Summary:
In Deborah Brandt's article, "Sponsors of Literacy," she discusses how a person's literacy is shaped by circumstances and institutions that "sponsor" literacy, and that people do not just become literate. Brandt talks about sponsors in terms of typically older, more knowledgeable people who help others become literate, while gaining something themselves. She claims that literacy would not happen without sponsors. Brandt even uses the actual experiences of a few individuals to express how an individual's surroundings affects their literate potential.
Brandt also traces the history of literacy and how its demands and standards have become much higher throughout time. People are more dependent on it these days and are expected to do a lot more with their writing and reading.
Brandt's article reminded me of Stuart Greene's "Argument as Conversation." Brandt's article is basically explaining a never-ending chain; a domino effect. Literacy would not occur if it weren't for something else, and so on. Greene argued that arguments are like conversations between people; every argument is brought up by another argument or idea. It is an essentially similar idea, where there is a never-ending cause and effect.
Pre-reading:
The U.S. and my community has always encouraged reading and stressed it as something very important. We have always been told that the more we read, the better writers we will become and the larger our vocabulary will be. It has also always been stressed that good grammar and writing skills are crucial, and that reading will also help us with this. There have been book sales and fairs--basically anything to encourage students and younger children to pick up some books and read. This is even relative to adults, too. Adults can always acquire more knowledge from reading, as well as enjoyment. They can also always improve on their reading and writing skills.
Applying and Exploring Ideas:
1. My own literacy history was much different than the history of Branch and Lopez. My sponsors came form my school, my parents, siblings and other family members, church, and the media as well. All of these things surrounded my life and had a huge impact as they still do today. Much of what we learn comes from what we are taught and what we see and experience. We are not simply born and grow to be literate, we have to become it and learn from our sponsors, as Brandt says. I had a lot of support from my parents, as well as a lot of access to books and computers. All of these things have helped me with my literacy.
My thoughts:
Although I thought the topic of the article was interesting, I thought it was much too long. It was also at times confusing. It was kind of difficult to follow along and understand exactly what point Brandt was trying to make. She added politics into her writing quite a lot, which I did not understand. I realize that it had something to do with the literacy of the individuals she discussed, but it seemed a bit too dissimilar to me. Her idea of sponsorship ended up getting kind of lost, and I didn't really see how it fit into her examples. It doesn't make a lot of sense until it gets to the end of her article, where she explains more clearly what she was trying to say.
Sunday, September 30, 2012
Sunday, September 23, 2012
Reading Response #10 (Bryson)
Summary:
In the article "Good English and Bad" by Bill Bryson, the English language/usage and its complexities are explored, and discussed in regards to its Latin background. Bryson also gives much information about the history of the English language and explains how many people made proposals due to the desire to regulate English.
Bryson argues that there really is no "basis" for the English language and that, as a free language, the "rules" are not exactly 100% set in stone because no one has exactly made them. He claims that the "rules" are just opinions and beliefs of people from the past, which can then be in a way overlooked. Bryson's article explains the disagreements and arguments that people had and still have about usage in the English language. It is a very broad spectrum and everyone expresses different views and opinions about what is right and what is wrong.
Pre-reading:
1. When I think of bad English, I typically think about incorrect grammar. So many people have issues with grammar, and errors are seen everywhere. My mindset that it's "bad English" is because throughout school, I have been taught that incorrect grammar is "wrong" and "not okay." Teachers have always focused much on grammar and less on content. Their main goal always seemed to be to help students stray from a path of "bad" writing, as if the only way a student could be a "good" writer would be to have excellent spelling and punctuation. The reality, though, is that grammar has little to do with exceptional writing. However, I have been taught the opposite for years and am just learning that grammar should not be nearly as important as it has been sought out to be.
Questions for Discussion and Journaling:
3. prescriptive - of or relating to the imposition or enforcement of a rule or method
descriptive - assigning a quality rather than restricting the application of the expression modified
In the past, the only grammar instruction I ever really received had to do with spelling, punctuation, or definitions of terms. The usage and distinction between words as Bryson explains them was never taught to me or given much thought. I always just studied "correct" grammar and made sure I knew what certain words meant by their definitions in the dictionary. The only other usage I was taught was how to use certain words correctly in a sentence.
Applying and Exploring Ideas:
2. When Bryson says that English is fluid and democratic, he means that it can change any time and is a reflection of the way the society is speaking and communicating. Each person has a different say, a different opinion on what is grammatically correct or incorrect. People can basically decide these things on their own and do not necessarily always have to follow a set of rules, because no specific rules have been set. Things are the way they are simply because of the ways they have been used and communicated by others. Personally, I have seen many different styles of writing and learned that everyone uses terms in different ways. There is no one specific way of writing or English usage.
