I like your topic and how it is has a very direct audience of Brother Kreman, but it was still open to be relatable to an even wider audience. I also like how you had the repetition of the word brother to reinforce your brotherhood with your fraternity because it makes it have a more personal touch that open-letters are known for. Perhaps you could give examples of the negative experiences that brothers have faced in order to appeal more to have more pathos.
The idea for this open letter is very personal and I can feel the exigence of it. Although I get that you don’t want to disrespect a person by using their death as a platform to spread your message, however there should be other examples that are a bit more specific that you could find and maybe allude to the person who paid the ultimate price and not necessarily use it in a way that seems exploitive. I very much loved how you repeat Brother Kremen when addressing him. Maybe add a little bit about how instead of fixing the problems he just wants to make it seem like it doesn’t exist.
This letter is attempting to stage a definite persuasion, addressing the large issue of how a “smoke and mirrors” act will not dismiss a negative reality. In fact, the only way to reconstruct a faulty design is to first acknowledge it, then attempt to understand why it exists in the first place, and then present an alternate design that offers a positive change.
It may be me, but I am missing the full context of Brother Kreman’s agency and authority vis-a-vis the author. Are you both on equal footing here, or does Brother Kreman have a higher rank and file? Who is it that speaks and who is it that listens? What is it that the speaker wants the listener to recognize (acknowledge), understand better, and change?
It sounds like the specific situation being addressed (or the thing that triggers this discourse) is a campaign asking fraternity members to “turn up the volume on positive experiences” through social media platforms? If so, then this is a viable and clear rhetorical situation. From here think about how you can effectively respond to this situation, and this opposing point of view (relatively) held by Brother Kreman.
I agree with your peer critique that bringing this into some concrete examples of why you think this particular “volume” is BS would be allow us to rally access the reality you know so much better than us. Help us know what you know about this situation. This would allow us (the readers) to become well informed passengers on your journey, which appears destined to awaken Brother Kreman from a false reality and a meaningless mandate.
Composing Self - J. Carpenter 
I like your topic and how it is has a very direct audience of Brother Kreman, but it was still open to be relatable to an even wider audience. I also like how you had the repetition of the word brother to reinforce your brotherhood with your fraternity because it makes it have a more personal touch that open-letters are known for. Perhaps you could give examples of the negative experiences that brothers have faced in order to appeal more to have more pathos.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The idea for this open letter is very personal and I can feel the exigence of it. Although I get that you don’t want to disrespect a person by using their death as a platform to spread your message, however there should be other examples that are a bit more specific that you could find and maybe allude to the person who paid the ultimate price and not necessarily use it in a way that seems exploitive. I very much loved how you repeat Brother Kremen when addressing him. Maybe add a little bit about how instead of fixing the problems he just wants to make it seem like it doesn’t exist.
LikeLike
This letter is attempting to stage a definite persuasion, addressing the large issue of how a “smoke and mirrors” act will not dismiss a negative reality. In fact, the only way to reconstruct a faulty design is to first acknowledge it, then attempt to understand why it exists in the first place, and then present an alternate design that offers a positive change.
It may be me, but I am missing the full context of Brother Kreman’s agency and authority vis-a-vis the author. Are you both on equal footing here, or does Brother Kreman have a higher rank and file? Who is it that speaks and who is it that listens? What is it that the speaker wants the listener to recognize (acknowledge), understand better, and change?
It sounds like the specific situation being addressed (or the thing that triggers this discourse) is a campaign asking fraternity members to “turn up the volume on positive experiences” through social media platforms? If so, then this is a viable and clear rhetorical situation. From here think about how you can effectively respond to this situation, and this opposing point of view (relatively) held by Brother Kreman.
I agree with your peer critique that bringing this into some concrete examples of why you think this particular “volume” is BS would be allow us to rally access the reality you know so much better than us. Help us know what you know about this situation. This would allow us (the readers) to become well informed passengers on your journey, which appears destined to awaken Brother Kreman from a false reality and a meaningless mandate.
LikeLike