The articles by Wysocki and Jamieson got me thinking a lot about just how influential one's station is on individual perception. We've read and talked a bunch about the communicative abilities of rhetors and how diverse understanding of a text or subject can be. Wysocki and Jamieson give us some pretty specific instances of what goes into these various interpretations, each stemming from a specific social platform.
Applying some of the concepts scattered about The Sticky Embrace of Beauty was a little difficult at first, but there were a few points I found interesting. Wysocki breaks down the power of the center and unites her readers with their root of understanding. In reference to Arnheim and in response to his statement this idea is egocentric, Wysocki writes, "anyone who regards the world visually (through a sight that is 'spontaneous') makes sense of the world and of human artifacts primarily by 'reserv[ing] to the self the largest possible share of the power to organize the surroundings around itself at the center'" (157). One's perception is born as a product and in response to their surroundings. In a social context, people's own environments are individualized based on this relationship. Future comprehension, decision, application, etc. are thus largely influenced by such anterior factors. Of course there are other factors to consider, though the entire nature vs. nurture debate, for example, could fall under this center argument. How a person is raised is a part of their environment. Their beliefs, ideals, lifestyle choices, and plain functional abilities are but natural responses. I feel like a lot of what Wysocki implies could be easily contested due to its vague nature, but I like the idea that people literally see the world through their own eyes. Though it may be relatable to others, my perception is my own.
Jamieson applies these ideas of individual perception to different parts of the social realm, focusing primarily on gender differentiation. Whether they are so different seems to be the recurring discussion throughout. Modern politics is always a fun subject to throw into a debate, so Jamieson does just that. I was happy to see the author refuting the idea women are too emotional for politics, additionally putting a positive spin on the value of impassioned candidates. The author writes, "[e]ven in campaigns in which issue distinctions are clear, men and women alike consider personal evaluations of candidates as important or more important than their stands on issues" (809). These people present themselves as worthy enough to represent the whole of society so they should look the part. Personality, physical presentation and speaking ability are essential factors in winning votes no matter what their actual views are. How a candidate is perceived is everything. The hard part is satisfying those perceptions that make up the majority of the voting public. Jamieson's article helps to prove just enough flare can win elections and what was once deemed as irrational public discourse is actually playing quite a role in conquering audiences.
Below is a link to an article discussing audience reaction to political advertisements for both male and female candidates in consideration of their specific presentation to voters and how appearance is everything.
http://crx.sagepub.com.proxybz.lib.montana.edu/content/22/4/430.full.pdf+html
Monday, November 11, 2013
Wednesday, October 30, 2013
Page to Screen
This week's readings by Johnson-Eilola and Kohl brought up a number of interesting points, but more specifically focused on an idea we have been following since the beginning of the semester. The idea being the evolution of writing in our society and the overall shift in the paradigm. I noticed these articles tended to lean more towards the negative aspects of writing's progressive move from page to screen. The author's were less excited about the effects of the digital revolution and more worried about the status of lone authorship and intellectual property. I couldn't help but agree with a lot of what was pointed out, but I can't help but prefer the modern forms of writing that have presented themselves in the last few decades and continue to develop. On that note, a couple of engaging ideas really piqued my interest.
In their analysis of collaborative media and inclusion of the Wiki examples, Kohl and his associates stated "texts on the internet no longer appear static, but rather as dynamic forms of writing, [...] they must be understood and analyzed as writing processes and less as final works." (171). If we think about the abundance of public forums found online, we can see just how often this collaborative writing style is in effect at nearly every turn in hyperspace. Wikipedia is the most obvious example, but it is also probably the most widely used. Users can actually go in and edit text, even html, to alter the appearance of each page without the consent of the previous author. Wikipedia is by no means the most legitimate source of information, but it is a quick reference that almost everyone uses for some reason. Edited information can be quickly flagged, but it can also go unnoticed. Web forums like these have the ability to alter information, putting falsities into the cyber universe that many people have the option to call upon. Using Wikipedia is a bit of a catch-22 because it isn't a valid source, but people still log on to get what they think is correct information on a subject. It's on my favorites bar between Gmail and MSU. I am guilty of believing what I read without proper source checking, as so many are. Online databases through academic and professional institutions have helped this issue by including detailed references with the texts they make available. Johnson-Eilola, in his discussion legislation regarding online databases, suggests amendments of these bills "point toward a society in which writing as we know it is no longer the premier textuality" (209). I for one am glad we are going digital, regardless of the problems that arise with the transfer. Maybe I'm just a lazy college student who doesn't like to carry around large volumes and hates waiting in line at the library to print. I think the positives of the shift from paper to screen outweighs its negatives.
