PB2B

For this PB, we have to compare the rhetorical aspects of two of the readings that we have already done. For this, I choose two articles I found particularly intriguing: Dirk's "Navigating Genres" and Bunn's "How to Read Like a Writer". Both authors are extremely effective in using various rhetorical features to make the paper easy to follow and understand, and hopefully by analyzing these things I (and everyone in our class) can utilize similar techniques in our own writing as we continue to develop as writers in this class.

One of the biggest things I admire about a good paper is the ability to organize ideas in paragraphs. It really is an art that people have to learn, but good paragraph spacing not only makes a paper more visually appealing but it also is an indication of a new idea for the reader. In Kerry Dirk's piece, her paragraphs are all separate chains of thought that she explains and discusses. If you look at pg 250, the middle paragraph is basically just several sentences about the Dirk's purposes for  writing the paper, which she says "are to expand your definition (or to introduce you to a definition for the first time) and to help you start thinking about how genres might apply to your own writing endeavors" (Dirk 250). The following paragraph though has to deal more with Dirk's initial struggle to figure out how to write her paper. I think Dirk's move when it comes to paragraphs is to make all her sentences in one paragraph follow the process of explaining one idea, which sounds simple but is harder to accomplish than it sounds. I think its successful because as a reader you are constantly picking up on something new. 

You can see the same skill in Bunn's paper. Every paragraph is almost like a breath of fresh air. Every new thought provides something new for the reader to think about in some way, and all the sentences have a common theme. One thing that Bunn does that isn't really done in Dirk's paper is the use of small one or two sentence paragraphs. He does this to make a sentence stand out, or to make that one specific idea more important. Sometimes, it even is used almost like a transition. On pg 72, Bunn has one very short paragraph that says, "I came to realize that all writing consists of a series of choices" (Bunn 72), and then goes on in the next paragraph to talk about something else. Burn states something that he learned, and then uses that as a springboard to explain something else. This is an extremely effective move that Bunn uses to keep readers engaged. 

One thing that I noticed about both papers is they both make efforts to change up the writing style so that the paper doesn't seem so boring. What I mean by that is rather than just writing paragraph after paragraph, both authors switch it up using things like bullet points, large quotes, and series of questions to make the paper more entertaining. This move is successful for both writers because it provides a little more originality to both papers, while also making the paper less bland and boring. 

The tone of both papers is extremely informal, which is evident no matter at what paragraph of either paper you choose. The language that is used is like you are talking to  a friend who is trying to teach you something. I really like this style of writing because formal writing just makes me feel pressured to talk in a way that isn't how I normally would talk. For me, I thought that both papers used this tone in order to make the audience (which you can presume is rambunctious college students who are learning to write better) more interested in the subject matter. This tactic may not work for everyone, but I thought that both papers were extremely easy reads. 

Criticizing writing has always been difficult for me because I think writing is such an exquisite practice that its hard to really understand the author's thinking from just reading their work. That is what is discussed in the "How to Read Like a Writer" paper by Bunn, but obviously it's not possible to completely get in the mind of the author. However, with that being said, one thing that I thought both papers had issues with was keeping my attention. I personally thought that some things in both papers that were put in were not necessary. I think I'm a little biased now because I've read both papers multiple times and I'm getting a little sick of them, but some of the ideas in Dirk's paper are rewording the same idea, and I thought that the random names that are used as examples have no relevance to me as a reader so they are somewhat unimportant in my mind.