Moving Heaven and Earth(Revised)
(Original Assignment)
In an elaborate article focusing on the direction in which the earth’s climate is heading to, called Moving Heaven and Earth, Graeme Wood explains some modern ideas to tackle the problem of global warming. He uses some worthy strategies in his context, substance and writing style to claim that although some of the geo-engineering ideas may sound crazy, it is important that we encourage more research into it because the future is unpredictable.
Appearing in The Atlantic magazine in July 2009, the article is set up in a time wherein most people are literate. Directed towards and audience of people interested in science, engineering and environment, the article talks about global warming and climate change which is one of the most widely spoken problem in the world. With the industrial revolution at its peak, the increasing concern on the carbon content in the atmosphere has called on Wood to express his views on what needs to be done at this moment. Although he tries to use simple and easy language to approach a wider range of audience, the article limits itself to people with an interest or knowledgeable in physics, chemistry and biology. Examples such as the magnetic disk shooting guns aiming at the “gravitational midpoint between the Earth and the sun” and “carbon-eating trees” (Graeme, 2009) may not be easily understood by all. For the people who understand science, these examples provide a strong path to achieve the author’s purpose of writing the article. He uses the reader’s knowledge to make them think about his ideas and possible solutions to global warming.
Wood’s substance in his article is probably the best way to persuade his reader. All his examples in the article were proposed or commented upon by a respected person such as a Noble Prize winner or a great scientist. People such as Paul Crutzen who won the Noble prize as an atmospheric scientist, John Latham who worked in the National Center for Atmospheric Research, Thomas C. Schelling who won Noble Prize in economics and Freeman Dyson, the renowned physicist, help in establishing a strong base for his argument. Since his argument is related to science and economy, there could be no better support than the words of the above mentioned people. Wood also uses numbers, such as $100 million for pumping sulfur in the atmosphere compared to our current expense of $1 Trillion to prove to the reader that geo-engineering methods are a lot more feasible and more research may yield economical ideas. The world today is heavily dependent on its economy for progress, thus making money a major thing to consider when proposing ideas or thoughts. This efficient method to appeal to the reader further establishes Wood’s idea to a wider range of audience, by including people who may not see the scientific logic behind his support for geo-engineering research. The main reason his appeals are effective is because they are laid down perfectly and in a logical manner to make the reader think just like the author. Also, he talks about the pros and cons of each idea that he proposes as a solution to global warming, which further emphasizes on his logical reasoning. All of the above mentioned reasons have assisted Wood in persuading his audience to think of geo-engineering as a field worth investing in.
The author’s writing style is apt for the situation and for the readers. The usage of simple English language establishes a wider audience, especially engineers. He began the article with a futuristic view of the earth, which not only catches the attention of the reader, but also keeps one attached to read what the author has to say next. Furthermore, the author gives examples such as Blade Runner, James Watt, Auric Goldfinger and Richard Branson that helps the reader visualize the author’s message without the use of pictures or videos. All the ideas that he proposed as solutions to the world’s global warming were unique and in some sense crazy, which would attract young readers to use their imagination and innovation to think deeper into the topic. This makes them curious to see what other aspects prove the requirement of research into geo-engineering. The use of many technical terms and requirement of the reader to have some knowledge about the crisis is the key strategy to catch the audience that the author is looking for. Wood has divided his article in chunks, which makes it easy to follow. The first section is the introduction the topic of geo-engineering and the dangerous impacts of human on environment. Later he gives a general overview of different geo-engineering ideas that have been floating around. Then he picks a few from those to concentrate on. He starts with the idea that may be considered the craziest in today’s world and slowly moves on to ideas that would be more realistic. This helps the reader realize the gradual move towards better ideas with research. Finally Wood sums all these ideas and shows the necessity of research in this field. Easy flowing sentences, smooth transitions between paragraphs and having each paragraph talk concisely about a particular topic makes this written piece good.
Overall this is an excellent written article and one worth reading. Taking advantage of the global awareness on climate change, Graeme Wood has written this catchy article that people would enjoy reading and spend some time thinking about. He attacks the reader by choosing a specific set of audience, having strong backup for his substance and easy to understand language and writing style to prove that geo-engineering may be dangerous, but it is worth every bit of research for the future. There might not be an immediate benefit from this, but it is a safety measure for the future of the planet Earth.
References
· Graeme, Wood. (2009). Moving Heaven and Earth. In G. Colombo, R. Cullen & B. Lisle (Eds.), Rereading America (pp. 756-765). Boston, NY: Bedfords/St. Martin's.
Reflection on Revision
The emphasis on revision and editing in English 250 has helped realize the importance of the two processes. The opportunity to completely revise one of my assignments that was due during the semester is a great way for me to see the best output of my writing piece. Taking into account my instructor’s feedback and peer reviews, I decided to revise my Assignment 3 for this process.
The purpose of the assignment was to conduct rhetorical analysis on written text. There were a couple of reasons for me to choose this particular assignment for revising. I chose Moving Heaven and Earth, by Graeme Wood which talked about geo-engineering. I was really interested in the topic and felt that the author had a great job in explaining it to the reader. My instructor’s feedback on my analysis showed many places that I could improve on such as substance, organization and sentence formation. Furthermore, the analysis looked like it concluded different claims by Wood although it was unintended. I felt like I made many unintentional mistakes which maybe the result of lack of review before I submitted the assignment. I am listing my changes and few examples of each in bullet points to make it easier to follow:
1. Sentence formation
a. Breaking a sentence using a comma plays a major role in continuity and understanding while reading. The first line of my analysis was confusing as to what I was referring to as article. As per my instructor’s feedback, I added “called” to point out that Moving Heaven and Earth, by Graeme Wood is the article that I am analyzing.
b. The second part of my introduction, where I state the claim of the author and his strategies, I could have made it more concise by combining the two sentences. Therefore I have a single sentence now which states his writing strategies that used to successfully accomplish his claim.
