#circulationassignment

This weeks has been rather refreshing and has created a better platform for understanding where we stand as a class. On Tuesday, our discussion revolved around our Circulation Assignments and questions pertaining we had pertaining to it. Everybody got involved and we all shared out thoughts and concerns about the project. Mine deal with it’s specificity since that was what I struggled with the most. I couldn’t seem to be specific enough and struggled with finding sources to a specific topic of my choosing. So I chose to ask a question concerning why being specific was necessary for rhetorical analysis and why it mattered so much to be more specific with our topic. At the end of the discussion, it was apparent of everyone’s uncertainty towards the topic and how we approached it individually. After clarifying the implementation of all the theoretical processes of rhetorical analysis that we covered throughout the semester into out project, I had a better grasp of what was expected. It made me see my product a lot more clearly now that I had something to reference. Looking over what I did and using stasis to discern what I did, I realized what I had done well and where I was lacking. The reason I chose stasis as a platform or foundation for my rhetorical analysis is because it is the most straightforward and effective in determining the rhetorical tools used within a source, whatever shape or form. It is also the most general, and that would help me branch out into my own specific interpretations and analysis. Thriving into Halls theory seemed to complex for the topic I had chosen, and even thought I chose to do stasis, I could very well branch into more theoretical process from it including Halls Theory. All other theories seem limiting in that sense. I would have to work within their own means strictly, and that is not what I wanted. I wanted flexibility and the ability to encompass various theories which I felt stasis allowed me to do. It is an effective starting point.