Dear Reader,
In this blog post, I will be answering some questions from Writing Public Lives (page 520) on "Reflecting on the Revision Process" for Project 3.
1. What was specifically revised from one draft to another?
Apart from small details like word-choice and grammatical errors, during my revising process I changed certain aspects of the overall purpose of the argument. At first, I was only writing about Rolling Stone's failures affecting the Phi Kappa Psi fraternity at UVA. However, during my revision process, I ended up shifting the focus of my argument more towards how Rolling Stone's failures ruined Phi Kappa Psi's reputation as well as fed the public's misconceptions of university Greek life in relation to rape culture.
2. Point to global changes: how did you reconsider your thesis or organization?
After peer review, the revisions from my classmates helped me reconsider the possibilities of the purpose of my public argument. I found it to be much more influential to write about university Greek life throughout the nation (and my experiences), rather than just at UVA. Additionally, when I added more information on universities who don't have a Greek system but still have high percentages of reported rapes (Harvard and Yale), I was able to really bring my argument together (that rape is a societal issue on university campuses, not an issue only within the Greek system--which Rolling Stone provokes their audience to think).
3. What led you to these changes? A reconsideration of audience? A shift in purpose?
Like I explained in questions 1 and 2, my changes were provoked by a shift in purpose of my public argument and what I wanted my audience to take away/consider after reading my project. I wanted my audience to reconsider their misconceptions of university Greek life (that were reinforced by Rolling Stone's article) because rape culture is a societal issue, not a Greek system issue.
4. How do these changes affect your credibility as an author?
By using a specific example, Rolling Stone's article "A Rape on Campus", I was able to building credibility for myself in the beginning of my public argument. Additionally, by adding my personal experiences within Greek life, I was able to use myself as a credible source and evoke an emotional response from my audience.
5. How will these changes better address the audience or venue?
They provoked more rhetorical strategies in my project and helped me formulate an argument on a topic that has not really been discussed/reported heavily on in the media.
6. Point to local changes: how did you reconsider sentence structure and style?
I reconsidered my style when I added my personal experience with university Greek life. I write...
"Being a woman and a member of university Greek life myself, I have experienced and witnessed the effects of these stereotypes. Whether or not some of the stereotypes stem from truth, it is ridiculous to claim that the entire Greek system is at fault for all reported university sexual assaults. I, for one, have never felt unsafe or uncomfortable within the Greek community in any environment."
...By shifting my style from what seems to be more evaluative into more personal, I hoped to gain trust/credibility with my audience.
7. How will these changes assist your audience in understanding your purpose?
The changes assist my audience in understanding my purpose by evoking emotional responses, building credibility, and pointing my audience more towards the idea that their judgements of the Greek system, inspired by Rolling Stone's journalistic failures, are not always true and that they shouldn't blame Greek life for rape culture when it is a societal issue.
8. Did you have to reconsider the conventions of the particular genre in which you are writing?
No, despite the many changes I made during my revision process I did not have to make any changes with the conventions of my genre (an opinionated blog/essay for Buzzfeed).
9. Finally, how does the process of reflection help you reconsider your identity as a writer?
After reflecting on my writing and revision process for Project 3, I feel that my identity as a writer has progressed so much since the beginning of the semester. Without even realizing it, I was able to apply various rhetorical strategies in my writing that effectively support my argument. Also, I was able to write in a genre that I have never (formally) written in. I never thought that reflecting on my writing and revising process could reveal so much about the kind of writer I am and my capabilities to write in genres or about topics I am unfamiliar with. The changes I made to my project during my revision process helped me build an effective argument that I think is important and necessary to be heard.
In this blog post, I will be answering some questions from Writing Public Lives (page 520) on "Reflecting on the Revision Process" for Project 3.
 |
| Sullivan, Matthew (2007) "something to see here" via Flickr Attribution Non-Commercial 2.0 Generic License |
1. What was specifically revised from one draft to another?
Apart from small details like word-choice and grammatical errors, during my revising process I changed certain aspects of the overall purpose of the argument. At first, I was only writing about Rolling Stone's failures affecting the Phi Kappa Psi fraternity at UVA. However, during my revision process, I ended up shifting the focus of my argument more towards how Rolling Stone's failures ruined Phi Kappa Psi's reputation as well as fed the public's misconceptions of university Greek life in relation to rape culture.
2. Point to global changes: how did you reconsider your thesis or organization?
After peer review, the revisions from my classmates helped me reconsider the possibilities of the purpose of my public argument. I found it to be much more influential to write about university Greek life throughout the nation (and my experiences), rather than just at UVA. Additionally, when I added more information on universities who don't have a Greek system but still have high percentages of reported rapes (Harvard and Yale), I was able to really bring my argument together (that rape is a societal issue on university campuses, not an issue only within the Greek system--which Rolling Stone provokes their audience to think).
3. What led you to these changes? A reconsideration of audience? A shift in purpose?
Like I explained in questions 1 and 2, my changes were provoked by a shift in purpose of my public argument and what I wanted my audience to take away/consider after reading my project. I wanted my audience to reconsider their misconceptions of university Greek life (that were reinforced by Rolling Stone's article) because rape culture is a societal issue, not a Greek system issue.
4. How do these changes affect your credibility as an author?
By using a specific example, Rolling Stone's article "A Rape on Campus", I was able to building credibility for myself in the beginning of my public argument. Additionally, by adding my personal experiences within Greek life, I was able to use myself as a credible source and evoke an emotional response from my audience.
5. How will these changes better address the audience or venue?
They provoked more rhetorical strategies in my project and helped me formulate an argument on a topic that has not really been discussed/reported heavily on in the media.
6. Point to local changes: how did you reconsider sentence structure and style?
I reconsidered my style when I added my personal experience with university Greek life. I write...
"Being a woman and a member of university Greek life myself, I have experienced and witnessed the effects of these stereotypes. Whether or not some of the stereotypes stem from truth, it is ridiculous to claim that the entire Greek system is at fault for all reported university sexual assaults. I, for one, have never felt unsafe or uncomfortable within the Greek community in any environment."
...By shifting my style from what seems to be more evaluative into more personal, I hoped to gain trust/credibility with my audience.
7. How will these changes assist your audience in understanding your purpose?
The changes assist my audience in understanding my purpose by evoking emotional responses, building credibility, and pointing my audience more towards the idea that their judgements of the Greek system, inspired by Rolling Stone's journalistic failures, are not always true and that they shouldn't blame Greek life for rape culture when it is a societal issue.
8. Did you have to reconsider the conventions of the particular genre in which you are writing?
No, despite the many changes I made during my revision process I did not have to make any changes with the conventions of my genre (an opinionated blog/essay for Buzzfeed).
9. Finally, how does the process of reflection help you reconsider your identity as a writer?
After reflecting on my writing and revision process for Project 3, I feel that my identity as a writer has progressed so much since the beginning of the semester. Without even realizing it, I was able to apply various rhetorical strategies in my writing that effectively support my argument. Also, I was able to write in a genre that I have never (formally) written in. I never thought that reflecting on my writing and revising process could reveal so much about the kind of writer I am and my capabilities to write in genres or about topics I am unfamiliar with. The changes I made to my project during my revision process helped me build an effective argument that I think is important and necessary to be heard.
No comments:
Post a Comment