Paper 1 Revisions

I began revising my paper by improving my thesis and including introductory information more relevant to my topic. My initial thesis did not summarize the main theme of my paper and only included the terms “ethos, pathos, and logos,” which were actually used in the wrong context. I improved my thesis by stating specific devices, “such as scientific jargon, gruesome details, and direct accounts,” that enabled Poe to “successfully turn a work of fiction into a realistic scientific report that many people received with not only fear but also wonder.” My information in my initial introductory paragraph was also too general for the topic of my paper; I had included details about the history of the hoax rather than concentrating on a rhetorical analysis of Poe’s short story. As a result, I removed the general information and replaced it with a short summary of “The Case of the Death of M. Valdemar.”

I also edited my three main body paragraphs and included better integration and more detailed analysis of the quotes. Instead of just summarizing the main point of the quote, I tried to make some conclusions on not only how it made the story more effective but also how the audience might have been affected. In my first body paragraph I changed my audience to include both individuals “interested in scientific reports but also those interested in Poe’s narratives just for leisure.” Therefore, I could use the more diverse audience to support my claim that “some people may not have been familiar with the term “articulo mortis,” giving Poe an opportunity to use the narrator’s language to take advantage of his general, less educated audience and gain credibility.”  In my third body paragraph, I argue the fact that the narrator’s recount of M. Valdemar’s death cannot be proven by medical experts and the general public is most likely “too surprised to think about the logic behind the medical actuality of the situation.” By describing a wider audience, I was able to provide more thorough reasoning for Poe’s inclusion of specific information and detail.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

1 Response to Paper 1 Revisions

  1. Lindsey Grubbs says:

    Really nice work, Liliana! It sounds like you’ve made really strong revisions, and you’ve used good, direct evidence to describe what you’ve done and why it’s important. You’ve integrated that evidence smoothly and effectively.

    We’ll talk about organization and topic sentences this week–I wonder if that will give you even more ideas for revision!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *