Editing my blog again was very successful. I didn’t do my mind map correctly and didn’t really know how to do it the right way. I took a lot of time to completely change my whole mind map around. I organized it better and made it more appealing for my audience to read. I found it frustrating to redo my whole memo itself because I really like what I wrote, but I also found it hard to keep it under 700 words at the time. Now having the summarization part out, it allows for more room to write about the other topics. I thought that having class time to do a workshop was VERY helpful. Not knowing if what I did was correct to begin with, seeing other people’s mind maps helped tremendously. Not having a whole write up of instructions of how to create the mind map/what it should look like is something that I really struggled with. So seeing everyone else’s mind map really helped me edit my mind map again to make it look even better. I did find it hard to change around the lines that connected my category to my branched off words. Adding lines, moving lines, and creating new context was definitely a challenge, but I feel really good about how my mind map came out in the end.

My revision process for project one was challenging because I really didn’t know how to change and edit my own project. I wasn’t necessarily a fan of my own revision writing process. Not being in class on Thursday was hard because I felt that my peers would give me advice on how to revise my project as well as see theirs to be able to understand how I can make mine better. My process for revising project one was actually calling Kevin. I asked if I could read his mind map to get a better sense on how I can improve mine. After we exchanged looking at each others mind maps I was able to make some improvements to each bubble of the mind map. I was able to revise my project in my room on my bed just how I started my draft. I found that it was easiest to sketch out my thoughts when I was most comfortable. I did my revision when I went home this weekend and found it easier at home because I had less distractions than if I was at school. It didn’t take me as long to do the revision because I only had to make some changes here and there. This process is different than my first draft because for my first draft I had to let all of my ideas flow out of the paper whereas my editing to my draft was more about picking apart with what I wrote. I was more stressed doing this than starting the project itself. I can never revise my own work because I don’t see for there to be anything to change so I found it very challenging to revise my mind map. I wish that when it came to my writing process I would be more in depth.

My writing process for the first draft of Project One was much different than I thought. I sat in my bed and drafted the project by arranging the webs of the mind map. I thought that that was the hardest part of drafting this project. Because my ecology is very easy for me to talk about, the actual writing process of this draft was the easiest for me. I did my project yesterday after taking a nap to clear my mind to start this project. It took me about an hour to do because arranging the map itself took a while to figure out. This doesn’t compare to my ideal writing process because my ideal writing process would be on a beach around sunset. Although we’re not far from the beach, it’s the winter and it would take me a while to get to the beach and it wouldn’t be easy for me to conduct the project. Because it’s cold out it wouldn’t be easy or enjoyable to conduct the project draft. I enjoyed this writing process that I did to make my project draft because I was very comfortable under my blanket and laying down. I felt that it was easy to put all of my thoughts on the laptop being in a comfortable position. My writing process made me feel a lot more content than I thought it would. I was feeling happy about being smart, but I was feeling stressed because it took me a while to figure out how to move all of the lines for my mind map, once I figured it out I wasn’t stressed anymore. Lamott’s ideas about a first draft informs me that writing shitty first drafts is completely normal and okay to do. She said that no matter how good of a writer you are we all write not so great first drafts. This made me feel a lot better about writing drafts because I feel that my first draft always has to be perfect and close to the final edit, which shouldn’t be the case according to Lamott. She expresses that shitty first drafts are almost as if it’s apart of life.

My ideal writing process would be to sit on the beach around sunset. I envision myself to be looking at the water while listening to the waves hit the shore while the water hits my ankles. The beach has always been my relaxing place and whenever I’m stressed when it’s warm out I always go on walks on the beach to clear my head. So if I was to write, my ideal location would be on the beach by myself. I picture myself listening to relaxing music in my earbuds while looking at the ocean and gathering my thoughts as they flow through my keyboard and appear on the screen of my laptop. This process is very ideal to me because when I think about a relaxing time to get all of my thoughts out, it’s when I’m at the beach. I find the sound of waves very peaceful and the sun hitting the water satisfying. So being on the beach around sunset is the perfect time for me to write because all of my thoughts will be best at that time. My ideal writing process compared to the first reading would make me seem that I need to be more focused almost as if I was in a library by myself because a beach setting would make me more unfocused. The second reading doesn’t affect my setting because of its comical twist to it. Being on the beach isn’t the best way to focus, but if I were to write something in a comical/funny way the beach would still be an ideal writing place for me because my focus doesn’t have to be one hundred percent there.

