Fogleman 1

Spencer Fogleman
Dr. Miss
UWRT 1104
31 January 2017
Rhetorical Analysis
Each work of writing contains rhetoric and each author their own rhetorical style. It is

important to analyze an author's rhetorical decisions to become a better writer, including my

own. In reviewing the rhetoric contained within one of my past assignments, I am able to identify

my clinical approach to writing and the loose coherence evident in the assignment and better my

writing in the future. The past assignment I am reviewing is an analysis of the play, She Kills

Monsters. In this paper, the explicit objectives of the assignment coupled with my desire to earn

a high grade fogs the main point of my writing and the personal nature of the experience I was

describing, inspires a more informal style of writing that I must better express formally.
My overall purpose for writing this text was to describe my experience in seeing the

production She Kills Monsters and determine the playwright's reason for writing this play.

However, I was unable to connect my own experience to the playwright's purpose thoroughly. I

speculate briefly at the end of my introduction and again at the end of my first body paragraph.

After describing my experience at the theater comprehensively in the body of the paragraph, I

include the meager remarks in an attempt to remind my professor that I was, in fact, considering

the principal theme the playwright was trying to convey. This attempt failed. At the end of the

first paragraph, I wrote, "In a play about dragons, family, and sexuality, I was able to experience

what the characters were going through, and that experience allowed me to grow. I think that was

Nguyen's purpose for writing this play" (Fogleman 1). Since the entirety of the body paragraph,

excluding the final sentence, is written purely to convey my feelings after seeing the play, this

flimsy one sentence statement was not enough to meaningfully connect the playwright's goal to

my experience. I realize now that when I added those brief and seemingly unrelated comments, I
 Fogleman 2

was not thinking about the coherence and strength of message within my paper. I was instead

thinking about a rubric. The assignments rubric called for an explanation of how I felt about the

show, identification of social issues within the play I would not normally consider, and the

playwright's purpose in bringing the show to set. I knew that the length of the paper would be

most important as the professor would only briefly skim the paper if he read them at all before

grading. So, I made sure to type out three whole pages and provide an easy to identify example

of each of the three criteria. By explicitly repeating my reason for the writer's production in

succinct sentences at the end of the first two paragraphs, I felt the professor would notice that I

did indeed give the objective some thought and check the box on the rubric. Of the three

objectives I was told to address in writing my production analysis paper, my professor explained

describing how I felt about the play was of greatest concern. I truly enjoyed the play and found

my authentic style resides in describing my experience at the theater.

In discussing my assessment of the production, the main body of each of my paragraphs,

my writing takes a more informal and verbose form. I enjoyed the play a great deal, and that was

driving my writing more than the formal rules of writing an academic paper. I often put lots of

thought into the words I put down on a page. I try to avoid the use the same adjectives and verbs

in proximity and frequently make use of a thesaurus in an effort to ensure I find the exact word

and connotation I desire. This habit sometimes leads to a bombast and ultimately less effective

sentence when compared to how I would have phrased the sentence naturally or in speech. In this

paper, though, I found I did not struggle for a single word for minute after minute. Instead, I used

phrases like, "he seemed off" and rhetorical questions like "Is he not distressed by his new

discovery and why does it take the criticism of Agnus's friend for him realize he should talk to

her?" to better convey my opinion of the play (Fogleman 3). I believe this return to informal,

everyday language is due to my passion for the production. I was unused to writing so simply to
 Fogleman 3

convey how I felt, as I was usually forced to write to persuade or inform. But, I enjoyed the topic

about which I had to write, unlike most assignments. I was moved by the play. Several scenes

spoke to me personally and urged me to consider the importance of my family, my girlfriend, and

my friends. They were what I was thinking about when writing my production paper and my

diction displays it. I am, of course, informal with my friends and family and that familiarity

inspired my more informal writing style. I decided I would rather be informal than do the play I

enjoyed so much injustice in letting my meaning, and therefore the play's, get lost in formality.
Regression to informal writing in this paper, while conveying my desired message, leaves

room for criticism when submitted as an academic paper and my lackluster references to the

playwright's purpose for writing the play fulfills the assignment's requirements but diminishes

the coherence of the paper. To amend these issues, I must focus on tying all aspects of my paper

together, and better express my ideas formally while focusing less on the technical grading

criteria. Creating an outline and multiple drafts for each future assignment would greatly

improve my writing in these areas. By beginning with an outline, my papers will be clearer and I

will be better able to tie multiple ideas together and by revising my work through several drafts I

can meticulously redefine my ideas in a more formal manner. Through this analysis of my

previous assignment, I acknowledge my literary short comes and devise new methods to improve

my rhetoric.

Works Cited
Fogleman, Spencer. Production Analysis. Paper to Liberal Studies 1104: Theatre. University
of North Carolina at Charlotte. Charlotte, NC. n.d. Print.