Category: English & Rhetoric

English & Rhetoric, Feedback for Featured Works

Reflecting on a Self-Critique

| William Roberts

HR: None

As mentioned in the subject essay, the practice of critiquing one’s own work is essential to improving one’s process. For me, this meant cutting down on the overabundance of “fluff words,” as well as growing from strictly following “prescription” to a more personal and adaptive way of writing. According to Linda Flower and John Hayes, prescription is described as “how the textbooks pretend people do it” (8). By only using this method writers limit themselves to only one way of planning and communication, potentially preventing creative expression. I knew these problems were present in my writing, but by forming an analysis around them the full extent of their effects was realized. Regarding my word choice, even during the development of my self-reflection I actively revised my work. This process, which I hope becomes a habit, is a conscious effort to communicate my purpose and position with an audience. When reviewing past works, it became apparent how much my style has changed to meet these goals; however, these efforts have not been focused on until this essay was planned. Thus, changes in my writing for the better have occurred subconsciously over time. This could be attributed to increased comfort with college-level writing, or perhaps underlying awareness of my struggles with writing. As discussed in the subject essay, as well as previous works, forced writing on a topic of no interest causes difficulty in producing content; this paper has reinforced that, as I do not enjoy reviewing my own works as much as others’.

English & Rhetoric, Written Works

The Art of Self-Criticism: an Overanalytical Wordsmith

| William Roberts

In personal work it is necessary to step back and evaluate oneself; this can be to gauge progress, efficiency, or to simply measure how on task one is. To find these faults and note them as areas of improvement is arguably essential to writing especially, a media based entirely on process and purpose. In recent composition I have struggled to focus on building content rather than vary word choice; this might be due to a lack of initiative to shift from rigid, school-taught formulas to personal creativity. To work through this and grow as a writer I actively reduce wordiness and simplify my argument, so that an essay is better understood by readers and better reflective of my position.

Though no two writers think the same, it could be fair to say that many younger writers share problems with essay composition. During my introduction to college-level writing in Fall 2021, I was made aware by an instructor that I wrote with too much “fluff,” or unnecessary and lengthy word choice; this has also been said by teachers from high school—though my writing was aligned to with the outline, the line of reasoning was hindered because of this. Looking to the past, this issue can be seen in my first essay from the first semester. When explaining the writing process “taught” in grade school, I claimed the conclusion as being “in sum… a pirated introductory paragraph to tie the knot on the essay,” followed by referring to the process in whole as “the strict code that my classmates and I had to abide by through high school, and it played a key part in the death of creative and stylistic writing, restricting the flow and malleability of every paper” (“Literacy Narrative” 3). Though indicative of my position and voice, the excerpt is a lot more complicated than need be. Albeit ironic, it was in this paper I mentioned my history of “bull****ing” through high school English, as well as claimed that my problem with words ended in the twelfth grade (“Literacy Narrative” 4)— unfortunately, this is not the case. For some, a critical self-reflection of one’s work suggests the issue is not ongoing, and that a writer has grown past it— for me, this is not true. Though this might read differently than earlier works, I still have to work to revise each sentence. See, I just did it again. If one reads over my first paper of both Fall 2021 and Spring 2022 semesters, there is a clear difference in diction. In the former, “The Literacy Narrative,” I detailed my journey to develop my literacy; the latter, “The Red Threat: The Harm Caused by Modern Communists and a Response by the West,” was intended to explore my understanding of a choice topic, though it became more argumentative than exploratory. To see this change one can compare the first sentence of each. “The Literacy Narrative” opens with “In growing older, the content of English classes became less fantastical and more so analyzing bitter nonfiction, or digging through ancient, complex poems with little to no interest to all” (“Literacy Narrative” 1), whereas the exploratory essay does with “The world in which mankind lives is one of many problems, seemingly magnified and multiplied by modern communication technologies; by extension, the United States, a major world power and an eventful history of involvement with foreign nations of similar interest, has a gross number of issues which have become world news” (“Red Threat” 1). The second is longer but provides a smooth introduction without excess adjectives that distract from the topic. Because both essays covered topics of interest content was not hard to produce, but the “fluff” found throughout the earlier essay hurts the paper’s flow and ability to resonate with the reader.

