Uyeda

Ellen Uyeda
Dr. Lynda Haas
WR 37
March 3, 2015
Reflection Essay
Heres a teddy bear-Would you believe me when I say, these cute and cuddly toys
that comforts the children of America were once seen as demons and murderers by all
people- only less than a century ago? Jon Mooallem, the author of the book, Wild Ones
presents this fact to an audience during his Ted Talk in March 2014. He challenges his
audience to think about how our perception of animals depends on our social construct.
For example, the transition from a murderous bear to a cuddly creature during the early
1900's is due to the urbanization of society, being able to romanticize the creature due to
the distance from danger, and the human tendency to root for the underdog once we have
almost eradicated the entire species. Leslie Irvine, a sociologist who specializes in animal
and human relations parallels this idea through her examples. Cats were once seen as
taboo and mystical; dogs were seen as work animals and not as companions. In present
time, cats are beloved pets and dogs are adored in shows dedicated to their species.
Mooallem and Irvine indirectly emphasize the key component of rhetoric also known as
the art of persuasive writing. Rhetoric depends on how the audience perceives the rhetor's
message an vice versa. In these cases, time has changed how we see animals; what was
convincing in the early 1900s will not be as convincing today. The analysis of rhetoric is
the main theme of Writing 37 taught by Dr. Haas, and social construct is a mere small
component of the vast information I have learned throughout this course.

Uyeda

Writing 37 has been an insightful class that has improved not only my writing
abilities, but also other aspects about myself. Writing has neither been my strong suite
nor my favorite subject. Although my classmates and I faced difficult moments
throughout the quarter, I overall became more comfortable with writing and reading in
general. Dr. Haas has kept the course well balanced by keeping our minds stimulated with
interactive activities and rigorous essay peer editing, always working towards
improvement. I am certainly closing the quarter stronger than I had started off. It has been
an insightful journey where I have learned more than just about writing. I have embodied
certain habits of mind through the different assignments. Some of which were curiosity:
the desire to want to know more, and persistence: the ability to sustain interest in and
attention to short- and long-term projects. I have lessened my anxiety associated with
writing, increased my understanding of rhetoric, and learned how to collaborate with my
peers effectively through essays, in class assignments, and online class activities.
Rhetoric has been the main theme throughout this whole course; therefore, I have
learned about rhetoric appeals and devices intensely. Before this course I had the ability
to depict authors persuasiveness and motives behind his or her words, however, I did not
see extensively into the techniques of rhetoric until Writing 37. For instance, I was not
aware of the ethos, logos, and pathos appeals until I was assigned to write in the forum
about the rhetoric analysis of Blackfish, a documentary about the exploitation of killer
whales in the SeaWorld industry. Blackfish was an insightful medium to practice
rhetorical analysis on because it considered all the appeals of rhetoric. For example, the
producers instilled the belief that SeaWorld was abusing the killer whales into their
audience during the scene that depicted a mother whale and her calf being separated. The

Uyeda

vivid footage of the mother whale crying out for her baby touched every viewers heart,
exhibiting an appeal to pathos. Blackfish supported this footage with an interview with a
neuroscientist named Lori Marino. Marino explained that orcas are intelligent and have
highly complex emotional lives based on their brains' extension into their limbic
system (part of the brain that processes emotion). They have a sense of self, and social
bondingtaken to another levelmuch stronger and more complex than any mammal or
human being(Blackfish). The psychological explanation of the emotional complexity
exhibited by killer whales exemplifies how separating a mother whale from her calf
would be immoral. This is an example of a rhetoric appeal to logos, which is the process
of supporting one's claim with logic in order to persuade an audience. The last appeal
considers the credibility of the claimer. Marino is seen as an expert on this issue, and
therefore, trustable to the audience, furthering Blackfishs persuasiveness. Through this
assignment I have found that this appeal is the most important because it sets the
foundation for the claim. During class Dr. Haas said that without ethos, the other two
appeals would have no effect because they were coming from an unreliable source. This
stuck in my memory and is one of the main points I keep as a reference when doing a
rhetorical analysis. If the rhetor is untrustworthy the audience will not take the
information presented to be credible, and therefore, not be persuaded.
Furthermore, I learned an unconventional way to use rhetoric through Grant
Morrison and Frank Quitely in their graphic novel, We3 that allowed them to apply
rhetoric to their story in a way unlike other texts. Their format included gutters that
encouraged the reader to fill in the spaces with their own imagination. This made it more
personal to the reader and caused a stronger emotional connection with the text,

