I was debating whether or not I should create another blog about my revisions. I came to the conclusion I should because since last class I made some huge chances to my map and my memo. After working in the workshops, I realized I had all the wring design set ups. But that’s what the workshop is for, right? To improve your work based on outside perspectives. Before learning the CRAP principles, I used all different shapes in my map just to add some character, not realizing that using all these different shapes could be very confusing to a reader that is not me. I, of course, knew exactly why I did those different shapes, for pure enjoyment. Meanwhile hearing it from a peer and Tiffany opened a new perspective that it can be very challenging following the theme of my map. In the last blog I explained all the questions on the syllabus about where I did my project and all that fun jazz. I thought I needed to do this blog to point out the big “shitty draft” I created and then fixed. I like the idea of the workshops because it prevented me from creating a very confusing project. Now making those changes, I feel, helped me and others have a better understanding of the way my map flowed. I changed all the different shapes into one single shape and one single color and now looking at it, it is definitely easier to understand. This process was definitely different than the first draft because I had a better understanding of exactly what needed to be done in order for it to make sense. Even though I may have had a different and longer process than most, I am finally satisfied with my 5th draft. I look forward to creating the final draft.

As I started Project 1, I knew right away I was going to make a “shitty first draft”. Like I always do, I just put everything on the paper and went back after I was done to make the changes I needed to. As I began to be okay with the version I had, I started to write my memo. Realizing my map sounded very repetitive, I went back for the 20th time to fix it until I was finally satisfied. The process fro revising P1 took a couple days of thinking and trying to figure out exactly what I needed to do to meet the requirements for this project. I continued doing this for a whole week fixing it each day and I mostly did this at my desk in my dorm room because sitting at a desk is where I get most of my work done. This was a little different than the first draft because I think I got a better understanding of what I needed to do and how it needs to be done. While revising the second version I felt different because I felt a little less stress than the first time around starting fresh. I felt I had a little more of a grasp on the concept the second time around. I felt very invested in my second draft because I wanted to make this next version the best possible one it could be under the guidelines given. While doing this project, I felt the most difficult part was not having an exact outline on what needs to be done. That is the most difficult thing for me in any writing assignment, to free write and come up with what you think it means. I felt writing the memo was easier because I had an outline of questions to follow and I was able to expand off those.

The writing process for project 1 was very similar to my writing process I explained in the last blog post. When we were first introduced to the project I started right away to think about ideas on what to map my map about. Whether I should do soccer, being a fairfield student, best buddies, or being apart of “Sisters inspire Sisters” floor in my dorm. I finally, after lots of thought, decided to do Best Buddies. I came to this choice because I thought this what have more things to write about being I am pretty involved. As I sat down and started thinking and doing my research I felt myself lost on what to write. I am the type of writer that cannot sit and free write, I need structure. I felt having freedom to figure out elements of my rhetorical ecology was quite challenging because I did not know where to start. Although I did come up with some, I am not sure if they are exactly what the prompt is looking for. This took about 2 hours to complete just because I would type a draft then change things around. While doing project 1 I was in my dorm room at my desk, where I best focus. This is a little different than my ideal writing process because ideally I would prefer to be in a quiet zone with no easy distractions. This writing process specifically for project 1 made me feel a little stress because of the fact I did not feel I had a strong structure to follow. My writing process connected with Lamott’s “Shitty First Drafts” because my first draft was shitty. I agree with this writer in that no person can produce the perfect first copy. I feel I have the best writing process for me and whether it takes 5 shitty first drafts or 25 I feel I will eventually get there.

