PB2B

All writers use different “moves” in order to communicate their argument in the most effective manner. These moves are the choices an author makes in how to convey the information he or she would like to present. A wide array of techniques can be classified as a “move”; opting to include a diagram or chart, putting a word in italics, and even the basic formatting of a piece of writing are all unique, stylistic choices made by the author and can, therefore, be classified as a “move”. In this essay, I will revisit “Murder! (Rhetorically Speaking)” and “Spaces for Writing” in order to compare and contrast the moves used by both authors.

In “Murder! (Rhetorically Speaking)”, Janet Boyd makes a move in the way she chooses to explain rhetoric by showing the reader how they already have an idea of what rhetoric is. She does this by asking the reader to write a variety of different writings (including an obituary and a detective’s report) based on 5 facts given about a murder. She then points out to the reader how they already knew appropriate and inappropriate ways to present the information based on who the audience was and therefore, have an understanding of rhetorical devices. I believe this move worked because it allowed the reader to engage with the writing in order to come to a deeper understanding of what rhetoric is.

The author of “Spaces for Writing”, on the other hand, does not use the same move as Boyd to explain rhetoric. The author instead explains rhetoric by using images to exemplify how we can change the message of something by altering the context, composition, and content of it. For example, the author shows an image of two people sitting at a desk and then zooms in on the image, making it only an image of apple on the desk. The author then writes that “the image sends a very different message without the official and imposing backdrop of an office” (Spaces 15). In this way, the author explains rhetoric by exemplifying how altering the context of something can change the entire message and meaning of it. I believe the use of images was an effective move because it provided a visual representation that was more helpful than simple text on a page in explaining rhetoric.

Furthermore, in “Murder! (Rhetorically Speaking)”, the author makes a move by choosing to divide the piece into different sections. The author separates the piece into sections such as “Cultivating Your Inner Coroner” and “Learning How to Say Goodbye”—which contained 5-6 paragraphs each—in order to make the text more easily readable. I consider this to be a successful move because it highlighted the main points of each section and gave the reader a chance to stop and process the information they just read. 

On the other hand, instead of presenting the text in sectioned groups of paragraphs, the author of “Spaces for Writing” made a move by presenting the text in the form of speech bubbles coming from cartoon characters. The author chose to present the information by means of a conversation between a few characters. I did not find this to be an effective move because I found the images to be too distracting from the main point the author was trying to convey. I believe the information could have been better presented by simply writing the piece in the form of paragraphs rather than the cluttered speech bubbles.

Both of the authors of “Murder! (Rhetorically Speaking)” and “Spaces for Writing” make the same move in that they both use a casual tone in their writing. The casual tone in “Murder! (Rhetorically Speaking” is evidenced by informal language such as, “Whoops, I gave you a clue” (88) and, “Mere coincidence? I think not” (90). “Spaces for Writing” also exemplifies a casual tone through its use of informal language as well—for example, blurbs such as “What’s up, Zander?” (11) and “Uhh…” (21). I think both authors make this move in order to appeal to their audience, which is mainly college-aged students. I consider this to be a successful move because it makes the learning material less intimidating and more easily understood by using jargon that is familiar to the reader. 

Both authors also make the same move in that a significant portion of both “Murder! (Rhetorically Speaking)” and “Spaces for Writing” is written in the second person. I believe both authors do this to make the writing more “conversationalist” (even if it is one-sided) which contributes to the causal tone of the piece. I believe this is an effective move because it helps the reader to feel engaged with the writing.