Meta Moment:
Parts of speech:
My thoughts:
I thought this article was very interesting. I enjoyed the beginning; it made me think twice about the English language and how terms we use every day are more than we think. However, I think that Bryson piled too much information in the article too quickly. It started off well, and then suddenly he threw a bunch of information out. It was at times hard to keep up with. I enjoyed the length though, and thought that--even with the excessive amount of information in such a short article--it was written well and given a bit more simplicity (instead of being dragged on and on).
This article compares to past articles we have read because it explores the English language and is a good example of conversation in writing, which has been a very important topic throughout the class so far.
In the article "Good English and Bad" by Bill Bryson, the English language/usage and its complexities are explored, and discussed in regards to its Latin background. Bryson also gives much information about the history of the English language and explains how many people made proposals due to the desire to regulate English.
Bryson argues that there really is no "basis" for the English language and that, as a free language, the "rules" are not exactly 100% set in stone because no one has exactly made them. He claims that the "rules" are just opinions and beliefs of people from the past, which can then be in a way overlooked. Bryson's article explains the disagreements and arguments that people had and still have about usage in the English language. It is a very broad spectrum and everyone expresses different views and opinions about what is right and what is wrong.
Pre-reading:
1. When I think of bad English, I typically think about incorrect grammar. So many people have issues with grammar, and errors are seen everywhere. My mindset that it's "bad English" is because throughout school, I have been taught that incorrect grammar is "wrong" and "not okay." Teachers have always focused much on grammar and less on content. Their main goal always seemed to be to help students stray from a path of "bad" writing, as if the only way a student could be a "good" writer would be to have excellent spelling and punctuation. The reality, though, is that grammar has little to do with exceptional writing. However, I have been taught the opposite for years and am just learning that grammar should not be nearly as important as it has been sought out to be.
Questions for Discussion and Journaling:
3. prescriptive - of or relating to the imposition or enforcement of a rule or method
descriptive - assigning a quality rather than restricting the application of the expression modified
In the past, the only grammar instruction I ever really received had to do with spelling, punctuation, or definitions of terms. The usage and distinction between words as Bryson explains them was never taught to me or given much thought. I always just studied "correct" grammar and made sure I knew what certain words meant by their definitions in the dictionary. The only other usage I was taught was how to use certain words correctly in a sentence.
Applying and Exploring Ideas:
2. When Bryson says that English is fluid and democratic, he means that it can change any time and is a reflection of the way the society is speaking and communicating. Each person has a different say, a different opinion on what is grammatically correct or incorrect. People can basically decide these things on their own and do not necessarily always have to follow a set of rules, because no specific rules have been set. Things are the way they are simply because of the ways they have been used and communicated by others. Personally, I have seen many different styles of writing and learned that everyone uses terms in different ways. There is no one specific way of writing or English usage.
Meta Moment:
Parts of speech:
- verbs
- nouns
- pronouns
- adjectives
- adverbs
- prepositions
- conjunctions
- interjections
I usually do not think about the parts of speech while I write; I simply write and make sure I have used the words correctly in my sentences. These parts of speech were taught to myself and my peers in school, but I found that as I got older, they were not so important as were the grammatical parts of the language and the correct usage. I do think that knowing the parts of speech and grammatical terms can help people write better because it provides for a better sense of meaning and knowing how to use certain terms in a sentence. Even though there are no set, exact "rules," certain things are just common sense because they have been communicated and used the same way in the English language and society for a very long period of time.
My thoughts:
I thought this article was very interesting. I enjoyed the beginning; it made me think twice about the English language and how terms we use every day are more than we think. However, I think that Bryson piled too much information in the article too quickly. It started off well, and then suddenly he threw a bunch of information out. It was at times hard to keep up with. I enjoyed the length though, and thought that--even with the excessive amount of information in such a short article--it was written well and given a bit more simplicity (instead of being dragged on and on).
This article compares to past articles we have read because it explores the English language and is a good example of conversation in writing, which has been a very important topic throughout the class so far.
Thursday, September 20, 2012
Project 1 Intro/Conversation
For long periods of time, any kind of personal writing within an academic
text has been looked down upon. Teachers have been teaching their students to
avoid the use of words such as I, me, you, we, us, they, they’re, their, and
other terms that show possession. These possessive terms suggest a much more
personal form of writing and one that is much more opinionated as well.
However, many rhetorical texts feed off of these personal opinions and ideas.
They are just written in a way that seem less opinion-oriented and are not as
obvious to readers. Rhetorical research papers are not limited to simply
looking up information and putting it into the paper as “evidence.” Many
articles have been written as arguments and conversations between the writer
and the audience. These arguments require the writer to look into different
perspectives and sides of a topic. The writer’s purpose is to argue their
point, and also discuss and detail other thoughts and ideas about the same
topic. They can show their own point of view without being nailed down to
something specific. Writers can even give both ideas a “winning” chance by
representing every idea in a positive way. They don’t argue that one idea is
“right” over another; they research opposing ideas to discover the argument in
a construct. The argument comes from past ideas and conversations. People come
up with ideas and viewpoints based on these past conversations and arguments
over a topic. Every argument is brought up by another argument.