Like many young modern writers, the writing process was introduced to me very early on; this came in the form of “the teaching of the one-to-two sentence thesis with three to four reasons, at least three body paragraphs… and a conclusion… this is what is also referred to as the ‘standard essay format’” (“Literacy Narrative” 3). My first college writing project, cited in both this paragraph and the prior, described the struggle to move away from this method as my literacy developed. It was not until I came upon “Problem-Solving Strategies and the Writing Process,” an article published by Linda Flower and John Hayes through the National Council of Teachers of English, that I gained a deeper understanding of this issue. The way in which my peers and I learned to write is known as “prescription,” or “how the textbooks pretend people do it,” infamous for its correlation with writer’s block due to its constriction of one’s thought process (Flower and Hayes 8). The article put into words a concept I recognized earlier in my career but was unable to completely explain: “the method is simple: name the topic, generate an outline… and elaborate to fill in the blanks… the result will probably bore the writer… he followed the rules… teachers are supposed to like that sort of thing” (Flower and Hayes 9). Even now, as this piece discusses moving away from prescription, my writing is still reflective of it. This may be the result of following the format for nearly seven years—after all, breaking bad habits takes more time than building them. In the late Fall 2021 semester I wrote an essay titled “Originals vs. Sequels: How They Compare,” contrasting how two secondary articles used information from a single primary source for different purposes. During Spring 2022, I was tasked with analyzing the rhetoric of an article about a topic of choice in a piece called “Tracking Tensions and Rhetoric: A Critique of Nitoiu’s Analysis.” Both are based the content around the work of others, and for both I am confident in my performance, indicating that this way of writing better suits my process than the traditional textbook style. Additionally, there is a lack of unnecessary word choice, perhaps due to the objectiveness of the prompts. Arguably the improvement of my writing in processes than the “standard” method indicates a need to discard that way of thinking all together. A one-dimensional plan to write that limits creativity of style and boxes one into focusing on word output is no plan to write at all.

By analyzing possible areas of improvement for one’s writing it is assumed necessary, but it is important to know why it is necessary, too. An element of college education that is ironically overlooked is its real-world practicality. If one is paying to learn and achieve a degree, should there not be a way to apply the education to future work? It could be argued that education is lifelong and healthy for the mind, but this can be performed in other ways than at a university. By building my writing process up I am more aware of what is required in situations of concern, applicable to being both an International Studies major and to-be officer in the US Army. International Studies is a writing-intensive field in which policy, historical texts, and other forms of media are examined and reported on; continuing from the major into IS-related jobs requires these areas of proficiency. The same can be said of a career as a commissioned Army officer; much of one’s job is based on observing and documenting actions and needs of one’s subordinates. These two sides of my future require different styles and standards, and thus warrant higher level writing abilities. This difference in formats warrants the literary agility mentioned above, so that one is not restricted by a single process. The reduction of “fluff” in my writing might prove beneficial to both fields, however. The optimal After-Action Report (AAR) for a military operation explains events that have occurred thoroughly without room for misinterpretation. Similarly, when one is publishing public policy embellishing with terminology is likely less effective.

In order to improve one must first know where improvement is needed. An effective way to do this is through a written critical self-reflection, which allows one to explore issues and possible change in those areas over time. By doing this I have realized how much I struggle with complicated word choice that, instead of sounding “intellectual,” muddies up my line of reasoning. In addition to that, I also find following a creative writing process difficult because of how frequently I have used “prescription” (Flower and Hayes 8) in my writing over the years. Not only do these problems inhibit my thinking, and therefore the content of my work, but they also interfere with how readers see my writing. Despite potentially presenting a strong argument, the overuse of lengthy words and a disorganized paper is problematic. As previously mentioned, to “fix” my writing is an ongoing process and will happen in the form of good habits, rather than a complete style change.

 

 

 

Works Cited

Flower, Linda, and Hayes, John. “Problem-Solving Strategies and the Writing Process.” College English, vol. 39, No. 4, Dec. 1977, pp. 449-461. National Council of Teachers of English, https://www.jstor.org/stable/375768. Accessed 02 May 2022.

—. “Originals vs. Sequels: How They Compare.” Virginia Military Institute. 10-November-2021.

—. “The Literacy Narrative Essay.” 13 Oct. 2021. Writing and Rhetoric II, Virginia Military Institute, student essay.

—. “The Red Threat: The Harm Caused by Modern Communists and a Response by the West.” 8 February 2022. Writing and Rhetoric II, Virginia Military Institute, student essay.

—. “Tracking Tensions and Rhetoric: A Critique of Nitoiu’s Analysis.” 7 March 2022. Writing and Rhetoric II, Virginia Military Institute, student essay.

English & Rhetoric, Feedback for Featured Works

Critical Reflection of an Argument

| William Roberts
Though required writing is often not easily produced, the best writing arguably comes from a topic of interest. I found this most obvious when writing on the current Ukraine-Russia conflict, despite the obvious trouble with arguing about developing issues. When forming this paper, it became apparent how much the previous prompt types affected my writing; I found myself referring to each (exploratory, rhetorical analysis, annotated bibliography) through my writing process, sourcing information, phrases, or strategy from them. This is not merely a characteristic of an argumentative piece, but a result of forming different style pieces around the same topic. The “Ukraine Crisis” is a subject of extreme interest, for it is the largest land conflict in Europe since World War II and, as explained in the essay, takes a toll on both Ukrainians and westerners like me. By setting an essay topic of interest thought formation feels much smoother, perhaps due to the perspective, and thus opinion, it appeals to. Additionally, because of this, there are fewer obstacles in the writing process, thus more easily understood by an audience. Admittedly, the timeline to form my argument was easily long enough to produce a more thorough effort, and likely, if given enough time, could have led my interviewee to answer
adequately. Instead, I found my expert advice elsewhere and took a day extra to publish. This “thoroughness” could be improved upon with deeper thinking guided by the intended expert, as well as longer time spent contemplating my own stance, as it is a complex issue. Though not as thorough, however, I still feel my argument of Russia’s impacts on Ukraine and the West is as valid as it is well-communicated; the piece is organized by subject, led by a thesis and supplemented with discussion of necessary disclaimers (assumptions, warrants, et cetera).
English & Rhetoric, Written Works

