Introduction
Proficient writing is a skill developed through regular practice and response to issues raised by readers. It is a two-pronged approach reflecting on one’s writing style and responding to readers’ feedback and evaluations. In two of my previous rhetorical analysis essays, I analyzed Al Gore’s Nobel speech on global warming. In these papers, the writing techniques used about grammar and sentence structure, organization of the work, and rhetoric analysis are distinct. Overall, the second essay shows a marked improvement about content, grammar, and organization compared to the first one. I revised it based on the reader’s comments made in the first essay. For a writer, delivering ideas can only be achieved through proper textual work, correct grammar, and a flow of ideas.
Thesis Statement
Rhetoric writing entails a methodology of analyzing and evaluating speeches or texts to identify the meaning implied by the speaker or the author. As such, rhetoric writing requires refined analytic skills, which develop with experience in writing. In the two articles, which I wrote, the rhetoric analysis is well presented in the second essay than in the first one.
Often, readers or editors review literary works to identify mistakes in grammar or the presentation of ideas. The writer’s subsequent correction of these mistakes is what refines the work to achieve its ultimate goal of passing across the intended message. In this paper, I will identify the errors in my first essay exposed by the reader’s comments and show how I corrected them in the second essay, which is obviously of better quality compared to the first one.
The Composition and the Content of the Papers
The two essays are rhetorical writings that explore the rhetorical devices used in Al Gore’s Speech on global warming. However, going through my first essay, readers commented on many mistakes, which prompted me to revise it. In particular, ideas and facts are less coherent in the first essay. The content and the flow of ideas differ between the two papers. In the first essay, I identified pollution as a widespread environmental problem.
Still, I failed to explain how global warming caused by elevated carbon dioxide in the air amounts to corruption, as highlighted in Gore’s speech (Essay 1 Para. 7). The same idea is explained comprehensively as “evidence of permanent “carbon summer,” which is happening because of global warming characterized by pollution and too much heat in the atmosphere” (Essay 2 Para 5).
In my first essay, I also noted that no in-text citation was used despite many quotations and references to Al Gore’s speech. For instance, direct quotes such as “Now, we and the earth’s climate are locked in a relationship familiar to war planner” (Essay 1 Para. 5) are not accompanied with text citation to allow the reader to follow. Only the work cited was provided at the end of the essay. By contrast, in the second essay, authority involved both the in-text citation and the work cited to allow the reader to distinguish my own thoughts from those obtained from other sources.
Mistakes with the use of prepositions and connectors were common in my first essay. For instance, “Al Gore pointed at the United States and China” (Essay 1 Para. 7) instead of “Al Gore pointed out the United States and China.” The diction and syntax were also a problem in my first essay. The words were preferably used haphazardly, bringing out an unintended meaning. For example, in my first essay, I wrote, “He also addressed that the political will is needed…” (Essay 1 Para 5), which changes the meaning. In the second essay, the sentence is corrected to “He urges leaders, both at the national and international arena…” (Essay 2 Para 4), which brings out the intended message.
Repetition was another mistake I noted when going through my first essay. For instance, in my first essay, I indicated that Al Gore delivered his speech in “Oslo on December 10, 2007, emphasizing how global warming is affecting the world” (Essay 1 Para 1). Again, in the third paragraph, I wrote, “Al Gore chose to talk about the global warming in his Nobel lecture which is a very powerful podium” (Para 3), which is essentially the same idea.
Organization of the Work
The ideas and plot were rather haphazard in my first essay compared to the revised version. I realized that the phenomenon of global warming, its causes as well as its effects with regard to climate change, which is the central theme of Al Gore’s speech, was not explained well for the reader to understand. I indicated that global warming causes changes to worldwide climate and weather patterns in my first essay (Para 1). In my second essay, I mentioned, “carbon summer is happening because of global warming is characterized by pollution and too much heat in the atmosphere” (Para 5), which explains the causes and the effects of global warming better than the first essay.
Additionally, the ideas in each paragraph were not coherent in the first essay. In most sections, no topic sentence was given, and more than one idea was discussed in one paragraph. For instance, while explaining the pathos in Al Gore’s speech, I indicated that he appealed to “pathos by framing the idea of climate change as an issue of life and death” (Essay 1 Para. 5) as the topic sentence. This example highlights the disorganization of content in my first essay, with one paragraph containing many ideas mostly unrelated to the topic sentence, which is confusing to the reader. By contrast, in the second essay, each section begins with a clear and succinct topic sentence that represents the central idea discussed in that paragraph.
In both essays, direct quotations are used, which serve to emphasize the points discussed. However, in my first essay, much quoting from Al Gore’s speech suggested that I was merely representing his thoughts on global warming instead of analyzing it to unveil the rhetorical devices used. In addition, I did not paraphrase his ideas or incorporate my own interpretation of the ideas in his speech. For instance, I included Al Gore’s assertion, “For this purpose, we rise and act” (Essay 1 Para. 9) without identifying the rhetoric strategy in it. However, in the revised version, I explained that the quote is a message of hope and unity (Essay 2 Para. 7).
The organization of the work beginning with the introduction, the body, and the conclusion is noteworthy as it assists in plot development and allows the reader to follow. For instance, the ethos, pathos, and kairos in the first essay are not described comprehensively; the examples indicated as rhetoric devices are unclear. In particular, I included many examples of pathos in successive paragraphs without connecting them to the central idea (Essay 1 Para. 5). Additionally, I realized that, in my first essay, no introduction, body, or conclusion was provided, and as a result, the ideas were random. In the revised second essay, I first developed an outline to represent the main ideas, which the paper elucidates.
Grammar and Writing Style
The first essay had many mistakes in grammar and literary styles. The first mistake I noticed was that of spelling. In the first essay, I had omitted “w” from the word “world” (Essay 1 Para. 1). I also included unnecessary words in some sentences, which indicated low revision. For instance, I wrote, “emphasizing on the how global warming and it is affecting the world” (Essay 1 Para. 1), which when written in grammatically correct way should be, “emphasizing how global warming is affecting the world.” I also made grammar mistakes with regard to sentence structure in my first essay. For instance, I wrote, “Also provided hope by contributing new idea” (Essay 1 Para. 7) without including the subject “He.” In the second essay, I corrected all the grammar mistakes making it an improved version of the first essay.
Conclusion
After going through the first essay, I noted a series of mistakes, which I corrected in writing the second essay. I considered the reader’s comments and input when revising the first essay; thus, the second essay shows substantial improvement compared to the first one. This shows the importance of reflection on one’s work and the reader’s feedbacks in refining one’s writing skills, which I believe are core to achieving proficiency in writing.
Works Cited
Essay One. Al Gore’s Nobel Speech: Rhetorical Analysis.
Essay Two. Rhetorical Analysis of Al Gore’s Speech.