As I am sitting here thinking about my ideal writing/ composing process, it is ironic because I am performing it now. When I am writing something I am not the type of person that can look at the prompt for a couple minutes and just begin to write without any thought. I am the person that takes the prompt and does research, brainstorming, and at times note taking. I like to lay out everything I need or want to talk about in my writing. I like to get the answer to whatever the question is down and then bring in my outside information to make the piece a little more “meaty”. My best place to write in=s in a quiet space where I can easily be focused, because I get easily distracted with a lot of commotion around. A lot of the time I would try and get the writing done, take a break, whether it be a couple hours, or even a day and then revisit the writing and revise then. What also helps my writing process is to have someone else read my pieces before I submit so I can gain insight from another perspective. While reading the two pieces, “Strong Writing and Writers Don’t Need Revision” by Laura Giovanelli and “I have a Sleep Disorder and It’s Probably Going to Kill Me or Someone Else” by, Jenny Lawson I saw they way other people’s ideal writing processes look like and I had many similarities. A big similarity I had with the first reading by Laura Giovanelli was that I think revising is very important as well. I agreed and liked the line when she said “revision is bound to writing as breathing is to living”. I felt that line suited this topic very well, because I strongly believe you cant submit a writing piece without revising it because we are human and we are bound to make mistakes whether we see them the first time around or not. That is why it is very important to revise more than once. The second reading I felt was very important because it shows that your state of mind and what your current situation is can help people write. For example the women with the sleep disorder created her best work by taking true stories that happen in her own life. I felt that I connected better with the reading by Giovanelli rather than the reading by Lawson.

Throughout the reading it showed that Carl Herndl and Stuart Brown were the writers of this reading. This reading was published at the University of Wisconsin in the year 1996. Carl Herndl works at the University of South Florida in the English department. He has been writing in the topics of science and environmental issues for a long time. Stuart Brown was “an exemplar of second-wave rhetoric studies” who was apart of the faculty at New Mexico State University. He and some other colleagues created NMSU’s doctoral program in Rhetoric and Professional Communication. I would say the primary audience for this piece is colleagues or other rhetoricians. I feel this way because along with the other readings we have read this semester, this reading was dense and it had a lot of information through it. I believe the main objective as to why this reading was created was to inform other rhetoricians on what Herndl and Brown thought environmental rhetoric is. In the reading there was a line that stated, “we can define the environment and how it is affected by our actions only through the language we have developed to talk about these issues”. I believe this is an important line in the text because it shows how rhetoric is used in environmental terms. A huge part of this text is the diagram that has the three forms of environmental rhetoric. These are the three forms are Ethnocentric (ethos), Ecocentric (pathos), and Anthropocentric (logos). Ethnocentric (ethos) represents the discourse of impactful institutions that makes the “rules” for the environment. The next one, Ecocentric (pathos) represents the language we use to describe nature and the environment. Lastly, in the diagram, is Anthropocentric (logos). This represents people or words that represents environment as a science. Meaning this looks into all the sciences or nature. I feel these three descriptions describe the meaning of environmental rhetoric.

The author that wrote this was Jenny Edbauer. She is an Associate Professor of Writing, Rhetoric and Digital Media. She is a professor at the University of Kentucky. She wrote “From the Rhetorical Situation to Rhetorical Ecologies” which was published by Taylor & Francis, Ltd. Jenny Edbauer chose to write this article in hopes of having an audience of potential colleagues, writers, or possibly people studying Rhetoric. I think this because this 21 page article was a very dense reading in which someone who was learning about rhetoric, like me, may have a hard time following. I think this reading gives another opinion on what rhetoric means, so therefore it can benefit someone who wants a different look on it or wants to compare rhetoric situation and rhetorical ecology. The text is mainly comparing the two types or rhetoric, rhetorical situation and rhetorical ecology. The main argument I got from this reading was that it explained rhetorical ecology as being about how it takes the connections of everything around a situation into play when a conversation is going on. Rhetorical situation is that it is just focusing on the conversation and not the surrounding situations. She brings up different authors opinions of different situations. Jenny Edbauer brings up a long topic about Austin, Texas saying how the city has changed drastically because of new technology. At first I did not quite get the connection between rhetoric and talking about the city but I came to realize that the connection was because of the drastic change, that let to many different issues and topics. She brought it back to rhetoric by explaining how rhetoric ecology is the connections between all the issues surrounding the main event. She mentioned “Rhetorical situations involve the amalgamation and mixture of many different events and happenings that are not properly segmented into audience, text, or rhetorician.” At first I did not understand the definition of amalgamation but when I looked it up I understood the rest of the definition and think that is a good way of explaining rhetorical situations. The definition I liked best for rhetorical ecologies was that they “are co-ordination processes, moving across the same field and within shared structures of feeling”. All together I thought this reading was dense, and at times hard to follow, but I think I understood the main idea Edbauer was trying to display.

Throughout the reading from Lloyd F. Bitzer he is talking most of the time sharing his thoughts on what rhetoric means to him. His main theme throughout this whole reading was him stressing that rhetoric is situational. This means that based on the conversation you are having or based on the situation that took place right before something is the type of rhetoric used. We have come to see in society that rhetoric is used in majority of the conversations that take place from day to day. Whether these conversations are persuasive or just two people talking about how their days went. The point that is being stressed here is exactly that, it’s the point that depending on the conversation is the type of rhetoric used that is most appropriate. The audience, I feel, that best suits this reading is most likely writers, colleagues, or even professors that already have some knowledge of the term rhetoric. I do not feel it is directed towards younger people learning about rhetoric because of the fact that there are many intelligent words and phrases used. I also do not feel they are the best audience because this is a very dense piece and does not exactly give a clear understanding of what rhetoric means. I feel the people with more experience with rhetoric is the best audience because they can read his work to expand on their thought or to see it from a different perspective. “The situation controls the rhetorical response” that is Bitzer’s main theme throughout the reading. As said before the main argument that he is trying to stress is that a certain situation must happen before any kind of discourse can take place. The main lesson about rhetoric I got from this reading was that it has many different forms depending on the situation or conversation that is taking place.

Throughout the reading, “Rhetoric is Synonymous with Empty Speech” I was coming to realize the person talking in this is the author Patricia Roberts-Miller. When writing this piece she was explaining the way she saw rhetoric and how she thought it should be portrayed. She pointed out how many people view rhetoric and how rhetoric should not be limited to one definition. She goes on explaining how Plato, Aristole, and Socrates view rhetoric and how she agrees with some of their beliefs but she also has other findings that she feels is important too. She felt they were important enough to publish them so the world can consider another view of rhetoric in a whole different way. When writing this piece, I believe her main focus was to attract an audience of students or even some writers or professors. I mainly think students was a big attraction because students like myself are still trying to grasp the idea of exactly what the “real” definition of rhetoric is. With there being many different, yet similar, definitions of this simple looking word, we tend to try and grab on to the words that make the most sense when trying to explain it. I felt her intensions were trying to make this definition as broad as possible to give the reader a chance to decide for themselves what the true definition of rhetoric is. I also feel the audience could have been directed at professors as well. This is because many professor have their opinions on what rhetoric means but some may want to see the point of views from other colleagues and see how they can expand their thoughts. I feel the main argument Patricia Roberts-Miller is trying to represent is that the definition of rhetoric does not need to be limited to one meaning. She feels that it is not just a persuasive conversation or a persuasive argument, it can be as simple as a conversation. By her mentioning over works in her writing shows that she feels all the definitions combined is what makes up rhetorical.

What is rhetoric? Explain how/why you’ve come to understand rhetoric in the way you do.

When I think or hear the word rhetoric, I think of the definition “the way language shapes the physical world”. Last semester my roommate had to think about rhetoric and write about it. This influenced me big time because I was able to learn more rhetoric. Before last semester I did not quite understand the true meaning but after a little help from outside sources I was able to come up with a general idea. Rhetoric can use exaggerations and displays that help the person visualize exactly what is being said. We may not realize it but rhetoric is always used in our everyday lives. Some common examples of rhetoric being used is political speeches to get the audience to react a certain way. Advertisements are also a very common examples because they want people to purchase their products, so they tell the audience what they want to hear. This is also used very commonly with friend to friend interactions. For example, when one friend wants to do something like go to the mall but the other friend does not, he/she may use ways to convince the other person to go. Using language like rhetoric on a daily basis has allowed me to see how much it is actually used in political situations or even in literature. I have come to notice that rhetoric is almost in almost all conversations that involves person on person. During class we looked at an example “are sharks dangerous”. We discussed that because of the movie Jaws people get the impression that all sharks no matter what kind are dangerous. This is an example of rhetoric because it shows how one simple message can influence many people’s opinions on a certain topic. I am looking forward to seeing how rhetoric is used in ENW and how it is used in writing pieces as well as everyday lives. I am more confident with the amount I know about the term rhetoric and I am confident it will help me in this class.