Editorial Report 1

Production Report 14b

I haven't exactly produced much content yet and what I have is pretty scattered, so I'll update this post tomorrow with some wonderful draft material!

Production Report 14a

I haven't exactly produced much content yet and what I have is pretty scattered, so I'll update this post tomorrow with some wonderful draft material!

Peer Review for Eren Arbac

I reviewed Eren Arbac's content outline that I think can be found here. I left him a pretty specific outlining recommendation concerning his first body section.


In the outline, he seemed a little repetitive and restated the idea he had instead of explaining it, and I wanted to make sure he would be really specific and clear and provide a good explanation in the actual project. I think my recommendation definitely helps him because while it's easier to get detailed and dig into the specifics when talking about yourself, I still think having a clear idea from get-go will help. And as it stands I can't find that from his outline.


According to the Course Final Assignment Sheet, it seems we are encouraged to get specific about whatever components of our writing process we want to, but it seems that we have to focus on something and really explain it. I think my recommendation will help with him final product in achieving this goal.


I was a fan of the way he wanted to focus on how his writing improved and gear his evidence in order to support that, rather than just talk about what happened this semester on the surface. The fact that he wants to talk about how he grew as a writer more than just what his process is, that was inspiring and I'm definitely going to try to think of some way to put a spin on my project that makes the topic more important like Eren did.

Production Schedule for the Course Final

I made a schedule that is meant to keep me on track with this project. It's not incredibly detailed but that's because I'm doing all of my filming tomorrow so I didn't break it down to the hours and minutes when it will be done because I don't even know what I'm eating for breakfast or wearing tomorrow so how could I possibly be that prepared. I'm not about that life. But I did try to design this in a way that will be useful for me, so if you wanna check it out you'll click here.

Content Outline for the Course Final

Iiiiiiii've got a content outline for ya! Hopefully focusing on my inability to do process work will fill out enough for my video essay. If you wanna sneak a peek, you'd find my outline here.

Reflection on Post Production II And Also The Project In General

Project's in on time, blog work is just about done, and I'm chillin like a villain feeling pretty good but kinda self doubting due to peer review but trying to convince myself that it was all good and I shouldn't feel like I want to cry because I'm so stressed

• Things that went right include: finishing a fairly decent 7-page paper about transgender bathroom bills through detailed editing and praying to gods in which I don't believe, catching up on the peer review that I was behind on, and I think truly managing to produce something I'm proud of.
• The worst part about this round of work for me was peer review. Where I normally get reviews with a few suggestions, this time around I got reviews that really tore my paper apart. I actually got really discouraged because of it. I had a peer advise that I remove the solution I proposed because it seemed to come out of no where and didn't really make sense and that my argument would be stronger if I just critiqued the solution at hand, but then I had another review later tell me I should come up with my own solution to the problem and that would help me sound better. This was really obnoxious because a person can only change what they have at the advice of someone else so many times. When people's opinions conflict, what am I supposed to do? I also just had a lot of "you shouldn't say this" "I wouldn't say it this way" and things like that which is useful a week ago but only caused panic as I received that review today. A major overhaul of my paper was recommended with only hours to spare. I ended up not abiding by most of those suggestions due to time constraints and my own personal stubbornness and opinion that my argument was fine, but i'm reeeeeeeeally having some doubts now. But I guess it's too late to worry. I just think peer review that occurs in week 4 is useless since people don't do it until late in the week when it's too late for the author to apply the review. Sorry this was so long, I just have a lot of feelings.
• New week, new project so this week's evidence doesn't really imply anything about next week. But I'm hoping for the best!
• Like I said, I was feeling good until I got conflicting and negative peer review on the last day of the project. I know I picked a hard topic but I really do think I argued it well, despite my critical peer review. It's just hard to be confident when people are tearing you down. Whatever though. My project was awesome.

Editorial Report 13b

Alright so this next one might be a little cheap but all of my other edits were either adding entire paragraphs or minor edits so I didn't have much choice. Here's my Works Cited page, before and after I actually did it.


Rough Cut:

Works Cited

Don't you dare forget to do this

Revised version:

Works Cited

Baklinski, Peter. "Sexual Predator Jailed after Claiming to Be ‘transgender’ to Assault Women in Shelter." Life Site. N.p., 4 Mar. 2014. Web. 10 Apr. 2016.     

Kellaway, Mitch. "Trans Folks Respond to 'Bathroom Bills' With #WeJustNeedtoPee Selfies." The Advocate. N.p., 17 Nov. 2015. Web. 25 Apr. 2016.  

                                                                                         

Sullivan, Tom. "Ted Cruz Ad Goes After Trump On "Trans Bathroom Bill" Issue!" FOX News Radio. Fox News Network, 22 Apr. 2016. Web. 23 Apr. 2016

Tan, Avianne. "North Carolina's Controversial 'Anti-LGBT' Bill Explained." ABC News. ABC News Network, 24 Mar. 2016. Web. 26 Mar. 2016.   

Triller, Kaeley. "A Rape Survivor Speaks Out About Transgender Bathrooms." The Federalist. N.p., 23 Nov. 2015. Web. 10 Apr. 2016.                            

• The content changed in that there was a literal addition of text to my paper, but it didn't actually change my argument or the true meaning of anything I said in the paper.
• What did change was form. A Works Cited change is a staple of a Standard College Essay; without it my audience would have no way of seeing the sources I used to compile my argument and I would lose a lot of credibility. Having sources professionally cited is critical when it comes to writing an essay, or so I've been told

Editorial Report 13a

 Daaaaamn, Rhiannon...back at it again with another editorial report.  And this time I kinda went ham.


Rough Cut:

The major cause for concern when it comes to the "bathroom bills" is the potential for deceit and the sexual assault that could come as a result. Sexual assault has already taken place proliferously in public facilities such as restrooms and locker rooms (citation). If this is the case, what will happen to the statistic if predators are given some sort of opening to enter such facilities with much less concern for their intent? Think how easy it could be for a documented sex offender to claim a transgender identity to enter a bathroom of their choosing and victimize innocent people who are busy taking care of their own business.


Revised Selection:

The more legitimate cause for concern with allowing trans people to use the facilities that match their gender identities is the potential for deceit on the part of cisgender (non-transgender) predators. Restrooms, locker rooms, and other similar facilities are particularly vulnerable public spaces. Users expect a certain degree of privacy in areas in which they undress, even if only partially and within a stall. To open such an area up to anyone of any biological sex would be to open the area up to opportunist predators and sex offenders. If it becomes the norm not to doubt someone’s intentions, think how easy it could be for an evil person - perhaps even a documented sex offender - to claim a transgender identity and enter the bathroom of their choosing to victimize innocent people who believed their privacy was protected.

• The content changed considerably, though the overall end meaning did not. Little things like word choice and attention to phrasing were key in these edits. This added length to the paragraph as well as precision of language. I also got rid of the lie I had in there because I was hoping to find a statistic but I couldn't find one so it had to make room for something that wasn't a blatant lie.
• Again like a previous post, the form doesn't exactly change much with these content edits. I fixed a parenthetical in-text citation which is a genre convention, but they're both fairly equal standard college essay paragraphs.