Here's an interesting article on why Wikipedia ain't so bad. Reading this, I still don't feel comfortable using it as a source, but accept it to be at least a little more legitimate.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/40503515.pdf?acceptTC=true&acceptTC=true&jpdConfirm=true
In their analysis of collaborative media and inclusion of the Wiki examples, Kohl and his associates stated "texts on the internet no longer appear static, but rather as dynamic forms of writing, [...] they must be understood and analyzed as writing processes and less as final works." (171). If we think about the abundance of public forums found online, we can see just how often this collaborative writing style is in effect at nearly every turn in hyperspace. Wikipedia is the most obvious example, but it is also probably the most widely used. Users can actually go in and edit text, even html, to alter the appearance of each page without the consent of the previous author. Wikipedia is by no means the most legitimate source of information, but it is a quick reference that almost everyone uses for some reason. Edited information can be quickly flagged, but it can also go unnoticed. Web forums like these have the ability to alter information, putting falsities into the cyber universe that many people have the option to call upon. Using Wikipedia is a bit of a catch-22 because it isn't a valid source, but people still log on to get what they think is correct information on a subject. It's on my favorites bar between Gmail and MSU. I am guilty of believing what I read without proper source checking, as so many are. Online databases through academic and professional institutions have helped this issue by including detailed references with the texts they make available. Johnson-Eilola, in his discussion legislation regarding online databases, suggests amendments of these bills "point toward a society in which writing as we know it is no longer the premier textuality" (209). I for one am glad we are going digital, regardless of the problems that arise with the transfer. Maybe I'm just a lazy college student who doesn't like to carry around large volumes and hates waiting in line at the library to print. I think the positives of the shift from paper to screen outweighs its negatives.
Here's an interesting article on why Wikipedia ain't so bad. Reading this, I still don't feel comfortable using it as a source, but accept it to be at least a little more legitimate.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/40503515.pdf?acceptTC=true&acceptTC=true&jpdConfirm=true
Thursday, October 24, 2013
Monday, October 21, 2013
#Punctuation
Although this week's reading was minimal, Solomon's discussion of the importance of punctuation and font ties in a lot of themes from the previous readings--as I'm sure it is meant to. In my last blog post, I wondered why Times New Roman somehow became the standard font across multiple platform in and outside the walls of academia. While Solomon didn't exactly answer this question for me, he did reassure to me the fact font, as well as punctuation, have their purpose within printed composition. Being able to write and type for so many years now, it was interesting to read about the utilities of such basic symbols we use every time we pick up a pen or get on Microsoft Word. The main point of Solomon's article came with his closing assertion, "[w]hether prominent or subtle, punctuation marks are the heartbeat of typography, moving words along in proper timing and with proper emphasis" (289). When we compose certain texts, we want to be able to set the pace and have some sense of control over how the content is to be perceived. Every author has his or her individual style that elucidates this fact, often setting them apart from comparable writers. For instance, when I write a paper for a class, or even short responses, I like to use dashes to include additional thoughts complimentary to the main subject of the sentence. The reason I rarely use the dash in blogger is because I can't figure out how to do it. Word does it automatically for me, where most online forums do not. And why is it automatic on Word and nowhere else? Who is making these decisions? It's actually quite maddening. I've never been a fan of using commas in this instance, because it just doesn't feel like the point is really being driven home. I also can't stand using semi-colons. They're ugly to me on page and screen. This may seem ridiculous to every other person in this class, but this is the preference and stylistic deviation I am talking about. We all have them, even though we probably never think about it. I feel like Solomon's article starts many discussions of similar grandeur. They might not seem so essential, but have the ability to educate the author and reader on the role of punctuation and about what makes his or her voices unique in such a broad field.
Surfing the web, I found an article in regard to the history of some of our most famous punctuation marks. It's interesting to see the development of these symbols from their origins to how they are being used now. I really liked the part about the pound sign or hash tag (#). Who knew the internationally recognized symbol for Twitter used to designate a pound weight in ancient Rome?
