Text from my
initial WP
submission:
An
observation
or question I
received
from De
Piero or a
classmate:
The change(s) I
made to what I
initially wrote:
Why did I make
changes;
How
this
change
impacts
my
paper:
Three
pieces
have
many
similarities as they focus on the
same topic, but they also differ
from each other in terms of
conventions,
moves,
and
structures, because three authors
purposes and approaches of
writings vary.
I need more of a specific,
driving thesis statement,
Big Dave. What, exactly,
are you going to be arguing
here? And what specific
points are you going to use
to make that case? What
about the conventions
within this genre will you
be emphasizing?
And
what about moves?
The sources and genres largely
determine
an
essays
conventions,
moves,
and
structures as authors purposes
vary, so we can see similarities
and differences among the
biology article, the sociology
article, and the news article.
In
the
initial
WP
submission, I made my
thesis
statement
too
vague and meaningless,
like there is no need to
argue that point. I try to
make it specific and
stronger in my revision.
The new thesis actually
extracts
a
correlation
between sources, genres
and
an
essays
conventions, moves, and
structure. These three
aspect are what I am
going to discuss in my
body paragraph.
Rhetoric features and conventions
of two scholarly academic pieces
are mostly the same, whereas
those of the news article are
distinct from two academic
pieces.
They are? Which ones?
And how so?
Rhetoric features and conventions of
the biology article and the sociology
article are mostly the same for they
both avoid using first person,
whereas they also differ from each
other because their research method
and analysis are different.
On the other hand, the second
paper emphasizes more on
participants and definitions.
How, exactly?
(I add) because it is full of
descriptive language and its data is
collected from participants answers.
I just stated that they are
similar and different, but I
did not explain how are
they the same or different.
My
revised
sentence
makes my statement very
specific, it not only points
out which two articles I
am discussing about, but
also clarifies in what sense
are
they
similar
or
different.
I realized I did not make
point specific in the whole
essay! My revision gives
specific description about
how the second paper
emphasizes
on
participants
and
definitions
Blank
What does more emphasis
on
participants
and
definitions *do* for the
piece? For the writers?
Such difference not only reflects that
two authors study the same topic
from two perspectives, but also
indicates the professionalism of two
researches, because sociology is soft
science which deal more with words
and sentences, whereas biology is
hard science involves numbers,
computations, and experiments.
I add this sentence to
specify how do different
focuses do for each piece
and why do different
focuses
serve
their
functions
She is saying that although
dealing with anger issues is
difficult, she makes steady
progress to change herself.
OK, but does this personal
testimonial do anything
effectively?
Does it
accomplish anything that
more data-driven pieces
can't?
(I add) This personal testimonial
makes readers close to the author
and through share her personal
experiences, the author wants to
encourage people struggling with
anger
issues
to
overcome
difficulties.
My revision explains in
detail
about
how
conventions
in
news
article accomplish what
two
academic
articles
cannot do. It draws further
comparison
between
academic piece and news
piece.
The fourth paragraph
Zack commented that there
was too much going on in
a page-long paragraph
I deleted or condensed
sentences before I began my
analysis, and I also separate
the long paragraph into two.
I think in this paragraph I
used too much first-order
thinking. I juts wrote down
my thought process, but
did not realize I put too
much
irrelevant
information. My revision
makes
the
paragraph
more
concise
and
organized.
Blank
Does the fact that she's
offering tips/advice
provide insight into the
rhetorical dimensions of
this piece, and how it's
similar/different from the
other pieces?
(I add) and the use of tips makes
her tone friendly and casual, but also
makes her article considerate and
helpful
My revision analyzes in
term of tone and essay
style, how the use of tips
in news article makes it a
news article.
How Do Movie Reviews Achieve
Goals
Big Dave, try to come up
with a title that's a little bit
more interesting. Get me
excited to read this from
the get-go. :)
Does Movie Reviews Play
Magic to Attract Readers?
Movie
reviews,
by using
conventions
and
common
rhetorical strategies, enhance
audience's
movie-watching
experience
beforehand
and
afterward.
Big Dave, I agree that they
enhance
the
moviewatching experience, both
before AND after (that was
very insightful, by the
way!).
What
I'm
wondering, though, is what
specific strategies you'll be
analyzing.
I introduce three movie
reviews and three specific
conventions I am going to
analyze. Such as background
introduction, balanced vice and
virtue analysis, and a fine line
between spoilers and plot analysis
This change of title might
be more interesting. It is
in a question form and
play
magic
is
impossible, so readers
might want to continue to
read.
This change makes my
introduction
paragraph
more straightforward so
that readers can easily
follow along.
Her saying relates to movie
reviews in a sense that audience
faces the same problem.
I think you might want to
choose another term here.
To me, when I think of
"saying", I think of a
colloquialism.
One
example is "It's raining
cats and dogs."
Her is saying that audience faces the
same problem...
This revision changes the
word choice to eliminate
ambiguity
and
make
sentence more smooth.
CJ puts his personal feelings into
his movie review.
Convince me of this -give me some textual
support/evidence so that
I can SEE it.
This
change
provides
textual
evidence
from
movie review that better
convinces readers.
Blank
Big Dave, in your thesis,
you mentioned that
these reviews were also
intended for people who
have *already seen* the
movie -- ie, it helps them
enjoy the movie, even
afterwards.
CJ puts his personal feelings into his
movie review, as he notes that
Tarantino is my favorite living
filmmakerthe movie is even, I
hate to say, a little "selfindulgent"(CJ).
The
words
favorite and hate makes readers
feel that the author is honestly
expressing his actual feelings.
Not only people who have not
watched the movie, but also those
who have already watched the
movie are benefited from movie
reviews, because movie reviews
allow them to look back and
interpret the movie in a new
perspective that might help audience
truly understand the movie.
This
change
add
an
analysis of how movie
reviews benefit audience
who
have
already
watched the movie to
support
my
thesis
statement.
be responsible to readers
What does this mean?
Tell me more.
I replace be responsible to readers
by avoiding spoilers
Since be responsible is too
vague, readers might wonder
how authors are responsible to
audience. Here, I clarify that
authors avoid spoiler that may
ruin
audiences
watching
experiences.
Like headlines of the
newspaper The Onion,
some
common
rhetorical features in a
movie review also
make it a special
genre.
What *about* the
headlines is worth
noting here? Are
they different in
any meaningful
ways?
Like headlines of The
Onion
make
the
newspaper a genre,
some
common
rhetorical features in a
movie review also make
it a special genre.
I changed a little
bit here as to
clarify
I
am
discussing
the
similarity
between
headlines
and
those
common
rhetorical
features
of
a
movie
review,
because they are
both conventions
that
might
influence
how
people interpret
the
genres
newspaper
and
movie review.
