A Sketch
There is a Chinese proverb that claims, “The nets for catching fish are like words arriving at meaning”; a thought can never be realized to its 100% potential through language. Nonetheless, writing is the process of sifting, clarifying and synthesizing thoughts-words are the medium. Sometimes this is at the cost of leaving out personal passion, contradictory data, or confusing elements.
This semester focused on the expression of critical thinking. The crux of “critical thinking” is to ask every question, to challenge all that is present and all that is missing. The first major assignment was writing an opinion editorial. At this point these methods of thinking had not been totally solidified for me as a writer. To write persuasively and maintain audience engagement for a more “colloquial” audience the ideas must be as concise as they are powerful. My first draft turned out more like a messy truncated research paper and less like an op-ed. Eventually, I realized that an author needs to have equal awareness of their own agenda as their audience’s attitude to write effectively. I began to think like an audience member through the short blog post assignments which commanded organized critical analysis across various forms of media. I realized how nuance is captured in writing and translated to an aware audience and recognized the resultant exigence of precision. I relied heavily on this approach for my visual essay. I attempted to create detailed nuance in my image and accurately express the intent in the written reflection. Retrospectively, I have come to realize that the research critical analysis was the synthesis of these skills. Here I had to be both an attentive audience and convincing author. I had to read my source thoughtfully and craft an interpretation of it. Then, I had to translate this opinion into writing so as to convince someone else my reading was correct. This was difficult but exhilaratingwhen I realized it was the culmination of an entire semester’s worth of work. As a person who appreciates personal process over personal (pointed) achievement I have no regrets from this semester and am proud of the work I produced even in its flaws. They are the expression of this process of rethinking.
Self-Referential: Assessement in Detail
Reflection: “a remark made after turning back one’s thoughts”
The word is derived from Latin roots, “re” – “back” and “flectere”- “to bend.”[1]
Dialogue is a means of exploration and progression unbound by space. My blog summarizes my impressions of this semester in a short caption, “Encounter through reading. Discuss in writing.” This self-assessment is a means of entering into a discussion with the semester as a whole; it is an attempt to realize the place I am now as compared to where I began. It is also a threshold for you, the reader, to enter into my process and my thoughts, to reveal to you that which I have struggled with and that which I have overcome. Needless to say, my work entailed countless crumpled up thrown out sketches, drafts, and revisions, as I ventured deep into the world of critical thinking.
In my first analysis of the rhetorical situation my biggest struggle became apparent, the disparity between my understanding and my implementation (see Figure A), yet through intense practice I began to mend this schism. In this course, I role-played two characters, the giver and the receiver, nimbly switching between them and allowing each to inform the other. Further, the course demanded that I break out of my comfort zone. I wrote in genres I never even conceived of writing in, and read articles that strayed from my usual selection of media. With increased exposure, I began to understand the nuance of each “situation,” learning not only how to cater to a more specific audience, but to read more carefully and tune into the writer’s intent. It also led me to perform research in different ways for each assignment, as my goals were different. I did less research for my visual essay and more introspection, while I did rigorous research for my other two essays which I then had to significantly whittle down in my writing. Through practice, I became adept at writing with hyperawareness, and reading existing intention and structure not only in published works, but also in the work of my peers (see Figure B). Bouncing between two perspectives and multiple genres made me aware of the specificity of the rhetorical situation implicit in my writing. Because this development occurred through time, I am choosing to unroll the process chronologically.
In writing my opinion-editorial, my greatest was pitfall was failure to understand the genre, and therefore confusion on how to approach my audience. Specifically, I had difficulty, “negotiating my own writing goals and my audience’s expectations,” a goal articulated by the syllabus. On my blog, I posted two versions, the final version, and a draft. In the latter, my paper walked the ugly line between an incomplete persuasive essay, and a list of talking points. It was dense and impersonal. Eventually I grew into the context; Op-eds are not meant to be written by journalists who have done extensive research and invested time and resources into their writing. Rather, op-ed is the genre of the passionate layman attempting to give life to a pressing opinion. The passion in my first draft was only present in my introducing and concluding paragraphs and became fuzzy in the body of my paper (See figure C). I was presenting a concentration of facts that became boring for an audience to read. The strengths of this draft were that I was knowledgeable on the topic, and the initial inklings of pathos embedded in it. After feedback from my professor, I was able to pare down the information to only the most relevant and intriguing and frame it in such a way that captivated my audience the entire time. An example of a strong sentence is the following, “Aside from absorbing an excessive amount of water in production, the industry also contaminates our existing water bodies.” This sentence creates a balance of fact and emotion. I switched between the personal and the impersonal, the actions of the industry as criminal and the impact these actions have on us, the author and the audience. By joining my voice with the audience in using the prounoun us, I am creating a relationship with them, and equating myself with them. This shows them that we are “in this together” bringing them closer to me. This revision helped me understand what it means to write for someone else about something I am invested in. I had to alter the writing so as not to “show-off” what I know and rather present only the most arousing data. Slowly I was learning how to incorporate the audience into my writing.