Peer Review for Ben Macklin

Last but definitely not least, I reviewed Ben Macklin's video essay titled "Rethinking Addiction." I actually ended up providing a similar suggestion as the one I provided to Cynthia about video source use.

I advised that even though it's really good to have lots of video footage, it might not be incredible to have lots of long and drawn-out clips but to opt for shorter ones that still drive points in but don't do all the talking for you.


Again, I remember coming across something in Student's Guide that says to integrate quotes and sources and things precisely, and while his videos were interesting, they were a little long and they sort of took over the argument instead of acting like a true quote.


I think this review helps Ben because it's always important to use sources properly. They can provide a means of proving credibility, so misuse can really take a toll on a project's effectiveness and it pays to be careful with how profusely a source is quoted. That's mostly just from my own experience though.

Peer Review for Cynthia Morton

Today, folks, I reviewed Cynthia Morton's project titled "What Really Causes the Gender Pay Gap" and again I'm not sure what my peer review counts as for a category. I suppose it was a copy-editing suggestion concerning her sources.


Her sources were really good but I was concerned that Cynthia didn't do enough of her own talking about the project. There were slides of her own silent text and a few instances of voice-over, but it seemed like the bulk of her project was just clips of other people talking about the gender gap. I thought it would be more effective for Cynthia to do more of the talking herself and really present the argument herself, rather than constructing it through clips of other people. Those clips are great but the entire video shouldn't be completely composed of them, from what I understood.


This isn't specific but I vaguely remember reading something in Student's Guide about incorporating sources so I applied that vague memory as well as general knowledge in this peer review.


I think this suggestion will help Cynthia because it strengthens her argument. A stronger argument means the purpose is more successfully achieved, and what could be better than that? Nothing. Literally nothing.

Revised Post to Peer Reviewers

We're coming to the end of the battle but I'm obligated to provide a link to my revised draft, which is actually the exact same link as the previous one since I'm working in Google Drive. Nevertheless, you asked for it, so here it is!

• I'd again like to remind peer reviewers that I'm arguing an unpopular opinion and I'd like people to hear me out before they start accusing me of being a terrible person. I'd also like to clarify that my argument isn't made because I'm gearing up to provide an ultimate better solution. My entire argument is literally just to complain about someone else's idea. It's the part of the activity from the first day of this project where we wrote why the solution was terrible? That's my entire essay. So there's that
• Weaknesses might be areas in which I contradict myself, or in which I'm not entirely clear. I'm an idiot and I decided to argue something that's a little difficult to defend and explain clearly, and so far feedback that I've gotten on those things have been the most helpful, so I'd love if we kept that coming
• I honestly think my counterarguments are pretty good. It's incredibly easy to see the counterarguments, especially because I took the unpopular opinion so the vast majority of people actually believe in the opposite of what I chose to argue. So those were pretty abundant and while they might have been hard to handle as they pertained to discrimination, I do think I handled them fairly well. I also feel pretty good about my essay-writing capabilities, so I think my final product will be pretty good!

Peer Review for Michaela Harrington

I listened to Michaela's project (I couldn't find a title anywhere) about fracking and the harmful effect it has on Oklahomans. I think what I provided was a content recommendation.


Basically I feel that her project was very informative and educational, but not exactly argumentative. She presents both sides very clearly, but doesn't distinguish one as an argument and one as a counterargument. Until the very last sentence, I'm not completely sure of what she's arguing for or what she wants me to believe. So I suggested she try to frame her evidence not as background on the story, but as reasons to believe her side. Just subtle word choice and the way she introduces pieces of evidence can place her on a side and help her argument naturally materialize.


This is helpful because without it, her project seems more like the Controversy Postmortem than a Public Argument. It's obviously critical to defend a stance, and Michaela herself was worried she sounded too neutral. I think calling her attention back to that in these last few days could allow her to really strengthen her argument before submission.

Peer Review for Julia Davenport

Here we go with some more peer review! I've now taken a listen to Julia Davenport's "Homelessness" and given her a mostly a form recommendation as well as a little content note.


I advised that she not overlap her intro music with her dialogue, or to boost the volume on her voice track there, as it's hard to hear and understand her. I don't think it's a good thing to start a podcast with something unclear, as it could set the wrong tone and the audience's first impression may not be very good. It also makes it easier for a student to understand the topic of the podcast right away.


I also recommended that she add a conclusion that wraps up her argument and gathers all of her main ideas together. I'm sure she already intended to do this, but it'll really help leave her audience knowing exactly what her purpose in talking with us was.


I think these comments help because they'll develop her project into something really great in these last few days of project workshopping. It's the little things that can make the difference for a project, and I think these things are like the finishing touches that Julia needs to have a super duper incredible project.

Peer Review for David Klebosky

Keeping that "Wow my peers are really good at constructing intriguing arguments and projects" train going, I reviewed David Klebosky's project titled "Satire is Making Way for Absurdism". The project lives here in audio form and here in raw script text form.


I left him a long-winded comment about his sources and the nee to include some of a different type that is currently lacking in his draft. I suppose it's kind of a hybrid research recommendation and content suggestion, as the inclusion of new research would change the content, which is essentially what I was advocating for.


I think my comment helps because he doesn't introduce his topic as something that other people are interested in or talking about. He never brings up a source in which people are talking about the issue, whether agreeing or disagreeing, and it makes the audience wonder if the topic is even relevant in the least. I wanted to call this to his attention and challenge him to include some source (if there's something out there) about what other people are saying.


Apparently I struggle to tie in Student's Guide. Maybe I just can't put my genius into a category. Hahaha completely kidding. But I am able to tie in the Project 3 Assignment Sheet, which states that we need to contribute to an ongoing controversy. David didn't paint his argument in this way and I wouldn't want his argument to be weaker or lose points by not giving mind to this idea.


I really liked David's use of genre conventions and his overall comfort on the mic. He was really good at communicating conversationally, and it was definitely a pleasant project to experience. He was really intriguing and funny, and this does a lot to hold a listener's attention. I hope I'm able to employ a similar interest factor in my own project, despite that my genre is text-based.

Peer Review for Erica Mohr

This trend of discovering amazing drafts continues below as I run through my peer review of Erica Mohr's "Sex Ed in America: Abolish Abstinence-Only Education."


I suppose I performed a content suggestion. Basically I implored of her to incorporate some sort of hook into her introduction, so whatever that counts as. Maybe it's more of a copy-editing suggestion. I don't know but I think my suggestion helps because captivating your audience from the get-go is critical, especially if you're trying to convince them of something. You wouldn't want them to feel disinterested our neutral when the purpose is to make them agree with you on the matter, and I think establishing that interest factor immediately is a really helpful move to make.


I'm not sure where this comes into play in the Student's Guide. Perhaps in variety, since a hook is a different style of communication from exposition or narrative that goes in providing evidence in an argument. But we know it's just a generally good principle to hook your audience in your intro, and I wanted to highlight that I thought this was a weakness in her draft.


However, her strengths lie in her credibility established through her sources, her refutation of counterarguments, and her overall argument strength. I think once she finishes the voice-over, she will have nailed the genre, too. I was really impressed with her draft. I think if anyone needed help constructing their arguments, I'd direct them to Erica's draft. 10/10 would recommend

Peer Review for Hannah Gardner

So far I've been lucky and I've been reviewing some really interesting projects and I'm so happy! I just completed a review of Hannah Gardener's "The Inseparability of Nature and Nurture" and left primarily some language usage suggestions, placing my peer review in the category of local revision.