The reality is that writers cannot avoid at least some kind of personal
writing within a text. Even if it is a research paper, research that is found
has most likely somehow been formed because of a past construct or idea of the
same or a similar matter. Writing, even in an academic setting, has personal
attributes and reflects certain values, virtues, and emotions. These types of
researched writings and argumentative texts tend to have some kind of effect on
its readers, whether it be emotional, logical, social, or even economical.
Overall, these effects are quite personal and any type of research has the
ability to create further arguments and conversation, which is what these texts
are within themselves.
Stuart Greene’s article, “Argument as Conversation: The Role of Inquiry
in Writing a Research Assignment,” explains some of these concepts according to
this particular writing construct. Greene’s focus lies on arguments and writing
in terms of conversations. He claims that “…you need to demonstrate to readers
that you understand the conversation: what others have said in the past, what
the context is, and what you anticipate is the direction this conversation
might take” (19).
In other words, context is everything. For example, in sociology, context is very
important and is viewed on very personal levels. Every person sees some kind of
behavioral or societal concept in a different way based on their own personal
experiences and their own culture in the society. This is similar in writing.
The difference being that the contexts are taken and formed into language to be
put into words, all for an audience to read, interpret, analyze, and think
about themselves. It is all very much provoked by thought and emotion. Context
is important in writing because for a successful conversation, a writer must
take on opposing views and try to understand the conflict at hand. The point is
not to know immediately what to research or to only research one aspect.
Truthfully, a writer or researcher finds out much new information during the
research process, learning more about the topic itself and discovering
completely new arguments that can cause even more debate and controversy. This
all has some kind of personal basis.
Donald Murray also discusses the concept of personality in writing with his article, “All Writing Is Autobiography.” He claims that, “…the texts we create in our own minds while we read—or just after we read—become part of the life we believe we lived.” Murray thinks that person experience plays a large role in reading and writing. People read and write what interests them or about things that they can relate to. A person would not read or write something they did not enjoy unless they were required to. People’s own lives typically revolve around what they choose to read and write during their time.
Donald Murray also discusses the concept of personality in writing with his article, “All Writing Is Autobiography.” He claims that, “…the texts we create in our own minds while we read—or just after we read—become part of the life we believe we lived.” Murray thinks that person experience plays a large role in reading and writing. People read and write what interests them or about things that they can relate to. A person would not read or write something they did not enjoy unless they were required to. People’s own lives typically revolve around what they choose to read and write during their time.
Voice is another term that can be used with this writing construct. Peter
Elbow writes about voice in his article, “Voice in Writing Again: Embracing Contraries.”
Voice is a clear expression of who we are in our writing. With the person
elements through voice, Elbow also discusses the importance of “embracing
contraries” and thinking about both sides to something. Two opposing views can
have a very personal basis and reasoning, which can be connected with our own
voices in writing.
Tuesday, September 18, 2012
Reading Response #9
Summary:
In "Seeing the Text" by Stephen Bernhardt, text as far as in the visual form is discussed. Bernhardt talks about parts of a text such as margins, spacing, white spaces, font, headings, etc. and how they affect a reader and how they see/read a text. He explains the importance of knowing who the audience is and making sure to write in a way that appeals to them.
This reading compares specifically to McCloud's article because of McCloud's argument toward the importance of symbols and images to make an effective argument. Bernhardt is making a very similar argument, only in a more textual sense.
Pre-reading:
Look at text heavy advertisement. Analyze how the text is working in conjunction with the image. Where are you most drawn? Does the image emphasize the text, or does the text emphasize the image? Write out your thoughts.
In a text heavy advertisement, the text emphasizes the image. Your eyes are drawn to the text, and then the image. The point of the text is to advertise the image and make a statement.
Questions for Discussion and Journaling:
4. I believe that I am supposed to write an essay that follows a specific format because throughout school, that is what I have been taught. Whether it be a research paper or some other kind of writing assignment, teachers have each wanted specific formats and ways to organize each writing. It was very repetitive, and also nonnegotiable. No one could really argue against formatting, because we each had to do what we were told as far as the format of what we wrote.
Applying and Exploring Ideas:
1. In high school, there were occasional presentations. In these presentations, we could present our writing and our findings through images and other visual representations. We could make large headings and format things the way we wanted, in order to capture the audience. These were definitely different than the typical essay and research paper formats. In the future, I can consider headings, spacing, and other visual aspects to make my writing more appealing to an audience.
After You Read:
Scott McCloud would have represented Bernhardt's argument by using his own icons or images as symbols and a way of conversation with readers. McCloud understands the effectiveness of images in order to present an argument, and would be able to better represent Bernhardt's argument through the use of such imagery.
