Johnson

1
Gabe Johnson
Professor Rood
English 250H
11 December 2015
Reflection on Written Revision

For part two of the portfolio, I chose to revise my textual rhetorical analysisthe first

major paper we wrote in this class. Not only did I receive the poorest grade on my original
rhetorical analysis out of any assignments, I also found it to be my worst writing of the
semester. I hadnt realized just how awful my original paper was until I began to revise it and
looking back, I am amazed that it even received a B. My original rhetorical analysis was
unorganized, filled with sloppy phrases, and just didnt flow as a cohesive paper. It had great
ideas, but needed some major structural improvement. My revisions can be grouped into four
major categories: no-change, additions, deletions, and reorganization. More importantly, I
utilized these revisions to transform my paper into a very well written analysis.

When I began my revising process, I read and reread my paper to determine which parts

needed major work and which parts didnt need as much work. I eventually determined that all
of my ideas and main points were really good, but my organization, style, and transitions, to
name a few things, needed to be improved. So, in my revision, I did not change my major ideas
and points. I basically stripped the paper down to its essentialswhich were solidand revised
the structure surrounding those ideas.

Once I had determined what aspects of my rhetorical analysis needed major revisions, I

started making additions. As I mentioned previously, all of my ideasmy contentwere good,

Johnson 2
so I didnt add any new main points. Instead, I added more details to my introduction, wrote
better transitions, and re-wrote some sentences to improve how the paper flows. My original
introduction was a bit lackluster, to say the least. I started it off by saying, Jimmy Carter builds
up to his point slowly, but announces it loud and clear in his speech A Crisis of Confidence:
The threat is nearly invisibleIt is a crisis of confidence, (par 32). This was not the most
effective way to introduce my subject. It doesnt grab the readers attention and puts the
reader right in the middle of my ideas without any sort of background. With regards to that, I
changed my introduction to better serve the reader. My revised introduction begins as follows:
In the summer of 1979, the United States was in the midst of a dire energy crisis.
In addition to the energy crisis, the nation had just experienced two tumultuous
decades of assassinations, war, and corruption, which only further weighed
down the American people. On July 15, 1979, President Jimmy Carters speech
A Crisis of Confidence was broadcast to the American public. Carters speech
sought to convince the nation that its underlying problem was a lack of
confidence and faith in the American ideals. To accomplish that goal, he utilizes
four main techniques: presenting quotations, careful detail selection, intelligent
style and organization, and integrated appeals to emotion and logic. Through
those techniques, Carter effectively argues that Americas problem stems from
its societys lack of confidence and that Americans can help create the solution.
Clearly, this shows major improvement from my original introductionit grabs the readers
attention and it flows more smoothly, as well as setting up the rest of my paper for the reader.

Johnson 3
Another major addition I made to my paper was better transitions and topic sentences.
In my original paper, my paragraphs were unorganized and I made my point in my final
sentence, rather then in the first sentence. I also had very poor transitions from paragraph to
paragraph, making my paper seem more like a list. I changed the first sentence of almost every
paragraph to make the paper to flow smoothly and show the connections between my ideas.

As a result of my additions, most of the deletions I made to my paper were just a part of

rewriting certain sections. I had several strange phrases that just didnt quite fit with the rest of
the paper, so those were deleted or rewritten to better serve their purpose. I also deleted some
parts of my conclusion that were repetitive and unnecessary. In general, most of my deletions
gave the piece a more formal voice and helped bring it together into a cohesive whole.

Finally, besides the additions, reorganization was the most substantial revision I

performed on my rhetorical analysis. I had sort of just thrown my original paper together and as
a result, it was unorganized and didnt support my main points very well. To improve this, I
moved around different sections and used topic sentences and concluding sentences. The body
of my original paper was structured in this form: quotes to ethical/logical appeals to detail
selection to organization and to style. While not terribly awful, that organization scheme didnt
allow me to show how my points connect and build off of each other. That weakened my
argument and weakened my papers ability to convey my main ideas. So, I reorganized it to
flow in this form: quotes to detail selection to style to organization and to logical and emotional
appeals. This revised organized pattern is more logical than the original and really strengthens
and pulls together my rhetorical analysis.

Johnson 4

In the process of revising my rhetorical analysis, I learned several things about myself as

a writer and about my writing process. I always believe my first drafts are better than they
actually are, and sometimes it just takes months to realize that great writing comes from great
revision. I found it much easier to revise rather than to write, and this allowed me to speed
through the revision process a lot faster than my writing process. Finally, I learned that
structuring ones revision and determining ahead of time what needs the most work is essential
to a productive revision process. To revise my rhetorical analysis, I considered four main areas:
no-change, additions, deletions, and reorganization. Because of this revision process, I
successfully improved my paper. In conclusion, my textual rhetorical analysis was a mess
originally, but through my revisions, I was able to turn it into a well written paper that served its
purpose much better than the original.