I think my comments could really help Hannah in that precision of language is SO crucial when it comes to topics in science. If the audience does not have a strong background in science, you could lose or confuse them so easily by being wordy or imprecise. It also strengthens an argument to speak clearly and say exactly what you mean, so I think suggesting improvements in word choice really can make a difference.


I tried to incorporate local revision concepts from Student's Guide but I knew what I wanted to suggest and it wasn't on the list. Maybe I was more nit-picky and pointed out little things, but I think what  I did was helpful even though it didn't fall into a category like tense usage, wordiness (well one suggestion did) etc.


I really liked the way she constructed her entire argument as essentially a fight against the counterargument. It flows really naturally to see "someone thinks this but this isn't the case, someone else thinks this but here's the truth". Especially with an argument like  I think it was a really natural and smart move, and I wonder if there's any way I could keep this in mind andapply it at least somewhere in my own draft.

Peer Review for Katie Russell

I reviewed Katie Russell's project titled "Male Birth Control: Innovative Option or Experimental Hoax", and I performed a content recommendation based on the need I saw for a stronger argument.




I think this will help because considering the purpose of the audience is to present an argument, you're trying to convince the audience why they should believe you. And as an audience member to her project, I didn't walk away feeling convinced of anything. I felt informed and I had formed my own opinion, but I wasn't swayed to believe anything based on the project. Her stance wasn't clear to me and the purpose (to convince) wasn't achieved, and I think that's a critical error that needed to be pointed out. My criticisms should help her to better achieve that goal.




From what I remember, my recommendation corresponds with the Student's Guide content on constructing arguments - I'm not sure what this is exactly and I don't have the guide on me but I'd rather tie my criticism in with the Project 3 Guide anyways. We're supposed to make an argument that connects with a current controversy, and from my perspective Katie's argument just didn't do that.


I really loved a lot of things about her project: the interest factor, her humor and tone, her control over the genre, and her clarity and precision in explanation. That's more than one thing but her draft really impressed me in these aspects and motivated me to really kick it into high gear and make something that's just as good.

Reflection On Global Revision for Project 3

It's like you're my mirror, my mirror staring back at me...and now it's clear as this promise that we're making two REFLECTIONs into one....okay so like this always comes to mind when we do reflections so I figured maybe now is the time to use this as my little lead paragraph. So here ya go.

1. Successes: I have a good deal of this content truly generated and I'm feeling on top of the game. Usually I'm behind and stressed at this point but I think other than strengthening my arguments, adding a conclusion and possibly a couple more paragraphs depending on if I want to make my argument go in those directions, I'm gonna be golden!
2. Failures include probably not working on it as much as I could've and I'm about to enter a stressful week and it would've been so wise to get ahead and I planned on it but it didn't happen and I'm kicking myself but I guess now I just have to move on. I also did less global revision than I did more content creation but I'm not a heavy reviser so I can recover from that.
3. I think next week should be pretty okay, I'm prepared enough for everything and I'm a strong essay writer so hopefully (knocking on wood and crossing fingers as we speak) I can pull this thing together. I'm feelin good. I dunno.
4. I'm feeling pretty good still about the project. Time may be running out but I still think I can write a strong argumentative essay, I've already got it going pretty well, and I'm gonna ace it. Guaranteed.

Editorial Report 12b

I've got some more editorial work comin' atcha with this latest edition in this saga of blog posts!


Rough Cut:

Firstly, it is not my intention to claim that transgender people who have no history of sexual assault are going to suddenly become perverts and sexually harass others when allowed into the bathrooms matching their gender identities. This is the conservative view that dominates in opposition to allowing transgender bathroom access. It is not my opinion that the trans community is likely to commit crimes against innocent restroom users. In fact, this is actually the opposite of what happens frequently - because trans people are viewed under such a negative light by society, there is no shortage of documentation of poor treatment of trans people within public facilities (citation). It just would not be practical for anyone to make this claim, so it should be made clear that the purpose of this paper is not to accuse transgender people of being sexual predators.
Revised Cut:

Firstly, it is not my intention to claim that transgender people who have no history of sexual assault are going to suddenly become perverts and sexually harass others when allowed into the bathrooms matching their gender identities. This is the conservative view that dominates in opposition to allowing transgender bathroom access; an example of this would be Republican presidential hopeful Ted Cruz’s recent ad describing a transgender woman as a “man pretending to be a woman” and implying that for that reason, she should not be allowed to use a women’s restroom. (Sullivan). It is not my opinion that the trans community is likely to commit crimes against innocent restroom users. I completely recognize all non-binary genders, (genders other than “male” and “female”) and there is no rationale for accusing trans people of being likely sex offenders.

• I deleted some claims that I ultimately couldn't defend well in favor of an approach to making me sound like not an asshole as well as addressing a counterargument before it becomes an issue because I know it would've. I think those moves helped to communicate things more effectively because rather than giving some false claims, I made statements that the audience would theoretically agree with and just sounded more logical and credible.
• Besides the addition of a formal in-text citation replacing the original marker for a citation to be added later, the form really didn't change much. Both are paragraphs and neither one is a "better" looking paragraph.

Editorial Report 12a

Editing is my least favorite part of the writing process. I'd much rather just get it right the first time and be done with it. However, I am but a human on this cruel planet we call Earth and as such, I must tolerate my imperfection and edit my shit.

Short Selection From "Rough Cut": Title & Introduction
The Big Fuss About the Bathroom

    It seems that most people, at some point in their lives, will struggle with "finding themselves" or some other issue pertaining to the self. But no one knows this struggle as intimately as a transgender person. The dysphoria that comes with being born inside of the wrong body is something unparalleled by any other feeling. And as an ally with a transgender best friend, I can fully testify that it is not a happy existence trying to find comfort or acceptance with the situation. One place where gender discomfort largely exists is within restrooms, locker rooms, or other private facilities. Here, a trans person might feel a strong sense of non-belonging and unease at being misidentified. Legislation is springing up as a result that addresses the concern; some bills being proposed would allow a trans person to use the restroom or facility that corresponds with their gender identity. In instances such as North Carolina, these bills are being shot down rapidly before they even had the chance to be defended fully.

(Go into North Carolina issue in more depth + add citation) Of course it's great that American society is trying to become more welcoming and understanding of individuals who might not conform to the "norm". However, North Carolina's concerns are absolutely valid, and maybe they're onto something. Allowing people of opposite biological sexes could indirectly jeopardize the safety of others; furthermore, bathrooms are not divided by identity (as sex and gender are two different things) and trying to turn a restroom into a matter of identity might not be the most useful to any party involved. A better way for society to combat trans discomfort would be employing more single-occupancy, gender-neutral restrooms.


