Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 5

Fleiner 1

John Fleiner
English 250 PG
Lindsay DAndrea
2 May 2014
Revision
When I first submitted my rhetorical analysis on Kimmels Bros Before Hos: The Guy
Code, I felt quite confident in the material presented within the final draft. I had spent hours
upon hours rewriting the introductory paragraph, the concluding paragraph and all the body
paragraphs in between. I wanted to raise my overall writing ability and piece of work to a level
of higher standards. I had spent so much time attempting to improve my ability as a writer that
I failed to enhance the most important aspect of the rhetorical analysis essay: the organization
and substance that composes the structure, evidence, detail, and transitioning. I hadnt realized
that as I progressed through the essay, I slowly eased away from rhetorical analysis and began to
highlight content-based and thematic analyzation, processes that were not of relevance to the
assignment. The transitioning between paragraphs was rather weak and didnt allow for the
essay to flow smoothly from one concept to another which de-emphasized the ideas I was trying
to portray.
To help aid in revision, I reread the excerpt Bros Before Hos: The Guy Code, re-outlined
all of the rhetorical devices and ideas, and incorporated all of the planning and drafting steps
from the assignment three guideless. In order to appropriately tackle of issues noted in the
submission response, three paragraphs required going back to the planning and drafting stages.
New ideas and concepts were needed to be developed and an entire rewrite of the paragraphs was
required to sufficiently better the essay. The first paragraph that began a reconstructive overhaul
Fleiner 2

was the third body paragraph beginning with Building onto his previous objective. According
to the submission response which I firmly agree with, this paragraph felt content-based. The
paragraph lacked a strong transitioning beginning, the topic sentence failed to present a true
rhetorical point, and the context focused on content rather than rhetoric. The following sentence
was added to transition between the idea of masculinity being a homosoicial experience to the
male fear of homophobia:
It is undeniably true that males alter their behavior around other men in an effort to prevent coming off as
gay.
The transition was then following by a change in diction to the topic sentence that links back to
the purpose of the Kimmels essay:
To further emphasize his argument that masculinity is a largely.
The lengthy, content-based quote from Eminem was removed and information was added in
terms of audience that could be elaborated on in the form of rhetorical analysis.
Kimmel centers his argument on a quote from Eminem aka Slim Shady, a prominent masculine figure in
the eyes of men. Focusing on the basis of Eminems philosophical view of homophobia creates a
perceptive that most men will refuse to disagree with. [cont]
By discussing why Kimmel used a reference of Eminem and how it strengthened his argument /
objective, it allowed for a much stronger paragraph on rhetorical analysis as compared to the
previous content based one.
The second paragraph that required a complete redraft and additional planning was the
second body paragraph. The beginning needed a more effective approach to transition between
Fleiner 3

the idea about empowering masculinity and undermining femininity. The following sentences
were added / rearranged to form a more solid transition:
The empowering masculinity that now encompasses male society has defined a unique code imperceptible
to women femininity often referred to as the Guy Code. The Guy Code makes up a complex set of
subconscious rules, uniformly known by men.
It was also important to note that the strongest analytical idea that I presented in this paragraph
didnt have an adequate amount of information to highlight the argument. I inserted extended
information about the Guys Top Ten List and Four basic rules of masculinity to further
support my idea as seen here:
The Guys Top Ten List and social psychologist Robert Brannons Four basic rules of masculinity do
just that by coherently summarizing the most common aphorisms used to evaluate a mans masculine
behavior (463-464). For example, the subconscious aphorism Boys Dont Cry coherently simplifies the
unifying emotional subtext of concealing ones emotions, moods, and weaknesses that may be difficult to
fathom in a varying context. (464).
A new concluding sentence was developed that flowed more effectively into the following
paragraph.
The content provided in the third body paragraph was one of the stronger bits in the
essay, but was weakened by a poor introductory sentence that came across as awkward and
didnt relate to the previous discussion. A new introductory sentence was added and the topic
sentence was transformed into:
Because the rules evaluating masculine behavior have changed very little over time, it is ideal for Kimmel
to classify the origin of such subconscious rules. Through the use of exemplification and pathos, Kimmel
explains the historical development of the Guy Code.
Fleiner 4

The third paragraph that required a complete redo was the last body paragraph. There was no
strong introductory sentence and the thesis statement lacked analysis which deterred supporting
analytical ideas. A new introductory sentence and thesis statement were added:
Despite the strong emotional restraint among men in response to the male fear of homophobia, a closely
tied relationship with ones mother poses a comparable threat of emotional trauma. In one last attempt to
emotionally connect with the reader, the narration technique is used to influence the reader to identify with
Kimmel on a personal account of how a boys strong interpersonal relation with his mother will emasculate
him. He seeks definitive agreement upon the emotional trauma caused by mens fear of becoming
emasculated.
By replacing the topic center with an analytical statement, the remainder of the paragraph could
be taken out and rewritten based on the allegorical narrative that constructs a deeper connection
with the audience which reinforces Kimmels argument.
The last piece bit of detail that I attempted to strengthen was my original thesis statement.
This is the one part of the revised essay that I am still not fully satisfied with and could be
stronger, but it would involve planning, drafting, and rewriting an entire new idea. The current
method of organization that I use is a chronological order of rhetorical devices used by Kimmel
to strengthen his argument about how masculinity shapes the self-image of men to conform to
societys standards. In the reverse outline of revision, I tried to split up my original ideas into
subsections as advised, but the logical order of ideas that I had already presented became skewed
and I felt like the organization worsened as a result. Therefore, I formatted the thesis statement
in a list style statement. The new thesis statement clearly labels the main points of the essay, but
is not considered a fully developed statement. With that being said, the comments were
Fleiner 5

extremely helpful for revision and I took every recommendation with care to try to create a
revised essay that accurately represents my understanding of rhetorical analysis.