Soviet-Era Action in Today’s World: The Implications of Russia’s Aggression

| William Roberts
The world in which we live is one of many problems, seemingly magnified and multiplied by modern communication technologies. Since the 20th century blooms of Marxist-Leninist communism and totalitarianism in the East, communist-based powers have had a history with global conflicts of this kind. The Russian State has made global headlines in the six months with its sudden aggression towards border nation Ukraine. These recent actions taken by the regime present an immediate threat to freedom and the current world order. This conflict waged by means of manipulation and escalation on Ukraine negatively affects both her people and all who live westward.
When analyzing a geopolitical controversy of this magnitude it is essential to identify any biases and assumptions, as well as the warrants for the argument itself. To explore the implications of the Russia-Ukraine conflict is arguably rooted in a western perspective, as it might stem from concern for one’s own wellbeing as an outside, but related, entity; this assumes that the term “Westerner” is defined as one who lives in a democratic nation west of the conflict area, European, American, or otherwise. An assumption of some also when observing the impacts of the conflict is that Russia is the aggressor, supported by the reported insertion of Russian operatives first into separatist territories of Ukraine, then the emergence of widespread
ground warfare soon thereafter. This narrative is widely endorsed by “free” western nations and refuted by Russian sources, making it an area of controversy. For there to even be discussion of this kind requires the assumption that it is a two-sided issue as well, leading many to an “us versus them” position. Though perhaps a product of popular news media, there have been deep divisions between the Russian State and much of the West in modern history to warrant its title of adversary. These are just a few aspects to consider—the complications of the matter warrant various perspectives.
Since the birth of this modern Russian state the Kremlin has been implicated in fueling several major world conflicts such as the string of military involvements in the Middle East (Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.), in which it aided enemy militant groups. These are characteristic of a nation that, like others, aims for global dominance economically, militarily, and territorially—just pursued by unconventional means. Conflict in Ukraine with Russian involvement, though popular in the world news of 2022, is the sequel to a much older saga. There was a military incursion in 2014 similar to today’s resulting in Russia’s absorption of the Crimean Peninsula; this is an area of criticism by Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky, known for his bold opposition to Russia’s aggression. Ukraine’s relation to Russia is as easily understood as described by Jonathan Masters, Deputy Managing Editor for the Council on Foreign Relations: “Ukraine was a cornerstone of the Soviet Union… it was the second-most-populous and –powerful of the fifteen Soviet republics, home to much of the union’s agricultural production, defense industries, and military, including the Black Sea Fleet and some of the nuclear arsenal. Ukraine was so vital to the union that its decision to sever ties in 1991 proved to be a coup de grâce for the ailing superpower” (Masters). One may argue that the Soviet Union, former mother country to Ukraine, has been indisposed for over thirty years, and therefore is not directly
relevant. However, according to experts such as retired Army Colonel Robert B. James, Jr., Russian President Putin’s roots in the KGB and heritage to the USSR make the territories’ history relevant (James). James is currently an established member of the International Relations department at Virginia Military Institute, a professor in several of its fields and current Mary Moody Northern Chair, with several personal experiences with the Kremlin, both before and after the fall of the Iron Curtain. While the country’s history with Russia may prove it magnetic to conflict, the existing division between a Euro-aligned West and a culturally Russian-tied East has caused internal strife as well (Masters). It could be argued that between its lack of unity and geographic enormity, Ukraine was more easily accessible to Russian forces prior to ongoing warfare.
By knowing the history of this region, the impacts of the evolving situation are made clearer. CNN published a statement made by US President Biden during the conflict’s earlier stages claiming the ambiguity of Putin’s motives behind the invasion of Ukraine (CNN). Though there has since been advancement of intel and coverage of the conflict, there is still debate over many aspects of the Russian government and its leader, including crackdown of protest by the war by Russian citizens, as well as his own ties to the former Soviet Union and mental wellbeing. These factors cause prediction of the extent of the conflict to be unknown, so most discussion over its development are speculation. This aside, it is still crucial to measure its known and unknown, potential effects.
Most immediately concerning is the “Ukraine Crisis’” impact on the Ukrainian people, the alleged victims of Russian aggression and atrocities in the region. In comparison with other modern warzones, such as Afghanistan or Syria, the technological development in Ukraine allow social and news media more access; this, in addition to other arguable factors, has raised popular