Revised Title & Introduction:
Putting the “T” in “Restroom”: The Manifestation of Gender Issues In Public Space

Humans live as a species divided by opinions and experiences, but it seems that most people have difficulty at some point with identity. But no one knows this struggle as intimately as a transgender person. The dysphoria that comes with being born inside of the wrong body is something unparalleled by any other feeling. And as an ally who has spoken with numerous trans people on the matter, I can fully testify that it is not a happy existence trying to find comfort or acceptance with the situation. One place where gender discomfort largely exists is within restrooms, locker rooms, or other private facilities. Here, a trans person might feel a strong sense of non-belonging and unease at being misidentified. Legislation is springing up as a result that addresses the concern; some bills being proposed would allow a trans person to use the restroom or facility that corresponds with their gender identity. In instances such as North Carolina, these bills are being shot down rapidly before they even had the chance to be defended fully.

House Bill 2, both introduced and signed into law on March 23rd, 2016, prevents public establishments from allowing transgender people to use the restroom/facility corresponding to their identities unless they’ve had sex-reassignment surgery. The bill was hastily introduced into the House as an attempt to thwart an ordinance that would’ve allowed trans people in the state’s capital to use facility that matched their gender identity. (http://abcnews.go.com/US/north-carolinas-controversial-anti-lgbt-bill-explained/story?id=37898153) Of course it's great that American society is trying to become more welcoming and understanding of individuals who might not conform to the "norm". And it’s easy to see how the bill could have been received as a slap in the face to the LGBTQ+ community. However, North Carolina's safety concerns are absolutely valid, and maybe they're onto something truly positive with House Bill 2. Permitting people to use whichever restroom regardless of biological sex could indirectly jeopardize the safety of innocents; for this reason, public facilities should remain segregated by sex. A better way for society to combat trans discomfort would be employing more single-occupancy, gender-neutral restrooms.

1. For one thing, I did some adding and expanding with the necessary background info, which was definitely a must-do that I was putting off. Now my reader will have a greater understanding of the situation at hand and what has sparked current interest. I also fixed a few issues with wording in my first few sentences as well as within the whole thing and I think this gives clarity to what I'm speaking about. I also condensed my thesis; I'm still not in love with it but I think it's better.
2. Maybe form is better achieved with the title change, as it sounds intriguing but still respectable. Again, I'm still not in love with it, but it's much more essay-esque. Back to my thesis, it now more closely resembles a conventional essay thesis as it's shorter and more concise (though I'm hoping to achieve a more precise level of concision eventually)

Open Post to Peer Reviewers

I know this isn't due until next week's deadline, but I'm super ready to share my draft now! It's not perfect or a final product as usual, but it's something I'm ready to share for anyone who is ready to peer review.

• I want people to know that I am definitely arguing the unpopular opinion. The majority of kids in my age range, or the majority of politically left-leaning individuals, would want trans people to use the bathroom matching the gender with which they identify. As much as I want them to feel more comfortable and though I am absolutely an ally as someone who's best friend is trans, I'm also a sexual assault victim, and the thought of being unsafe in such a vulnerable area (not because I'm afraid of a trans person using the same bathroom as me and harassing me; i'm afraid of an evil cis male who gets the idea to pretend to be trans and easily sneak into my bathroom to assault me) makes me feel sick to my stomach. I think it's important for someone, that someone being me at this point, to present the counterargument in a logical and appealing way. If the politics and laws don't swing the way I want them to, I at least want people to consider the way the argument looks from my perspective and give a little thought to the idea that everything's a trade-off and there's no way everyone can be happy and we really need to consider the consequences of passing laws before we hastily pass them. Sorry this was not concise, I'm just really passionate about this issue and I want to make sure my stance is known so I don't get a bunch of peer review that's like "hey your opinion sucks". Feel free to disagree but I'd prefer to get feedback on my work and unless you have a really compelling reason why I should change my stance, I'd rather just have the feedback.
• Weaknesses include some weird sentences with too many words where I'm trying to explain precisely what I mean at the cost of concision, as well as possible repetition of words like "identity/identify" "restroom/facility" "trans/transgender" etc. I don't want to overuse these words so if there are any places you find where I could swap in a pronoun or re-word that would be so cool
• I think virtues include (for the most part) my writing style overall - things like word choice and sentence fluency and genre conventions and things. I'm also pretty pleased with how that body content shaped up to form an argument - but if I'm wrong please point it out!

Whew! Now without further ado, heeeeeere's my draft!

Reflection on Project 3 Production

This has been by far my most successful production phase ever ever ever ad I'm super proud, guys. I got lots of draft done. I did the thing. I'm so proud of myself. It may not be the absolute most perfect or complete draft but hey. I wrote a draft and it's good and I'm happy.

1. Successes were having gotten enough research done in the pre-production phases that I was able to form logical sentences that comprised a logical argument when I stopped writing. Sounds silly but my production week from Project 2 resulted in two minutes of really terrible podcast so now that I have around 3-4 pages of really pretty alright essay I'm feeling that.
2. I think my biggest failure was not getting further in the draft, but this was in part due to the fact that I didn't know my first body point was going to take four paragraphs to explain or that I was about to enter a life crisis that took me away from drafting and left me here doing blog posts at 2 a.m. But life happens. Can't avoid it.
3. Next week is probably gonna be super good since I'm very much on track and there isn't too much terrible blog work and I get to keep adding and editing my draft and that's all the blog work is besides peer review. So I should have no trouble - assuming life doesn't happen this time around - having a super killer week next week.
4. I'm feeling really good. Even though I picked an unpopular and difficult to defend opinion, I think it's actually shaping up that I can tie in enough evidence to support this thing without sounding like a transphobe which I 100% am not. I'm also incredibly comfortable in this genre, this is what I know and what I've always been good at so by the end of it I think I'm gonna have a project in which I really take pride. And the being on track really feels good so I'm pretty stoked overall.

Production Report 11b

Second verse, same as the first! (This is me writing during the middle of the night and trying to be cute while leading into a very structured and specific blog post that serves the same effect as the previous blog post and where such a post is tougher for me to lead into since the content is so rigid and there isn't major room for creativity or different answers than the next kid and things of that sort.)


OUTLINE ITEM

Body 1:

    Sexual harassment in bathrooms does occur frequently, and it’s not that trans people are going to commit harassment, but that allowing anyone to use either bathroom could increase the feasibility of a sex offender to get into a bathroom claiming a trans identity just to get to their victims.

ADAPTATION OF OUTLINE ITEM

Firstly, the argument against trans people using the bathrooms of the sex with which they identify is often interpreted incorrectly. It is not my intention to claim that transgender people who have no history as sex offenders are going to suddenly become perverts and sexually harass or assault anybody as a result of being allowed into the bathroom that matches their gender identity. In fact, this is actually the opposite of what happens frequently - because trans people are viewed under such a negative light by society, there is no shortage of documentation of poor treatment of trans people within public facilities (citation). It just would not be practical for anyone to make this claim, so it should be made clear that the purpose of this paper is not to accuse transgender people of being sexual predators.

The major cause for concern when it comes to the "bathroom bills" is the potential for deceit and the sexual assault that could come as a result. Sexual assault has already taken place proliferously in public facilities such as restrooms and locker rooms (citation). If this is the case, what will happen to the statistic if predators are given some sort of opening to enter such facilities with much less concern for their intent? Think how easy it could be for a documented sex offender to claim a transgender identity to enter the a bathroom of their choosing and victimize innocent people who are busy taking care of their own business.

