1
The Rhetorical Gladiator: Considering Audience Appeal
ERH 101, Section #7
Date Due: 4/30/15
Date Sub.: 4/30/15
Assignment Name: Rhetorical Development Final Draft
Help Received: none
Andrew Vaccaro
Writer’s signature for “Work for Grade”
2
Writing is by no means an easy endeavor; one does not simply stroke gently onto the
paper. One must rage into the task, constantly considering the columns of audience, occasion,
and purpose which provide stability for the mighty temple of rhetorical effectiveness. The realm
of writing is contained within a massive arena; it is the writer’s responsibility to gain the crowd
and earn its support and applause as they gaze upon the gladiator’s work. The art of developing
rhetoric has been a painstaking, but necessary task. In order to improve my development and
rhetorical effectiveness as I writer, I employed a distinct series of strategies throughout the ERH
102 semester, paying particular attention to voice. After analyzing my works, I observed a clear
attempt at developing a penetrating appeal in consideration of the audience; by chronologically
adding on distinct rhetorical layers/elements, my strategy evolved towards this audience-centered
approach. By tweaking the specific writing elements of word choice, sentence structure, and
creativity, I was able to refine my approach towards the desired audience and truly develop as a
persuasive writer. By subconsciously focusing on voice in rhetoric, I look towards the future of
employing the skills I gained in every field of life; whether it be military writing, resumes, or
online posts, this audience penetration provides a pivotal writing skill in persuasion and
professionalism.
The series of assignments allowed me, by design, to focus on distinct elements aiding in
the development of effective voice towards the audience. The first assignment, the rhetorical
analysis, allowed me to refine the very basic backbone to writing a powerful essay: word choice.
Focusing on the author’s audience of human resource professionals my first draft aimed towards
revealing the positives/negatives of the writing in thorough analysis of “the Tethered
Generation” article, written by Kathryn Tyler. The first assignment allowed me to zoom in on a
personal writing issue; the painstaking process of refining bulky, complex, and “fancy” texts
3
which I procured in an attempt to dramatize the effect of writing upon the reader. This “trimming
of fat” has served as the center of improvement in the eyes of my teacher and peer editors. In the
past, I essentially “hid” behind advanced wording, disguising the paper rather than shifting my
attention towards the true importance: purpose and audience. Realizing this flaw, I read over my
first draft and circled the extravagant words, phrases, and verbs; a prime example of this habit is
portrayed in my second draft: phrases such as “her alliance was blatantly portrayed”, “finishes
with an elaborate plan urging human resource specialist to acquire”, and “ultimately comprises
untapped potential deflated by deeply rooted opinions” were eradicated and simplified
(“Tethered Generation Rhetoric”). I believe this initial recognition and consideration of word
choice played in important role and stepping stone in connecting with the audience. I had a
tendency of including descriptors and adjectives to emphasize the writing; much to my alarm, the
strategy backfired, taking away the clarity and direct penetration required to attract the reader.
Providing the initial layer in audience penetration, the careful and fine-tuned word choice skills
built upon in this initial essay improved my desired voice/effect upon the reader. After cleaning
up the general organization skills, I began to take a closer look at the sentence structure that has
haunted me in the past.
The second assignment, the annotated bibliography, allowed me to develop the broader
sentence-refining skills. After reviewing the peer workshop commentary, I noticed a general
consensus; the audience was “turned off” by the sentence structure of my argument. Specifically,
sentence length, variation, and elaboration blatantly required fine-tuning and rewording. This
reoccurring issue was present in the second draft of the rhetorical analysis essay in phrases such
as, “Her alliance with this audience is blatantly portrayed throughout the article, never
recognizing the positive outcome of a technology-savvy and competitive workforce” and
4
continued to trickle into the next (“Untapped Potential: an Uncertain Generation and Rhetorical
Blatancy); the annotated bibliography required similar editing to the first discussed issue. I
underlined massive, complex sentences such as “the authors distinctly acknowledge the
fluctuating role and understand that a pertinent solution must be germinated to apply past
experiences toward promoting equality in college admissions: most promising a class-based
system…” found in the third draft and strained for simplification (“Annotated bibliography with
synthesis”). My strategy continued to evolve in these initial essays, as I directed my attention
from the smallest word choices to the broader sentence structure and length. The organization of
even the minutest sentences contributes greatly towards penetrating the desired audience; by
simplifying sentence structure and organization, the reader is able to focus the message and truly
create the desired voice in reference of the audience.