2. Analysis on substance
a. In the second half of the third paragraph, I claim that Wood uses “numbers, such as $100 million and $1 Trillion to prove to the reader that geo-engineering methods are a lot more feasible” but I do not explain the purpose of those numbers and who would be convinced by reading that. I revised it to include detailed explanation for what each number represents and what kind of readers would be targeted with it.
b. I shifted the sentence that talked about logical reasoning of the author from writing style to substance. The use of logical reasoning to persuade readers relates more to substance than style.
c. After being introduced to the parts of a paragraph, I made sure I concluded in the end. I summed up all points I wanted to convey at the end of the paragraph and related it the author’s purpose of writing the article.
3. Analysis on writing style
a. I added more analysis towards how different parts of his writing style targeted different audience and strengthened his claim.
b. I explained more about how his organization and transitions helped the article be more reader friendly and easy to understand.
c. Again, the concluding line sums up everything I talked about in the paragraph
4. Unchanged content
a. I kept the second paragraph, which talks about the context of the article, the same because I and my instructor felt that it had the appropriate content put in the right way. I give a detailed explanation of the intended audience and give reasons for my conclusions.
b. The first half of the third paragraph, where I talk about the substance in Wood’s article. This part was well laid out to show my strong opinion on the author using highly credible sources to support his claim.
Reading my previous assignment and my revised assignment, one may not claim it to be substantially different from each other. I felt that the revised assignment achieved its purpose, at the same time improving my language from my first submission. Any further additions or deletions might defeat the purpose of this assignment. With the above changes made, I was able to successfully convert my previously submitted writing into a more successful work by taking into account feedback from my peers and instructor. I also revised and realized my mistakes and drawbacks of this assignment and made sure that I correct all of them. Making these changes has not only made the written piece better, but also has made me a better writer by showing me places where I go wrong. Overall it has been a good learning experience revising this assignment.
The purpose of the assignment was to conduct rhetorical analysis on written text. There were a couple of reasons for me to choose this particular assignment for revising. I chose Moving Heaven and Earth, by Graeme Wood which talked about geo-engineering. I was really interested in the topic and felt that the author had a great job in explaining it to the reader. My instructor’s feedback on my analysis showed many places that I could improve on such as substance, organization and sentence formation. Furthermore, the analysis looked like it concluded different claims by Wood although it was unintended. I felt like I made many unintentional mistakes which maybe the result of lack of review before I submitted the assignment. I am listing my changes and few examples of each in bullet points to make it easier to follow:
1. Sentence formation
a. Breaking a sentence using a comma plays a major role in continuity and understanding while reading. The first line of my analysis was confusing as to what I was referring to as article. As per my instructor’s feedback, I added “called” to point out that Moving Heaven and Earth, by Graeme Wood is the article that I am analyzing.
b. The second part of my introduction, where I state the claim of the author and his strategies, I could have made it more concise by combining the two sentences. Therefore I have a single sentence now which states his writing strategies that used to successfully accomplish his claim.
2. Analysis on substance
a. In the second half of the third paragraph, I claim that Wood uses “numbers, such as $100 million and $1 Trillion to prove to the reader that geo-engineering methods are a lot more feasible” but I do not explain the purpose of those numbers and who would be convinced by reading that. I revised it to include detailed explanation for what each number represents and what kind of readers would be targeted with it.
b. I shifted the sentence that talked about logical reasoning of the author from writing style to substance. The use of logical reasoning to persuade readers relates more to substance than style.
c. After being introduced to the parts of a paragraph, I made sure I concluded in the end. I summed up all points I wanted to convey at the end of the paragraph and related it the author’s purpose of writing the article.
3. Analysis on writing style
a. I added more analysis towards how different parts of his writing style targeted different audience and strengthened his claim.
b. I explained more about how his organization and transitions helped the article be more reader friendly and easy to understand.
c. Again, the concluding line sums up everything I talked about in the paragraph
4. Unchanged content
a. I kept the second paragraph, which talks about the context of the article, the same because I and my instructor felt that it had the appropriate content put in the right way. I give a detailed explanation of the intended audience and give reasons for my conclusions.
b. The first half of the third paragraph, where I talk about the substance in Wood’s article. This part was well laid out to show my strong opinion on the author using highly credible sources to support his claim.
Reading my previous assignment and my revised assignment, one may not claim it to be substantially different from each other. I felt that the revised assignment achieved its purpose, at the same time improving my language from my first submission. Any further additions or deletions might defeat the purpose of this assignment. With the above changes made, I was able to successfully convert my previously submitted writing into a more successful work by taking into account feedback from my peers and instructor. I also revised and realized my mistakes and drawbacks of this assignment and made sure that I correct all of them. Making these changes has not only made the written piece better, but also has made me a better writer by showing me places where I go wrong. Overall it has been a good learning experience revising this assignment.
Assignment 3 - Textual Rhetorical Analysis Revised | |
File Size: | 21 kb |
File Type: | docx |
Assignment 3 - Instructor Feedback | |
File Size: | 24 kb |
File Type: | docx |
Assignment 3 - Textual Rhetorical Analysis | |
File Size: | 20 kb |
File Type: | docx |