Granted, it may take a little searching to find documentation of such a scenario that has occured in the past. This is how people counter the argument against allowing cis- and transgender individuals to share restrooms. This lack of evidence could easily be explained by the fact that laws that allow restroom use by gender identity exist in such low concentration throughout the nation. Of course you aren't going to frequently see the result of a problem before the problem exists. But if states begin enacting such laws, it would not be surprising if cases of facility-related sexual harassment started springing up. "Victimizers use any opening they can find," claims rape survivor Kaeley Triller in an emotional piece about bathroom bills. "There are countless deviant [people] in this world who will pretend to be transgender as a means of gaining access to the people they want to exploit." (http://thefederalist.com/2015/11/23/a-rape-survivor-speaks-out-about-transgender-bathrooms/, fix citation)

Take Ontario, Canada for example. A cisgender male named Christopher Hambrook, who had a long history of sexual violence beginnng with molesting a five-year-old girl, gained entrance two separate women's shelters by claiming to identify as a trans woman named Jessica. He then took his opportunity to sexually assault multiple women, ranging from watching a woman as she showered to inappropriately touching a sleeping woman. (https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/sexual-predator-jailed-after-claiming-to-be-transgender-in-order-to-assault, fix citation) The incident sparked a lot of discussion, including many opposers of inclusive-to-trans bathroom laws wagging their fingers and saying "I told you so." Just like in grade school, the actions of one person could bring consequences that affect eveyone. Abusers of priviledges have the ability to ruin something good for those who benefit from the priviledge. While it means so much to be inclusive and understanding of transgender people, expanding bathrooms to include those of transgender identities could bring potential true risk and harm to innocent individuals. And even though predators can still sneak into private areas, under no circumstances should we make it any easier for them by providing them a valid excuse for getting in.

AUTHOR RESPONSE TO AUDIENCE QUESTIONS

1. As far as form goes, I employed a credibly professional tone as well as in-text citations (to be edited later) to adhere to the genre conventions. I also just find it really simple to place argumentative, persuasive-essay-type content into written text, which means I made a good choice ditching my original video essay idea for the good ol' SCE. Things like my use of lengthy paragraphs and clear evidence to back claims are also typical and strong essay material.
2. The process of creating this content actually went extremely well, I think. It did take me a lot longer than I had expected it to take, since my little three-line bullet points expanded into four paragraphs of text. I hope this isn't shaping up my essay to be too long but this truly is the bulk of my argument so hopefully the remaining of my points won't take up quite as much space. It was also really easy for me to get the content on the page. I don't usually do too much planning or revisng. Mostly it all just happens at once and that was the case and I didn't have to take any breaks from this producton and that felt pretty good.

Production Report 11a

Heyyyyy I've got some draft material to share with you now that I'm done dealing with a personal life crisis, so check it out below!


OUTLINE ITEM

Transgender individuals are starting to come into the liberal and political spotlights now more than ever. These individuals are so often discriminated against by people who don’t acknowledge their gender identities, and in some cases this discrimination manifests as harassment or violence. As a result, transgender people don’t always feel very comfortable in public. It has been brought up as partial solution that a trans person should be allowed to use the restroom that matches their gender identity, rather than their biological gender. Unfortunately, this is not a good solution for the problem. Allowing this could jeopardize the safety of others, and using the bathroom is just a necessary daily process and it shouldn’t necessarily be a statement of identity. A better way for society to combat trans discomfort would be employing more single-occupancy, gender-neutral restrooms.

ADAPTATION OF OUTLINE ITEM
 It seems that most people, at some point in their lives, will struggle with "finding themselves" or some other issue pertaining to the self. But no one knows this struggle as intimately as a transgender person. The dysphoria that comes with being born inside of the wrong body is something unparalleled by any other feeling. And as an ally with a transgender best friend, I can fully testify that it is not a happy existence trying to find comfort or acceptance with the situation. One place where gender discomfort largely exists is within restrooms, locker rooms, or other private facilities. Here, a trans person might feel a strong sense of non-belonging and unease at being misidentified. Legislation is springing up as a result that addresses the concern; some bills being proposed would allow a trans person to use the restroom or facility that corresponds with their gender identity. In instances such as North Carolina, these bills are being shot down rapidly before they even had the chance to be defended fully.
(Go into North Carolina issue in more depth + add citation) Of course it's great that American society is trying to become more welcoming and understanding of individuals who might not conform to the "norm". However, North Carolina's concerns are absolutely valid, and maybe they're onto something. Allowing people of opposite biological sexes could indirectly jeopardize the safety of others; furthermore, bathrooms are not divided by identity (as sex and gender are two different things) and trying to turn a restroom into a matter of identity might not be the most useful to any party involved. A better way for society to combat trans discomfort would be employing more single-occupancy, gender-neutral restrooms.


AUTHOR RESPONSE TO AUDIENCE QUESTIONS

1.  I used form very carefully while creating this content. It wasn't easy, because my heart just wants to discuss the issue informally, but I was able to adopt a professional and more credible tone that is consistent with the standard college essay. Things like word choice and in-text citations (which will be there properly in no time, pinky promise) are very typical of the genre and employing these definitely did my project well
2. The production of an introduction is always a little tough for me. I always want to just dive in there, which I do, but then I realize that I have no real idea where my paper is going to go until I start writing so I end up canning the beginnings of an introduction. Despite that, I think it went pretty well. I think I'm going to need to find ways to be more interesting Trying to come up with hooks and things was my biggest issue with the intro, as well as making my thesis (the last two sentences) a cohesive and concise entity. Other than that, I think it was successful and at least some content is better than no content.

Research Report

*Again takes in deep, preparatory breath similar to the one taken in Project 1's  Pre-Production to help push through this tedious (but useful) blog post*...

1. Title: North Carolina's Controversial 'Anti-LGBT' Bill Explained
• Author: Avianne Tan
• She has lots of experience reporting a diverse range of stories
• She's very informed on news and is likely to know important things that are going on, as can be seen from her Twitter.
• Host: ABC News
• Audience:
• Purpose: The source is trying to explain what's going on with the bill. You can tell from the title, and it's also a very non-biased source.
• Context: It's good for my project because it illustrates the importance of the topic at this very moment in time. It's developing as we speak and this source really places urgency on the issue. It also is a good example of how this source fits in politically as a hot-button issue that's a big deal to lawmakers.
2. Conservative Rhetoric and Transgender Bathroom Battles
3. Predictions of trans bathroom harassment unfounded
4. A Rape Survivor Speaks Out About Transgender Bathrooms
5. Let Transgender People Achieve their American Dream
6. Trans Folks Respond to 'Bathroom Bills' with #WeJustNeedtoPee Selfies
7. d
8. d
9. d
10. d
11. d

Reflection on Pre-Production

And so ends a week of being behind and stressing about everything under the sun while also trying to keep up with English because it just never ends and ultimately getting a bad grade on the chem test and not even keeping up with English and i'm not gonna lie it was a rough one. But let's make like a mirror and reflect, shall we? ;) oooh man. I'm good.

