Cooley 1

Juliette Cooley
Greg McClure
Writing 39B
6 December 2015
Farewell to Writing 39B: A Reflective Essay
Writing 39B is an intensive course that aims to detail the importance of critical reading
and writing. Alongside with this main objective at hand, the course was also designed for
students to understand the concept of rhetoric and the rhetorical situation that is created in every
text. Given these objectives, we were assigned specific exercises that drove home the purpose of
the class. Our work consisted of various low-stakes assignments that were posted as discussions
along with rhetorical analysis (RA) assignments and rhetoric-in-practice (RIP) assignments. The
purpose of these tasks served to improve our skills as writers and truly understand the concept of
rhetoric and the rhetorical situation that occurs in every piece of text.
Another main focus of the the course was to understand the importance of
communication and collaboration, which we have consistently done throughout the quarter. We
used this skill intensively through the curation of the course through peer revision, direct group
work and commenting on other students posts in our discussion assignments. Communication
was also largely developed not only on a student-to-student basis, but also on a professor-tostudent basis as well. Professor McClure held many sessions of office hours in which he directly
worked with students to help them in the strenuous process of writing. Although I normally
would have not enjoyed attending office hours, due to the awkwardness of the situation at times,
Professor McClures sessions were quite enjoyable and I believe they strongly helped me
improve my communication skills overall. Essentially throughout this course, I have gained

Cooley 2

hands-on experience in critically reading texts in order to thoroughly understand the rhetor's
message and have taken the skills that I have learned in order to curate my own writing.
As with all of the lower-division writing courses offered at UC Irvine, the professors are
able to pick their theme for the class, Professor McClure had chosen the rhetoric of horror as our
topic. I personally have never been a huge fan of horror, but throughout the first few days of
class I was surprised to find myself taking an interest to the subject matter. This is partially due
to McClure's enthusiasm on the topic and also our introduction to Nol Carrolls piece, The
Nature of Horror, which was one of the first texts we were introduced to in the class. Carrolls
essay served as somewhat of a textbook for the class, considering her detailed explanation of the
expectations that come along with the genre of horror. For example, he states in his scholarly
essay, [that] with horror, the emotions of the characters and those of the audience are
synchronized (Carroll 53). Another expectation Carroll provides us with is that, the monster is
regarded as threatening and impure (Carroll 55). Due to the use of Carrolls essay throughout
the duration of this class, I was able to gain a better understanding of the typical conventions of
horror and how rhetors use these specific conventions in their texts.
As previously mentioned, one of our main focuses of the course was being able to write
effective rhetorical analysis pieces. Our first experience with this processes was used in an early
assignment in the class in which we were to compare two videos by critically evaluating the
differences in viewer reception by both esteemed musicians, Johnny Cash and Trent Reznor,
through their performances of the song Hurt. We also were assigned to compare the two
messages behind each musician's rendition, and make a decision on which artists message was
the most effective. I began my take on this assignment by first describing the many different
themes presented in Reznor's rendition, then I moved on to Cashs video, and concluded with my

Cooley 3

opinion of the more effective music video. The structuring of this particular piece wasnt difficult
to grasp, however the content was a bit harder of a topic. A moment in my analysis of Reznors
performance that I had a huge moment of insight, was through my discussion of his use of the
theme destruction. I detailed that Reznor achieved the display of this theme through Images
such as explosions, which are clearly capable of mass amounts of destruction, to the not as
obvious images of dead and injured children. While this image might not be a clear portrayal of
destruction, children are seen as the future of society and without them the future would in a
sense, be destroyed. (RA: Reznor/Cash). At this moment it became clear to me that I can make
as many seemingly non-obvious claims as I want, as long as I have a valid analysis to backup my
claims. This point was made during an in class discussion by Professor McClure, and although I
understood what he was saying at the time, it was nice to be able to effectively achieve this point
in my own writing.
The first attempt we had at creating a rhetorical analysis piece was through a low-stakes
assignment, so there was some room for error, but it became very clear once we started our midterm rhetorical analysis essays there would be little to no room for error. In this assignment, we
were given a selection of works to chose from to analyze how the rhetor uses specific techniques
in order to get their messages out. For my paper, I decided to write on Richard Mathesons I Am
Legend, mainly because it had been a driving force for the class and we discussed many aspects
of the text in detail. Although these class discussions helped pick apart the book in brutal detail,
it wasnt until I visited office hours that I truly understood Matheson's message behind the text.
After I came to the realization that I was struggling writing this paper, I decided to
scratch my previous ideas and start from the beginning. Prior to office hours, I consulted the
Anteater Guide to Rhetoric and Writing textbook and configured a detailed outline to present to