support for Ukraine in the West. Video footage and live reports from on-site news personnel have proven effective in villainizing the Russian military, evoking sympathy from those outside. According to The Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, reported civilian casualties amounted to 902 dead and 1,459 injured as of 20 March, 2022 (Hernandez). This statistic, three weeks old and only accounting for confirmed totals, is an understatement. Human rights organizations and disaster relief groups have worked to provide necessary resources, treat and relocate survivors and refugees, as well as uncover those whose fates remain unknown. The following are, according to CNBC, some from a list of reputable charities aiding Ukraine in relief efforts: UNICEF USA, Americares, Mercy Corps, World Hope International, and World Help (Dickler). This conflict is unlike how we view many modern examples in how it is largely located in occupied areas, contributing to higher civilian casualties than often reported. Death count is not the only consequence, however; the nature of the Russian invasion has made for possible long-lasting familial trauma, emergency displacement, loss of livelihood, and economic downturn, to name a few. The conflict, with heinous effects to the civilian population, has also tested Ukrainian military durability. There was much concern voiced by western nations regarding the scale of Russia’s military power in relation to Ukraine’s defenses; remarkably, though, it is reported that despite a significant inequality in air power between the warring nations, Ukrainian army and members of its foreign legion have mounted an effective hold against their aggressors, making use of landscape familiarity and western-supplied weaponry. Still, the expenses of the government of Ukraine and Russian brutality prove alarming to the West. Further involvement on the part of the NATO nations is yet to be seen as tensions continue to rise.
For many the unpredictable violence of the world as reported in the news has led to desensitization, thus detaching them from the conflict’s effects. War in Ukraine is not just a statistic-generating headline, however; the ongoing violence with Russia holds implications for the West as well. “Prior to the outbreak of the war, most key global macroeconomic variables were seen as returning to normality over 2022-23 following the COVID-19 pandemic,” claims the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), a research group with a focus on global policy. OECD cites improvements in the market and less restrictive public policy before the ignition of conflict; at the current rate, the conflict “could, if sustained, reduce global GDP growth by over 1 percentage point in the first year,” and further a negative trend for many markets, food and energy among them (OECD). Warfare has historically held consequences on the economy, and the West is especially no stranger to its effects. Both World Wars drove technological development and required a hefty workforce, providing opportunities, too, for more women to work than ever before. For the United States economy, the Second World War proved to be “the most extraordinary mobilization of an idle economy in the history of the world… During the war 17 million new civilian jobs were created, industrial productivity increased by 96 percent” (Goodwin). Though the current conflict in Ukraine has fueled the war industry, with companies such as Lockheed Martin at a five year high of $468.03 per share (Shwab), many other areas of the market are suffering. The economy is not the only concern for those in the West, though. A question perhaps on the minds of Ukrainians, as well as citizens of neighboring nations, is what NATO nations might do in response to continually escalating violence. Following an emergency meeting between NATO and G-7 nations in March, the West imposed further economic sanctions on Russia targeting their gold reserves, allowed for increased refuge to displaced Ukrainians, as well as “some discussion about the need for NATO
to be ready to deal with the potential use of chemical, biological or nuclear weapons by Russia, an official told reporters. The United States is already taking steps to enhance its readiness and ability to respond to any such incidents, and to work with NATO and a task force it has to deal with these kinds of attacks” (Keith). These actions have served to address Russian aggression in the moment, but addressing to the criticism of some, may not be effective enough. As mentioned previously, the full extent of the Kremlin’s plans for Ukraine is still not recognized; it is dependent on the degree to which Putin escalates conflict that direct western involvement occurs.
The moves made by the Russia of today reflect behavior of the past: power grabs through expansion and military power, aggressive economic policy, and skewed information to reduce the negative perception of their actions. This actively developing attack by Russia on its former satellite Ukraine’s border present threats to free people everywhere, tying together the innocent lives in country and those who watch from the West. The world watches in wait of the next headline, the next sanction, the next public statement—many with underlying fears of the next large scale multinational conflict. These concerns raise questions about the extent to which countries such as the United States, Britain, and allies should act to better the interests of all, not just those who live within their borders. In constant development, there may be no “correct” answer to this issue, now or ever; all one can do is remain informed and perhaps expand the scope of his or her concern for the fellow man.

