Dear Carolyn,

Coming into this class at the beginning of the quarter I had confidence in the quality of my
writing and being able to perform rhetorical analysis of texts. I not only understood rhetoric but
enjoyed observing how rhetorical situation affected the use of language in different genres of
literature. However Ive always felt more comfortable writing about non-fiction text such as a
journalism article or a political speech text over forms of fictional literature like novels and
poetry. The interpretative nature of those types of literature made analyzing and discussing the
rhetorical situation more ambiguous and open to the reader within the bounds of supportive
evidence. Ive never had reservations about reading novels or poetry but creating an effective
argument about a message presented in the text has proven difficult in the past. I aimed to no
longer be fazed by the interpretative nature of certain texts and genres in literature and to make
the jump from reading complex ideas to writing and discussing new insight into those same
ideas. My personal goal for the course was to become more successful in writing an effective and
complex argument related to a message or rhetorical claim of policy played out in an
interpretative text.
To make reading and grading my portfolio easier I have included multiple drafts of each paper
outlined in the outcomes, examples of written feedback, and have even highlighted sections of
my drafts with green and yellow to show the type of feedback I received. Green represents a
section of the paper that was given positive feedback and well-liked by the critic. Yellow
represents that the area of the paper needs to be revised by fixing the grammar, syntax, diction,
the clarity of the argument, or other necessary revisions. While I will only be outlining papers
that I believe best exemplify my mastery of an outcome, if you observe text that also
demonstrates my mastery and supplements it please feel free to take that into account while
reading my portfolio.
Outcome #1
With the definitions of each outcome being dense and technical with complex jargon, I find it
helpful to breakdown the definition of outcome one to minimize ambiguity. I have interpreted the
outcome to fit my specific needs in what I plan to accomplish from this course. Outcome one
involves rhetorical writing or in simpler terms, writing with a strategic purpose. In order to do
this one the writer must craft a specific style through word choice (diction), the structure and
organization of the argument (syntax), and demonstrated awareness of the audience the paper is
targeted towards. The writer must take ownership of one's writing method to write an effective
paper and be able to analyze the rhetoric of the text being discussed.
My short assignment #1 demonstrates my mastery of rhetorical analysis and writing with
strategic purpose. This short essay was composed to discuss ideas about The Real Life of
Sebastian Knight with those that have read the novel. I articulated the academic nature of the
essay by using a serious, analytical writing style that avoided personal statements, biases, and
redundant summaries. In relation to outcome one I used style, tone, and conventions appropriate
to the demands of a particular situation (OC 1). My line of inquiry critiqued Nabokovs
intentional use of V. as a limited narrator and the relationship between perspective and the

recreation of someones inner character (SA #1 Final Draft). In analyzing the rhetorical
effectiveness of V.s perspective, I compared his role in the story to his analogy of a broker.
Receiving positive feedback in my analysis of the analogy such as good analysis and
incorporation I opted to focus in more on this section of this text (SA #1 Final Draft). In
assessing the boundaries of this short assignment I opted to eliminate my discussion on
characterization and syntax to have more space to elaborate and expand upon my analysis of the
analogy of the broker in this section while not going over page length. In effect I assessed the
effects of [my] writing choices to compose an effective essay that articulates my argument
clearly to my audience (OC 1).
Outcome #2
My definition of outcome two entails a synthesis of evidence to compose an argument with
appropriate MLA citations to validate the stakes of my argument. Utilizing multiple kinds of
evidence including direct quotes, paraphrases, and summaries is a necessary step in this outcome
to compose an effective and complex paper. Close reading is an equally important aspect of this
outcome; close reading is an in-depth analysis of a micro-section of a text in order to better
understand the global content of the text. Close reading includes rhetorical analysis but also
requires an understanding of the text in terms of comprehension.
Mastery of outcome two is exemplified in my major papers #1 and #2. Major paper #2
demonstrates the mastery of responsible MLA citations while using multiple kinds of
evidence (OC 2). Throughout major paper #2 I practice intertextuality while discussing the
sociological and rhetorical implications of ones sexuality and sexual orientation (MP #2 Final
Draft). I balanced my discussion between Fun Home and my research from several publications
including the American Journal of Public Health keep my argument grounded. The texts I used
provided a personal story of someone exploring their sexuality and the rhetorical effectiveness
behind declaring their sexuality while providing empirical evidence studied by sociology and
psychology experts validating the stakes of my argument (MP #2 Final Draft). Major paper #1
demonstrates the close-reading aspect of outcome two. Major paper #1 borrowed and expanded
upon earlier ideas explored in short assignment #1. I supplemented my analysis of the broker
analogy with a discussion on syntax and characterization in relations to V. limited perspective.
Some of the feedback I received for my close-reading includes bomb reading here and good
reinforcement (MP #2 Final Draft). I provided close-reading sections of analysis while
integrating evidence to support my argument. My rhetorical analysis and close reading later
helped me in developing claims of policy that I will discuss in outcome #3.
Outcome #3
My personal interpretation of outcome three includes creating an effective, persuasive argument
in writing. In order to develop an effective argument it must be able to answer a greater question
about the topic being discussed in the paper (line of inquiry) and articulate reasons why the topic
is worth discussing (stakes). It beneficial for the writer to include a counterclaim to underscore
the stakes of the topic as well as the complexity of the topic being discussed.

