Prompt: Respond to a peer's extended analysis.

For this week’s blog, I’ve responded to Will’s extended analysis and podcast, Prolific. Will’s first series of podcasts was dedicated to Victor Villanueva, who I’m familiar with as the author of Bootstraps but is a well-known figure in the field of composition and rhetoric. I sat across from Will while he planned out this podcast (and redesigned the Prolific logo a dozen times) so I’m excited to hear it come to fruition!

Will’s research on podcasts is apparent: the music is appropriate and catchy while not distracting. He maintains a casual tone despite highly academic content, perfecting that “reading without sounding like you’re reading” voice we discussed in class last week.

I particularly liked the audio overlays in podcasts 2 and 3 – Will leads in with an audio clip from Villanueva that brings in the topic of the episode. I will say that the opening clip for Podcast 3 was distracting for me as an audience; it fades out mid-sentence, leaving me wondering: Wait, was that last thing important? What did I miss? A few minutes into Podcast 3, he does speak back on the context and relevance of that quote, which I find really helpful. I’m not sure that all clips from Villanueva accompanied an explanation of their context. On the whole, the intermittent audio clips from Villanueva provide a helpful mental check, perhaps breaking up the podcast in a way that is difficult to do when doing a podcast solo. Many of my favorite podcasts are dependent on conversations between one or more hosts or the host and guests. While it’s unfortunately unlikely that Will would be able to interview any of his “prolific” subjects, he does suggest at the end of Podcast 3 that he’s considering bringing in other graduate students for future podcasts. I find it difficult to focus on audio without accompanied video, particularly when it’s one voice speaking – at some point, my brain zones out and wants to block out the monotony. (Not that your podcast was monotonous, Will; I’m just trying to speak to my particular form of learning and understanding!) A conversation would echo radio shows and other podcasts in its manner of orally shaking up the message.

Much of Podcast 1 is devoted to Villanueva’s publications and other “prolific” moments in the field. While Will rightly acknowledges that people in Tech Comm “love lists,” I don’t think this information translates well to a strictly audio medium. Instead, I might recommend reexamining the assignment (“The first segment should be background”) to interpret this as Villanueva’s personal and academic background – his life leading up to academics – rather than his background up to now (including publications). While his most noteworthy or relevant publications could be noted, I think the audience would find a narrative to be more engaging. Although I haven’t finished Bootstraps yet, sharing some of Villanueva’s struggles of diversity and education might give listeners a reason to care about this character (primarily appeals to pathos) beyond the texts he’s authored and published (primarily appeals to logos and ethos). Since Will acknowledges his audience as graduate students and other novices in the field, they might connect more strongly to the character of Villanueva the underdog than Villanueva the scholar.

Overall, I loved the podcast, and I’m excited to see where Will takes it next. (I volunteer to be part of a podcast conversation! (Although I have the voice of a child and I don’t think anyone wants to hear me.) Do Peter Elbow next! Or Carolyn Miller!