 

 

 

Works Cited

“Biden Says No One Knows What Putin Will Do after White House Called Russian Invasion of Ukraine ‘Imminent’.” CNN, Cable News Network, 25 Jan. 2022, https://www.cnn.com/2022/01/25/politics/white-houseukraine-russia/index.html. 9 Feb. 2022.
“About OECD ILibrary.” OECD ILibrary, https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/oecd/about. Dickler, Jessica. “Here’s a List of the Top-Rated Charities to Help the Ukraine Relief Effort.” CNBC, CNBC, 9 Mar. 2022, https://www.cnbc.com/2022/03/09/heres-a-list-of-top-rated-charities-to-help-the-ukraine-relief-effort.html.
Goodwin, Doris. “The Way We Won: America’s Economic Breakthrough during World War II.” The American Prospect, 19 Dec. 2001, https://prospect.org/health/way-won-america-s-economic-breakthrough-world-war-ii/.
Hernandez, Joe. “More than 900 Civilians Have Died in Ukraine. the True Number Is Likely Much Higher.” NPR, NPR, 20 Mar. 2022, https://www.npr.org/2022/03/20/1087781833/ukraine-deaths-casualties.
Feedback for Featured Works

Critical Reflection of a Critical Analysis: Rhetoric

| William Roberts

The rhetorical analysis is not a new writing medium to me, nor my peers; this style of essay is popular in lower-level education, particularly high school literature, so that students may better understand the purpose and context of a piece. One is to pick through an essay to look for any strategy the author featured to promote his or her purpose, intentionally or not, and explain the significance of it with regards to the whole text. With the assigned paper, however, the topic, and therefore the document analyzed, are selected based on interest; this allowed for an even deeper exploration of the piece, as enthusiasm about a topic prevents resistance and writer’s block in oneself. This is what I found when I chose “Towards Conflict or Cooperation? The Ukraine Crisis and EU-Russia Relations” by Cristian Nitoiu, PhD, an essay discussing the implications of Russia’s past military action in Ukraine, as well as how this issue has both affected and stemmed from the nation’s relationship with the European Union (EU). Due to the currently escalating armed conflict between Russia and Ukraine, I have an invested interest in the affairs of the region. This interest has led me to study various sources, one being Nitoiu’s article. In reading and analyzing his essay, I have observed how a subject matter expert sees and expands on the topic. In addition to the lower-level skill to identify rhetorical devices in a text, my analysis in this essay has led me to learn the importance of the author’s context and background, too. By discussing who the author is, one can learn more about why and where-from he makes his argument, and therefore the root of his purpose.

 

Written Works

Tracking Tensions and Rhetoric: A Critique of Nitoiu’s Analysis

| William Roberts

The Russian State has made global headlines in the past year with its sudden aggression towards neighboring nation Ukraine, a territory within and about there has been conflict for over a decade. What began as a standoff initiated by the positioning of 100,000+ Russian troops on the border escalated into armed conflict when the Russians began a ground invasion and continues to evolve in real time. In his essay “Towards Conflict or Cooperation? The Ukraine Crisis and EU-Russia Relations,” Cristian Nitoiu argues that the crisis in and surrounding Ukraine has prompted higher tensions between Russia and member countries of the European Union; the author credits this worsening relationship to three areas of discussion: a lack of a unified approach to handling Russia on the part of the EU, the overestimation of power for Russia and Europe (Nitoiu), and a more apparent disparity between the two culturally. While the publication predates the ongoing conflict in Ukraine, the author’s claims as to how tensions arose provides context for western spectators as to how it arose. To promote these assertions, the author utilizes diction that provides insight to his purpose, as well as by organizing ideas through topical discussion in the order given above.

To truly understand a publication and the author’s intention in writing it, one should first understand the author. Cristian Nitiou, PhD, author of “Towards Conflict or Cooperation?”, is an expert in the international relations of Europe and Eurasia. Nitiou has published a number of essays of this kind, his more recent works focus more on Russia and her relations with the European Union (EU). The writer has a background in both the learning and teaching of international relations, serving numerous leadership roles in educational organizations that coincide with his field of study; his address to the conflict in the Russia-Ukraine region, only two years following the 2014 seizure of Crimea, is likely fueled by current events. By including an approximately 4-page-long citation list, the author proves his thoroughness in his knowledge on the topic, thus creating credibility in conjunction with what the reader may know of his background. The subject article was originally published in the journal of Southeast European and Black Sea Studies (SEEBSS), a self-proclaimed “multi-disciplinary journal based on the analysis of conditions of and events in the territories in these regions (Taylor & Francis). According to parent website Taylor & Francis Online, SEEBSS has annual download/views of 86,000, arguably high for an online journal of a specialized topic. A diverse collection of authors publishes to the site to discuss current and past matters of importance to the region, Nitoiu being one of them. The source provides insight by subject matter experts to any interested party, likely cited by scholars when writing on an associated issue. The popularity of the journal with individuals of high education builds its credibility as a source.

