Tianjing Du College Writing Professor Gonso Jan 22, 2014 Primary Peer Review for Macro Colella

“The Einstein-Freud Correspondence” is the text that Macro chooses to write rhetorical analysis. As he mentions in the first paragraph of his essay, the text includes “little known letters discussed the topics of peace, human nature and violence” which were written by two renowned and respectable men: Albert Einstein and Sigmund Freud. He starts by talking about the value of the content of these letters from the past time to the present. And then he briefly mentions the languages and the tones that two writers applied in the text. After he introduces both authors for the text, Macro writes several paragraphs about the summary and the background of the text in order to explain the content of those letters more clearly and let readers get better understanding about the text. In his commentary, Macro points out the topic “Why War?” in the text, and he describes the discussions between Albert Einstein and Sigmund Freud and also the writers’ own thoughts about the topic.

Throughout the essay, I think Macro did a great job on explaining the text’s content and background. Because the text he analyzed is considered as the literature, it might be a little bit boring and complicated. But Macro solves those problems by providing a

detailed and comprehensive analysis. And the images he cites from the website provided in the last page of the essay are attractive, especially the photos for Albert Einstein and Sigmund Freud. The academic words and the time periods applied make the essay become more professional and reliable.

However, there also have several problems in Macro’s essay. Firstly, the summary and the background parts are too long. Even though it’s good to explain that, the major part of the essay should be rhetorical analysis. Secondly, the main issue in his essay, is the lack of rhetorical analysis. At beginning of the essay, Macro introduces the content, the writers, the genre and the languages from the text successfully. But after that, he only talks about the content of the text. His essay seems like a research paper rather than a rhetorical analysis. Thus I think he should write about the audience for this text, the pathos, the logos, and the ethos that writers presented in the text. In addition, for the conclusion part, I think Macro should point out how rhetorical effectively the text is in his view. For example, how impressed those letters are, what does he learned from the text and so on. Overall, I think Macro’s essay can be better if he focuses on adding more rhetorical analyses and summarize some parts of the content of the text in his essay.