1. Success included learning new things about the trans community and things they feel. (I'm an ally and my best friend is trans so I have a lot of heart behind it, so it means a lot to learn from the entire community) Successes also include narrowing in my topic and getting some semblance of an outline-ish thing together. Also picked the standard college essay genre and that feels good.
2. Failure included time management, as usual, and only seeing 3 blog posts for the week instead of the 7 that actually existed and procrastinating for too long and ultimately really screwing myself over.
3. I think next week will go well, I have enough sources and enough of a plan to assemble a decent draft, and I also have allocated time properly to hopefully not mess that up.
4. I'm feeling pretty good. Writing an essay gives me confidence, and I found a topic of interest that I can put my heart behind, and there's a lot of information out there and a lot to say. I'll feel better once my draft is finished though.

Production Schedule

It looks so good on paper but tune in on Sunday when it comes time to reflect on Production to see if I actually stuck to it. Here's the schedule by which I will try to produce a draft of my paper. :)

Content Outline

Working on organizing myself, struggling to do so. Here's what I've got so far.

Rhetorical Analysis of Project 3

Oh boy it's time for a new project which always means I'm placed in a new rhetorical situation. And to start off on the right foot, I gotta analyze this thing. Hence...


Author

• I'm a biology major with a music minor which could mean I have diverse interests in everything, which I do
• I'm really into gender studies and diversity, especially as a young person with many close LGBTQ+ friends and am learning that I'm not so much an ally to the community but am actually a member. This is what's leading me to do this project about something in this field. I have a lot of heart behind my opinions in this area.
• So again, these are the current-day political issues that mean the most to me. I mean holy shit can we not just protect everyone's basic human rights to things like marriage, gender recognition, not being targeted by hate speech orrrrrrr like what is this country doing right now I mean it's great that the supreme court ruled in favor of marriage equality but the fact that some marriage officiants are refusing to wed same-sex couples and some states are protecting that refusal and like god could we just let people get married and then like as soon as the word "transgender" is mentioned some people just have a hissy fit like why can't you just let them be if they aren't happy or comfortable in the body they're in they should be allowed to change it and deal with it but that isn't happening I dunno okay sorry done with the soap box
• other than that not really very invested in politics #idkanyonebesidestrump2016
• I'm really interested in genetics and nature vs. nurture (whether behavior is determined by genetic makeup or by an individual's environment)
• I've played the clarinet for 9 years now and while i'm not a music major i'm still fairly invested and in love with my instrument. I've also picked up the ukulele (i'm a fairly decent uke player if I may say so myself) and I've always sang and music is a really big part of my identity and who I am
• I'm definitely very biased when it comes to LGBTQ+ rights and i'm aware of that but i'm probably not gonna be open-minded because I cannot conceive a reason why discrimination is actually acceptable or understandable and my project will be from that angle so i'm not really worried about this
• My family's pretty conservative and I conflict with them in this sense
• I spent 18 years in a small town with those same conservative viewpoints so I was one of a few black sheep then, and I never really discussed political views or any of those sorts of things because I didn't want to argue with them and cause a commotion because I was the odd one out.

Audience

• I want to make this project for the people that disagree with me. I don't want to preach to the choir, I know that gay and trans people want equal rights. Duh. I want to talk to the people that can't wrap their religiously warped minds around the concept that "hey maybe that lesbian is a person too and maybe I shouldn't be an asshat to her" and try to help them wrap their minds around it. So conservatives, homophobes and transphobes, and general jerks of any age, gender, shape, size, social status etc.
• Honestly they're probably not going to listen to my logic because they're convinced they're right. They're going to think i'm wrong and possibly be hateful against me as well.
•  I mean hopefully they'll be able to relate to the fact that they are humans, as are the people i'm discussing. I would be soooooooo happy if my paper could cause an epiphany like that and help them realize that maybe they don't really have much of a right to hate someone else for their identity

Purpose

• Okay I've sort of more narrowed in my focus for the project (finally) so hopefully nothing following this is going to conflict with what I've said before but I'm just going to move forward from here. i'm talking about how transgender people want to use restrooms that match their gender identities rather than their biological sex, and even though i'm an ally i'm actually going to argue that they should not be allowed to do this..
• I want my audience to consider my viewpoint, even if it is less liberal than was expected, and the points that i'm truly trying to make. I want them to also understand that this is not a matter of discrimination, it's more a concern for safety and I want everyone to really be concerned with each other's safety and that's what motivates my thoughts and feelings on the matter. I'm hoping my audience can look past their feelings of displeasure that will likely come from my paper and recognize that there is a threat and it's so much better to be safe than sorry. I don't want this to be a point of emotional contention or identity.
• I feel like I probably need to explain the identity and discrimination issues that trans individuals face, but also explain the vulnerability that comes with an issue like public restrooms for everyone, innocent potential victims and transgender people alike.
• I would really like to hear more from people who don't feel comfortable having someone of the opposite biological sex in the area because the loudest voices in the argument are the trans community who want to use the bathroom with which they identify and the conservatives who speak on behalf of those who they want to protect. But those people who they want to protect are hard to find speaking on their own and I think that has the potential to really sway the argument in either direction. If I can find more stuff like that I think I'd be golden.
• As far as information goes, I think it would be useful to find statistics on how often sexual harassment happens in public restrooms or locker rooms. A lot of this argument is just "this is what would happen" and it sounds like a lot of assumptions without evidence. I'd really like to provide an educated argument for what I believe and I think trustworthy meaningful evidence is a large component of that.

Context:

• I'll be writing a standard college essay, and historically I've always done extremely well on essays.
• Audience expectations include format, (headings, Works Cited, spacing and indentation based on MLA, citations, etc), quotations, introduction and conclusion and body, things like that. We all know what to expect from a standard college essay.
• I feel very good about this project and I think a lot of it is chalked up to the genre selection. I've written kick-ass persuasive and argumentative essays in the past, and I've never really struggled to pull those together.
• I think quotations are the most useful genre convention because it could build credibility by establishing that other people agree and are saying things in line with what you're saying. It also provides another voice amidst the tone I set as an author and could even provide another perspective. Especially in a situation like this when you're dealing with a conversation, it's nice to hear from the people in the conversation without me just telling it as a narrative. Another major convention is probably the rigid structure. The audience knows that from reading the body, that's where they're going to get their information and that's a really powerful thing for me as an author. Being able to place information exactly where a reader can do something with it helps.
• Right now lots of bills and political attention is being focused on the issue, so that. Lots comes up from searching "Bathroom Bills" as they're being dubbed. Also, discrimination based on sex and things have happened with bathrooms before so parallels can be drawn in that way. Social media is talking about it a lot, for example trans people using the hashtag #wejustneedtopee. I think it's really all over the place right now in media's eyes.
• Counter arguments I'll face include the fact that people deserve to feel comfortable and happy. That's the biggest one and that's not something I can just say "that's false" about because it's definitely not. I'm not quite sure how to face this.
• 
  
• 
  

Reflection on Post-Production

Post-production has definitely been the most successful stage of this project. I revamped my content, figured out the podcast genre and gained some comfort working there, and (hopefully) created a successful project. At least, I feel good about it and I'm actually more proud than nervous, which is definitely the reverse of how I felt after Project 1. So yay for that!