Uyeda

increasing the appeal to pathos. This graphic novel encouraged me to think of texts more
creatively. Since authors use rhetoric in unconventional and creative ways, we, as
analysts must be able to detect originality with an artistic mindset. Both Blackfish and
We3 have shown different ways of rhetoric application, and have led me to be more openminded about different approaches to analyzing text; now I am more curious about the
other forms of rhetoric and how they affect an audience.
Further into the course I learned that critical reading varies widely and is more
elaborate than only the ability to read a novel and describe the themes of a story. We3 was
the most difficult medium to interpret because it was unconventional through its use of
graphics and few words. The gutters established a sense of time within the story allowing
Morrison and Quitely to convey their story with precision. Such time sequence was
displayed when the character, We2 was attacking the soldiers during the We teams
escape. We2 was depicted going in and out of frame while the soldiers were stuck,
stagnated in time within the frames. This created a sense of agility about We2 and how he
could move through time quicker than his opponents. Reading this texts critically
required me to analyze graphics in a new way. Additionally, in the Connect Modules we
were assigned to read and edit two chapters of If You Tame Me: Understanding Our
Connection with Animals by Leslie Irvine for the purpose of learning how to skim read
effectively. The assignment required me to read the first sentence of every paragraph and
my comprehension of the overall text astounded me. I was able to understand the main
points of the chapter without spending hours reading. Throughout my academic career I
have not been a fast reader and have the tendency to take a few hours to read every
sentence on the page. It was difficult to change my reading habits, however I flexibly

Uyeda

avoided my natural inclination to read every word. This valuable skill has taught me how
to read quickly and how to look for clue words that indicate important information. For
example, I learned that such phrases include In conclusion, First, Secondly, Lastly,
and for example. I look for these phrases knowing that what typically follows is
important information. This is one of the best skill sets I have learned throughout the
course. My reading speed and comprehension has improved greatly and I have applied
these skills to readings in other subjects. I will continue to apply what I have learned in
the future, whether it is reading the newspaper or reading an in-depth research report.
The main projects of this course included essays, and writing essays has never
been less stressful with Dr. Haas as my professor. Prior to Writing 37 I had anxiety when
faced with a writing prompt. I would procrastinate and postpone starting assignments due
to the pure pressure associated with them. However, now I start assignments on time with
little hassle to brainstorm. I attribute this alteration in my approach to the chapter in Bird
by Bird: Some Instructions on Writing and Life called Shitty First Drafts by Anne
Lamott. She uses humor and charisma to portray the unnecessary pressure placed on first
drafts and how universal this difficulty is to even people who write for a living. Reading
this excerpt lowered my anxiety towards drafting my essay for the first time because it
showed that my anticipation of what was expected of me was over exaggerated. Knowing
my own professor expected a shitty first draft lessened the pressure I put on myself.
This has eased my anxiety and has also improved my writing. My thoughts poor out of
my mind with fluidity and ease, more coherent than they would have otherwise been if I
had approached writing as I did before, with overcrowded thoughts and attempts to sound
eloquent. Dr. Haas has made writing a more enjoyable activity than it has ever been