Most indicative of a problem’s severity in most contexts is how reports connotate descriptor words, especially so when discussing a political and humanitarian issue. In the passage the author demonstrates a clear position on the matter of Russia and Ukraine with the verbiage used; the extended use of dark, negative word choice suggests the graveness of this threat. In reference to relations between the EU and Russia he frames the future as “achieved on unstable foundations, with the constant potential of the three tensions arriving again at the boiling point and causing a new, possibly even more severe crisis” (Nitoiu). This does not promote optimism in the reader, instead mongering fear to convey the rockiness of the EU-Russia relationship as relying on the development of Ukraine. Regarding the potential consequences of the heightened tensions described the author suggests the possibility of a potential “second Cold War,” furthering his emphasis on the possibility of both political and military fallout. This comparison is not unique to Nitoiu’s piece, however—it has been prominent in the narrative of western news outlets, more so even as the fighting in Ukraine worsens. The deliberate characterization of the aspects of Russian-EU relations with the author’s word choice provides the reader a western perspective of negativity surrounding the Ukraine conflict, tying each point to Russia’s actions in the region. By choosing to be selective with his words Nitiou not only conveys his feelings, but also possibly relates with the audience, likely in a good part western. To confirm the feelings of the reader around the Ukraine conflict could contribute to his comprehension of it.

The way in which a writer introduces information often conveys the priority order he chooses. It is possible Nitoiu’s method demonstrates this concept, as there is no pattern recognizable to the reader in the thesis, and thus in the essay. The sorting of the information presented is standard discussion by topic, labeling each area of discussion by the respective assertion from the thesis, such as with “Division among EU member states” and “The geopolitical tension: the EU’s expansion in the post-Soviet space” (Nitiou). Each section is designed to elaborate on the broad label it is given, each containing a subtitled passage to further examination of a specific talking point; this is seen with section “Division among EU member states,” subsection “United but still separate during the Ukraine crisis,” “The geopolitical tension: the EU’s expansion in the post-Soviet space” and “The Ukraine crisis: boiling geopolitical tension,” as well as with “The clash of values and worldviews between the EU and Russia” and “Deeper polarization and clash of values?” (Nitoiu). Though this communicates the argument effectively, and there is thus no fault with this style, an alternative for the author to consider is a chronological or causal pattern; both methods are proven to provide a sturdy base for a line of reasoning, and are therefore often preferred by history and policy writers. Additionally, these structures may better give the reader context to the situation with how and why it has evolved over time, rather than just lead a topical discussion through which a reader simply observes ideas.

In order to deliver an argument to a desired audience it is imperative to use strong rhetoric. This becomes apparent in the political world especially, writing remaining a dominant medium in policy and communication. When analyzing the development of the relationship between Europe and Russia by both past and current armed conflict in Ukraine, Nitoiu utilizes clearly connotated diction in addition to an informational organizational structure. The use of these devices, though arguable in efficacy of application, educates the audience on both the subject and the writer’s feelings about it. This article, designed to examine the complexities associated with the dispute of independence between Ukraine and Russia with focus on the EU, seemingly aligns with the implication that the latter demonstrates Soviet-like territorial aggression. Moreover, because of the devices included in the passage, it might be fair to describe the author’s position as concerned with the issue, like many other westerners. Due to these qualities, the essay may contribute to one’s argument regarding the consequences of Russian military action in Ukraine.

 

 

 

Works Cited

“Cristian Nitoiu.” Belgrade Security Forum, https://www.belgradeforum.org/speaker/cristian-nitoiu/.

“Dr Cristian Nitoiu.” Dr Cristian Nitoiu | Loughborough University London, https://www.lborolondon.ac.uk/about/staff/dr-cristian-nitoiu/.

Nitoiu, Cristian. “Towards Conflict or Cooperation? The Ukraine Crisis and EU-Russia Relations.” Taylor & Francis, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14683857.2016.1193305.

“Southeast European and Black Sea Studies.” Taylor & Francis, https://www.tandfonline.com/journals/fbss20.

Feedback for Featured Works

Reflecting on Tracing Articles

| William Roberts

12 December 2021

HR: None

Every piece of writing requires an author to alter his approach, and thus to reflect on this change. This is, after all, what the subject essay for this reflection was about; it is an outlier when compared to my works, as it was written in a way unlike any other. I began the making of this essay by pasting my reflections from the three others I wrote in chronological order; this allowed me to see how I responded to each and ended up constituting most of the final product. The first body paragraph revolved around the first assignment: a narrative of our literary development over time, in which I detailed how my upbringing affected how I write now. This was followed by the hot wash of the essay about the comparison of discourse communities. Last, but certainly not least, was the paper that traced a secondary article (or in my case two) to a source paper, detailing how different authors used facts in contrasting ways. With the whole paper being a lump sum reflective essay, it was not difficult to form an introduction and conclusion with a constant line of reasoning throughout. In the typical assigned essay, I begin by analyzing the prompt. It is after doing this that an idea for the topic emerges, often with little to no deep thinking necessary; with a subject in mind, I just fill a paper with thoughts that follow some line of logic. This process was far different in the case of the fourth essay, as it was built more on older works, and therefore did not require much originality of thought on my part. In writing it, I did not learn much about a shift in how I develop my essays or notice any change in strategy; contrarily, that remained very static, and instead this piece put into perspective how different prompt types affect the kind of paper my mind works to produce.