1. Oh, man, I feel like just about everything went right concerning my own project! Even though I actually sort of maybe deleted the entirety of my project on Tuesday and reconstructed everything, I think the content that I produced under pressure and once I was truly comfortable recording audio was worlds better than the original content. Everything done in class only further helped me understand what to do and led to a more successful editing process. I mean, just listen to my editorial reports, and I think you'll see what I mean. I also think the inclusion of quotes and audio really helped me to hammer in the form. It's not perfectly professional, but I think it's a really good podcast.
2. What actually kinda pissed me off was the way peer review happened this week. I know we all agreed on the deadline being structured this way, but it led to peer review happening at a very late stage in the drafting process. For example, I didn't get any peer review back on my project until today at 3pm, after I had already turned in my draft. I tried to get my peer review done yesterday so there would be at least some hope of my review going to good use, but I ended up feeling nervous and going back to my own project after only doing one of the two peer reviews. Having the peer review deadline equal to the project deadline leads to distraction from our own projects during crunch time for editing and tweaking, and causes peer review to be submitted only after projects are turned in or close to it, which may not be soon enough. That's just my two cents, though.
3. I think it's hard to answer this question, since next week is the start of a completely new project. But I mean, now that I'm feeling confident in this project, maybe I'll be a little more encouraged to get a good start on this next one! I'm also now anticipating feeing the struggle of an unfamiliar genre, so I can factor that in to my work for next week and hopefully do some research to begin familiarizing myself in the genre earlier on to prevent some of that struggle and get good content from the beginning and I'm sorry this was such a run-on sentence but Mr. Bottai said he doesn't care about grammar in these and I don't know I kinda ran with it. Sorry.
4. Like I mentioned, I'm feeling very confident about the project. I'm worried about how harshly I'll be graded, because I don't think my project was so incredible that it couldn't possibly be wrecked by the rubric. But that's probably a nervous feeling I'll always get, no matter how stellar my project is. I really do think I produced a good project, better than my Project 1, and I will be anticipating finding out how I measured up!

Editorial Report 9B

So now we've got a comparison between my first feeble attempt at body text and an actually effective attempt that was turned in as part of my final Project 2. From that first feeble attempt, I'm only comparing the second half, the part about the introductions from 1:06 to the end. This is because if I compared the whole thing, my re-worked version would have exceeded the 2 minute limit.

1. In this improved version, I actually included a direct quote from the paper as an example, rather than vaguely discussing element without showing the listener exactly what I was talking about. This makes my content stronger, as I have specific evidence to back up my claims. Content-wise, I also added the voice of Dr. Rebecca Mosher, who gives her thoughts on how even scientists might need more information and proof of credibility. Funny, it's rhetoric within rhetoric because adding her thoughts on credibility boosts my credibility. But the addition of these two elements (and a bit more elaboration on what credibility does for a reader) does wonders for improving the effectiveness of my content. I also added closing thoughts so that the thought doesn't just cut off and end without closure.
2. As for form, similar things can be applied here. I think I sound much more appealing and less fake in the re-worked version. This improves the delivery of my content within the genre and makes the project sound more interesting. I also integrated audio from one of my interviews, which definitely fits within a podcast genre and improves my project. A monologue of just me talking for ten minutes would be boring, so adding this new voice re-engages the listener. There's also a sound effect clipped to the end of it (that isn't included in this snippet, so I apologize that acts as a transition into the next genre, which is the addition of another effective podcast convention.

Editorial Report 9A

Here comes a comparison between the introduction from my rough draft and the final introduction that was turned in with my podcast!

1. So to be completely honest, I canned the whole first draft and started fresh. I didn't like where the project was going, and the content I was producing while I wasn't comfortable in the genre wasn't really very good content. So while main ideas stayed the same, I elaborated more on why the subject was important, to make sure that my content would be interesting for individuals from any background. I also included general information about genre in the introduction (not included in the posted snippet because I forgot that the track that included that content was also part of the intro), but saved the identification of each genre until I actually talk about it in the body. I also added music to the intro, which may be more of a form thing because it's a convention, but it also added content, so I'm talking about it here too. I think these things fit much more with what was expected from the rubric, and it seems like a much more cohesive introduction that actually leads to something that matters.
2.  As form goes, I think I spoke much more conversationally in the re-worked version, which is definitely a podcast convention. No one wants to hear someone yammering on for ten minutes reading a boring script, so my voice was improved by my new approach of not reading directly from a script but adapting bullet points into natural sentences. I also added the intro music as mentioned above, as well as sound effects to paint a mental picture that hopefully intrigues the listener. I think these changes to form made my podcast much more digestable. When I listened to the original, I wanted to punch myself in the face for putting peer reviewers through that. It just wasn't very appealing as a podcast compared to the final version, from what I can tell.

Peer Review 9B

I took a listen to Olivia's podcast, which lives here. Her podcast is titled "The RSS Podcast" or "The Rhetorical Strategies and Situations Podcast." (Or something like this, she didn't type it out anywhere to be seen) I performed a content recommendation for her podcast, focusing on the idea of expanding thoughts and including the importance of each point she makes.


I think my comment will help make her paper better because a few ideas seemed under-developed, and the podcast would be a bit more meaningful if she delved in just a little further. Also, the lack of explanation on why certain things are important leaves me as a listener wondering why I should care about any of it. I mean, I don't spend free time looking through pharmaceutical journals, so it's a little difficult for me to take interest. I think adding a little focus on why it's important or interesting throughout the podcast, while still keeping the focus on rhetoric, is a definite must.


I didn't incorporate anything from Student's Guide (I might have unintentionally, that would be cool), because I thought it would be more useful at this point in the process to use the grading rubric as a basis for my review. I think pointing out a major recurring point that could be improved (this is the lack of emphasis on importance of the subject) was a good move because the rubric says multiple times to include thoughts on why it matters and things. Getting close to the submission deadline, I think using something that very strictly defines and affects her grade was the way to go, and this was the most glaring issue I could see so that's what I did.


I am absolutely so impressed with how comfortable Olivia sounds on the mic, and how much control she has over her tone and voice. It doesn't sound like she's reading from a script, but it also doesn't sound like she's winging it and messing up. Podcasts are supposed to sound more like conversations than essays read aloud, and she absolutely nails this convention! If only I could be less awkward and pull that off a little more easily.

Peer Review 9A

I peer reviewed Payton Leahy's project entitled "Rhetorical Investigation into Physiological Genres". For Payton I performed a copy-editing suggestion based on her use of repeated phrases (as well as commenting directly on the draft about other things that could be re-worded for the sake of improvement).


I think my review will help because she mentioned in a comment at the beginning of her document that she thinks her draft is boring and she doesn't know how to make it more readable. I think my recommendation helps because throughout the draft, there were places where something could be re-worded to sound more exciting and add variety. This helps to address her concern.


I really liked Payton's control of the genre conventions and the way she focus on rhetoric almost the entire time. These are both things I could definitely improve on myself.

Open Post to Peer Reviewers

Wheeeeeew. It's been quite the time getting any semblance of a draft up here and uploaded. But here it is, ladies and gents!