Uyeda

before because no one has a non-shitty first draft. With that in consideration, starting my
first essay of this class, the Literature Review Essay was calmer than expected.
The topic I picked for my Literature Review Essay was scientific experimentation
on primates. This essay prompt called an analysis of how credible sources would
hypothetically converse with one another. In my opinion, this essay was not difficult to
exhibit a formal tone and how different scholars would support or contradict one another.
However, I found that the most challenging part of this essay was finding credible
sources and keeping sentences concise. This paper was dependent on finding credible
sources applicable to ones topic. Dr. Haas had us create a list of search keywords in
order to understand the process of finding texts. Certain connect modules also attributed
to my improvement in researching topics. Moreover, in my revision I focused mostly on
keeping my sentences concise and direct. I learned that being more specific and
straightforward is more favorable when writing a literary analysis essay; there should be
a balance between the variety of sentence structure and directness. The following is a
passage from my first draft and final draft of my Literature Review Essay, Ethics of
Primate Experimentation:
First Draft: All in all, it seems that primate experimentation does not, or rarely
produce results, but Chapman makes a good point by bringing the fact that we
would not have our cures if it was not for primate experimentation by asking his
audience, How many are prepare to die earlier, sustain a physical disability, or a
disease earlier than they would otherwise(Chapman).

Uyeda

Last Draft: As presented in research and activist arguments, primate

experimentation does not produce, or rarely produces, desired results. Yet
Chapman makes the argument that we would not have the cures for many diseases
if it were not for primate experimentations by asking his audience, How many
are prepared to die earlier, sustain a physical disability, or a disease earlier than
they would otherwise [if it were not for primate experiments]?(Chapman).
As you can see the first draft is confusing and punctuated incorrectly, lacking the
right pauses and breaks within the sentence for comprehension. In the rubric this would
score low on the Language: Eloquence that enhances the reading experience section.
My improvements in the final draft made the sentences more direct by making the main
point of the sentence the subject. Especially when analyzing the highlighted sentence, it
is apparent of the drastic improvement in coherency by splitting the it into two stronger
sentences.
Like the Literature Review Essay, the Rhetorical Analysis explored ways the text
communicated with the reader, but the Rhetorical Analysis Essay focused more on how
the author used rhetorical devices to speak to the reader rather than to other scholars. I
wrote my essay about the short story, How to Build a Fire by Jack London. This story
exemplified the advantages of instinct when compared to judgment through the
symbolism of a man and a dog, and their struggles in the Yukon Territory. Although I
found this text to be more intriguing and philosophical, I found writing about it was more
challenging than the first, because the focus shifted away from the authors message
towards the devices and techniques he used. I also found myself confused towards its

Uyeda

organization and structure. Bellow is a first draft and final draft of a paragraph from my
Rhetorical Analysis Essay, Jack London: Judgment vs. Instinct Through Omniscient
Narration.
First Draft: The omniscient narration allows the reader to be in both the dog and
the mans minds in order to understand that the relationship between the dog and
the man is purely a necessity and does not involve companionship. Throughout
the story, the dog is said to see the man as the fire provider. The dog wants(ed)
fire. Otherwise, it would dig itself into the snow and find shelter from the cold
air (66). At the end of the story the man dies and the dog howls for a moment
then it turns(ed) and runs(ran) along the trail toward the camp it knew, where
there were the other food providers and fire providers(79). It can be concluded
that the dog does not see the man as anything but a tool for his survival. He does
not morn the mans death; he simply decides he needs to find others to replace
him. Their relationship has no purpose but to be beneficial to each others
survival. Keeping their bond unsentimental allows the author to depict the man
and the dog separate, but equal so the audience can distinguish between their
characteristics and what they symbolize. In another case, if the dog and the man
were companions the dog would be anthropomorphized and the man would be
seen to have a softer heart. The story would loose its point that even the rough and
rugged men still obtain the faults of humanity and lack of instincts. The writer
could not get his point across if he decided to write in anything but omniscient
narration. The omniscient narration sets a foundation for the author to elaborate
on the realism and symbolism of the two characters to further his ideologies.