Meta Moment:
I think that is extremely important to think about the visual aspects of a text when writing research papers. Whatever format that the paper must be in--such as MLA, for example--the writer must consider the criteria for the format and exactly how the paper must be set up. The spacing, font type, font size, headings, etc. are all very important parts of a research paper. Slight errors in formatting can be a big problem to someone who is reading/grading a research paper. I think that the first paper in this course calls for a lot of thinking about the presentation. Not only because it needs to be correctly formatted, but also because each of our constructs must be deeply considered as far as how each side sees it. We must think of perspectives and see what others see according to the topic. We are exploring every side to the argument, which requires us to interpret more visually, and to make sure we present our constructs in our paper in an effective manner.
My thoughts:
When I read the framing of the reading, I thought the reading would be very interesting and talk about communication and reading through images, etc. However, it mostly seemed to talk about margins and the way sentences and paragraphs were organized on a page. When I noticed this, I quickly lost interest in the reading. Also, I understood Bernhardt's reason for talking about The Great Lakes Notebook in detail, but at the same time, I feel like there was a lot of unnecessary information about it and he discussed it too much.
In "Seeing the Text" by Stephen Bernhardt, text as far as in the visual form is discussed. Bernhardt talks about parts of a text such as margins, spacing, white spaces, font, headings, etc. and how they affect a reader and how they see/read a text. He explains the importance of knowing who the audience is and making sure to write in a way that appeals to them.
This reading compares specifically to McCloud's article because of McCloud's argument toward the importance of symbols and images to make an effective argument. Bernhardt is making a very similar argument, only in a more textual sense.
Pre-reading:
Look at text heavy advertisement. Analyze how the text is working in conjunction with the image. Where are you most drawn? Does the image emphasize the text, or does the text emphasize the image? Write out your thoughts.
In a text heavy advertisement, the text emphasizes the image. Your eyes are drawn to the text, and then the image. The point of the text is to advertise the image and make a statement.
Questions for Discussion and Journaling:
4. I believe that I am supposed to write an essay that follows a specific format because throughout school, that is what I have been taught. Whether it be a research paper or some other kind of writing assignment, teachers have each wanted specific formats and ways to organize each writing. It was very repetitive, and also nonnegotiable. No one could really argue against formatting, because we each had to do what we were told as far as the format of what we wrote.
Applying and Exploring Ideas:
1. In high school, there were occasional presentations. In these presentations, we could present our writing and our findings through images and other visual representations. We could make large headings and format things the way we wanted, in order to capture the audience. These were definitely different than the typical essay and research paper formats. In the future, I can consider headings, spacing, and other visual aspects to make my writing more appealing to an audience.
After You Read:
Scott McCloud would have represented Bernhardt's argument by using his own icons or images as symbols and a way of conversation with readers. McCloud understands the effectiveness of images in order to present an argument, and would be able to better represent Bernhardt's argument through the use of such imagery.
Meta Moment:
I think that is extremely important to think about the visual aspects of a text when writing research papers. Whatever format that the paper must be in--such as MLA, for example--the writer must consider the criteria for the format and exactly how the paper must be set up. The spacing, font type, font size, headings, etc. are all very important parts of a research paper. Slight errors in formatting can be a big problem to someone who is reading/grading a research paper. I think that the first paper in this course calls for a lot of thinking about the presentation. Not only because it needs to be correctly formatted, but also because each of our constructs must be deeply considered as far as how each side sees it. We must think of perspectives and see what others see according to the topic. We are exploring every side to the argument, which requires us to interpret more visually, and to make sure we present our constructs in our paper in an effective manner.
My thoughts:
When I read the framing of the reading, I thought the reading would be very interesting and talk about communication and reading through images, etc. However, it mostly seemed to talk about margins and the way sentences and paragraphs were organized on a page. When I noticed this, I quickly lost interest in the reading. Also, I understood Bernhardt's reason for talking about The Great Lakes Notebook in detail, but at the same time, I feel like there was a lot of unnecessary information about it and he discussed it too much.
Sunday, September 16, 2012
Reading Response #8
Summary:
In the article "Intertextuality and the Discourse Community" by James Porter, the concepts of plagiarism and originality are given a deeper outlook and challenged by Porter's own thoughts and beliefs. Porter uses the Declaration of Independence to shape his ideas. He argues about how Jefferson is considered the author of the Declaration and that it is thought of as completely original, when truthfully, Jefferson retrieved ideas from other theorists and people of his time in order to create the Declaration. Also, Congress made many changes to the Declaration and revised it. Porter also discusses discourse communities, which by his definition is "a group of individuals bound by a common interest who communicate through approved channels and whose discourse is regulated" (91). He claims how only certain things are appropriate and acceptable within these communities when it comes to a text.
