Jayel Kirby Sue Briggs 1010 @ 10am December 5, 2013

Reflection on My First Impressions With the end of the semester rapidly approaching, I look back on my first impressions of this course and realize how far off they were. I had enjoyed creative writing in high school, but hadnt written much since then. Now I was starting a course on rhetorical writing after a twentyseven year break. I didnt even know what the word rhetorical meant, let alone how to pronounce it. I certainly didnt feel much better once I learned that it meant writing argumentatively. In twenty-six years of marriage, I had learned that arguing doesnt solve anything; it just creates a lot of bad feelings. I didnt want to spend an entire semester focusing on mud-slinging or attacking others beliefs. I definitely didnt want people attacking mine. To make matters worse, my first assignment was to read the introduction to the textbook, which gave me the impression that Id be using templates the entire semester. Great. I was going to have to spend five months using someone elses sentence structure to write papers that were argumentative. I was not looking forward to this. My initial response was to look into transferring to a different English class. I realized that any other ENG 1010 course would have the same curriculum, but thought that a different instructor might be likely to use a different textbook, and that class might not be quite so disagreeable to me. I thought about it for a few days and eventually chose not to switch classes. I had to admit to myself that I hadnt started college to stay within my own little comfy corner. I

was in college to learn, and in order to learn new things, I would have to be willing to do things I wasnt accustomed to. Meanwhile, I came to enjoy my instructors personality. It didnt take long to realize that Sue Briggs wasnt going to put me down for being myself. As we participated in a getting to know each other exercise, and shared with the class our exercises in playing both sides of an issue, I noticed that she encouraged her students to celebrate having their own ideas and beliefs. Apparently, it was all about making rhetorical choices. And that was a good thing. My opinion of the class continued to improve as we began working on summarizing articles from our textbook. We were expected to restate what an author was saying without letting our emotions interfere. Hm. Maybe there wouldnt be so much mudslinging after all. As I look back, I realize that the order in which the curriculum was introduced was key to my success. First, I needed to learn how to look at an article subjectively; to be able to summarize what someone else had written without giving in to my own emotional responses. Although that is what I thought I had wanted, it wasnt easy to do. I am usually able to see others viewpoints on just about any issue, yet it seemed that all Radley Balko, Susie Orbach, Michael Pollan, and David Zinczenko wanted to do was whine, complain, and portray people as victims. Had I readily agreed with the authors, it wouldnt have mattered anyway. The requirement of the assignment was to neither agree nor disagree with them; just summarize. Difficult? Yes. But it was necessary for me to learn how to summarize without emotion before I could learn how to respond respectfully. Only when I had practiced summarizing all four articles in our textbook, was I ready to move on and contribute to the issue intelligently. I was happy to learn that rhetorical writing is actually more like joining a discussion; a rational and respectful one. Now, that was something I could enjoy. But first, I needed to be taught how. And

theres no better way to learn how to do something than actually doing it. That meant I had work to do. I immediately set about the task of summarizing Susie Orbachs Fat is a Feminist Issue, then I began my response. I had chosen Orbachs piece because I felt that it was the article I was the least frustrated with. While I agreed with her that societys cruelty towards those who werent skinny was disgraceful, I had no patience with her suggestion that women should choose unhealthy lifestyles in order to defy that prejudice. I started writing everything that came into my mind, careful to avoid disruptions so I could get it all down before losing my train of thought. Then I gave it a rest for a few hours. When I came back, I made dozens of changes. I reread and reworked it over and over again. At last, I was ready to hand it in. It was while I was working on my rhetorical analysis of David Crystals 2 b or Not 2b? that I came to learn that the rest periods were crucial to my process. They helped me to step back and consider my true feelings on the issue. They also gave me a chance to answer vital questions. What was the root of my emotional reaction? Was I critical because the author lacked credibility or because I was being closed minded? What was it about a particular phrase that I liked? Was it because it related to something else I was familiar with? Once I was able to recognize rhetorical strategies, I developed a degree of skepticism. Having taken Crystals essay apart piece by piece to unearth his literary devices, I began to question whether he had validity or if he was craftily disguising a flimsy idea. My doubts led to a desire to search for other sources on the subject of texting. Had studies other than the one he referenced found that texting does diminish literary skills? As I searched for sources on both sides of the argument, I found plenty of evidence that texting improved literacy, but surprisingly couldnt find any credible source to suggest that texting had a negative impact. I was able to

branch out on the subject and find ways that digital communication can be utilized to improve language skills and prepare children for careers, but that was about it. I was kind of disappointed, because I had hoped to investigate the issue from more than one side. In the meantime, I noticed something about myself. I thought I had chosen Crystals piece for my rhetorical analysis because it was so lengthy. There was surely going to be plenty of material for me to write about. But as I concluded my research and worked on preparing my annotated bibliography, I came to realize that I was intrigued by the subject matter. Ive always loved words, whether I was playing word games, writing or telling stories, or talking for hours at a time with friends. It only made sense that I would be drawn to Crystals essay about the effect that texting has on literary abilities. Honestly, it fascinated me! The annotative bibliography process was very difficult; I felt like I had to literally chain myself to the chair in order to make myself do the work. I stretched and I strained. But, I learned. And ultimately, I found it rewarding. That is how I feel about this class as a whole. Even though I was relieved to find out that templates were only required for the first couple of assignments - in order to get me moving in the right direction - and rhetorical writing didnt turn out to be ugly as I had initially assumed, I still had to do things that were difficult. I had to dig deep for every signature assignment from the summary/response to the synthesis/exploration. Sue Briggs warned us that itd get messy. Indeed, it did. Yet, I needed to go through that unfamiliar process. It required some stretching and straining. And thats okay. Its a good thing. That is how we learn, and learning is why Im here. Thats the story of my journey in ENG 1010: difficult, yet surprisingly rewarding. Now Im looking forward to my next adventure in writing: ENG 2010 - with Sue Briggs, of course.