Uyeda

Final Draft: The omniscient narration allows the reader to be in both characters
minds so that the reader understands the relationship between dog and man is
purely a necessity and does not involve companionship. The narrator makes it
clear that the dog only considers the man a fire provider by explaining the dogs
point of view through his wants and needs: the dog wanted fire. Otherwise, it
would dig itself into the snow and find shelter from the cold air (66). At the end
of the story the man dies from the cold and the dog howls for a moment before it
turned and trotted up the trail in the direction of the camp it knew, where there
were the other food providers and fire providers(79). Based on the dogs
thoughts the reader concludes that the dog does not see the man as anything but a
tool for his survival. He does not mourn the mans death; he simply decides he
needs to find others to replace him. Furthermore, after the mans second attempt
to build a fire failed he became desperate and the sight of the dog put a wild idea
into his head. He remembered the story of the man, caught in a storm, who killed
an animal and sheltered himself inside the dead body and thus was saved. He
would kill the dog and bury his hands in the warm body until feeling returned to
them. Then he could build another fire. In this scene London exemplifies the
mans lack of feelings towards the dog through his thoughts in order to show the
reader that the dog is not a companion to the man. Through the use of omniscient
narration it is made clear to the reader that their relationship has no purpose but to
benefit each others survival. The omniscient narration does not only play a
crucial role in describing the characters relationship, but also sets the foundation

Uyeda 10
for the author to elaborate his rhetorical use of realism and symbolism in his two
characters to further his ideologies in other points of the story.

For the revisions of this essay I focused on improving in the rubric categories:
Analysis of Rhetorical Choices and Text, Convention of Organization, and
Grammar & Mechanics: Readability. In the first draft it was not apparent that I was
focused on the rhetoric devices London was using to convey his story. My main focus
should have been how the omniscient narration was a key component in understanding
the authors message; however, this was not explained until the end of the paragraph.
Since this the main point is key to addressing the prompt, it should be apparent
throughout the essay. The highlighted words show the amount of times I address the
omniscient narration throughout the essay. Glancing over the intensity of the highlighting
in the first draft compared to the final draft, it is conclusive that the final draft maintains
the overall main point throughout the paragraph more consistently than the first.
Furthermore, the convention of organization was weak in the first draft. My ideas were
scattered and it lacked evidence to support my claim thoroughly. Although I portrayed
how the author used the dogs point of view to instill the unsentimental relationship
between both characters, I did not include the mans point of view to support this
statement. Omniscient narration includes all characters points of view. Therefore, I
cannot make the claim that the omniscient narration is a key component of the rhetoric
devices used by London without explaining the mans point of view. I made
improvements in the final draft by adding evidence that depicts the mans perspective of
his indifferent relationship with the dog. Lastly, I struggled to determine how to

Uyeda 11
incorporate the quotes, considering they were in a different tense. In the first draft I
changed the quote to present tense, however, it interrupted the flow and readability of the
evidence and confused the reader. After receiving edits and advice from Dr. Haas I
changed the quote back to the original form in past tense. Through this I increased my
essays readability and improved my score in the rubric category, grammar and
mechanics of the quotes.
A main component in my improvement of my essays was due to peer review. In
the study, To Give is Better Than to Receive by Kristi Lundstrom and Wendy Baker
they observed a group of writing students ability to write based on whether they gave or
received peer review. It was concluded that students who gave peer review showed more
improvement than students who received peer review. This statistic has related well to my
approach in becoing a better writer. In class, we peer reviewed both the Rhetorical
Analysis Essay and the Literature Review Essay in depth, both giving and receiving peer
review. Being able to give edits increased my comprehension of how to improve my
essays by seeing errors in my peers work and applying that to my essay. Receiving edits
also increased my ability to write more fluidly with correct punctuation because it
allowed me to see how well I communicated to the reader. In the Rhetorical Analysis
essay I gained more insight through peer review than in other essays because it helped me
solve one of my main problems. I could not grasp how to structure the essay in order to
convey the authors ideologies and the rhetoric devices he used effectively. My first draft
was unorganized and did not have a fluid, coherent train of thought, however, after
looking at my classmates essays I saw some that she had the same problem but solved
the issue more eloquently. I took this into consideration going into my second draft and I

Uyeda 12
greatly improved it. Giving peer review helped me solve my own issue in my essay by
learning from how others approach the same problems. Talking with my peers and
building off ideas during class has increased my involvement in my own essay. My
essays are no longer static pieces of paper that are written, and then soon forgotten. They
have become dynamic and are always improving through time. Nothing I write is set in
stone. I see my thoughts flow easier from my mind and communicate back and forth from
revision to revision, further improving my own capabilities to communicate and reform
my thoughts. Peer review has been a huge component in my engagement towards this
class. I will carry this new approach and being more involved into my future classes.
Similar to the peer review assignments, I learned how to interact and work with
others effectively in the group projects. The two main projects we had in the course were
the Wikis and PSAs. In both projects I felt I held the leadership role mores strongly than
others in my group. Most people tend to not want to tell others what to do, for the fear of
being perceived as bossy, but I felt we lacked the organization we needed to be
successful, so I stepped up and respectfully assigned everyone tasks. For example, in my
wiki presentation my group members did not seem to be engaged in the project and they
rarely vocalized their opinions. At first, our tasks and deadlines were vague and hazy, but
after I split the work up, assigned us subtopics, and set deadlines, we soon knew exactly
how each person would contribute to the overall project. I also set a date for us to meet
up and practice our presentation. This was not as successful due to the difficult time
scheduling, but I learned to be flexible and adapt to changes in the situation.
Furthermore, I enjoyed working with my second group on the video PSA about puppy
mills. All three of us were invested in this project because we all strongly believed in our

Uyeda 13
message, and we were excited about how our project would translate to our audience. It
was a challenge to split the work evenly between the three of us because my computer
was the only device that could edit the video. Although I was happy to edit the video, I
ended up doing most of the work. However, this was due to technical problems, and had
nothing to do with my group mates efforts to contribute to the project. In the end, I
learned that everyone has his or her own talents- Katherine is very supportive and brings
great energy to the group, Solomon is very committed and supportive of all the ideas
brought to the table; everyone has his or her own strengths and our collaboration of skills
through working together made our PSA successful. I have learned a lot from the group
projects, and I am glad Dr. Haas assigned such interactive activities. I will keep these
many tips that I have learned from these group projects when I encounter working with
others again.
This class has had a variety of different types of interactions and ways to be
engaged. One of which was the Connect Modules. These were online practices that
involved punctuation and grammar, and also taught different tools and mechanisms used
when analyzing rhetoric. Over viewing my progress, my Self-assessment indicated that
91% of the time I know I knew the answer, and 9% of the time I didnt know I knew the
answer. I feel this was accurate with my current knowledge. I felt I knew most of what
was taught, but I had forgotten some of the lessons. The modules were a good refresher to
punctuation and grammar. However, the Paraphrasing and Summarizing to Understand a
Text category was the most difficult because it was my first encounter with
understanding the difference between paraphrasing and summarizing. It was difficult to
distinguish, but by the end of the practice I had a strong understanding of both. The

Uyeda 14
Connect Module was a tool that consistently kept our English skills in check and
improved them throughout the process.
Writing 37 has exceeded my expectation of a typical writing class. I now have a
strong understanding of rhetorical analysis, and have improved my writing technics
immensely. I feel very confident going into future writing assignments and classes
because I feel assured that I can communicate in an effective manner. Through all the
mediums: We3, Blackfish, How to Build a Fire, and the PSA I have learned more than just
writing. Although this courses goal is to instill an understanding of rhetoric analysis, it
also makes students think about society and, in this class, animals. I have debated and
discussed the ideologies around animals, forming my own opinions about the philosophy
of our relations with them. It has stirred curiosity and a new outlook on how I perceive
others around me. As the teddy bear symbolizes, how we see our world is based on the
social constructed world we live in. I will take this into consideration with every aspect of
my life and reconsider why I perceive the world the way I do.