Ramage warped my mind...

Hey everyone. My name is Kim McPherson and I'm a junior Prof. Writing writing with a minor in literature and possibly women's studies.

I guess I'll just jump right in and start with Ramage. I started reading like I usually do with any textbook--with a highlighter. Unfortunately, that doesn't help because the book jumps from topic to topic and makes reference to one thing immediately after another. I was very confused to say the least. The thing that did me in right from the beginning was when he says, "What we won't be doing in this chapter is telling you what rhetoric is in fifty words or less--other than to say it always has to do with the production/interpretation of symbolic acts and usually has to do with persuasion." I highlighted and stuck with this definition, because by the end, I kind of threw up my hands, shrugged, and felt like I'd been made dumber.

I did enjoy the Crowley and Hawhee reading on Ereserves much better. It was much more direct, which made it more engaging. The examples were well thought-out, well-placed, and easy to relate to, as compared to the references in Ramage that seemed random and haphazardly thrown in without a cohesive feel in between.

See you guys later today!