PB2B

     In the same way dancers have special "moves" they make on the stage to dazzle the audience, writers use personalized styles and techniques – these so called "moves" – that have a knack for shifting the tone and effectiveness of an essay. When studying rhetoric, students realize that almost everything an author writes can arguably be considered a move. Every individual has his or her own unique approach to creating a piece of writing. Be it big or small, these differences in moves can many times pull a reader's attention completely, or turn them away from the very start of the intro. In Dana Driscoll's informative essay "Introduction to Primary Research: Observations, Surveys, and Interviews," she teaches the reader how to conduct primary research. Kyle Stedman discusses proper source citing etiquette in his piece "Annoying Ways People Use Sources." While both writers do a good job of providing examples for the main topics of their paper, Stedman's use of a conversational tone and analogies makes his piece much more engaging and successful.

     A properly executed introduction sets the desired tone for the rest of the essay, as Stedman successfully does so in his paper. He begins the introduction with a short, strongly worded sentence: "I hate slow drivers"(242). While having absolutely nothing to with the actual contents Stedman wants to discuss, this quick and effective hook makes the reader want to continue reading, curious about what else the writer has to say about slow drivers. Stedman elaborates on his statement, which the reader quickly realizes is an analogy towards not following etiquette when citing sources. Additionally, Stedman refers to himself by using words such as "I" and "me." Conventional essays on academic topics usually do not use first person language; he has already set his own essay apart by using unexpected words. This is a good move in that it starts off with a personal opinion to create a conversational tone for the rest of the essay. In contrast, Driscoll doesn't begin her intro with a personal anecdote. Instead, she immediately starts talking about the concept of research in a formal and instructive tone. The rest of the essay retains a sense of formality, despite the use of first person pronouns such as "we." Of course, the effectiveness of a move depends on the audience's reaction to it. For someone who means business and wants to get to the point, Driscoll's paper would definitely be better. However, most students and casual readers prefer a lighter or more conversational tone, which is easier to follow and pay attention to. Therefore, Stedman offers a more successful essay. 

     Furthermore, Stedman's presentation of each source annoyance uses entertaining or relatable stories as analogies to explain each offense. While talking about a seemingly irrelevant tale, the author ends up presenting similarities of the experience with a reading situation. A short humorous scenario before introducing each section keeps the audience from having to read a continuous essay about a possibly boring subject. An example can be seen here, as Stedman talks about a spontaneous Spider-Man. "You're confused because he just dropped in and expected you to understand the context of what was on his mind at that moment, much like when readers step into a paragraph that begins with a quotation"(246). These situations also relate to the correlating annoyance by connecting them to human feelings, which helps the reader understand the issue better. After each annoyance, Stedman offers a fix for the problem. He clearly labels the section as "The Fix." This is a good move because it indicates what the author is going to address next and the reader would know what to expect. In contrast, with Driscoll using her formal tone, she presents ideas in a more informational and objective tone. Her transitions between subjects do not contain analogies as explanations. Instead, she gives the definition of the subject and aspects she will discuss, as seen here: "Interviews, or question and answer sessions with one or more people, are an excellent way to learn in-depth information from a person for your primary research project"(164). This can be argued as either a good or a bad move, depending on the purpose and intended audience of the author. If she wanted to write an objective paper that has a more academic and professional tone, then a direct introduction would be the right move. However, students who prefer a lighter read may turn away from this essay. Amusing stories are an effective way to keep a reader's interest, so Driscoll's essay may seem dull and less engaging. However, she writes a proper paper that fulfills its purpose of informing the audience on primary research. 

     As much as a paper's successfulness depends on the writing techniques of the author, it also reflects heavily upon the purpose and intended audience. A student looking into serious researching may not want silly anecdotes in the way of the actual information, whereas a student looking for casual/simple information may not want to read an unending string of academic material.