Five weeks ago, you completed a blog post that asked you think, muse, define, and/or theorize about good writing. For this reflection, I want you to revisit your thoughts from five weeks ago by theorizing about writing. If you had to put a theory to how/why you write--what would it say? What types of key terms would you include and why?
Think of this theory as mobile--that it would cross multiple writing situations by informing each situation with ways to frame or reframe whatever the writing task is asking of you.
Aim for 300-500 words.
In reflection, I understand how important rhetorical situation is (as without it, there would be no writing), but I think that audience is of even higher importance. With each separate audience, all of the ethos, pathos, and logos change. If you're writing a music review, all of your experience in how to fix a refrigerator won't do you any good, but if you were writing a repair manual, then you will be credible. If you're writing from a contemporary art magazine, a mathematical background and structure wouldn't do you any good, but for writing about an equation in a text book, your logos would change. I know that all sounds like incoherent rumblings, but to me, it makes sense: your audience determines how/ what you write, regardless of rhetorical situation. You can explain any situation in an infinite amount of ways. You would tell a crowd of college students how to write the same essay much differently than you would to a group of middle schoolers. Ah, it makes so much more sense in my head! Either way, I find that your audience determines the most for your writing and you have to manipulate ethos, pathos, and logos in order to explain the rhetorical situation to whatever audience it is geared towards. My examples were awful....
ReplyDeleteRemembering my thoughts about writing five weeks ago, I feel I was very confused. I wrote some words about creativity, originality and voice but I didn’t use other terms, as I should have, that I know now. It has changed a bit and I think I would focus more on credibility now. A credible source is everything. Without the reliance of the source, the writing piece, no matter how stylish or wordy, is invalid and useless. How you present your ethos is also very important. Based on our reading from last night I think Ethos, Logos, Pathos and style are the most important terms and keys to good writing. Style can include the terms I used earlier, creativity, originality, etc., but it’s all about presentation. People can have voice but the presentation will make the reader stop reading because they feel offended or feel like what they’re reading is not reliable. Even if you are not an expert on the topic, there are ways to manipulate the reader into thinking you are. Pathos will provide an attachment where the reader feels comfortable with you, upping your ethos again. Logos are mere facts that prove your point. The combination, ethos and style being the most important I think, combine to make a great piece of writing. It’s all about how you approach the topic, the situation and how you’re going to state the argument to your audience. Rhetorical situation is not dead here, it is just how the writer can use that situation and make an argument where they are experts, familiar, and logical throughout the piece. They will get the audience on their side, no problem.
ReplyDeleteMy formal theory would be writing is a form of communication based on a situation that is styled to promote good ethos, support with logos and familiarize the reader with pathos….or something like that.
The first time I was asked to configure a personal theory of writing, I mostly focused on the importance of voice and not trying to sound smart. Now that I am halfway through this course, because of what I have learned and what we have read, that theory has actually changed quite a bit. The forums in which I write is still essencialy the same, I still do most of my day to day writing in texts, emails, and facebook chats, while other assignments usually come from my classes. Now that I have learned more about rhetoric, and the concepts that surround it I understand that I do consider there to be more to good writing than sounding like yourself. I know appreciate that writing is used, no matter how or what you are writing about, to convey your personal opinion to other people. Whether you are trying to persude them from their own ideas or not, you still throw your opinion out there. In more consequential writing, such as an essay or speech, it is more important to know how to effectively convey said opinion so that there is the maximum likelihood that it will stick with the audience.
ReplyDeleteMy new and improved theory of writing, is a writer should still stay true to their voice, I do still feel that is important, although not the only important thing, and they should also have an understanding of who their audience is and how to write for them . In addition, we should know that words are valuable, and even though one might be able to get their point across using thousands of them eventually, it is more powerfull to write in a way that accomplishes this same purpose in a fraction of that.
I still believe, just as I believed five weeks ago that writing is an effective means of communication. Whether it is to have an effective argument with someone or to describe something that you have in your head and want your audience to understand. If I had to put a theory to how I write I would say that I write in a questioning skeptical way. I believe even in these five short weeks I have become even more questioning and analytical about my writing. So my theory is that I take it one piece of a time and look at each piece and see if that works and effectively communicates what I want it to communicate. This theory covers multiple genres and can be effectively transferred from one to the next and have positive results. For instance, if someone is writing a piece of fiction then if they’re asking themselves: “am I describing this effectively so that the audience will see the same picture in their head that I am in mine?”, then I believe they are following that theory of writing. Just as if someone writing an analytical/persuasive paper were to ask themselves: “am I using my evidence effectively to convince my reader that this is a valid argument and should be agreed with?” One big thing that has changed in five weeks is my conscious incorporation of logos, ethos, and pathos into my vocabulary and becoming better aware of how arguments are constructed so as to better my writing. So my key terms now would have to be ethos, logos, pathos, analysis, structure/organization, description. These are the key drivers to my theory of writing.
ReplyDeleteFive weeks ago I had to completely a blog post about my theory of writing. Within this blog post I stated that good writing must be “clear, concise, and easy to read.” I also stated that writing must have a certain flow to it. The language must be easy for the reader to understand. I also stated that the key in writing a good piece is revision.
