices that were used. This put me in a difficult position because I had 5 other body paragraphs that were not talked about and critiqued in detail. Not knowing what to change, I hesitated on changing the entire layout of my paper as I did on my Literacy Narrative. 

Despite the anxiety, the writing process forced me to analyze these artifacts in different ways. In high school, we never talked in depth about the use of rhetoric or genre conventions so it was interesting to find myself picking up on those conventions as I analyzed these artifacts. I’ve come to realize that with this pressure and anxiety comes improvement. I know the paper isn’t as clear as it can be but after I understand all of the mistakes, it’ll better my senses next time.

 

4 thoughts on “Second Writer’s Letter

  1. Hi Doris, I definitely agree that this rhetorical analysis was challenging to write. You mentioned that your analysis lacked coherent details/explanations, which I also remember struggling with. I take it that the revision process took more than just a couple hours? Overall, I’m sure you found this rhetorical analysis to be a stepping stone towards writing better papers.

  2. It can be really frustrating to have to go back to an essay you already wrote and change things but in the end you come out with a better essay! When you feel scared to change a large part of your essay, take it piece by piece. Oopy+paste the part of the essay you want to change along with its context onto a new Google Doc, make the changes you want to make and see if it fits. If it doesn’t fit, you can always go back to your previous Doc where there are no changes so you don’t have to worry about losing your progress.

  3. Hi Doris, I definitely felt the same frustration you felt with my paper especially because I wanted to do better. Peer review on my paper was a lot more helpful with the literacy narrative in my opinion too. With this one I felt like reading other people’s was more helpful. Next time, I plan on asking a lot more questions to hopefully feel less frustrated.

  4. Hi Doris,
    I can most certainly relate to your frustration during the revision process. I felt similarly and at one point I did give up and pause during the revision process until the next day. As for the artifacts you chose, I chose almost the same ones. While mine were two articles based on the system of modern racism and yours was on a Ted talk and article, I can relate to you regarding pinpointing different ideas as well as dissection. I feel like this topic is delicate and deserved detailed organization in order to attain a strong rhetorical analysis.

    Also, as far as your comments on peer review, I must say I felt otherwise. Reading the comments made by my peers motivated me and certainly didn’t instill fear in me as it did for you. I enjoyed to read about the different approaches my classmates took on behalf of my paper. Overall, reading your revision process did make me feel at ease and it’s nice to see others feel the same way. Like you’ve stated, all the fear and anxiety does indeed fuel the improvements that are yet to come while revising a draft into the potential it could be.

    Thank you for sharing!

Leave a Reply