A lot of my writing process is varied, so I do not have a specific process. I did, however, find that my process for this assignment did work to my benefit. First, I started by sitting myself in a very quite room. I have found that complete silence works for me. The environment needs to be perfect for me, as well, so I made sure there were no distractions in my vicinity. I was in my room and locked my door. My thinking process took about an hour. I would say that the setup I had was pretty close to my ideal writing process. After completing the assignment, I felt good about myself. I got a sense of assurance, because before starting I did not think I was going to be able to think of anything. Before starting, I was feeling very anxious about this assignment. I did not think I had a good grasp on what the assignment actually was, but looking back I think I did a good job. In regards to Lamott’s  ideas about a first draft, I think I followed her style pretty well. She describes her process as finding some place that you are comfortable in and to just get in the right mindset. She says how going into the process most writers do not know what they are going to write about and that is how I felt. I did what she did and got in a comfortable setting and just wrote what came to mind. Hopefully I got a good grasp on the assignment, but I think I did well.

1. Who is talking/writing?
2. Who is the primary audience for this text?
3. What does the text say (or imply) “rhetoric” is?
4. What is the main argument or message of this text?
5. What is the texts primary rhetorical purpose (i.e., what is the text trying to do)?

In the text “Environmental Rhetoric in Contemporary America”, there are two editors: Herndl and Brown. Stuart C. Brown teaches rhetorical history and criticism at New Mexico State University, he is also the author of several composition textbooks. Carl G. Herndl is the Associate Professor of English at New Mexico State University. He teaches and writes about discourse theory and cultural studies. The primary audience for this text is environmentalists that are trying to make a positive change to the environment. I think the main argument or message of this text is to explain that nothing is anything, until humans give it meaning. Obviously, life has existed far before humans, but before humans nothing could be described as anything/ nothing had a name. Humans made all the names of everything up, using language. The main argument the text has is, “The environment about which we all argue and make policy is the product of the discourse about nature established in powerful scientific disciplines” (page 3). An example used is that the environment we all live in today is not just shaped by science, it is also shaped by different literary pieces that give life to nature and the environment. Herndl and Brown think that language connects almost every part of our social and intellectual life, crossing the boundaries between various academic disciplines and social institutions.

The author of this text is, Jenny Edbauer. She is a college professor at Kentucky University. This paper is more geared towards academic research. This article argues that, rhetorical situations operate within a network of lived practical consciousness or structures of feeling. What I get from that is, Edbauer has a similar view on rhetorical situations as Bitzer does. She thinks that rhetorical situation depends on what group you are around/ what situation you are in. Hense the name. It is about location and people influence that location.

In the overall topic of ‘Bad Ideas About Writing’, Patricia Roberts Miller writes her own short essay with the topic, “Rhetoric Is Synonymous With Empty Speak”. Before reading Miller’s writing, it seems to me that she views rhetoric is a bad way, she compares it to empty writing, which does not sound supportive. Right when I start to read the essay, I notice that Miller’s primary audience is intended for people who do not understand what rhetoric fully is. She runs into a colleague of hers from another department and he seemingly mocks her for studying rhetoric in the environmentalist field. She then goes to explain what most people’s perception of rhetoric is. She says, “A popular view of rhetoric is that it is a straightforward model of how communication should work: A person can speak the truth simply by using words that refer to true things in the world. If she chooses not to use sentences filled with words that refer to true things in the world, then she is engaged in rhetoric” (page 7). She then goes to explain that this view of rhetoric is something added on, like in a sentence, that obscures communication. She gives the example of saying a sentence like, ‘A cat is on the mat’. This sentence is plain and normal. However, a sentence with rhetoric would look something like, “The elegant feline languishes mournfully on the expensive carpet, waiting impatiently for what he sees as his lazy servants to open a can of salmon” (page 7). Although she says most people see rhetoric this way, she describes it as something that we layer onto the proposition. In her words, “Rhetoric is clothing on the idea” (page 8). After I finished reading this text, I realized I was wrong about my initial thought of what the message was going to be. Miller, in fact, tries to justify rhetoric and explain how most people have the wrong idea of rhetoric. She thinks rhetoric is a good thing and allows writers to express themselves.

Rhetoric is a technique of using language effectively and persuasively in spoken or written form. It is an art of discourse, which studies and employs various methods to convince, influence, or please an audience. In the reading, Gee says, “while
you can overtly teach someone linguistics, a body of knowledge, you can’t teach
them to be a linguist” (page 7). This quote explains that language is taught, so there are going to be biases which relates to rhetoric. Rhetoric is biased and I see it as somewhat of a form of propaganda. Gee also talks about how tone of voice is important when regarding rhetoric. The way someone acts is very important, not just the way someone speaks. In his article he says, “It is a truism that a person can know perfectly the grammar of a language and not know how to use that language. It is not just what you say, but how you say” (p. 5). Gee defines Discourse as the combination of saying, writing, doing, being. Gee also says, “Discourses. Discourses are not mastered by overt instruction (even less so than languages, and hardly anyone ever fluently acquired a second language sitting in a classroom), but by enculturation (“apprenticeship”) into social practices through scaffolded and supported interaction with people who have already mastered” (p. 7). I think what he means by this is you have to become a member of a discourse community to learn new discourses. You have to learn from experiences and discourse community can not be taught. One last thing Gee talks about is dominant discourse and non dominant discourse. Dominant discourse is more of a mainstream idea, the ideal view of someone or something based on society. Non dominant discourse is more underground and not so popular.

Be yourself; Everyone else is already taken.

— Oscar Wilde.

This is the first post on my new blog. I’m just getting this new blog going, so stay tuned for more. Subscribe below to get notified when I post new updates.

This is an example post, originally published as part of Blogging University. Enroll in one of our ten programs, and start your blog right.

You’re going to publish a post today. Don’t worry about how your blog looks. Don’t worry if you haven’t given it a name yet, or you’re feeling overwhelmed. Just click the “New Post” button, and tell us why you’re here.

Why do this?

• Because it gives new readers context. What are you about? Why should they read your blog?
• Because it will help you focus you own ideas about your blog and what you’d like to do with it.

The post can be short or long, a personal intro to your life or a bloggy mission statement, a manifesto for the future or a simple outline of your the types of things you hope to publish.

To help you get started, here are a few questions:

• Why are you blogging publicly, rather than keeping a personal journal?
• What topics do you think you’ll write about?
• Who would you love to connect with via your blog?
• If you blog successfully throughout the next year, what would you hope to have accomplished?

You’re not locked into any of this; one of the wonderful things about blogs is how they constantly evolve as we learn, grow, and interact with one another — but it’s good to know where and why you started, and articulating your goals may just give you a few other post ideas.

Can’t think how to get started? Just write the first thing that pops into your head. Anne Lamott, author of a book on writing we love, says that you need to give yourself permission to write a “crappy first draft”. Anne makes a great point — just start writing, and worry about editing it later.

When you’re ready to publish, give your post three to five tags that describe your blog’s focus — writing, photography, fiction, parenting, food, cars, movies, sports, whatever. These tags will help others who care about your topics find you in the Reader. Make sure one of the tags is “zerotohero,” so other new bloggers can find you, too.