PB2B

Everyone has their own kinds of moves. Michael Jackson had the moon walk, The Rock had the rock bottom, and Michael Jordan had the mid-air reverse layup. Although all the moves listed are physical, moves come in different shapes and sizes. One area in which moves are not often considered is writing. Writers have all sorts of moves that they use to connect with the audience and clearly accomplish the purpose of their text. In this article, we will compare and contrast the two excerpts found in the writing 2 course reader, “Murder! Rhetorically” by Janet Boyd, and “Style in Arguments” by Lunsford. We will look at the overall structural moves first, then at the deeper, rhetorical moves.

               In “Murder! Rhetorically” Boyd separates her writing into sections that approach a singular event, the murder of a man, from different perspectives and contexts so that the audience can explore the changing of conventions across genres. The subsections are titled with quirky titles like “Getting In Touch With Your Inner Detective”, and “Cultivating Your Inner Coroner” which relate to the specific genre that she will be analyzing. Naming the titles with lightly humorous yet related phrases is one of the many moves that Boyd uses to connect to her young-adult/student audience. She tries to appeal to the active minds of students by giving them an interesting hook to capture their interest for the upcoming section. In “Style in Arguments” Lunsford also uses the move of dividing the information into organized subsections but the names are much less interactive and are very straight to the point. Using subsection titles like “Style and Word Choice”, and “Punctuation and Argument”, which are very clear suggests that the author wants to make the information that they are providing, as easy as possible to find and understand. Another move that Lunsford uses that supports the intention of presenting information clearly and meaningfully is the use of pictures and excerpts in the writing. Lunsford uses the pictures and excerpts as concrete details by which to validate his/her statements about style. On the broadest level of “move” categorization, both authors chose to organize their work by dividing the information into subsections. While they take different approaches as to how they interact with the audience through the titles of the subsections, both effectively present the information to the reader. Personally I prefer the Boyd’s interactive style in “Murder! Rhetorically”, as it kept me, the student reader more entertained and involved in the information.

               Rhetorically, both authors employ many different moves as well. In “Murder! Rhetorically”, Boyd uses a first person point of view, which establishes a relationship with the reader, as she is allowing you to get to know her. This acts to build her ethos, as you now feel like you know where the reader is coming from. She also tries to appeal to a younger, untamed generation by using cuss words. Even how she decides to include the curse words is a move in itself. She recalls that one of her students once described rhetoric as “bullshit”. Her decision to include the word in quotes gives it less negative connotation in relation to her as the author, as it distances it from her own mouth and intentions. Despite the occasional bad word, Boyd uses educated yet slightly informal diction, further adding to her credibility as an intelligent yet entertaining writer. Boyd implements the interactive nature of her writing by actually speaking to the reader. This form of rhetorical conversation forces the audience to think about the questions and topics considered in the reading. At the end of her introductory section, she calls the audience to action by telling them to “Go ahead. Get started on writing your report of the murder scene” (Boyd 88). She also pulls a bold move by actually describing her thought process as a writer, and telling us how and why she decided to use a certain move. She says that “as much as [she is] aware of [her] audience here –so much that [she is] trying to engage in dialog with [us] through [her] casual tone, [her] informal language, and [her] addressing [us] directly by asking [us] questions and anticipating [our] responses” (Boyd 90). Lunsford chooses a more reserved approach to writing and uses subtle writing moves to improve the transfer of the information. One thing that Lunsford does consistently, is maintain a dry analytical tone. Lunsford sticks to formal and controlled diction, and although he uses the word “you” to address the reader, he tries to stay detached from the audience. Keeping the writing generally humorless and bland is a move that is aimed to eliminate any distractions from the actual information, allowing for the reader to understand the topic of the writing more clearly.

Both of the authors use various moves in their writings, all aimed at a certain reaction from or interaction with the audience of the writing. I enjoyed “Murder! Rhetorically” more than “Style in Arguments”. Boyd was more effective is engaging the reader. This move not only makes the text entertaining to read, the reader is asked to participate in an active style of reading that helps with the retention of information. While Lunsford covered an interesting topic and made good use of concrete details and analyzed the pictures and excerpts tediously, it came across blander and in the end was less enjoyable to read.