Porter's article is similar to past articles we have read because it outlines common conceptions and misconceptions in writing and talks about constructs, which has been a large part of this class. Plagiarism is a construct we have talked about before, and is one of the main topics of Porter's article.
Pre-reading:
Questions for Discussion and Journaling:
4. Prior to reading Porter's article, I assumed that writing should be evaluated through more of an opinionated stance. Also, considering how my writing has been evaluated in the past, I assumed that it should be looked at for grammatical correctness.
5. Porter's own work reflects his ideas pretty well. He uses others' ideas and cites examples from other works to portray the message he is trying to get across to readers. Porter is still using his own words, but he is also gathering information from others to form his writing into a new context and make a slightly different meaning of it.
Applying and Exploring Ideas:
2. If I were to rewrite the plagiarism policy, I would make it so that students would be allowed to use others' ideas to form their own ideas, as long as they give credit to those who's sources they use and cite specific sources. This is similar to the current plagiarism policies, but the policy I have written would allow more freedom and breathing room.
Meta Moment:
Anyone can become a true "writer." Porter's study has not really changed the way I have always seen writers and writing. I consider myself a writer, and as a writer I know that there are many different angles and processes to it. It has a lot of meanings. It isn't necessarily someone who just sits down to get ideas into print. It is much deeper than that.
My thoughts:
I really enjoyed the subject of this article. I liked Porter's discussion on the Declaration of Independence and the research he did. He did a good job of providing examples to support his argument. I personally agreed with what he had to say. I think that at least some plagiarism is unavoidable. The English language is used very widely. It is impossible to not use the same words as someone else in something at some point in time. Our own personal thoughts and ideas throughout our lives have arisen because of a past thought or idea. I believe that as long as someone still uses their own words and doesn't copy a text completely and make it look like their own writing, as well as provide citations and credit, it should not be considered plagiarism. It should be okay for someone to use past ideas and texts to construct their own thoughts. If we agree on something someone has said and it provokes something in us, of course we are going to use it as a means of explaining why we agree with it and believe the same thing. It is simply not possible to construct 100% original ideas and words, because they have without a doubt been used at some point in time before us.
On another note, I got a little bit confused when he began to talk about discourse communities and his section titled, "The Pedagogy of Intertextuality." I didn't exactly understand what he was trying to say or how it associated with his ideas about plagiarism and originality within a text.
In the article "Intertextuality and the Discourse Community" by James Porter, the concepts of plagiarism and originality are given a deeper outlook and challenged by Porter's own thoughts and beliefs. Porter uses the Declaration of Independence to shape his ideas. He argues about how Jefferson is considered the author of the Declaration and that it is thought of as completely original, when truthfully, Jefferson retrieved ideas from other theorists and people of his time in order to create the Declaration. Also, Congress made many changes to the Declaration and revised it. Porter also discusses discourse communities, which by his definition is "a group of individuals bound by a common interest who communicate through approved channels and whose discourse is regulated" (91). He claims how only certain things are appropriate and acceptable within these communities when it comes to a text.
Porter's article is similar to past articles we have read because it outlines common conceptions and misconceptions in writing and talks about constructs, which has been a large part of this class. Plagiarism is a construct we have talked about before, and is one of the main topics of Porter's article.
Pre-reading:
- Write a paragraph on what, in your mind, the difference between an author and a writer is. When would you choose the first term to describe the person/people behind a text, and when would you choose the second?
In my mind, an author is someone who tells some kind of story, and a writer is someone who uses the written language and words to construct some type of meaning in a text. To describe the person/people behind a text, I would choose author in situations where the person writing is trying to make some kind of argument or tell a story. I would choose writer in mostly all situations. An author is also a writer. No matter what the text, whoever constructed the words is the writer.
Questions for Discussion and Journaling:
4. Prior to reading Porter's article, I assumed that writing should be evaluated through more of an opinionated stance. Also, considering how my writing has been evaluated in the past, I assumed that it should be looked at for grammatical correctness.
5. Porter's own work reflects his ideas pretty well. He uses others' ideas and cites examples from other works to portray the message he is trying to get across to readers. Porter is still using his own words, but he is also gathering information from others to form his writing into a new context and make a slightly different meaning of it.
Applying and Exploring Ideas:
2. If I were to rewrite the plagiarism policy, I would make it so that students would be allowed to use others' ideas to form their own ideas, as long as they give credit to those who's sources they use and cite specific sources. This is similar to the current plagiarism policies, but the policy I have written would allow more freedom and breathing room.
Meta Moment:
Anyone can become a true "writer." Porter's study has not really changed the way I have always seen writers and writing. I consider myself a writer, and as a writer I know that there are many different angles and processes to it. It has a lot of meanings. It isn't necessarily someone who just sits down to get ideas into print. It is much deeper than that.
