Nathan Bruce Alford
Major Garriott
ERH-101-18
12 December 2016
Help Received:
12/06/16 – counseling with Major Garriott; discussed themes and topics
12/07/16 – Aiden Atchison peer reviewed as part of the classwork for the day
12/12/16 – critical comments; Writing Center
Microsoft Word “Thesaurus” Feature
My Evolution as a Writer During my First Semester at VMI
One of the most important yet often overlooked aspects of writing is the audience. A piece of writing is not complete until an audience has interpreted its meaning. Whether it is a novel, scholarly journal, lab report, official memorandum, magazine article, or textbook, keen attention must be paid to who will be reading it to ensure its success. This was one area of writing which I had always overlooked before Major Garriott’s ERH-101 Writing and Rhetoric I class. During this last semester in ERH-101, I have developed more credibility as an author by tailoring my writing to my audience to make my argument more concise and effective.
The first major lesson I learned is to pay attention to my audience and to not include information they already know. This was never taught in high school; writing was all about the “story.” Great emphasis was placed on word count, fueling the misconceived notion that the longer a piece of writing is, the more professional and credible it is. In order to live up to this standard, much of my writing contained useless summarization, which has no place in a college-level essay. I learned in ERH-101 that the golden rule is “Quality over Quantity.” No one wants to read page upon page of useless information that they already know, or do not have any interest in. The best way to keep an audience interested and engaged is to be concise, be straightforward, and ensure that every paragraph relates directly to the thesis statement.
This lesson manifested itself when I received the comments for my first paper, an analysis of the Virginia Tech Mechanical Engineering Department and how it asserts its role in the Discourse Community of Engineering and Technology. For my primary source, I used John Swales’ definition of a discourse community to give credibility to my argument. In the paragraphs that followed, I spent too many words explaining Swales’ criteria to my audience (“Engineering a Discourse Community”). Considering my audience were my peers who had also read Swales, this information was unnecessary, thus boring my audience and losing their interest. This fact was further confirmed by Major Garriott’s comments, the most prevalent of which was, “So what?” (“Engineering a Discourse Community,” 2). In summarizing, I had lost the point of my essay. To revise, I omitted all information on Swales which did not directly support my argument, leaving only the information which was crucial to my audience’s understanding of my essay. This experience taught me the importance of analyzing my audience to determine which subject matter is appropriate to use.
As a Mechanical Engineering major, I like to have a set formula to follow when doing anything. Following the advice of Cadet Ryan Thorpe, I went back through my essay and ensured each paragraph followed this simple formula: Claim, Evidence, Analysis. He explained to me how my essay contained the first two criteria, but was lacking in the “Analysis” area, weakening my argument. To further revise my essay, I was very careful to make sure I did not just blandly state information from my secondary source, hoping my audience would make the connection. I explicitly made this connection between my claim and evidence to produce my analytical argument, thus my reader was not left confused about what point I was trying to make (“Engineering a Discourse Community”).
The next “Eureka!” moment I experienced this year came about when I was writing Paper Two, a rhetorical analysis on the syllabus of one of my major-specific courses. Remembering the lessons from Paper One, I started off using my Claim-Evidence-Analysis formula to develop my argument. I maintained strict focus on my thesis statement and ensured that each paragraph was relatable. It was the shortest of the three papers I have written this year, however Major Garriott was really impressed by the straightforwardness of my argument and tight focus. She explained in the comments that this made for a much stronger paper than Paper 1 (“Analysis”). When I reviewed the paper, I did notice that my argument seemed much more academic and concise. I realized that maintaining a tight focus leads the audience to perceive the writer as much more mature and credible. A writer who rambles gives the audience the impression that he/she is uncomfortable and inexperienced in his/her topic, whereas a writer who knows what he/she is talking about makes every word count.
Following the lessons I had learned previously this year in writing Paper Three was tricky. Paper Three was much more personal in nature; I had to analyze how my specific background and upbringing had developed me as an effective reader and writer (“A Culture in Crisis”). Due to the that fact I had only met my audience a few months previous – and they knew very little about who I was before coming to VMI – summarization had to play a greater role than it had in the previous two papers. I needed to provide context into my upbringing (my hobbies, where I lived, and people I interacted with) in order for my audience to make sense of my argument. The biggest challenge was accomplishing this without reverting to my old ways of writing and losing my argument within all the paragraphs of summarization. By following the advice I had received through writing and revising my first two papers, I was successful in developing a narrow, forceful thesis. (“A Culture in Crisis”). The necessity of summarization in Paper Three helped me to further understand how important it is to take into consideration the nature of the audience. Audiences will have different needs based on the nature of the claim and the context of the essay. In other words, different audiences will require different writing techniques. Good writers need to quickly recognize which technique is most appropriate for their specific audience to produce an effective, compelling paper.
My journey through ERH-101 this semester increased my credibility as a writer by teaching me how to analyze my audience. By paying more attention to the needs of my audience, I have set myself apart from the amateur style of writing I learned in high school. This and the other valuable lessons I learned this semester have developed me into a mature, college-level writer. I am now prepared to move forward in my academic career, confident that I will be able to conquer the next challenge which lies before me.
Word Count: 1075 words
Works Cited
Alford, Nathan. “A Culture in Crisis: How my Upbringing in a Dying Culture Wrote my Literacy Narrative.” ERH-101-18 Fall 2016. Print.
Alford, Nathan. “An Analysis of Col. Hodges’ ‘CAD Applications and Solid Modeling’ Syllabus.” ERH-101 Fall 2016. Print
Alford, Nathan. “Engineering a Discourse Community.” ERH-101 Fall 2016. Print.