I learned from both assignments that were easier for me, as well as ones that challenged me. The easiest assignment for me was the ad essay, which is because I am a visual person, and can easily relate to the topic. Although it was the easiest, it was far from easy, and it was a learning experience. The more challenging essay was the rhetorical analysis essay. I have always had trouble with reading comprehension, and this essay was about evaluating a reading, so it was difficult. I overcame this challenge by working hard and taking my professors lessons and applying them to my essays. Although we have been talking about topic and ending sentences all year, it never really clicked in my head that they serve different purposes, and they do more than just summarize the paragraph. At first I knew my ending and topic sentences were not strong, but I did not fully know why. This is only one way that I overcame challenges, and improved my writing.

There were many activities and lessons that helped me throughout these essays. One was the In Class Writing where we would write out our strengths and weaknesses. If you write out a weakness, and analyze and think about it, why wouldn’t you go back and try to improve on them. If we did not write out that reflection, I wouldn’t have even thought about it, and my writing would suffer. An activity that I did not like was the ending reflection where we had to write what we thought we could fix once the essay was done. This was hard for me because if there is anything I think needed fixing, I already fixed it before I handed it in. There were also small In Class Writings about how we wanted to improve from the second essay. This motivated me to actually fix those things, because it would be embarrassing if I said I wanted to work on that and then did not.

Throughout my essays, the lessons in class, and applying skills, I truly think I have improved as a writer and a reader, and that is only a few of the aspects of the class.

Final Essay 3

Maggie Durso-Smith

English 112

Fur is Far From Pretty

If you see someone wearing fur boots or a fur coat, do you think that they are unattractive? “People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals”, or PETA, thinks so. They put this bizarre yet powerful ad together. The woman they chose as their model is Joanna Krupa. Her website states that “She has been habitually voted amongst the ‘Sexiest Women in the World’, coined ‘Sexiest Top Model in the World’ by magazines across Australia, U.S., South Africa, the United Kingdom, France and Germany. Playboy U.S. dubbed her the ‘Sexiest Swimsuit Model in the World’ and Joanna is frequently discussed as one of the sexiest celebrities in the world” (http://www.joannakrupa.com/). Her reputation and her fame are used to get PETA’s point across. Joanna is textbook pretty: long blonde tousled hair, blue eyes, full eyelashes, perfect skin, and thin. She has perfectly straight white teeth and pink lips. She also has this look on her face: a fierce look in her sparkling eyes, and a smirky smile.  She is also not wearing a shirt or pants, just light pink lacey underwear, with a little bow on them. One thing sticks out in this ad; the brown, longer than humanly possible, obviously fake, dry, dead pubic hair sprouting from her underwear. Other than this disturbing flaw, she is clearly made to look sexy.  PETA made her a stereotypically attractive, and a vision of what some people would call perfection. However, this message is not about how pretty anyone is. This ad is selling that fur is so powerful and transformative, that wearing fur will make you ugly, inside and out.

             Joanna is not the only detail that PETA precisely planned out. The text on this image reads, in all caps, “Fur Trim: Unattractive.” The “Fur Trim” part is in black and it is off to the side. “Unattractive” is written in pink, and placed over her body. The pink colored text goes along with the pretty and perfect, Barbie-like theme. The text saying “unattractive” is placed over her as if it is a label or stamp. PETA is telling us that even with all her perfection, she is dubbed unattractive because of the fur. The caption under it sums it up well, once again in all caps “Don’t ruin your look with fur trim”. Under that text her name is written in black, and “for PETA” in pink. They included her name to show that this celebrity supports this idea, hoping that her fans will too.  Details of this ad contribute to the theme of fur being powerful enough to change someone images completely. 

            Now for the part that makes the argument: the hair coming out of her underwear. We can assume that it is pubic hair, which is the “fur” that is ruining her perfect look. No matter how pretty you are, fur will ruin your image. Fur is powerful and strong enough to completely destroy whatever positive reputation you have earned yourself. However, pretty and ugly are not just on the outside. This ad is telling us that no matter how good of a person you are; fur has the power to transform you into a bad, unethical person. No matter how much charity work you do, no matter how successful you are, if you wear fur, all that is destroyed. Wearing fur is supporting animal cruelty, and that is what people will see in you. This ad is selling that even if you’re the nicest or prettiest person in the world, wearing fur is so powerful, it will make you ugly, inside and out.

            The whole world can relate to having a reputation, but this ad was targeted more precisely to certain people. On an obvious note, the audience is for people wear fur. Although it is also targeted at people who want to be what society sees as “pretty”. This ad is also aimed at people who look up to Joanna Krupa. They could idol her in a way that they just like her, and will do just about anything to be like her. If she is against wearing fur, they will be as well.  On the other hand, it is for people who do not necessarily like her, but people who aspire to be like her and her image, people who aspire to be “perfect” and “pretty”.  It appeals to this audience because they will do anything to make themselves look perfect. They will dye and damage their hair, put tons of makeup on, starve themselves to get thinner, and more. If fur makes her ugly, in all her perfection, it will make anyone ugly. PETA uses the power that Joanna has on teens, and the pressure to be perfect to get their argument across.  If people are willing to do anything that she does, they will look into this ad and see the power of fur, and what it does to her image.