Cooley 4

Professor McClure. Once I began my discussion with McClure, I could see that my paper was on
the right track but I needed to change my thesis entirely because it wasnt specific enough. In this
moment, McClure helped me come to the realization of Mathesons message which I
incorporated into my final RA paper.Mathesons messages of conveying the irony of point of
view, and the importance of showing compassion will be substantiated by looking at the
humanistic and monstrous qualities that Matheson gives main character, Robert Neville (RA: I
Am Legend).
Once I had this message in mind, I was able to successfully write, or as I thought, the
first 3 pages of my RA paper and submit it for review. Once I got my paper back with
commentary, I wasnt surprised to see that my thesis statement received this comment from
Professor McClure, Absolutely excellent. Become more specific about the message, but
otherwise you're nailing this. However, when it came down to my actual textual analysis I
received the comment, Where's the textual analysis? In order to do rhetorical analysis, you're
going to have to analyze the text specifically. It was at this moment when I came to the
realization that in my first draft I was beginning to summarize, a common mistake in rhetorical
analysis papers, than actually analyze the text I Am Legend. After receiving these comments I
went back and began a large amount of revision on my paper, in order to remove any
summarization and replace it with textual analysis.
In my final RA paper, I believe that I utilized very effective forms of analysis as detailed
by this example paragraph from my paper. I began my argument by walking my reader through
my thought process, a key tip that I learned from Professor McClure. I began with my thesis and
an outside source to be used as evidence for support of my claim. This can be seen here:
Matheson begins the assertion of his message on the irony of point of view and the importance

Cooley 5

of compassion, by fulfilling the expectation that the audience will commonly sympathize with
the main character, proven by Nol Carroll. He states in his scholarly essay, The Nature of
Horror, [that] with horror, the emotions of the characters and those of the audience are
synchronized (Carroll 53). (RA: I Am Legend). I continued my argument by introducing
where this concept applies in Mathesons text and how he uses specific devices in order to
achieve this message, which can be seen here. Matheson achieves this point by displaying that
even after the reader identifies the fact that the main character, Robert Neville, is drawn to
alcoholism, portrays violent behavior and cannot cope with his uncontrollable sexual needs, we
still sympathize with him. This can be substantiated through the passage, He actually found
himself jerking off the crossbar from the door. Coming, girls, Im coming. Wet your lips, now
(Matheson 22). This passage creates a large amount of tension between what is being said and
how it is being said, specifically because Matheson uses phrases that have multiple meanings
such as, jerking off and Im coming in order to display the uncontrollable sexual needs of
Neville. Furthermore, using the information provided by Carroll, the readers emotions begin to
parallel with those of Neville, they understand his needs instead of criticizing him for having
them, and because of this, the reader shows sympathy to Neville and understands the impossible
situation he has been put in- to suffer alone in a post-apocalyptic world(RA: I Am Legend).
Overall, my biggest struggle with this paper was developing a strong thesis followed by strong
textual analysis, but as proven by this piece of my final RA paper, I believe that I was able to
accomplish both of these tasks effectively. The whole process of creating the RA paper was
definitely my biggest moment of growth.
The final rhetoric in practice (RIP) project followed by the RIP paper were the last main
assignments of the quarter that truly showcased my growth through the duration of the course.

Cooley 6

For the RIP project, we were assigned to create either a short horror film, an in person
presentation, or an informational video on a topic that fell under the category of horror. My
group decided to do an informational video, mainly due to scheduling issues as I described in my
RIP essay. A main objective of the RIP project was defining our purpose and considering how to
grow out of our rhetorical situation. We decided that our topic of focus would be on the subgenre of zombie apocalyptic horror, so our purpose was mainly to inform our given audience of
this specific genre. Our intended audience were mainly the scholars here at UC Irvine, for which
we played our video for. In order to develop a strong connection with our audience, we wanted to
keep them entertained so that they would really absorb the material presented in our video. We
accomplished this by incorporating background music, interesting pictures and clear transitions
between topics. Even though our RIP project may have not been as entertaining as say a short
horror film, Overall, I was proud of my group's efforts and I believe that we were able to
effectively capture the audience's attention through our well made informational video.
After finishing our RIP project we had one last assignment to take on- the RIP essay. This
essay was basically a rhetorical analysis piece based on our own work. The main goal of the
assignment was to showcase how our RIP projects grew out of our rhetorical situation and the
overall creation process behind the making of the final project. While writing this essay, I found
myself struggling, once again, to develop strong pieces of rhetorical analysis based on the
concepts of the rhetorical situation. For this essay specifically, the peer editing process really
helped in the curation of my final draft. My peer was very helpful and gave me specific ways to
improve my writing, which I strongly appreciated. My success in this essay is mainly due to the
classes emphasis on collaboration and revising. In my final draft located in the assignments

Cooley 7

section of my portfolio, I have highlighted moments in which I overcame my oppositions and

developed strong argumentative textual analysis- the main driving force for this essay.
This class has truly changed my writing for the better. As a result of this class I became
not only a more argumentative writer, but also a more creative writer. I have also learned to take
criticism from my peers and professors, and by taking their advice, it has only made my essays
better. Essentially, Writing 39B has taught me the importance of rhetoric in all forms of medium
and how to see pieces of text in a different way, based on their formulation of the rhetorical
situation. As I move on to the continuation course for this class, Writing 39C, Im sure that I will
be thankful for all of the information that I have learned over the short 10 weeks in this course
thanks to Professor McClure.

Works Cited
Carroll, Nol. The Nature of Horror. The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 46.1 (1987)
5159. Web.