Reynol Rodriguez 

ENGL 1301-53 Spring 2026 

Professor Jose Lujan 

Feb 22nd 2026

Annotated Bibliography (3rd Entry)

Bunn, Mike. “How to Read Like a Writer.” Writing Spaces: Readings on Writing, vol. 2, Parlor Press, 2011, pp. 71-86.

Bunn suggests that students should read with the perspective of the writer and analyze the writer’s textual decisions. He calls this "Reading Like a Writer" (RLW) which means not simply reading for information but for how it was written. He uses many examples to provide a better understanding of his RLW process. The text instructs students to identify specific choices the author made like word choice, tone, and sentence structure. He also makes suggestions for what guiding questions the reader could ask as they read. Bunn then shows us that his opening was all part of his master plan to make himself seem more familiar to the reader. Bunn’s goal is to help us be better writers. He compares this process to an architect studying a building's construction to learn how to build one for themselves. By identifying these structural choices, the reader gains a set of tools to use in their own writing.

I’m fond of the saying, a good artist copies and a great artist steals. I think Bunn would agree, because if we see writing we like, we should steal the methods of construction for our own writing. My thoughts while reading his essay drew me toward the concept of media literacy and analyzing what’s being said, by who, and how it’s being said. To be a reader that considers the text not just from the viewpoint of the writer but past the writer through multiple conventions requires slowing down and recognizing that every sentence is the result of deliberate choices. Bunn emphasizes that reading like a writer means examining how a text is built so we can understand the decisions behind it and apply similar strategies ourselves. This approach transforms reading from passive consumption into active investigation, where we ask why a certain example was used, why the tone shifts, or how structure guides our reaction as readers. Why did the author write like this, what might have influenced the author into writing this, and what effect is it meant to have on a specific audience? These questions encourage us to see writing as a craft rather than a mystery. Better understanding media literacy as a concept can also tremendously help us as writing students because it gives us the tools to evaluate rhetoric, context, and purpose. Ultimately, this awareness allows us to borrow effective techniques while still shaping them into our own voices and intentions. I would suggest studying media literacy further after reading this essay.

DasBender, Gita. “Critical Thinking in College Writing: From the Personal to the Academic.” Writing Spaces: Readings on Writing, vol. 2, Parlor Press, 2011, pp. 37-51.

DasBender defines critical thinking as the literal process of responding to and evaluating thoughts and ideas. It involves rational thinking and healthy skepticism. DasBender demonstrates this with a reading of Annie Dillard’s essay about a weasel. DasBender then takes their time to analyze different parts of the essay and ask deeper analytical questions of ‘why’. A deeper viewpoint begins to form, an accumulation of deeper evidence to support this viewpoint is found, or maybe not. Anyways, academic writing necessitates an evidence based approach even if that evidence is flimsy. One student example reveals Dillard's argument is fundamentally flawed because the expressive act of writing her essay requires the very human consciousness she suggests we abandon. The student example makes a strong argument that Dillard could not judge the weasel's life without the complex mind she critiques. Who knows though, I’m more an Albert Camus type, many viewpoints are plausible.

DasBender explicitly lists strategies to deepen this engagement, such as examining the writer's style or including a second text like a poem to enhance the primary reading. This implies that analysis is not a solitary act but a synthesis of multiple sources. The student example utilizes a quote from Cole to argue that calculated risk is actually more dangerous than doing nothing, which contradicts Dillard's praise of instinct. He uses the American Revolution as a concrete example, stating that if humans lived like weasels, the United States would still be a British colony. This moves the argument from abstract philosophy to concrete historical reality. DasBender uses this student work to show that a personal point of view does not need "I" statements but can exist as reflection. The student dismantling Dillard’s logic about memory is crucial here. Dillard claims we should "remember nothing," but the student counters that history is taught so we don't repeat mistakes. Without memory, we are just reacting, not living. DasBender ultimately argues that academic writing is about arriving at compelling conclusions through this exact type of scrutiny. It is a baton pass where the reader must finish the race. This perspective suggests that the "academic" is just the personal dressed up in better evidence. DasBender admits students feel like "strangers in a strange land," so this method is really just a map to navigate that discomfort. But really, isn't all writing just a form of manipulation? We convince others our view is the "universal" one. 

Rosenberg, Karen. "Reading Games: Strategies for Reading Scholarly Sources." Writing Spaces: Readings on Writing, vol. 2, Parlor Press, 2011, pp. 210-220. 

Rosenberg describes reading strategies for dissecting academic text and teasing out meaningful information. She recommends a philosophy of active engagement while reading, asking oneself rhetorical questions, and making it a social activity with others. Rosenberg also points out that the reader can break academic text down into parts, acting as a sort of writing architect. A focus on the title, abstract, introduction, headings, and conclusion can help the reader understand how these different parts help the overall idea being presented in the academic text. This works for academic texts because their common organization is shared throughout academia. And other practical considerations from Rosenberg includes identifying the key demographic audience that the reading is tailored to, questioning the purpose of the assignment, and finally understanding the argument of the piece will help you skim through unneeded sections of the text.

What strikes me most from Rosenberg’s suggestions is the philosophy behind enjoying the reading process, specifically, making reading a social activity. If we take her suggestions at face value, I do think it would make the reader much better at media literacy. Her point about understanding your place in the audience is of central importance. You're either the target audience for the reading piece or you're not. Making this distinction you should then be able to adjust your understanding to make more sense out of the readings. This involves recognizing that academic texts follow a predictable path rather than a linear narrative, allowing us to treat the work as a map to be navigated. Instead of a passive approach, Rosenberg encourages breaking the reading into its constituent parts: the abstract, introduction, and conclusion, to locate the "holy grail" of the main argument. Once this central thesis is identified, a student can decide which sections require deep focus and which can be quickly skimmed to save time. This architectural approach is effective when navigating specialized jargon or assumed prior knowledge that often makes scholarly work appear inaccessible. By focusing on the introduction and conclusion first to verify comprehension and uncovering the "shiny new thing" the author contributes to the field, the reader moves beyond confusion. Ultimately, these strategies transform reading from a difficult task into active participation in a larger scholarly conversation where you are encouraged to engage with peers. I agree with Rosenberg that these reading strategies are effective for becoming a better reader.