1. My field of study is biology, so the majority of texts are extremely logic-based. Writing also follows a very standard pattern and authors adhere to the conventions VERY rigidly. While this does make an analysis a little easier as I'm confident that my examples represent the majority, it's also true that it's hard to find things to say, so I hope these things are okay.
2. There are issues. Definitely. I still have genre examples to add, because my draft as it stands only discusses the primary examples in each genre. I figure, though, with spring break I can get away with carrying on a little production at the same time as global revision. I also still have all the fun stuff (sound effects, transitions, clips from interviews) to add in. This will also be done. I also want to know if my analyses are in-depth enough. I want to know if you're picking up what I'm putting down.
3.  I think my biggest strength is that I'm getting the point of the project. I find isolated examples of a certain rhetorical strategy and explain them clearly. If I'm wrong and it really isn't very clear, then please make me aware. But that's currently my biggest strength. Possibly my only one. Will add if I think of anything else. I just think it's very "work-in-progress"-y, and that prevents me from feeling super confident.

Reflection on Project 2 Production

Oh, boy. The universe is testing me now. My computer has crashed about twenty times today. I have a really shitty computer with like 20gb of space, and of course because that's such an unreasonable amount I have been operating with low disk space for months. So it's been a little rough trying to carry out production with a crappy computer. I also have much more, definitely, to add to my draft. But it's a work in progress and despite having gotten behind, I still feel pretty good about the project for the most part.

1. Things that went right - I figured out what to say and how to say it! At first I was worried I wouldn't be able to explain myself very eloquently, but it seems like I'm having a good amount of luck with that. This can be seen in the way I speak  in my first two pieces of content (links in previous two blog posts) I feel that I'm definitely getting the hang of the project and I'm achieving the purpose, and it feels good.
2. Well the shitty computer business sort of put a damper on things. Other than that, I also had some struggles with figuring out Audacity and working in the unfamiliar genre. Evidence includes all of the recorded outtakes that you never get to hear of me stumbling over words, or forgetting to hit record, or hitting record but for some reason the mic still doesn't pick you up, or it acts like it picks you up because it shows your sound waves but you can't hear a thing, and so on.
3. I think next week could only be better. While I'll still be adding to my draft as well as editing, the bulk of the stress will be over. And, peer review is the absolute best! It's some of my favorite work to do because both parties get something substantial out of it. My shitty computer should be able to handle a little peer review, too.
4. Overall, I'm feeling a little worried at this point. Not being able to post a full draft tonight has me feeling a little bit stressed. But it's out of my control. I tried so hard to catch up, but I didn't want to make some half-assed draft that wouldn't have included much usable content, so I still took it slowly in creating something good, and it's just not ready. I'll post tomorrow, though, and it will be something.

#perpetuallybehind.

Production Report (8b)

By clicking here, you can see the second piece of content I produced for my rhetorical analysis - the two major rhetorical strategies in the first genre example.




 Below is the part of my outline from which that lovely audio is adapted! And below that are a few pieces of reflection on the production of this content piece.

 

Genre #1: The Research Paper

• Main idea: Analyze the rhetoric in a research paper
• The most comfortable and common genre in science
• Purpose is to explain the research that was conducted and the effect it has on our knowledge of biology
• Audience ranges from amateur students to tenure professors in the field - because of this papers are often complex but still understandable by the majority of the audience (insert Dr. Mosher comment on how communication doesn’t mean anything if her audience doesn’t understand)
• Example #1: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1420-9101.2002.00410.x/pdf
• Rhetorical concept: Logic (Organization of ideas)
• Major Piece of Evidence: The structure of the paper (Abstract, Introduction, Methods, Results, Discussion)
• The evidence proves: This is an author’s way of taking difficult concepts or complex research and formatting it in a logical and clear way. This appeals to a reader’s expectation of logic within scientific writing.
• It’s important because: A quick scan allows the reader to get an understanding of what’s ahead in the paper, inclining him/her to read the paper in its entirety. The ideas flow clearly and chronologically; first the motivation for the research and the question to be answered, then a description of the research that was conducted, then the results, then what the results mean. This is a very appealing format for the audience. Those who are familiar with the genre are able to easily find the section(s) of interest, and those who aren’t can follow along fairly easily.
• Rhetorical concept: Credibility (referring to credible sources)
• Major piece of evidence: the numerous in-text citations in the introduction.
• The evidence proves: The author establishes credibility by indicating all the other people that support what he/she is saying, or saying the same things.
• It’s important because: The audience may not have a lot of background info on the topic, and it’s important that they are able to trust the paper as a credible source. The audience is more inclined to buy into your research and learn more about it when they are able to trust you as a scientist. If a scientist has bad cred, they can kiss their career goodbye. So establishing credibility with every audience is absolutely always necessary.

1. To create this content, I constructed a script using conversational language. Podcasts are more easily swallowed when they feel conversational. I didn't take the outline and chronologically transform each point into audio, but I tried to bring up the major piece of evidence, state what the rhetorical concept was, and then sort of explain what the evidence proves in conjunction with the reasons why it's important. Other than having to reword a few things, It felt like the content flowed pretty naturally, so I went with that. Again, I've marked in the transcript where I want to include sound effects and things of the like that also fit the podcast genre.
2. Again, the biggest bumps in the road came from the still somewhat unfamiliar Audacity software. I had one really good take that got lost because my mic didn't pick me up at all. That was frustrating, but you move on from these things. Nothing really came to me as far as creative breakthroughs. But I think my raw content has a lot of potential!

Production Report (8a)

By clicking here, you can see the first piece of content I produced for my rhetorical analysis - the introduction. This felt like the easiest place to start, so I dove right in.




Below is the part of my outline from which that lovely audio is adapted! And below that are a few pieces of reflection on the production of this content piece.

Introduction:

• Main idea: Writing is an integral part of discovering new things in science (biology), and understanding the ways and contexts in which writing is composed facilitates gaining something out of research. (Be exciting)
• The genres
• Scientific Paper
• Review Paper
• Presentation/Lecture?
• Rhetoric as an integral and somewhat innate part of the scientific writing process
• Audience is the part of the rhetorical situation that most drastically shapes writing and communication in biology, no matter the genre.
• Purpose varies depending on the genre

• Rhetorical strategies: Logic and credibility are crucial, emotion is essentially nonexistent no matter the genre (possibly will delete, too in depth for intro)

1. To create this content, I constructed a script using conversational language. I took the points from my outline and attempted to write interesting and intriguing sentences that would lead the listener into my podcast and hook their attention. In podcasts, it's conventional for the speaker to speak as if they are talking to someone, and this influenced the way I authored the script. I also made mental notes of places where I want to split the raw audio to insert a sound affect - one of these will be at the very beginning before my voice is heard. Though they aren't there yet, there are spots in the raw audio saved for employment of these conventions.
2. The biggest hiccup was learning how to navigate and work in Audacity. I spent a good ten minutes trying to figure out how to edit my audio track, and why it wasn't working. But once I figured out my problem (who knew you can't delete a segment when the track is paused rather than stopped? I didn't.), producing the intro was pretty much smooth sailing. When I started writing the script, I definitely changed a lot of what I was originally gonna say. My outline is a little too formal and non-conversational, and it goes into too much detail. I decided to save most of that detail about rhetoric for later and instead just briefly overviewed what rhetoric is. I've also gotten rid of the first genre for now, as I've yet to obtain many examples. I'll add it in throughout the week if I decide I don't have enough with the other two.