WP 2: Final Draft

Authors Note:

In the process of completing Writing Project 2, I once again learned a little more about myself as a writer.  Once again there were terrible struggles that left me sitting at the computer staring at the blog for hours.  There were also some things that went a little more smoothly this time around.  Over all I am very pleased with the outcome of Writing Project 2.  I feel that it turned out better than Writing Project 1 or at least the process was more fluid and I was able to concentrate a little more on subject matter. 

In the comic Lucy and Bing, I felt that I did a better job finding the argument the comic was trying to find.  That was until I received the comments on my second rough draft from Josh.  He suggested that the argument I presented was not the one the comic was making.  As it can be seen, I kept the same argument all the way through the final draft.  This is not in spite of my professor as I spent quite a bit of time thinking about it and re-analyzing the comic.  It is more a product of suggestions and comments from my two peer editors that helped me to strengthen and confirm the original argument.  With their help, I feel that I have solid evidence and back up for my argument.  

Since an entire paragraph was just spent on my argument, it could be said that I struggled with it.  Another aspect that I had trouble with was really expanding my paper and argument.  While I feel that progress was made between the two writing projects, I must say that the help from my peers helped a lot.   On the flip side of that, some positives this time around would be that I felt like I found the argument quicker and I was able to come up with key points all on my own.  In the previous writing project I relied heavily on Josh and my peers to give me arguments.  This time was more independent.  

Next come the revisions that were done to the project as it progressed.  From Rough Draft 1 to Rough Draft 2, there are not many changes at all.  I reworked some of the introduction to fulfill the comments and suggestions from the first peer edit.  I also had to change out the wikipedia logo image that I had in the first rough draft as it was obscuring some text.  It was a quick aesthetic fix.  The major changes came in writing my final draft.  As the second peer edit pointed out, I had not specifically talked about the rhetorical devices that were key to the argument.  This was perhaps the biggest change in the whole project.  It really solidified the argument and boosted the word count. (it was about 700 words short going into the final draft) The second biggest change that was made was to the conclusion.  Taking into account Josh's comments in class about just summarizing the essay and comments from my peers, I had to completely rewrite it.  I feel that it really adds to the project now and is not just merely an end to the essay.  The rest of the changes were fairly small and much less difficult; the addition of a works cited page and some minor grammar issues were fixed. 

Again, over all I feel that Writing Project 2 came out much smoother and the end product better that Writing Project 1.  While I have not yet perfected the rhetorical analysis, I feel that I am learning more and getting better with each essay revision and class session.  Enjoy Writing Project 2!

Rough Draft 2

Rough Draft 1

Statement of Purpose

Lucy and Bing is a comic strip written by Joseph Hewitt, is a non traditional medium used by the author to create arguments. Joseph Hewitt is an English teacher from Cormack, Newfoundland. He originally created this comic series for his students in his class. Lucy and Bing are a penguin brother and sister duo. This particular episode of Lucy and Bing argues that not everything that looks professional is credible and useful. This argument is made with the text and pictures of the comic.

This comic uses a technique that we commonly use to give human like qualities. This is called anthropomorpism.  The characters in the comic are made up of blue and white blobs and yellow triangles, yet we know that they are supposed to be penguins.  The penguins in this comic have hair and use their flippers as arms and hands.  These elements make the characters more simple and once again add to the universal appeal that comes along with anthropomorphism.  It also appeals to pathos.  The simple shapes and non-threatening penguins allow the viewer to see the argument more clearly.  There is nothing that  could be threatening when these things are done, putting the audience at ease and in a better position to analyze the comic.

The conversation that our two main characters in the comic have bring us to the argument that is made. Bing is reading a comic that his friend has made. He makes a big deal out of the fact that it is astheticlly pleasing. The comic book has been stapled and photocopied. For two young kids this would be impressive. When Lucy looks at the comic book she is obviously less impressed, calling the comic stupid for not having a real story and showing pictures of two monkeys shooting each other over and over. Bing procedes to aknowledge the fact that the comic contains nothing. The star drawn in above Bing's head shows that he is so blinded by the fact that the comic book looks professional and credible that he sees the contents as something great.

This is a common theme today. Our society as a whole is far too
trusting of the internet. It is common practice to google something and read the very first link to get information. This practice is harmful in the sense that not all sites on the internet are credible. For example, one widely used informational website is wikipedia. The problem with this site is that anyone can edit the information on any given page. This reinforces the fact that not everything we see on a site that looks professional is fact.  Again, wikipedia is only one example of an unreliable internet source.

After all this there is something to be said for the materiality of some things. Does that make it more credible to us? In the comic, the material composition of the comic book that Bing is reading is what makes it so great and perfect for Bing. Things that are read in the newspaper do not tend to get questioned. That is because we have the physical paper in our hands. On the other hand, the same can be said for texts such as tabloids. Once something is in print it holds a certain legitimacy for the audience member looking at it. This can even be seen in the satirical newspaper on campus called the Daylier Nebraskan. Every once and a while, someone unfamiliar with the satire of the paper will talk about a story as if it is true. We privilege the materiality of texts.

Even though this may be true, this strategy does not reach the most people. Millions of people are connected instantly via the internet at all times of the day. That is how this comic came to be on the internet.  Joseph Hewitt visited the National Museum of Comics and Animation in 2006.  (Joseph Hewitt's Ataraxia Theatre)  This inspired him to reach out to more people with his comics and decided the internet was the best medium to reach the most people.  He knew that the internet connects more people and that his work could be seen by more people if he made a website.

While the internet has made communication and sharing ideas much easier, one must keep in mind that it is important to establish a certain legitimacy. We must keep in mind that materiality is not everything.  It is helpful to gain knowledge and do research before believing anything we may see.  Through anthropomorphism and rhetorical devices, Lucy and Bing support this argument that we can not all material things prove that they are trustworthy.

Works Cited

Joseph Hewitt's Ataraxia Theatre. Joseph Hewitt, 04/05/2010. Web. 6 Apr 2010.

McCloud, Scott. Understanding Comics. HarperCollins, 1993. 195-208. Print.