My thoughts:
I really enjoyed the subject of this article. I liked Porter's discussion on the Declaration of Independence and the research he did. He did a good job of providing examples to support his argument. I personally agreed with what he had to say. I think that at least some plagiarism is unavoidable. The English language is used very widely. It is impossible to not use the same words as someone else in something at some point in time. Our own personal thoughts and ideas throughout our lives have arisen because of a past thought or idea. I believe that as long as someone still uses their own words and doesn't copy a text completely and make it look like their own writing, as well as provide citations and credit, it should not be considered plagiarism. It should be okay for someone to use past ideas and texts to construct their own thoughts. If we agree on something someone has said and it provokes something in us, of course we are going to use it as a means of explaining why we agree with it and believe the same thing. It is simply not possible to construct 100% original ideas and words, because they have without a doubt been used at some point in time before us.
On another note, I got a little bit confused when he began to talk about discourse communities and his section titled, "The Pedagogy of Intertextuality." I didn't exactly understand what he was trying to say or how it associated with his ideas about plagiarism and originality within a text.
Thursday, September 13, 2012
Reading Response #7
Summary:
In Peter Elbow's article, "Voice in Writing Again: Embracing Contraries," Elbow discusses the importance of voice in writing and all of the misconceptions about it. Voice is a reflection of our personal selves. However, some skeptics have believed that voice can be used by skillful people to trick others to think they are a certain way, when really they are not. Elbow tries to point out his belief that one approach should not be used; you should pay attention to voice, but on the contrary, also "push away" voice. Elbow tries to get the audience to understand that voice--not only spoken, but written--should be heard.
This article compares to past articles we have read because of its strong focus on rhetoric and student writing. The majority, if not all, of the articles we read have been based on academic writing and trying to give college students a better grasp on writing skills and concepts. Elbow's article is no different. He wants students to get hold of the concept of voice and use it in a positive way, as well as a contrasting point of view.
Pre-reading:
2. Teachers from my past have seemed to outlaw the use of writing "I" to make a paper as impersonal and as "factual" as possible. My writings would be much different if I were able to use "I." They would be much more personal. I feel like my writings would be better because I would really be able to put myself into the paper and give it more meaning, instead of it simply being about facts and the "truth." Using first person would certainly be a different approach, but I personally think it would be a better approach. I could use my own experience and thoughts to add to the paper and make it much more interesting.
Questions for Discussion and Journaling:
1. I define "voice" as bringing personality into writing and expressing yourself through words, even through completely different perspectives. For example, you could write about almost anything, and still have a voice. You are still expressing a somewhat personal side of yourself, even if it is unintentional. Elbow seems to have various definitions for voice. He delves far into the term and analyzes the different meanings it could have. The way I define voice is certainly similar to one of the ways he views voice, but he views it in many other ways as well.
3. When Elbow is discussing his own writing as well as the larger conversation on voice, he seems to begin contrasting his previous ideas about voice. However, as he says in his article, it is important to pay attention to voice, while also expressing a contrasting view. He discusses his own writing and metaphors and shows what he disagrees on.
Applying and Exploring Ideas:
1. Sincerity: a single voice that gives meaning and personality to a piece of writing and is an expression/reflection of oneself
Resonance: an addition to a piece of writing that gives it a little extra "something" and makes it more special and more enjoyable
2. When you listen to a passage rather than read it silently, you get a better understanding of it. Whoever is reading the passage can give it that certain tone or voice that makes you really listen and take in its meaning. Reading silently can make it hard to understand a passage because it is hard to associate each word with a voice. It has a sort of monotone, which makes an especially long piece drag on, and lose its meaning. I think that longer, more complicated pieces should be listened to so that a tone can be established.
Meta Moment:
It's initially hard to understand Elbow's contrasting views on voice while he has a disagreement when it comes to compromise. However, when he says, "it's a method of letting each side lose as little as possible," (50) his point makes a little more sense.
When contrasting views on voice, it is important to allow a lot of breathing room. A compromise doesn't allow much breathing room at all. Compromising is a means of excusing two different sides for what they are. It's like saying "it's okay" that two opposite views are "this" or "that" way, without really explaining or analyzing it further. Contrasting should give each side reasons as to why it is viewed that way and leave more room for agreement/disagreement. Each side should be seen as a sort of "truth." Not literally, but metaphorically. It should be viewed as the "winning" side, in a sense. If you expressed two different views, and then began to compromise on those views, both sides would lose a lot of their resonance and meaning. Conflict is actually crucial.
My thoughts:
I thought that the article was well-written. I liked the subject matter, but it was kind of hard to really "get into it" because of the length. It seemed to go on and on about the same thing, and the point Elbow was trying to make came about quite slowly. He tends to jump around between different ideas and concepts, which confused me. It wasn't always easy to understand what he wanted to get across to readers. However, I liked the times when he used music and musical terms as metaphors and ways to describe voice.
