You are on page 1of 5

Analytical

Reflection for Audio Travel Writing and Rhetoric Project



As we have progressed through this class, it is becoming evident that the way
we think about even thinking about our pieces is changingXXXXX and I started
with hey maybe we could do a podcast on Porto because we love it and went
straight to WE COULD FIT IT TO THE STYLE OF THE 36 HOURS BOOK which we
also love. We are learning the value of having a specific market for an article, not
only for the purpose of having it published, but in order to give us some structure
and something to work towards while writing. This being said, I think that these
developing skills are shown when you compare our piece to the NY Times 36 Hours
book. First of all, we intentionally matched the subjectivity of our podcast to that of
36 Hours in Europe. They are both written in the second person, and maintain the
objectivity that a travel guide would have. They are instructive and give an opinion
while remaining somewhat professional sounding. They are also different than
other guides because they are not directly based on we found this experience-type
relation.

The structure mirrors that of 36 Hours as well because it is divided by day

and time. Both the book and the podcast aim to plan out a weekend in Europe for
their audience. The audience is seemingly of a mixed income, but mostly for adults
on a vacation rather than students backpacking for a weekend. Luckily, we were in
Porto with our parents so we were able to see a few things that we wouldnt be able
to traveling as penny-pinching students. We targeted our audience, therefore, as
travelers on a vacation with a medium range of money but a limited time frame,

looking to get the best taste of a city in one weekend. Finally, we realized after
listening to our rough cut that we sound tired and run-down (mostly because we
were at the time). We considered cheesing it up a little, trying to sound like an over-
enthusiastic recording. We decided instead to shoot more for lively but
sophisticated because the book that we were modeling it off clearly valued form.
The book is a beautiful red with illustrations and pictures inside, aiming to be
elevated above the run of the mill travel guide.

We think that what brings our argument beyond the obvious is the unique

structure of the podcast. Rather than simply what you should see in Porto, our
podcast adds the challenge of how you can see enough of Porto in 36 hours.
Furthermore, because we actually lived and loved all of what we are writing about,
we were able to give life to the descriptions. Furthermore, Antonia, a family friend
who has lived in Portugal for all 61 years of his life, showed us around and told us
the best places to go and see. These details all allowed us to create a piece that is
meaningful to the reader and different than other travel guides.

Our ethos for this article is possible stronger than ever in that we are writing

small blurbs about places and experiences that we had just partaken in. This was
both of our first travel guide type piece (other than XXXXXs haircut piece which was
far more specific). We had the opportunity to take one of our favorite trips yet and
turn it into a guide. Because it had smaller views of each recommendation, we were
able to paint the picture of what we experienced, while still leaving room for the
reader to create their own experience there. Some unofficial ethos could come from
how much we absolutely loved Porto and were excited to talk passionately about it.

Finally, we researched Porto through Antonio, who we interviewed about his town
and how to experience it to its fullest. Unfortunately, we collected several of sound
bites on XXXXXs phone, which was broken right before writing the piece (we could
listen to them but couldnt download them onto the computer). The interviews with
Antonio still provided research and ethos, but we couldnt add them to the podcast.

Interviewing Antonio also addresses an ethical topic that XXXXX had brought

up in one of her workshop pieces about being an expert in travel writing. After
seeing Porto for a weekend, we are hardly exports on Porto. Antonio is, however,
and by gaining his advice and combining it with what we, as travelers, want to see of
a city in a weekend, we were able to develop a more ethically sound piece. This
awareness shows our growing awareness of ethical issues in travel writing.

We believe that this podcast embodies our transition from thinking about

how to be travel writers, to actually being travel writers. We were thinking about
our podcast and how to collect interviews, pictures, and mental images of what we
would include from the beginning. On one hand, we are aware that this could shape
our travel and change what we do. However, we had a pretty amazing weekend, and
we believe that that itself is proof that we did it well. In fact, traveling as travel
writers may have even enhanced our travel in that we paid more attention to detail,
remembering places and shops that we may not have.

Furthermore, as I mentioned in the beginning, we have learned how to

automatically be thinking about what genre/rhetorical situation we are targeting.


We acted as journalists by conducting interviews and researching through pointed
experience. Mostly, we had so much fun creating this podcast.

Regarding collaborating to put this podcast together, we believe that it made

our podcast stronger. We each have individual strengths in our writing that
complimented each other as we put the project together. Furthermore, we each
edited and tweaked all of the sections. This gave us a unique editing experience.
Rather than editing another persons work about an experience that is foreign to us,
we were a part of the experience and could therefore determine if the description
adequately captured it.
Several of the articles regarding coauthorship examined how the idea of
authorship guides the writing process. This proved to both be true and untrue for
us. It was true in the sense that we bounced ideas off of each other more frequently
throughout the weekend. We were constantly throwing out things that we should
include, pointing out pictures to capture, and helping each other find people to
interview. However, it is not true in the sense that we normally help one another
out with ideas, topics, and relevant information for our articles. These past
experiences reiterate the argument that the old idea of authorship, which
acknowledges it as a collaborative, cooperative, and collective, better captures our
actual writing process. We have spent the semester bouncing ideas off of one
another on long runs and on bus rides, and we believe that we have most definitely
influenced each others writing.
Holly Laird wrote regarding how she analyzed coauthors in her book this
study reads coauthored texts as the realization of relationships. These writers
relationships reach their audience through stories. While we did not write a

story per say, I believe that our podcast is a formal version of our relationship:
lively, exciting, and constantly trying to make the most of every hours.