When Miller was discussing how genres are formed, she basically said that there are similarities that are drawn from the text. The similarities can be in the way they draw the audience, the tone with which they're spoken, the language that's used, the tropes and rhetorical tools that are used (ethos, pathos, logos), and the way it effects a community of people to act on social situations. "Since 'rhetorical forms that establish genres are stylistic and substantive responses to perceived situational demands,' a genre becomes a complex of formal substantive features that create a particular effect in a given situation." (p. 153) Based on this statement, I think the easiest way to note that Daniel's project is a criticism is by the content she provides within it. In the actual project itself, she has compiled it so that every bulletin you come across is a personal statement from an inmate who has been mistreated or felt particularly alienated from the situation they're in. You can also tell it's a criticism based on the introductory recording that is first played as you enter the project's website. From Miller's drawings on what makes a genre, Daniel's project can be placed in the category of criticism because she is trying to make an argument against a certain group and offering evidence to support her argument.
What's problematic for me in this project though, is the actual language she uses. Throughout reading her statements and going through her project, I kept thinking, "Well, these women have done something to be put in jail in the first place. Why should I be sympathetic for them?"For me, her critical language was unresolvable and wasn't substantiated enough. I felt like she didn't offer any remedies for the problems that she was trying to address. But then, if she had offered suggestions for fixing the jail system, would her project and essay still remain in the same genre? Or would it's purpose completely change, as well as the format and genre?