Anqi Wang
02/08/2012
English 250, Spring 2012
Section FK
From Chapter 6- Ah Wilderness, I chose “The Artifice of the Natural”, which was written by Charles Siebert, to write my rhetorical analysis.
During drafting my analysis, the biggest problem was how to let my audiences know what I was talking about. By this I mean that sometimes when I described something, my audiences might misunderstand my idea. It was really hard to explain my idea in a clear and logical way. When I tried to analyze the strategies Siebert used, I always used several sentences to clarify what I want to say. Thus, I think I still need to improve my writing skills. To make sure my audience understands my points, I found two people read my essay and asked them whether they could understand or not. I think it was a good way; because I could get the reflection from people directly. Besides the expression problem, the second problem was how to summarize such a long reading into a short paragraph. “The Artifice of the Natural” is a 6-page long essay. Siebert concluded several ideas into his essay. That was a big task for me to find the main point. Also, just like Thoreau’s essay “From Walking”, this essay was a little abstract. I did not know why the author talked about his log cabin when he described the nature show. I could not tell which part was his real experience and which was his imagine. To understand this essay, I read the preface again and again. It was a good way to know the background of one essay. Once you got the background, you were approaching to the author’s main idea. What’s more, the vocabulary in Siebert’s essay was uncommon. After looking up in dictionary, I knew he was talking about different kinds of insects.
I think the strength of this essay is that I find some details to support my points. For example, when I talked about Siebert’s writing style- cynical style, I tried to find several sentences from his essay and explained why they were good.
From this assignment, I think I know how to analyze an essay in different ways, such as context, organization, language
style and so on. Also, writing a textual rhetorical analysis can make me full of logic. I have to organize my analysis in a logical way; thus my audience can
know what I’m saying. Those are what I learn from textual rhetorical
analysis.
02/08/2012
English 250, Spring 2012
Section FK
From Chapter 6- Ah Wilderness, I chose “The Artifice of the Natural”, which was written by Charles Siebert, to write my rhetorical analysis.
During drafting my analysis, the biggest problem was how to let my audiences know what I was talking about. By this I mean that sometimes when I described something, my audiences might misunderstand my idea. It was really hard to explain my idea in a clear and logical way. When I tried to analyze the strategies Siebert used, I always used several sentences to clarify what I want to say. Thus, I think I still need to improve my writing skills. To make sure my audience understands my points, I found two people read my essay and asked them whether they could understand or not. I think it was a good way; because I could get the reflection from people directly. Besides the expression problem, the second problem was how to summarize such a long reading into a short paragraph. “The Artifice of the Natural” is a 6-page long essay. Siebert concluded several ideas into his essay. That was a big task for me to find the main point. Also, just like Thoreau’s essay “From Walking”, this essay was a little abstract. I did not know why the author talked about his log cabin when he described the nature show. I could not tell which part was his real experience and which was his imagine. To understand this essay, I read the preface again and again. It was a good way to know the background of one essay. Once you got the background, you were approaching to the author’s main idea. What’s more, the vocabulary in Siebert’s essay was uncommon. After looking up in dictionary, I knew he was talking about different kinds of insects.
I think the strength of this essay is that I find some details to support my points. For example, when I talked about Siebert’s writing style- cynical style, I tried to find several sentences from his essay and explained why they were good.
From this assignment, I think I know how to analyze an essay in different ways, such as context, organization, language
style and so on. Also, writing a textual rhetorical analysis can make me full of logic. I have to organize my analysis in a logical way; thus my audience can
know what I’m saying. Those are what I learn from textual rhetorical
analysis.
RSS Feed