Feedback for Featured Works

Reflecting on an Analysis: Discourse Communities Essay

| William Roberts

18 October 2021

HR: None

With my written discourse community paper, I elected to compare and contrast the running community and VMI’s Corps. The purpose of this was to prove their statuses as discourse communities in accordance with Swales’ criteria (Swales 1990) and to understand how two entities with this same classification can differ at such a level. In addition, the mentioned groups are ones that both I and the interviewed are members of and can thus be more fairly compared.

To be frank, there was not much that I myself learned from conducting this essay; since understanding the term “discourse community” I have been aware that the running and VMI communities are indicative of this name. Even prior to knowing this much, it was obvious that they function as areas of life where people of different origins and ideals gather with similar purpose to work towards a common goal, essentially summing up the criteria set by Swales. Writing the paper served to provide a side-by-side view of the differences of these communities but did not invoke any new understanding. Furthermore, due to the chronological order of my membership in these communities, this essay has reminded me of how much my own life has changed. Though it functioned as a catalyst, and I am still a member thereof by association, I no longer run for sport; following the end of my high school running career, I entered VMI, where there is an entirely different structure, method of communication, and end goal. In other words, the fabric of and experiences in each community is entirely opposite, and so the essay presents evidence of this in print. This perspective I own is supported by the interview included, arguing, too, that though not mutually exclusive, the running community and the Institute do not push much continuity more than the required ethic needed to carry on.

Feedback for Featured Works

Reflecting on a Reflection

| William Roberts

27 September 2021

HR: None

In truth I had no idea how to begin my literacy narrative essay. When the assignment was announced and we were told the prescribed readings would be our sources, I was lost in the very concept of the paper, let alone how to tie in the various messages of each author. The writing process did not begin with any organizers or prewriting. The piece formed as I wrote. It was the Sunday before a first draft was due at an overpopulated Abigail Inn that the soul of the essay was born. It was like an impromptu visit to a foreign city or attending one’s first bachelor party – there was no direction or expectation to uphold; every step of the journey was flying by the seat of my pants, drawing out my path with the pen. I was in uncharted territory, as I have never thought deeply into where my literacies developed and who to credit for them until now. I have always acknowledged how influential certain figures have been in my life, or how my childhood has affected my personality, but never to the extent of how and why I write. Stretching out across a couch in the upstairs den of the Inn, I lay typing out what is effectively a life story, working to connotate every word with how writing has and does make me feel. The unconventional approach I took in doing so revealed to me how much more than just simply the jokes I make or the words I use that can only be appropriately described as “extra;” the spilling of my brainstorm-like writing on to a Word document in a relaxed environment to the tune of a Brother Rat’s piano playing: that is my recipe for success. This is where creativity lives.

Written Works

Originals vs. Sequels: How They Compare

| William Roberts

During a state of political polarization so extreme as the one in which we live today there are not many agreements on hot button topics, such as the news, between both sides. Despite the rarity of these situations, one that shows up consistently is the media’s ability to use facts, scientific or otherwise, and narrative to push a particular objective or speak to a certain audience. This is often used to promote political agenda but is also present in the field of medicine to express one’s perspective on treatment data; this is the case with the relatively recent approval and employment of gilteritinib (branded Xospata), a pill developed by Astellas Pharma to combat the FLT3 Acute Myeloid Leukemia (AML) mutation. With the official lab report data in one’s pocket, topics such as this can be reported on using various rhetorical patterns, thus guiding the message of a piece. This is evident with how a CNN health post and a segment on cancernetwork.com review the impacts of gilteritinib on AML cases, using the source paper published by those who conducted trials on the drug.

CNN is currently one of the most prominent national and international media outlets and disputedly ranks with Fox News as highest in political bias on a consistent basis, though this statement stands irrelevant when discussing gilteritinib and AML, as it is not a very politicized subject. This does not, however, rule out the featured article using experimental data to create a narrative—even if it is well-meaning. The first step in analyzing the position and communicative strategies of the article is to note the title; the title of CNN Health’s piece is as follows: “New drug represents ‘paradigm shift’ in treatment of acute myeloid leukemia.” The phrase “paradigm shift” suggests dramatic effects of the cancer drug, provoking interest and a sense of hope from the reader. In addition to the article’s title, it is worthwhile to learn who the author is and his or her relation to its topic. A woman by the name of Susan Scutti is credited for writing this segment; the website lists her without a prefix or suffix, indicating she does not carry a doctorate, nursing license, or perhaps even have any significant experience in the field of medicine. In contrast, the report from which Scutti based her article on lists not only the lead doctor of the trials, but thirty others of the same stature as well. This is important to realize as a consumer of information regardless of the topic, as it can be used to gauge an author’s reliability. A strategy used not only in this article, but in other secondary sources as well, is the converting of data and terminology into lighter, more easily ingested information for a broader audience; this is seen with Scutti’s reference to gilteritinib as “more effective and less toxic” than chemotherapy treatments, contributing to “an overall positive result” in the clinical trial; in the document published by The New England Journal of Medicine the reader is met with verbiage along the lines of “salvage chemotherapy group” and “thrombocytopenia” (Perl et al.). The same is observed when comparing “a 36% reduction in risk of death” (Scutti) and “hazard ratio for death, 0.64; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.49 to 0.83; P<0.001)” (Perl et al.)—there is a clear reduction in technicality based on the audience the writer intends to address; Scutti speaks to any party interested in cancer research and treatment development, whereas the NEJM report is designed for more medically literate consumers. Not having an expert understanding of AML, the drug, and its effects might cause a consumer to be more optimistic. A final feature of the CNN’s “paradigm shift” article is the author’s inclusion of comparison to build relatability with the reader. When explaining to the reader the effects of gilteritinib, Scutti describes it as “similar to a car that races forward without stepping on the gas pedal… [it] essentially stops the fuel from getting to the engine by directly targeting the gene.” This metaphor is credited to Dr. Alexander Perl, the aforementioned lead on the trials. The inclusion of this bit illustrates to the reader how the pill works, once more relating with viewers and straying from the facts-only format of the original essay. In sum, Scutti wrote for CNN with the purpose of simplifying the work performed by Dr. Perl and others to establish the efficacy of gilteritinib on AML and the odds of relapse, all the while connotating the data to induce hope and optimistic views of the treatment.

