word paletting 20: other evidence

Intro: this is one part of an even bigger problem that exists as the requirement that writers produce a thesis statement. Somehow, I think the intent, originally, was to make the writing acts that students were engaging in authentic.

Yet, the fact that what students are expected to create in English 101 and/or English 102 is rhetoric suggests the act that is intended to be carried out is not really applicable to very many real-world written acts; what I figured out is that rhetorical writing is best applied to speech writing and writing that is to be delivered, spoken, onstage or on air.

In one of the customarily-required English 101 curricula that’s used, currently, students are required to provide the statement about a chosen topic, develope that topic or “experience”, then provide additional support or information that is extracted from an outside source.


Use this to do experience & other evidence: (meanng, write the word paletted product, infusing palette terms and including other, similar   terms, simultaneously. eg.:

In either order, infuse each paletted term into your poem’s wording, connecting  to each side or both sides, if possible, of each word or word cluster. You do this by communicating /including, first, one word from off your palette, then the other, such as: “we left the meat on the grill too long and it became “charred” or “burnt”.

Write communication up to the first paletted term: “charred”, then connect to the second term: “burnt”.

For example, “upon the grill, the steak was charred, then, later on, it burnt.”

the chef prepared her “Swiss” miss steak, “German”, etc.

(Steak/Stake Palette)

a. “-and chard/charred-” the chard w/Braun moutard

(homophone) {vegetable, fish, burnt}

Connect and include each term, chard and charred, to and/or in the wording of your poem, introducing one, first, then the other, with or without suggesting a renegotiation of your line of thought.

b. swiss (miss/mis- take) [swiss miss, taken in/Swiss mistaken Inn/Swiss mistake’n in

c. -:it’s what’s for lunch/take ewe out for lunch/you out for lunch (mutton Jeff)

       d. -your claim/your claim                  -(take awhile)

f. burn a- grill/cricket burn the stakes and the winner gets the ashes

g. mis(s)- Swiss steak mistake

h. beef-steak one’s take on steak/one’s stake on steak

i. burn at the- (stake/burn at the steakhouse)

j. burnt @ the-, burnt out the-

k. sweep-, swept-

Start out with a lead-in statement, like one uses in previous word paletting processes, then continue your communication up to meet the preceding side of each paletted term, first, then, separately, continue communication off the other                side of each.

Communicate, in prose, rationalizing statements to lead to your palette terms, then, continue to rock tumble the whole product into supercharged language.

Then, when you are expected to produce rhetoric that forces you have to “renegotiate your own mindset”, instead of experiencing an aneurysm or an actual hemorrhagic stroke, based on the the internal psychic anguish, imposed by your professor, having already mastered this act, you’ll breeze right through this act.

You utilize your communication to suggests one thing, then renegotiate your mindset and opt for the second thing you come up with.



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s