 |
| www.gifmania.co.uk |
The rhetorical analysis paper is certainly not an unfamiliar one to me, but it was a challenge, nonetheless. Because for this paper, instead of analyzing the verbiage of a passage, I had to investigate the strategies used for a commercial! However, I learned that in order to completely understand and discover new concepts in the commercial, I had to look at parts where others may have missed and develop my own unique thoughts on parts where people may have been in agreement. It was a constant search of finding things that attracted/repulsed people, including me, and figuring out why it attracted/repulsed them/me.
I felt that I improved and wrote a better paper this time around, because this time, I took time to think about the audience. That was perhaps my greatest source of error in my last paper, the Controversy Analysis: ignoring the audience and only focusing on the subject matter. As a result, I delivered only the "what" of the analysis without taking into account the "how" and "why." This time around, I decided to focus more on the "how" and "why" of things, and I felt as if I made a more comprehensive paper in the end.
I, however, realized that I may have made a mistake on one major thing. While I was writing, I made use of the pronoun "you" in the introduction, but I believe I did not use it for the rest of the paper. I do not know if this is a serious error or not, but it may be still an error. If I were to point out another thing I wished that I would have done, it would be for more research sources. I understand that the video should be the main source for argumentation, but in retrospect, I think adding a few more outside sources would have been great for my paper.
Disregarding the boo-boos, I learned through this experience that there are more messages present in certain media besides the most obvious one; and even if the only message is the most obvious one, there are still those intricacies that make a fairly standard concept a powerful one to the audience. Even seemingly easy strategies such as tilting a camera to angle a picture or making a background as dull as possible can contribute to more impactful results, and we often do not realize them until we decide to look closer. This is a lesson that will definitely be useful in the scientific field, since the whole gist of science is looking for those intricacies that make one thing different from another. The difference between diseases could be a difference of one species of virus; between atoms, protons; between stones, molecular structures--the list is endless. But, like the rhetorical analysis, science goes beyond just identifying those differences--it includes knowing why those differences appear and how to use them to make something new or to fix what exists now. With this lesson, I have grown to appreciate both English and science more than before.
And that concludes the Rhetorical Analysis, paper #2 of the 2015 ENG 109H-029 class. Coming up next...the Public Argument! This one is going to be utterly fantastic. Until then, this is Davis, signing off from the Rhetorical Analysis. See you all when the Public Argument begins!
I, however, realized that I may have made a mistake on one major thing. While I was writing, I made use of the pronoun "you" in the introduction, but I believe I did not use it for the rest of the paper. I do not know if this is a serious error or not, but it may be still an error. If I were to point out another thing I wished that I would have done, it would be for more research sources. I understand that the video should be the main source for argumentation, but in retrospect, I think adding a few more outside sources would have been great for my paper.
Disregarding the boo-boos, I learned through this experience that there are more messages present in certain media besides the most obvious one; and even if the only message is the most obvious one, there are still those intricacies that make a fairly standard concept a powerful one to the audience. Even seemingly easy strategies such as tilting a camera to angle a picture or making a background as dull as possible can contribute to more impactful results, and we often do not realize them until we decide to look closer. This is a lesson that will definitely be useful in the scientific field, since the whole gist of science is looking for those intricacies that make one thing different from another. The difference between diseases could be a difference of one species of virus; between atoms, protons; between stones, molecular structures--the list is endless. But, like the rhetorical analysis, science goes beyond just identifying those differences--it includes knowing why those differences appear and how to use them to make something new or to fix what exists now. With this lesson, I have grown to appreciate both English and science more than before.
And that concludes the Rhetorical Analysis, paper #2 of the 2015 ENG 109H-029 class. Coming up next...the Public Argument! This one is going to be utterly fantastic. Until then, this is Davis, signing off from the Rhetorical Analysis. See you all when the Public Argument begins!
I definitely agree that this paper was a challenge! I also agree that this paper was stronger for me than my last one because we learned how to question every aspect of the paper! I thought it was interesting how you discussed the media portion in you reflection! The points the media and commercials are trying to get across are usually very clear but also have very many underlying reasons! Great job!
ReplyDelete