The tendency to use experimental data in ways other than originally intended is common in news media, but it is not uncommon for online publishers to write pieces summarizing said data as well. This is often seen as a service to a broad audience on popular problems or societal concerns (e.g. cancer and treatment progress). An article by Kristie L. Kahl on cancernetwork.com does just this; though the author is not credited with any medical or professional accolades, she writes on the processes and results of Astellas’ ADMIRAL trial that used gilteritinib to combat the relapse/refraction of FLT3 AML. The author does this in a way which, rather than generalizing and making the data more palatable to the average tabloid reader, briefs the consumer on the overall facts of both that trial and a similarly intended one as well. Kahl mirrors Astellas with the inclusion of specific statistics that reflect sufficient knowledge of the subject; the author makes mention of gilteritinib “demonstrate[ing] significantly longer median OS compared with chemotherapy (9.3 months vs. 5.6 months, respectively; HR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.49-0.83; P>.001)” in addition to other similar figures in the same paragraph. This is merely the condensation of the data given in the original report, communicating just how much the pill affects survival rates. Though not written by a medical expert, Kahl’s “Confirmatory Trial of Gilteritinib Meets Primary End Point of Improving OS in Relapsed/Refractory FLT3+ AML” cites the senior vice president of oncology development at the company that carried out the trial: Andrew Krivoshik, MD, PhD. The author includes Dr. Krivoshik’s testimony as to the purpose and accomplishments of the trial, establishing credibility she does not have from her own knowledge alone. This is akin to the way the source article includes a generous list of names of contributors in the trials—both instances of crediting these experts ensures the content is received as trustworthy. Despite the length difference between this summary article and the source publication, Kahl ends the piece with a borrowed quotation: “Treatment options for patients with relapsed or refractory FLT3-mutated AML are largely limited to various salvage chemotherapy regimens, and there is no consensus regarding an approach… We found that in this population of patients, gilteritinib resulted in superior overall survival and percentages of remission as compared with salvage chemotherapy” (Perl et al.). This statement brings the writer’s post to a close, bringing the reader back to the hypothesis of the experiment and concluding its success after being briefed on essentially all of the primary points of the original article.

We live in a world which provides all access to information on most any subject. The way in which said information is redistributed often depends on the agenda of those with the power to do so; this is indisputably seen in how different news stations describe current events, regardless of political affiliation, occurring in the scientific world just as much as any other. Though data is sometimes spun in a way to advance one party over another, it can also be to serve different audiences well; this is the case with both articles by CNN and NEMJ with regards to a study conducted by associates of Astellas Pharma. In CNN’s piece, the information is conveyed to reach the hearts and minds of a common audience with more interest than topical knowledge; as for the Medical Journal, the author just clumps the source’s data into an easier read so that those in the field or attached to it in some way may still have a complete understanding. With both publications, audiences are served positive news on a topic that impacts a great many people, acting as extensions of the very group that conducted the research.

 

 

 

Works Cited

Kahl, Kristie L. “Confirmatory Trial of Gilteritinib Meets Primary End Point of Improving OS in Relapsed/Refractory flt3+ AML.” Cancer Network, Cancer Network, 31 Mar. 2021, https://www.cancernetwork.com/view/confirmatory-trial-of-gilteritinib-meets-primary-end-point-of-improving-os-in-relapsed-refractory-flt3-aml.

Perl, Alexander E., et al. “Gilteritinib or Chemotherapy for Relapsed or Refractory FLT3-Mutated AML: Nejm.” New England Journal of Medicine, 4 Nov. 1970, https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1902688.

Scutti, Susan. New Drug Improves Survival for Certain Acute Myeloid … – CNN. https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/01/health/gilteritinib-acute-myeloid-leukemia-aacr-study/index.html.