PETA is selling this message to try to stop people from wearing fur, because in order to make fur clothing and shoes, animals are tortured and killed. This ad does not really touch on the animal cruelty aspect of fur, but the ugliness of it. I personally do not think this ad is effective. For one thing, it is gross to look at, which makes viewers almost immediately look away. When I first saw it, I scrolled past it as quickly as possible. I think it has too much appeal to pathos. Although a strong appeal to pathos could help an argument standing for something so controversial, the pathos are directed at the wrong emotion. Focusing too much on the disgustingness of the ad hinders to the emotion of how powerful the fur is. Her hair being in her pubic area does not have anything to do with wearing fur. People do not like looking at it, and therefore will not look into what it is selling. It does not clue in to wearing fur being cruel, but ugly. I think that because of how unrealistic and gross it is, it does not have the effect of it being ugly, just weird. People are so distracted by the hair, that they do not take time to assess the point PETA is trying to make. Overall, my opinion is that people will get the general message, but maybe not the full point. Great risk is taken when the model is shirtless, but when you add the pubic hair, it pushes it over the edge. Fur being so powerful that it could ruin your image is what the ad is trying to sell, but the ad could just be disturbing to look into.

Although it is eccentric, PETA made this ad, and people know they advocate for animals. Despite the drama of this ad, people know it is an effort to stop the abuse of animals. Every aspect of this ad, like the model, style, and argument made are helpful to proving the point. PETA wanted people to see how powerful fur was, in a drastic way. People often say PETA crosses the line with disturbing pictures of animal cruelty. Although animals are not even included in this image, have they done it again?

Questions

How are my ending sentences?
Do they connect to the thesis?
How are my beginning sentences?
Do they transition and introduce the topic of the paragraph?
How is my organization?
Is anything too repetitive?
Thanks guys!

Reflection of Editing

My argument is weakened because my thesis is not strong enough. With a stronger thesis, I also added more description and elaboration into my body paragraphs. Almost very part of my essay that I got major points off for pertained to my weak thesis.

I made thesis something that is more analytical, something that you cannot see or tell from the ad. I changed my thesis to: This ad is selling that fur is so powerful and transformative, that wearing fur will make you ugly, inside and out. Because my thesis is now stronger, I needed to “prove” my argument. I added points, description, and analysis to my essay, because a stronger thesis requires more analyzing and convincing.

I also made a huge effort to fix, and in some paragraphs, add ending sentences. Going over the purpose of topic and ending sentences in class helped me greatly. I thought they were both supposed to just sum up the paragraph. I made the ending sentences relate to the thesis, and the topic sentences transition and introduce. I made other small improvements, like trying my best to not use the same word as the first word of too many sentences. I tried to fix some awkward wording, some organization, and other small mistakes.

I would like feedback on everything that I changed or fixed, especially my new ending and topic sentences. I think my thesis is fully strong enough now, so I am confident in most of my paper now. I would like overall feedback as well.

First Draft of Essay 1 (changes highlighted)

Maggie Durso-Smith

English 112

Fur is Far From Pretty

If you see someone wearing fur boots or a fur coat, do you think that they are unattractive? “People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals”, or PETA, thinks so. They put this bizarre yet powerful ad together. The woman they chose as their model is Joanna Krupa. Her website states that “She has been habitually voted amongst the ‘Sexiest Women in the World’, coined ‘Sexiest Top Model in the World’ by magazines across Australia, U.S., South Africa, the United Kingdom, France and Germany. Playboy U.S. dubbed her the ‘Sexiest Swimsuit Model in the World’ and Joanna is frequently discussed as one of the sexiest celebrities in the world” (http://www.joannakrupa.com/). Her reputation and her fame are used to get PETA’s point across. Joanna is textbook pretty: long blonde tousled hair, blue eyes, full eyelashes, perfect skin, and thin. She has perfectly straight white teeth and pink lips. She also has this look on her face: a fierce look in her sparkling eyes, and a smirky smile.  She is also not wearing a shirt or pants, just light pink lacey underwear, with a little bow on them. One thing sticks out in this ad; the brown, longer than humanly possible, obviously fake, dry, dead pubic hair sprouting from her underwear. Other than this disturbing flaw, she is clearly made to look sexy.  PETA made her a stereotypically attractive, and a vision of what some people would call perfection. However, this message is not about how pretty anyone is. This ad is selling that fur is so powerful and transformative, that wearing fur will make you ugly, inside and out.