ReplyDeleteNow, if I had to put a theory to how and why I write I would probably say that good writing comes from freethinking and revision. I failed to mention in my first blog post the importance of free writing. It is important to open up your mind and allow all of your thoughts to be transferred to paper. You then must take what you have written and revise it to make a clear, concise paper. Free writing is often not a well-written paper. It does not always have the tone that is necessary to accurately convey what the writer is thinking.
Revision is the key process that can change this. With revision a writer can transform abstract thoughts into an actual piece of writing. If the writer did not finish their piece of writing in this way, it would probably not be as readable. The audience must be able to understand the clear argument of the piece. The audience is undergoing rhetorical analysis and if the piece is not well enough written they will break it apart in the process.
Overall my theory of writing has changed a little bit, mostly in the sense that I am now focusing on the process rather than just the parts. I still believe that the key terms I first thought of hold true, however. A paper must be clear, concise and easy to read. It also must be written in the tone necessary for the audience to understand. Using the knowledge that I have on the terms mentioned in this blog post, I am able to more effectively write a piece of rhetoric.
If I had to put a theory about how I write, I would say I write how I speak. I write whatever comes to my mind I try my best to put it on paper. It is hard to put all of the thoughts that come to my mind and put it exactly how it is in my mind on paper. But when I do I believe I create my own theory of writing. But in this theory I also have to keep in mind that I need to add many different components into my writing. I need to add different things like details, passion, and facts to make my theory of writing acceptable. From my post before I stated that writing was a form of communication, which I still definitely think is true. If you write something it is usually for someone to read. Unless it’s some sort of diary, but I still feel like this is a form of communication. I think its like communicating with your self and getting certain things off of your chest. I write because I think it’s a good skill to have. I also write as a form of communication. I think sometimes writing is a remedy that helps get things off of people’s chest. I know I write things in my planner so I am organized and it definitely makes me less stressed. Some key terms I would add in my writing would be organized, detailed, passion, and good diction. I feel like if you are passionate you for what you are writing that it will shine through your writing. If you are organized in your writing, the writing will flow. This will add fluidity to your writing and make it much more easier to read. If your writing is detailed it will draw a person in and make them want to keep reading and not get distracted by anything. Finally good diction is crucial because good words will definitely make good writing. I think all of those key terms are crucial to writing, and I think all writing needs all of them.
ReplyDeleteI now believe that all writing must come from a situation, and be based off of an argument. A writer must establish ethos, pathos, and logos in their argument. A writer must convince an audience that their argument is legitimate and ethical. Pathos is appealing to the audience’s emotions through language choice and formatting. One must round off the argument with logos, and present factual information to convince the audience. I believe that all writing is about getting a point or situation across to the audience. For the rolling stone article, the audience would be many different types of music enthusiasts. The three key terms ethos, pathos, and logos all help bring the writer closer to the audience. In class we write about certain situations, which we can relate to and have an opinion about. I believe that opinions are very important in writing, but must have good logos to properly convince the writer. Writing also must be presented in a way that attracts the writer and makes them want to read the article or column. The introduction is key when attracting the audience to the article, and establishing ethos and pathos. My theory of writing has changed and I now approach it by looking at the piece through the audiences point of view, and how they would critique it.
ReplyDeleteA good writing must be pass through the process of rhetorical analysis. There are four main components of rhetorical analysis, rhetorical situation, ethos, pathos and logos. From five weeks ago, I have known rhetorical situation is very important, because one piece of writing is impossible without rhetorical situation. According to Bitzer, rhetorical situation consists of three elements, which are audiences, constraints, and exigence. Rhetorical situation is objective exists and is static. Specific audiences should have specific ethos, pathos and logos, which means with the change of audiences, all of the ethos, pathos and logos change.
ReplyDeleteA good writing must be pass through the process of rhetorical analysis. There are four main components of rhetorical analysis, rhetorical situation, ethos, pathos and logos. From five weeks ago, I have known rhetorical situation is very important, because one piece of writing is impossible without rhetorical situation. According to Bitzer, rhetorical situation consists of three elements, which are audiences, constraints, and exigence. Rhetorical situation is objective exists and is static. Specific audiences should have specific ethos, pathos and logos, which means with the change of audiences, all of the ethos, pathos and logos change.
ReplyDeleteThese three key terms are very helpful for writer to consider what the most important thing of the writing is. After every class, we wrote many certain situations, such as for newspaper and magazines. There are a lot of differences between newspaper writings and magazines writings, so the audiences of our writing must be different. Thus, we should use different ethos, pathos and logos depend on the rhetorical situation. When I wrote a piece of writing for New York Times, I considered explain my opinion more clear and more professional by using big words and sophisticated sentences, because the audiences of New York Times usually are the professionals and knowledgeable people. However, when I wrote a piece of writing for Entertainment weekly, I use less formal words and talked about the causal topic with an “Entertain Mood.” If I used more big word and complicated sentences, many people would not read the magazine, because they want to relax by reading the magazine instead of reading an academic paper.
At last, I know that the revise writing is very helpful to improve the writing quality. Before I learn how to revise my writing, I do not know the importance of revising, so I never revise my academic paper. Thus, there are a lot of grammar mistakes and spelling mistakes. The biggest problem is my awful organization. After I learned how to revise writing, I feel that I improve my writings’ quality and writing skill!