In Peter Elbow's article, "Voice in Writing Again: Embracing Contraries," Elbow discusses the importance of voice in writing and all of the misconceptions about it. Voice is a reflection of our personal selves. However, some skeptics have believed that voice can be used by skillful people to trick others to think they are a certain way, when really they are not. Elbow tries to point out his belief that one approach should not be used; you should pay attention to voice, but on the contrary, also "push away" voice. Elbow tries to get the audience to understand that voice--not only spoken, but written--should be heard.
This article compares to past articles we have read because of its strong focus on rhetoric and student writing. The majority, if not all, of the articles we read have been based on academic writing and trying to give college students a better grasp on writing skills and concepts. Elbow's article is no different. He wants students to get hold of the concept of voice and use it in a positive way, as well as a contrasting point of view.
Pre-reading:
2. Teachers from my past have seemed to outlaw the use of writing "I" to make a paper as impersonal and as "factual" as possible. My writings would be much different if I were able to use "I." They would be much more personal. I feel like my writings would be better because I would really be able to put myself into the paper and give it more meaning, instead of it simply being about facts and the "truth." Using first person would certainly be a different approach, but I personally think it would be a better approach. I could use my own experience and thoughts to add to the paper and make it much more interesting.
Questions for Discussion and Journaling:
1. I define "voice" as bringing personality into writing and expressing yourself through words, even through completely different perspectives. For example, you could write about almost anything, and still have a voice. You are still expressing a somewhat personal side of yourself, even if it is unintentional. Elbow seems to have various definitions for voice. He delves far into the term and analyzes the different meanings it could have. The way I define voice is certainly similar to one of the ways he views voice, but he views it in many other ways as well.
3. When Elbow is discussing his own writing as well as the larger conversation on voice, he seems to begin contrasting his previous ideas about voice. However, as he says in his article, it is important to pay attention to voice, while also expressing a contrasting view. He discusses his own writing and metaphors and shows what he disagrees on.
Applying and Exploring Ideas:
1. Sincerity: a single voice that gives meaning and personality to a piece of writing and is an expression/reflection of oneself
Resonance: an addition to a piece of writing that gives it a little extra "something" and makes it more special and more enjoyable
2. When you listen to a passage rather than read it silently, you get a better understanding of it. Whoever is reading the passage can give it that certain tone or voice that makes you really listen and take in its meaning. Reading silently can make it hard to understand a passage because it is hard to associate each word with a voice. It has a sort of monotone, which makes an especially long piece drag on, and lose its meaning. I think that longer, more complicated pieces should be listened to so that a tone can be established.
Meta Moment:
It's initially hard to understand Elbow's contrasting views on voice while he has a disagreement when it comes to compromise. However, when he says, "it's a method of letting each side lose as little as possible," (50) his point makes a little more sense.
When contrasting views on voice, it is important to allow a lot of breathing room. A compromise doesn't allow much breathing room at all. Compromising is a means of excusing two different sides for what they are. It's like saying "it's okay" that two opposite views are "this" or "that" way, without really explaining or analyzing it further. Contrasting should give each side reasons as to why it is viewed that way and leave more room for agreement/disagreement. Each side should be seen as a sort of "truth." Not literally, but metaphorically. It should be viewed as the "winning" side, in a sense. If you expressed two different views, and then began to compromise on those views, both sides would lose a lot of their resonance and meaning. Conflict is actually crucial.
My thoughts:
I thought that the article was well-written. I liked the subject matter, but it was kind of hard to really "get into it" because of the length. It seemed to go on and on about the same thing, and the point Elbow was trying to make came about quite slowly. He tends to jump around between different ideas and concepts, which confused me. It wasn't always easy to understand what he wanted to get across to readers. However, I liked the times when he used music and musical terms as metaphors and ways to describe voice.
Tuesday, September 11, 2012
Reading Response #6
Summary:
In the piece "Decisions and Revisions: The Planning Strategies of a Publishing Writer" by Carol Berkenkotter, she begins by talking about Donald Murray and reliving a memory of seeing him write. Berkenkotter states how she came to realize that all writers have a unique process of writing, and that their settings are all different and should be paid close attention to. She begins a research study with Murray as her subject. Berkenkotter's purpose is to learn more about the planning and revising of professional, skilled writers. She describes her results and discusses Murray's own thoughts, writings, and troubles with his writings. She brings up the concept of "reconceiving" that Murray made, which is a collaboration between planning and revising.
In "Response of a Laboratory Rat--or, Being Protocoled" by Donald Murray, he uses a numbering system to organize his thoughts and ideas. He talks about typically the same ideas that Berkenkotter expressed, only in his own words and perspective (since it is coming from himself). He describes and relives his moments with Carol Berkenkotter as the writer and researcher who was observing him, and also motivating him.
