PB2B: “Moves”

            Each writer has their own “moves” which distinguish them from other writers. These moves are unique to each writer. They are usually characteristic to the person and can be easily recognized. Murder!(Rhetorically) by Janet Boyd and Navigating Genres by Kerry Dirk both have characteristic “moves” that distinguish the two articles. Some of them are similar, and others are different.

First, the style of the titles is different. Boyd uses an interesting title to draw the reader in. It is unconventional and a play on words which is effective in grabbing the reader’s attention. Dirk’s title is simple and not as attention grabbing. The introductions to both articles are both interesting and effective in different ways. Boyd uses a personal anecdote to introduce the topic of rhetoric. She uses light humor and tells the story of a student calling rhetoric “bullshit” to segway smoothly into the subject. Dirk starts off using a joke about a country song. This works because it makes the reader wonder how it is related to genre; making them want keep reading.  These are both hooks, however the Dirk and Boyd selectively chose different ways to catch the reader’s attention.

A similar move both authors utilize is referring to the reader directly. Specifically Dirk states that “this was my first time writing an essay to you, a composition student.” This gives the readers the impression that although Dirk has written many things, even he still encounters new genres. This further adds to an informal tone where the reader can relate to Dirk, making him seem like an actual person behind the article. Boyd also addresses the reader, for example saying “I have also included responses from other student writers for you to consider.” The use of “you” creates an informal tone in both articles. This is engaging to the reader because it creates a more conversational tone. Although the tone is informal, Boyd still keeps the article academic by adding words such as “succinct” and “crux.” Another interesting word used by Boyd is “dazzle.” These word choices are a bit unconventional, and therefore spark the reader’s attention.

Another similarity in the two articles is organization. Whenever both authors presented a list it was separated from the paragraphs of the articles and the items were organized into a bullet-point form list. This made the list stand out from the rest of the information so that it wasn’t confusing or overwhelming. However, a difference in organization is Boyd’s subtitles. Boyd chose to title each topic she discussed with titles such as “getting in touch with your inner detective” and “cultivating your inner coroner.” These titles certainly add interest to the article while effectively organizing the individual topics.

Furthermore, another difference in the moves Dirk and Boyd make are the choices of examples used to explain genre and rhetoric, respectively. Dirk uses references to other scholarly authors about genres. For example he referenced Anne Freedman, a specialist in genre theory, and Carolyn Miller, a professor in the field of technical communication. Boyd on the other hand uses her past students and their writing to explain rhetoric. The choice Dirk makes to reference professionals in the field of genre seems to be more effective. It adds credibility to the information presented and genre is explained in more detail. Boyd’s choice to explain rhetoric using her past students work is still effective, however it lacks standing. It is still effective because it shows how aspects of rhetoric are used, such as jargon; however it might have been good to add scholarly sources too.

One other move that Boyd makes is using numerous parentheses.  The way Boyd uses parentheses is almost like a side note or an aside to the reader. For example: “ in writing up the case (whoops I have given you a clue).” Boyd uses the parenthesis to fit a thought that may not exactly connect with the rest of the sentence if written regularly. The message in the parenthesis is usually not as important as the information around it, yet still important to put in the article. Therefore parentheses was a clever way to incorporate the thoughts and have it flow nicely.  Dirk on the other hand does not use too many parentheses. Dirk does however use many questions to encourage the reader to think about the material he is discussing. He prompts questions such as “why am I telling you this” and “how is this possible.” By doing so Dirk is clear in what he is explaining and prompts the reader to think about certain things they otherwise wouldn’t have. This in my opinion was a very effective move because it made the ideas in the article connect well while guiding the reader through them.
Overall, the different choices Boyd and Dirk made had different effects. Some of them were effective, and others less so. Moves are significant, and when the right ones are made the author strengthens their writing.