The final step in the battle of reader penetration was development of a powerful, creative,
and persuasive voice. This finishing element proved pivotal in the strategy towards audience
consideration. In order to reach and penetrate the audience, one must be able to transform dry,
informative bullet points into a driving force to engrain within the reader’s mind. This final
stroke of the paintbrush compounds upon all previous layers to stroke a final penetrating appeal,
leaving the reader in agreement of the writing’s premise. While others suffer with thesis
development and organizational efforts, my issue is deeply rooted in the specific, internal
structure of the writing. In the first two essays written, I began with straight cut strategy in the
introduction and conclusion; these parts play the most vital role in attracting the audience. The
research argument paper allowed the most room for creativity, an important cog in the rhetorical
machine. The employment of this progression can be observed in the distinct changes in essay
chronology. For example, in the driest rhetorical analysis paper I lead off with: “Kathryn Tyler
5
declares a firm opinion on the millennial generation’s attachment to technology, criticizing the
development of this new generation their impact on the workforce” (“Untapped Potential: an
Uncertain Generation and Rhetorical Blatancy”). To contrast, in the final draft of my final essay,
I employed a strategy to appeal to the reader’s internal senses in my argument demanding change
in the current affirmative action system. Pulling on the internal American pride of the audience, I
began with, “man has progressed from the most primitive basis: developing societies and
evolving towards systems of freedom, liberty, and equality. In America, we especially hold these
values to be of the upmost importance. In order to appraise the effectiveness of this organization,
one must look at the very core of the system: higher education in which the youth of the current
generation progress to become future leaders and workers” (“Filling the Economic Gap in
Educational Equality: Socioeconomic Affirmative Action”). The use of patriotism was
specifically designed to urge a sense of awareness and recognition of change required to promote
equality; simultaneously, the elements were designed to appeal to the reader’s emotions, driving
the fact that the current system drains educational opportunities away from the poor, struggling,
and oppressed children of America’s society.
By inserting small details and moments of creativity, I believe I enhanced by ability to
penetrate the audience with a powerful voice; I included questions to the audience, relatable
metaphors, observance of counterarguments, and emotional appeal to truly drive the
argument/evidence into the minds of the designated audience. As the final cornerstone project, I
compounded upon the previously discussed tweaking of sentence structure and word choice to
compound to develop a persuasive, governing voice.
Writing is a continuous battle much like the gladiator in the arena; can he truly win? The
factors in rhetorical effectiveness require development for future progression in the arena of
6
rhetoric. By observing my progression in retrospect, I pinpointed a distinct chronological
effort/strategy in my writing aimed towards the development of voice to truly penetrate the
desired audience. The addressed issues continue to carry a nagging presence in my writing and
can always be improved. As the rhetorical gladiator, I still struggle with the effective
development of voice, cutting down unnecessary text, slashing continuous sentence, and
hardening my armor of creative and attractive appeal. You may even observe some of my
rhetorical enemies in the current essay, but I look towards a bright future in employing these
writing strategies in every genre. The development of voice is pivotal in every facet of writing,
and the semester has allowed me to realize and isolate my weaknesses in order to stand a fighting
chance in the everlasting arena of rhetoric.
7
Works Cited
“Annotated bibliography with synthesis” Conference Edition. 3/8/15
“Filling the Economic Gap in Educational Equality: Socioeconomic Affirmative Action” Final
Draft. 4/13/15
“Tethered Generation Rhetoric” Draft 1. 1/29/15
“Untapped Potential: an Uncertain Generation and Rhetorical Blatancy” Draft 2. 2/5/15
“Untapped Potential: an Uncertain Generation and Rhetorical Blatancy” Final Draft. 2/9/15