The writers of this text is Carl Herndl and Stuart Brown. Carl Herndl is an English Professor at the University of South Florida and he focuses on science and environmental issues connecting to English. Stuart Brown is the founder of The National Institute for Play and does TED Talks and publicly speaks. The primary audience for this text is other rhetoritians because they specifically go into the environment relating and connecting to rhetoric which is a very detailed subject that wouldn’t necessarily be intended to read by the general public. The text says that rhetoric is the discovery of the possible means of persuasion and a tool that allowed people to explore significant social and moral issues and make wise or prudent decisions. The main argument for this text is about an idea of environmental discourse and the language that’s used to talk about it. The environment that all of us argue and make policy is the product of the discourse about nature established in powerful scientific disciplines in government agencies and nonfiction essays/books. In this reading it has also said that there are three main parts to a rhetorical model of environmental discourse which is Poetic Discourse (Pathos, Regulatory Discourse (Ethos), and Scientific Discourse (Logos). The regulatory discourse relates to making decisions and setting environmental policy. The scientific discourse is the specialized discourse of the environmental sciences. The poetic discourse is the language we use to discuss the beauty, value, and emotional power of nature. The text is trying to show other rhetoritians the side of how rhetorical criticism and environment tie into rhetoric as discourse and language are used. By showing other rhetoritians this text it will expand their thought process on if their reasoning seems correct to them or if they’re wrong.

The writer of this reading is Jenny Edbauer and she’s from Austin, Texas. The primary audience of this text is the general public. I think this because throughout the reading Edbauer talks about how our discourse and speaking in front of audiences is almost too simple and that is just doesn’t work for our language speaking to one another. She made an example using a triangle connecting what is wrong with our discourse, “The triangle of sender, receiver, text misses the concentrations that come to constitute Warner’s version of a public.” She then states at the end of this topic that, “In order to rethink rhetorical publicness as a context of interaction therefore, this article proposes an augmentation to our popular conceptual frameworks of rhetorical situation.” This meaning when and where the rhetorical situation happens. She thinks that the ecological model will allow us to more fully theorize rhetoric as a public creation. Edbauer thinks that rhetoric discourse (conversations) are more complex and that they can’t compare to a public speaker or someone talking to an audience because it can’t capture everyone’s minds in the same way. The main message that Edbauer is trying to get across is that when talking about places that connect with a rhetorical situation, she argues that it is the person that influences the place which can influences the rhetorical situation. Although that isn’t the right description how places and rhetorical situations combine, that’s how she puts it together in her mind. The texts primary rhetorical purpose is to persuade. Edbauer throughout the text tries to persuade her audience that it is within a smaller and more compact discourse than a public speaking to involve good rhetoric dialouge and I agree with Edbauer. She also tries to persuade her audience by writing that it is the person who influences that place of where the rhetorical situation will occur.

In the reading of “Rhetoric is Synonymous with Empty Speech” was written by Patricia Roberts-Miller. The primary audience for this text is the general public due to her talking about philosophers own definitions of rhetoric. The text says that different philosophers have different definitions of rhetoric in their own way. Aristotle described it as a discipline and a skill that enables you to see the available means of persuasion. Plato used rhetoric in terms of speech-making as opposed to arguing in small groups and wasn’t opposed to argumentation. Socrates relied heavily on some logical moves in the dialogues. The main message of the text was to show that these philosophers all didn’t agree the same meaning of what rhetoric is. The first texts primary rhetorical purpose is to show the audience how philosophers understood their meaning of what rhetoric actually meant. In the reading of “The Rhetorical Situation” was written by Lloyd F. Bitzer. I think that the primary audience is again the general public. The text implies that rhetoric is persuasive, alters reality, a natural context of persons, events, objects, relations and an exigence which strongly invites utterance. The main argument/message of this text is to show and make the audience understand what rhetoric situations are and how that are used during interactions with others and with the presence of discourse. The texts primary rhetorical purpose is to teach the audience about what is rhetoric situations and by giving examples to show how they can be used. It talks about different situations with how rhetorical situations can be used in a courtroom for example and it says the speech of accusation, the speech of defense, and the charge to the jury.

My definition of rhetoric is a part of english that concentrates on the writing and language of persuasion of an audience. I’m honestly not quite sure or positive that that’s the correct definition of rhetoric, but to my knowledge it’s the author’s persuasion of english. I took a class in philosophy last semester and I realized that the philosophers wrote rhetorically during the majority of their writing. While reading Aristotle, Hume, Descartes, and Mill for example, I noticed that they all at some point tried to persuade their audience by making them doubt their own beliefs. I’ve come to the conclusion to understand rhetoric in the way that I do because of taking the philosophy course last semester. By taking this course, it showed and taught me a lot about rethinking my own beliefs based on the factors to persuade my own decisions that were made from my upbringing and prior knowledge, “a priori”. During these essays, the philosophers purpose is to make people feel confused and question their own beliefs to maybe even change them. This encourages mental space to think about if your beliefs are really the right and/or correct beliefs. Most of the time after reading these lengthy and confusing essays, I often had to take time to understand why the philosophers were not only going against my own beliefs, but opposing their own as well. Tying this all back to the understanding of rhetoric, I think that reading many essays from well known philosophers helped me understand why rhetoric is used. Philosophy is all about not settling for one specific opinion and belief you have of a chosen topic. It’s about broadening your knowledge and creating unbiased beliefs. I’m hoping that this class will help me understand rhetoric in a non philosophical way. While I enjoyed understanding ancient philosophy, it was also very hard to read. So I’m hoping the readings in this class will help me see rhetoric in a different way that will be easier to comprehend.

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.