Reflection of Project 3

Although subtle, there are many differences in one's reflection in a mirror and one's reflection in the water.  The two different venues reveal varying qualities, just as the different projects have shown me different qualities of my identity as a writer.

Schapker, Tim. "Reflection from Cloud Gate"
08/30/2008 via Wikimedia.
Attribution 2.0 Generic License. 

1. My first revision consisted of crediting my three “myths” to specific groups or people.  Throughout the revision process, I continually read it aloud to make sure the flow of the words sounded natural and inviting.  I specifically focused on reworking my tone and answering the question of “so what?”

2. The ideas of my first draft were written to make the audience feel at peace with.  However, my goal for a welcoming tone was not consistent.  In addition, many of my sentences looked good on paper (were grammatically correct) but did not sound natural when spoken out loud.  For example, I began two sentences in a row with “This technology will save children…”  On paper, the repetition seemed to emphasize my point, but in speech the sentences sounded awkward and wordy.

3. My global changes came from my desire to fit my genre and audience better.  The paper needed to sound good on audio and also sound friendly to the audience.

4. These changes allowed me to connect with my audience more effectively.  The audience could see that I was personally invested in getting this information across to them and I cared about their concerns.

5. These changes were made to improve my rhetoric and argumentation.  The more I appealed to my audience, the better I could sway them.

6. I wanted my sentences to have a more dramatic effect.  I went back and made use of repetition and more captivating word choice to ensure that my audience heeded my message.  The last sentence of my paragraph changed from “…prevent humans from improving” to “improve human life for all of us.”  Although the change was minor, the way the revision sounded aloud created a more dramatic effect for the ending, leaving the audience hooked on the ideas presented.

7. The changes made the audience understand that I was on their side and I only wanted what was best for them.  I also exaggerated the “myths” through my word choice which made the audience see how ridiculous they were.

8. I didn’t do many changes to the conventions of the video since my examples gave me a clear idea of what it needed to look like.

9. The process of revision has helped me to see how I can manipulate my audience.  I really enjoyed the last project in which I felt as though I was provided a service to my audience.  In this case, I didn’t realize how much I was manipulating my audience.  I employed strategies that not only made my argument more effective but deliberately played the audience.  Although this was the purpose of the assignment, it made me realize the power I hold as a writer.