             Joanna is not the only detail that PETA precisely planned out. The text on this image reads, in all caps, “Fur Trim: Unattractive.” The “Fur Trim” part is in black and it is off to the side. “Unattractive” is written in pink, and placed over her body. The pink colored text goes along with the pretty and perfect, Barbie-like theme. The text saying “unattractive” is placed over her as if it is a label or stamp. PETA is telling us that even with all her perfection, she is dubbed unattractive because of the fur. The caption under it sums it up well, once again in all caps “Don’t ruin your look with fur trim”. Under that text her name is written in black, and “for PETA” in pink. They included her name to show that this celebrity supports this idea, hoping that her fans will too.  Details of this ad contribute to the theme of fur being powerful enough to change someone images completely. 

            Now for the part that makes the argument: the hair coming out of her underwear. We can assume that it is pubic hair, which is the “fur” that is ruining her perfect look. No matter how pretty you are, fur will ruin your image. Fur is powerful and strong enough to completely destroy whatever positive reputation you have earned yourself. However, pretty and ugly are not just on the outside. This ad is telling us that no matter how good of a person you are; fur has the power to transform you into a bad, unethical person. No matter how much charity work you do, no matter how successful you are, if you wear fur, all that is destroyed. Wearing fur is supporting animal cruelty, and that is what people will see in you. This ad is selling that even if you’re the nicest or prettiest person in the world, wearing fur is so powerful, it will make you ugly, inside and out.

            The whole world can relate to having a reputation, but this ad was targeted more precisely to certain people. On an obvious note, the audience is for people wear fur. Although it is also targeted at people who want to be what society sees as “pretty”. This ad is also aimed at people who look up to Joanna Krupa. They could idol her in a way that they just like her, and will do just about anything to be like her. If she is against wearing fur, they will be as well.  On the other hand, it is for people who do not necessarily like her, but people who aspire to be like her and her image, people who aspire to be “perfect” and “pretty”.  It appeals to this audience because they will do anything to make themselves look perfect. They will dye and damage their hair, put tons of makeup on, starve themselves to get thinner, and more. If fur makes her ugly, in all her perfection, it will make anyone ugly. PETA uses the power that Joanna has on teens, and the pressure to be perfect to get their argument across.  If people are willing to do anything that she does, they will look into this ad and see the power of fur, and what it does to her image.

PETA is selling this message to try to stop people from wearing fur, because in order to make fur clothing and shoes, animals are tortured and killed. This ad does not really touch on the animal cruelty aspect of fur, but the ugliness of it. I personally do not think this ad is effective. For one thing, it is gross to look at, which makes viewers almost immediately look away. When I first saw it, I scrolled past it as quickly as possible. I think it has too much appeal to pathos. Although a strong appeal to pathos could help an argument standing for something so controversial, the pathos are directed at the wrong emotion. Focusing too much on the disgustingness of the ad hinders to the emotion of how powerful the fur is. Her hair being in her pubic area does not have anything to do with wearing fur. People do not like looking at it, and therefore will not look into what it is selling. It does not clue in to wearing fur being cruel, but ugly. I think that because of how unrealistic and gross it is, it does not have the effect of it being ugly, just weird. People are so distracted by the hair, that they do not take time to assess the point PETA is trying to make. Overall, my opinion is that people will get the general message, but maybe not the full point. Great risk is taken when the model is shirtless, but when you add the pubic hair, it pushes it over the edge. Fur being so powerful that it could ruin your image is what the ad is trying to sell, but the ad could just be disturbing to look into.

Although it is eccentric, PETA made this ad, and people know they advocate for animals. Despite the drama of this ad, people know it is an effort to stop the abuse of animals. Every aspect of this ad, like the model, style, and argument made are helpful to proving the point. PETA wanted people to see how powerful fur was, in a drastic way. People often say PETA crosses the line with disturbing pictures of animal cruelty. Although animals are not even included in this image, have they done it again?

Editing Decision

I am choosing to edit my PETA ad paper. I chose the “ad” paper because I am a more visual person, and I have trouble with reading comprehension. I am also more familiar with the topic of the ad than the topic of the article. The ad paper was easier for me to write, and hopefully will then be easier to revise.

The main part of my work that I need to revise is the thesis. My argument is weakened because my thesis is not strong enough. With a stronger thesis, I could also add more description and elaboration into my body paragraphs.

The thesis to my argument was: “This ad is selling that even if you’re the nicest or prettiest person in the world, wearing fur is supporting animal cruelty and will make you ugly, inside and out.”

I need to make the thesis something that is more analytical, something that you cannot see or tell from the ad. I need to analyze the ad and what it is “selling” further so that I can fully “prove” my argument. Another part of my paper that needs work is my ending sentences. I will go back and fix them, trying to make them sum up the paragraph in a new way. I plan on making other small improvements, like changing wording to not sounding repetitive, and other techniques we learned in class.