Bishop 1

David Bishop

ENC 2135-0031

Jessi Thomsen

10 December 2017

Theory of Composing

What is composing? According to the Meriam-Webster dictionary, to compose means to

formulate and write. Seems pretty simple, right? While this may true, there are many

components to composing a piece of work. There are even many different pieces of work that fit

the composing process! There are many different ways of describing or even going about the

composing process, which is why I have developed my own theory of composing which I see fits

best through my knowledge and past experiences.

Before diving into explaining my own theory of composing, there are some key terms

that need to be described. Most of these terms come from Lloyd Bitzers The Rhetorical

Situation. While many components create the rhetorical situation, terms such as speaker,

exigence, purpose, audience, and genre can be seen as the most vital. The rhetorical situation can

best be described as a situation that involves a speaker using some sort of communication in

order to modify an audiences perspective. In order to create this rhetorical situation, the speaker

needs an exigence, or an initial motivation in creating the rhetorical situation. The speaker will

use a certain genre, or medium, in order to communicate his or her message to the audience.

Genres vary endlessly between essays, posters, songs, etc. Acknowledging the genre the speaker

choses, the goal of the rhetorical is to deliver the speakers message to the specific audience. All
 Bishop 2

of these terms individually, and collectively within the rhetorical situation, are vital for

understanding my theory of composing.

As stated earlier, there are many components in creating a theory of composing. To begin

with, a theory of composing cannot exist without passionate attachments. Passionate attachments

give the composer reason and motivation to compose and sets the stage for the exigence. Once

the speaker identifies and understands their passionate attachments, there must be some sort of

knowledge that enables the speaker to compose. In other words, the speaker needs some sort of

previous information, whether it be research or just past experiences. A good example of this

comes from the second project I wrote this semester. My passionate attachment dealt with punk

rock and the knowledge I used to compose my essay came from research conducted on numerous

sources. A well-rounded knowledge of the passionate attachment the speaker choses to compose

upon allows the speaker to identify his or her audience much more specifically. These few terms,

like passionate attachments, exigence, knowledge, and audience, can be considered the

foreground in the composing process.

Now, in order to create a theory for composing, the rhetorical situation must be complete.

In order for the rhetorical situation to be complete, the speaker must communicate their message

to the audience. So, the next step in the theory of composing is transmitting that message to the

audience. Whether it be writing an essay or designing a blog, thoughts must be put into a

medium in order to communicate to the audience. To me, this is the most challenging part of the

composing process. Its collecting all of the knowledge that is scrambling around inside the

speakers head and forming it into an organized argument. Anne Lammot gives such good

insight on this concept in her essay Shitty First Drafts. In this essay Lammot simply explains

that all writers are going to have shitty first drafts, and thats okay! The whole point of the first
 Bishop 3

draft is just to get all of those running thoughts down onto paper, and it helps to acknowledge

that it isnt going to be so great the first time. Anne Lammot explains this like so, The first draft

is the child's draft, where you let it all pour out and then let it romp all over the place, knowing

that no one is going to see it and that you can shape it later (Lammot).

As Lammot talks throughout her essay about creating that initial, shitty first draft, she

constantly reminds the reader that a shitty first draft will turn into a good second draft, and then a

great third draft, and so on. I cannot agree more. Revision is a huge part of the composing

process and is a lot more than just editing your own work here and there. In order for revision to

truly be effective, the speaker must seek advice and insight from others. Peer review allows the

composer to gain knowledge and a different point of view on their own work. This can be tricky

at times, because the composer may choose to be closed-minded to the advice of others, thinking

their work is already flawless when in reality, the viewpoint of others mimics the viewpoint of

the composers audience. Keeping an open mind gives the composer more of a well-rounded

knowledge on their own subject. The composer will then reflect on their work with this new-

found insight. In Kathleen Blake Yanceys piece Reflection in the Writing Classroom, she

references the importance in Sharon Piankos quote, The ability to reflect on what is being

written seems to be the essence of the difference between able and not so able writers from their

initial writing experience onward (Yancey). Reflection on ones own draft is the first step in

creating the bridge from the previous draft onto the next, more polished draft.

The biggest key to reflection and revision is making sure the rhetorical situation you are

creating fits properly. In other words, all the components within the rhetorical situation must

support and connect well with each other. For example, the speakers targeted audience needs to

be able to relate to the purpose, or the message the speaker is conveying. In his essay The
 Bishop 4

Rhetorical Situation, Lloyd Bitzer describes the importance of connecting to the desired

audience. Bitzer states, It is clear also that a rhetorical audience must be distinguished from, a

body of mere hearers or readers: properly speaking, a rhetorical audience consists only of those

persons who are capable of being influenced by discourse and of being mediators of change

(Bitzer). Project 3 was a great way of gaining a better understanding of this concept of

connecting the speakers purpose to a targeted audience. While the different genres created in

project 3, like a flyer, Instagram page, and statue, are not written pieces, they still create a

rhetorical situation. The fact that they were not written documents emphasizes the point Bitzer

stated. Creating different genres other than writing allowed me to convey my purpose effectively

by using a specific genre that relates to my targeted audience. For example, creating a traditional

concert flyer of a punk rock show reaches out to people who once lived in a time that only used

paper flyers for advertising a punk rock show.

Once the speaker is able to identify that the rhetorical situation they are creating will be

able to function effectively, he or she can then finish the drafting process and settle with a final,

polished draft. Now, while most people think this is where the composing process ends, there is

more to it. The rhetorical situation must be finished. In order for the rhetorical situation to be

fully completed, the speaker must effectively present their piece of work to the targeted

audience. The targeted audience upon receiving the message the speaker is conveying will open

up to the idea presented. That is the goal of the rhetorical situation: creating an argument, finding

the right way to present the argument, release it to the targeted audience, and influence the

audience.

To conclude my theory of composing, reflection must be made again on the final,

polished draft. After presenting the piece to the audience, the speaker will look back and reflect
 Bishop 5

on the piece they created and critique themselves on what they did well and what they did

poorly. This will give better insight on the next piece of work the speaker choses to compose.

The speaker must also reflect on the rhetorical situation they have created. Observing the way the

audience reacts to the work again gives the speaker better insight on not only the way they

created their rhetorical situation, but the composing process as a whole. This idea of reflecting

and learning from past experiences in composing relates very well with logic explained within

the book How People Learn. The concepts of learning and transfer are discussed

constantly throughout this book. Learning is simple: gaining information. Transfer can be

described as taking the information learned and applying it in not only the setting it was learned,

but to other settings and ranges of life (Bransford). Personally, I believe applying my theory of

composition to these concepts is the biggest thing I got out of this class, ENC 2135. We gain

knowledge by going through the composing process. Its the way we apply the insight we gain

from going about the composing process to other aspects of life that develop us into better, more

well-rounded human beings.

 Bishop 6

Works Cited

Bitzer, Lloyd F. The Rhetorical Situation. Philosophy and Rhetoric, vol. 1, 1968, pp. 1-14.

Bransford, John D. How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School. National Acad.

Press, 2004.

Lammot, Anne. Shitty First Drafts. Bird by Bird: Some Instructions on Writing and Life. New

York: Anchor, 1995 20-27. Print.

Yancey, Kathleen Blake. Reflection in the Writing Classroom. Utah State University, 1998.