Major paper #1 demonstrates the definition of outcome #3creating a complex, effective, and
persuasive paper. Major paper #1 discusses the relationship between the limitations of
perspective and the recreation of Sebastians interiority in which V. used his limited agency to
craft his ideal Sebastian. I build my argument off of the analysis of analogy, syntax, and
characterization throughout the book in its role in shaping Sebastians story through V. I
articulate the stakes of my argument through claims of policy including the claim of policy that
concrete, factual characterization fails to substantiate a character but personalized
characterization created through relationships between other characters allows for the
development of a character of significant value (MP #1 Final Draft). I utilize Madame Lecerfs
role in Sebastians story as a counterclaim to undermine the agency of V. in recreating Sebastian.
V. had been able to weave the accounts of other characters to supplement his ideal image of
Sebastian but Madame Lecerfs inaccessibility to manipulation demonstrated V.s limited agency
in recreating Sebastian to his standards. At the end of the paper I am able to conclude from the
analysis of my complex that while these perspectives all may not conform to the purposes of
one individual, each perspective says an equal amount about the viewer as it does about the
relationship between the subject in question and the viewer. All perspectives amalgamated
create a composite image in the construction of a characterSebastian (MP #1 Final Draft).
Outcome Four
Outcome is the easiest outcome to comprehend in its technical definition. Outcome four revolves
around the writing process. Regardless of audience, topic, or expertise a writer must be able to
develop the strongest writing they can through a series of edits and revisions. Edits pertain to
micro changes in writing whereas revisions are more global in scale and involve larger sections
of the writing such as ideas, themes, and the overall structure of the paper. Personally feedback
from peer edits have been helpful with minor fixes whereas one-on-one conferences have been
helpful with revisions and clarifying writing instructions.
While my three selected papers demonstrate revisions I am choosing to highlight the revisions
found in major paper #2 because of the significant transformation the paper underwent as a result
of hard work and putting the time in to create a polished draft. After my first draft of major paper
#2, I had concerns that my paper was unclear and was having difficulty articulating the abstract
concepts of sexuality and sexual orientation. The topic proved itself to be difficult to discuss
without confusing my message or using the wrong words to define the abstract concepts. Despite
these difficulties I persisted. I found it more helpful to back away from the use of Fun Home as a
deliberate text to talk about sexuality and more about the rhetorical interpretations readers can
make to discuss sexuality and sexual orientation. Using the novel as an avenue of discussion
proved more constructive. In the later stages of my revisions I reduced unhelpful summaries and
made clearer transitions between sections in my paper. Eliminating declarative statements about
Bruces sexuality and focusing on the sociological implications of why he chose to remain
closeted proved more productive and helped the flow of the paper. My final draft is free of
spelling and grammatical errors.
Conclusion

I feel at the end of this quarter I have more confidence in my ability to formulate analytical
essays that create greater meaning from novels. I have found the revision process to be the most
valuable part of the class because of the universal value the process has in all fields of study. This
quarter I have challenged myself to take more academic risks; I believe this is best exemplified
in my major paper #2 and my choice to use a different media to present my portfolio. Initially I
struggled with the complex and delicate topic of sexuality and sexual orientation in major paper
#2 because of the ambiguity of Fun Home. The novel was more open to rhetorical interpretation
than The Real Life of Sebastian Knight had been in my case and the ambiguous nature of reader
interpretation had been something I struggled with in the past. However I persisted in writing
about the sociology, psychology, rhetoric, and health-related issues involved in human sexuality
and sexual orientation. Im proud of the transformation my writing has achieved when I look
back at where it started. My greatest improvement has in tackling the more delicate and complex
ideas that are hard to put in words. Most importantly I have learned that the musicians in Led
Zepplin are Jimmy Page, Robert Plant, John Paul Jones, and John Bonham and that the President
Pro Tempore is currently Orrin Hatch!
Thanks for reading!
Best,
Ryan