Writing Exercise

1. Writing Exercise • Try to write a short humor piece. It can be fictional or non-fictional. • Essay by David Sedaris

2. Peer Critique The Art of Balance

3. Assignment Description • To complete this assignment, use the guidelines on p. 63 of your textbook and compose a critique of your peers’ drafts. For each critique, you will introduce the draft, summarize its main points, assess and respond to the author's presentation, and offer conclusions about the effectiveness of the analysis. Remember to speak as specifically as possible about the draft, quoting from it when necessary. Your critique will be 400 - 500 words in length. The elements of the draft you should address include: • Text for analysis/Thesis: Identify the writer's thesis and then evaluate it for effectiveness. Determine whether the writer has selected a particular text to analyze and whether or not the thesis indicates that the writer will complete a rhetorical analysis of the text. Discuss whether the thesis is specific enough and of appropriate scope for this analysis. Explain why or why not, and provide suggestions for the writer to help improve the thesis, if necessary.

4. Cont. • • Quality and Specificity of Analysis: Evaluate the writer’s analysis. Does the writer select specific rhetorical elements of the text to discuss? What are these elements, and what does the writer have to say about them? Does the writer seem to effectively analyze, or does the draft read more as a summary or paraphrasing of parts of the text being analyzed, or does the writer end up arguing about the content, rather than the structure and presentation of the text? • Overall Essay Structure: Comment on the overall structure of the essay. For example, explain in detail whether or not the paragraphs are presented in a logical and persuasive way. Does the writer provide a clear introduction, body and conclusion? Does each paragraph begin with a clear topic sentence and transition into the next paragraph? Provide examples that are particularly effective or areas that need more improvement.

5. What is a peer critique? • an article or essay criticizing a literary or other work; a detailed evaluation; a review • Where do we find critiques? • Academic Writing • Research papers-critique sources in order to establish their usefulness • Position papers-stake out a position by critiquing other positions • Book reviews-combine summary with critique • Essay exams-demonstrate understanding of course material by critiquing it. • Workplace Writing • Legal briefs and arguments-critiquing previous rulings or arguments made by opposing counsel • Business plans and proposals-critique other, less cost-effective approaches • Policy briefs-communicate failings of policies and legislation through critique

6. What it is NOT • Summary • Not your opinion about the topic • Not a chance to put the person down

7. By giving a peer critique, you can help improve the: • FOCUSby providing feedback on what you understand the author to be saying so that the author can clarify if necessary • SOUNDNESS by evaluating strengths and weaknesses in the argumentation and evidence, and by providing well thought-out challenges and objections to claims. • STRUCTUREby helping the author clarify the ordering of her thoughts. • DEPTHby suggesting other evidence, alternate perspectives, or implications for the author to consider. • STYLEby helping the author identify places where voice, mechanics, and other stylistic elements work, and where they do not.

8. Things to do to get ready for a critique • Take it seriously • Know the assignment • Intend to be constructive • Familiarize yourself with the piece • Make notes on the paper • Understand the piece before critiquing it, or at least understand what it is you don’t get

9. Guidelines for writing critiques: • Introduce the passage under analysis, the author, and state the author’s main argument and point(s) you intend to make about it • Include background material: explanation of why the subject is of current interest; reference to possible controversy surrounding the subj; account of the circumstances it was written under; reference to the intended audience of the passage • Summarize the main points, making sure to state the author’s purpose for writing

10. Guidelines Cont. • Assess the presentation: evaluate the validity of the author’s presentation, as distinct from your points of agreement or disagreement. • Comment on the author’s success in achieving his or her purpose by reviewing three or four specific points • Is the info accurate? • Is the info significant? • Has the author defined terms clearly? • Has the author used and interpreted the info fairly? • Has the author argued logically?

11. Cont. again… • Respond to the presentation • With which views do you agree? • Disagree? • Discuss your reasons why you agree/disagree-try tying these reasons to assumptions-both the author’s and your own

12. Yep. Cont. again… • Conclude about the overall validity of the piece-your assessment of the author’s success at achieving his or her aims and your reactions to the author’s views. • Remind the reader of the weaknesses and strengths of the passage

13. Example Unus • This analysis is based on “Do You Speak American” by Robert McNeil. The argument and thesis is that McNeil uses word choice, tone, and use of appeal to credibility and emotion to address controversial questions regarding American English. This thesis seems to set up a rhetorical analysis well and allows the reader to prepare for what should come next. First in the analysis discusses the appeal to credibility. It starts with the purpose of the appeal to credibility. I would expect for the examples of appeal to credibility to be next but I am unable to find them, they should come after the description of the element to read more smoothly. . It goes on to talk about some other dialects then to who McNeil is addressing and gives examples of how. This is part of the rhetorical elements but it is not introduced in the thesis, if it were then this would be effective. Towards the end, the analysis talks about appeal to emotion. I do not see anything specifically related to word choice or tone, although they are mentioned as rhetorical elements in the introduction. This analysis has too much summarization and paraphrasing and not enough analysis of the work. I think the analysis could be better organized because it seems to be scattered and it is hard for me to follow. The introduction and conclusion seem effective but the body could use work to match with the introduction and conclusion; or the body could be left alone but change the thesis, introduction and conclusion to match the body paragraphs. More transition sentences are needed to make the analysis read more smoothly. I think that the ideas are there and are good but just need to be structured differently. Also, it is important for this to be an analysis and not summarize and paraphrase.

14. Example numeroduae • The author of the work is Mujica but I do not know the name of the work for it is not stated. There is no introduction, which makes it hard for me to understand what I am looking for and what the thesis is and makes it difficult to effectively do this critique. I believe that the argument has to do with the U.S. taking action to have an official language. I see a lot of summarization, paraphrasing, and quotes from the article but I do not see much of an analysis. It needs to focus more on who this is addressed to, why it is important, who it is important to and why the author chose the rhetorical elements he did to prove his point. I am unable to find any rhetorical elements specified, even in the conclusion.

15. Remember: • CONSTRUCTIVE criticism; tone is everything • Include all the points listed here • Make sure to point out strengths as well as weaknesses • Include organization; this is still an essay • Don’t use first person