Writing blogpost showed me how the reception of a piece of writing is subject to the frame-of-reference of each individual recipient. In both the Baldwin discussion and the Stenberg one, my responses incorporated external knowledge which I associated with the topic at hand. For Stenberg, I brought in an all time-favorite music video of mine, “Don’t Touch My Hair” by Solange Knowles reflecting the ideas of cultural appropriation specifically as it relates to black hair. Being able to cross reference the two mediums gave me a fuller understanding of the issue. For the Baldwin discussion on language as identity I brought in a tidbit from my own Jewish culture. This showed how though Baldwin was specifically discussing Black English the philosophical nuance in his essay has other manifestations as well. It also showed how people from different background can find an entry-point to empathy by finding parallels to his ideas, or any author’s ideas in their [reader’s]own culture. Through this response process, I became aware that reading, just like a normal discussion, demands active participation from both parties. The writer must write with an audience in mind, while the reader must critically evaluate the authors claim and find its meaning in their own life.
The blog posts were like reverse charrettes, forcing me to dissect the authors design, and challenge its effectivity. This is can be read into each of my blogposts but especially my analysis of Lebron and hooks’ articles. In practicing this, I was able to recognize the chosen sequence Sadurni [author of article I used for my critical analysis] used in the article I wrote my research cortical analysis. Additionally, I was able to understand how to choose a structure for my own papers. Genre is deeply related to the expectations of audience which I discerned through being an engaged audience member.
In drawing my visual essay, I strove for clarity. I informed each decision with my audience in mind. I chose four instrumental moments in the scene from the movie Bambi from which I drew my inspiration, and gave each a brief caption to clue my audience in on the drama. Even the color of the font was an intentional crimson, a foreshadowing to the blood in the final scene. I also created hierarchy emphasizing the frame I inserted to tell the narrative of animal sentience, the final frame. Here, not only was the size of the image larger than the other four frames but it was composed of a photograph emphasizing its existence in the real world. I was only able to reach this level of precision through a comprehensive understanding of my audience which I explain further in the reflection and the audience strategy of my visual essay. I achieved this only because of the training in awareness through the feedback I revived regarding my op-ed and the practice I had as a reader.
Writing the research critical analysis merged the position of reader and writer, thus a culmination of the entire semester’s lessons. This was not the expression on my own idea following deep research into a specific topic, nor was it the sharing of a burning emotion inside of me, rather it was the articulation of my impressions as a reader. In this textual interpretation I had to convey to an audience both the successes and the failures of a professional author, and the elucidate the greater context of the article. I also had to assess how this article related to existing works on the same topic. In many ways, this was similar to composing a peer review, but being much more rigorous in analysis, interpretation and conveyance of my opinion. The “take-away” from this exercise is the ability to approach a piece of media with a critical eye and recognize the strategies the author uses to sway me, the audience, and therefore see their claim for what it is. It also taught me to master the delivery of my own opinions by providing sufficient evidence precisely and sequentially.
Creative work is embodied communication. It is a situation-dependent manifestation of exchange. In writing prose, the goal is present an idea to a recipient in a clear and structured manner. The essence of this course was training in the recognition of the “rhetorical situation” according to Lloyd Bitzer’s dissection of it. It arises as a response to an existing problem with the potential to be solved. The idea emanates from an author, communicating purpose to their reader, accentuated by medium and genre. The rhetorical situation is that place of non-spatial circumstance. In this locale, the giver has three main tools at their discretion: ethos, to gain the audience’s credibility, pathos, to gain the audience’s sympathy and empathy, and logos, to appeal to the reader’s sense of reason. Thus, they become a trustworthy source and their idea is readily accepted. Through commitment dedication and struggle, I feel that I have finally internalized not only the conceptual understanding of these ideas, but the methods through which to implement them.
[1] https://www.etymonline.com/word/reflection
