cmn 507 project 3 popularized analysis

Length: Popularized analysis length can vary; the reflection should be approximately 1000 words


In “The Needless Complexity of Academic Writing,” Victoria Clayton argues that academia is filled with “needlessly complex writing” that is both “opaque” and “unwieldy.” Stephen Pinker has similarly, and more vividly, described academic writing as “turgid, soggy, wooden, bloated, clumsy, obscure, unpleasant to read, and impossible to understand.” Whether we agree or not with Clayton and/or Pinker’s critiques, we can all concede that academic writing is often inaccessible to the broader public, in part as a result of both its dense and complex prose and the density and complexity of its ideas and arguments. At the same time, we live in a turbulent political age, in which the study of rhetoric is more important than ever for engaged citizenship. Therefore, it is in the interest of the public good to popularize rhetoric, to make rhetorical theories and concepts more accessible to a broader public audience and to craft mainstream rhetorical analyses that teach lay audiences how to recognize the persuasive dimensions of the texts they encounter on a daily basis. Your task in this assignment is to do just that.

In this assignment, you’ll popularize rhetoric. You’ll take your work in either Project 1 or Project 2 as a starting point and you’re reconfigure the argument you made therein, presenting your ideas in an accessible, engaging style and format. Specifically, you’ll turn your project into an article that could conceivably appear on, a student-driven, crowdsourced media platform. Once you do so, you’ll then write up a reflection on your work. NOTE: This assignment does not require that you submit your article to, though you are certainly free to do so.

In sum, your project will consist of two parts. First, is your popularized reworking of your rhetorical analysis from Project #1 or Project #2 (PART ONE: Popularized analysis). Second, is your reflection on your efforts to popularize rhetorical theory and analysis. That is, you’ll discuss what you did to make your rhetorical work more accessible and engaging, drawing on the course readings on genre and popularization, in particular (PART TWO: Reflection). Some points you should address in that reflection include: in what ways did you rid your original project of its academic features (as outlined by Thonney)? describe some of the moves you made to popularize (with reference to Gotti and Fahnestock). How does your new article conform to its new genre expectations? Make sure to cite your sources.


Make sure that both files (Part 1 and Part 2) are uploaded!