Pre-reading:
Questions for Discussion and Journaling:
1. To me, it seemed that Murray had a lot of difficulty at times with his writing processes. It sounded very complicated. There were many different parts to the process and required a lot of time and effort. In my writing processes, I don't think nearly as much or plan and revise as much as Murray does or as Berkenkotter describes. I didn't realize that it required so much planning and revising.
5. Berkenkotter refers to Murray as "the writer" because that is exactly what he is. He is the writer that she is studying and using as part of her research study on cognitive writing processes. Murray refers to Berkenkotter as "the researcher" because she is conducting this specific research. Using their names wouldn't have the same effect on the audience as "writer" and "researcher" do. Using those terms allows the audience to get a strong sense on the roles Berkenkotter and Murray are playing and the purpose of the research study itself.
Meta Moment:
From the Berkenkotter and Murray readings, I learned that is important to put a lot of time and effort into the writing process and deeply think about. I can improve my writing and write more effectively if I use these concepts and spend time planning, and then revising afterward.
My thoughts:
I thought it was strange yet interesting that this work was basically two pieces of writing in one. It was definitely a unique method. I think it worked well, though, considering how Berkenkotter's "main character" in her article was Murray himself, and it was then followed by Murray's own piece. Her discussion of Murray's processes and his thoughts and ideas helped me to understand Murray's writing a little bit better. However, as far as Berkenkotter's article goes, it was kind of difficult to understand. It seemed to jump around a lot between her own thoughts and then Murray's writing and the concepts of planning and revising. It was unclear to me exactly what point she was trying to get across to the audience. I enjoyed reading Murray's piece because he explained his thoughts exactly and organized it well. It was easy to read and understand.
These articles compare to past articles we have read because the purpose is to inform the audience and help teach more complicated writing skills to improve writing and research.
In the piece "Decisions and Revisions: The Planning Strategies of a Publishing Writer" by Carol Berkenkotter, she begins by talking about Donald Murray and reliving a memory of seeing him write. Berkenkotter states how she came to realize that all writers have a unique process of writing, and that their settings are all different and should be paid close attention to. She begins a research study with Murray as her subject. Berkenkotter's purpose is to learn more about the planning and revising of professional, skilled writers. She describes her results and discusses Murray's own thoughts, writings, and troubles with his writings. She brings up the concept of "reconceiving" that Murray made, which is a collaboration between planning and revising.
In "Response of a Laboratory Rat--or, Being Protocoled" by Donald Murray, he uses a numbering system to organize his thoughts and ideas. He talks about typically the same ideas that Berkenkotter expressed, only in his own words and perspective (since it is coming from himself). He describes and relives his moments with Carol Berkenkotter as the writer and researcher who was observing him, and also motivating him.
Pre-reading:
- Consider whether you have any writing rituals. For example, do you have to have a cup of coffee while you write? Do you need to write on paper before typing? Do you have to take a nap or clean the house?
I don't really have any specific writing rituals. Usually, all I need is inspiration and I can type for the longest time, going on and on. I also need a relaxing place to write. It doesn't have to be completely quiet, though, because I can zone out and really focus on my writing.
Questions for Discussion and Journaling:
1. To me, it seemed that Murray had a lot of difficulty at times with his writing processes. It sounded very complicated. There were many different parts to the process and required a lot of time and effort. In my writing processes, I don't think nearly as much or plan and revise as much as Murray does or as Berkenkotter describes. I didn't realize that it required so much planning and revising.
5. Berkenkotter refers to Murray as "the writer" because that is exactly what he is. He is the writer that she is studying and using as part of her research study on cognitive writing processes. Murray refers to Berkenkotter as "the researcher" because she is conducting this specific research. Using their names wouldn't have the same effect on the audience as "writer" and "researcher" do. Using those terms allows the audience to get a strong sense on the roles Berkenkotter and Murray are playing and the purpose of the research study itself.
Meta Moment:
From the Berkenkotter and Murray readings, I learned that is important to put a lot of time and effort into the writing process and deeply think about. I can improve my writing and write more effectively if I use these concepts and spend time planning, and then revising afterward.
My thoughts:
I thought it was strange yet interesting that this work was basically two pieces of writing in one. It was definitely a unique method. I think it worked well, though, considering how Berkenkotter's "main character" in her article was Murray himself, and it was then followed by Murray's own piece. Her discussion of Murray's processes and his thoughts and ideas helped me to understand Murray's writing a little bit better. However, as far as Berkenkotter's article goes, it was kind of difficult to understand. It seemed to jump around a lot between her own thoughts and then Murray's writing and the concepts of planning and revising. It was unclear to me exactly what point she was trying to get across to the audience. I enjoyed reading Murray's piece because he explained his thoughts exactly and organized it well. It was easy to read and understand.
These articles compare to past articles we have read because the purpose is to inform the audience and help teach more complicated writing skills to improve writing and research.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)