Wednesday, October 16, 2013
The Rhetoric of Presentation
This week's readings got me thinking a lot about presentation and how it has a significant affect on how the content of the actual writing is perceived by different audiences. Someone could compose a profound piece of literature in even partially illegible handwriting and a reader would consider it rubbish. The same goes with job applications where a candidate is perfectly qualified, but they don't get the opportunity of an interview because they turned in a crumpled, food-stained resume. Presentation is key, and those of us who have ever attended MSU know that students lose credit for turning in unedited or poorly formatted work. One of the easiest ways to lose credit on a research paper, at least in my experience, is to type in Impact or Calligraphy fonts. Now, that's a bit of an exaggeration, but I have turned in papers in other fonts because the came out bigger on screen and I would have to do that much less writing. In the end, it is always better to just type with the standard Times New Roman. In her article on Multiple Media Texts, Wysocki talked about how early Greek and Roman texts were not even similar to those we call standard these days (130). That makes me question why Times New Roman became the standard. Because it is the easiest to read while still allowing writers to adequately describe their subjects in print? Times New Roman couldn't have been created around standard requirements of papers assigned within the walls of academia. Why did this become the standard?
The other interesting discussion I stumbled upon came during my reading of Bernhardt's article on Seeing the Text. During the section where he uses the example of the Wetlands proposal, the author brings up the idea members of different discourse communities see topics through their own lens. An author needs to be aware people will not understand the same subject in the same way. This is where imagery and the use of icons and formatting come into play. The Wetlands Proposal is an accumulation of information, all very general but still important (69-70). The promoters of this legislation know a very minute amount of people would sift through all the paperwork to figure out what this initiative is all about. Hell, even legislators rely on abstracted information. Presenting the information in bullet form with shortened sentences and an emphasis on punctuation helps the audience understand the importance of the issue without having to sift through stacks of pages. Such a display would more likely allow the success of this promotion because the information presented is valid to more than just those directly affected. This brought up Kress' idea of mixed genres and how they too are presented (44). The Wetlands Proposal fused moral societal issues with studies to support how in fact an issue existed. Applying the visual aspect really drew the point home. This information can be read by more than humanist or scientific personalities. The information ties multiple factions of society together with common issues. This would not be possible without the appropriate presentation.
Surfing the web, I found an interesting study on the affect font has on our ability to process words. Who knew all those options on Microsoft Word have such an influence! The article is a decent example of a mixed genre.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/1423197.pdf?acceptTC=true&acceptTC=true&jpdConfirm=true
The other interesting discussion I stumbled upon came during my reading of Bernhardt's article on Seeing the Text. During the section where he uses the example of the Wetlands proposal, the author brings up the idea members of different discourse communities see topics through their own lens. An author needs to be aware people will not understand the same subject in the same way. This is where imagery and the use of icons and formatting come into play. The Wetlands Proposal is an accumulation of information, all very general but still important (69-70). The promoters of this legislation know a very minute amount of people would sift through all the paperwork to figure out what this initiative is all about. Hell, even legislators rely on abstracted information. Presenting the information in bullet form with shortened sentences and an emphasis on punctuation helps the audience understand the importance of the issue without having to sift through stacks of pages. Such a display would more likely allow the success of this promotion because the information presented is valid to more than just those directly affected. This brought up Kress' idea of mixed genres and how they too are presented (44). The Wetlands Proposal fused moral societal issues with studies to support how in fact an issue existed. Applying the visual aspect really drew the point home. This information can be read by more than humanist or scientific personalities. The information ties multiple factions of society together with common issues. This would not be possible without the appropriate presentation.
Surfing the web, I found an interesting study on the affect font has on our ability to process words. Who knew all those options on Microsoft Word have such an influence! The article is a decent example of a mixed genre.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/1423197.pdf?acceptTC=true&acceptTC=true&jpdConfirm=true
Thursday, October 10, 2013
Sim Perception
I found this week's readings to be an appropriate follow-up to our A/V projects--due to their discussion of data visualization, but primarily because of their emphasis on perception. I think back to my project, starting way back at the idea stage all the way through the editing process. I had a clear idea of what I was presenting, but it was inevitable that some if not much of this clarity was lost as viewers attempted to understand its deeper meaning. Outside of the plain text within the piece, some might not understand the connection to the visuals as I had hoped. According to Mishra and Wolf, this understanding is shaped by one's perception, of which are abundant. There is a lot to be said about whether people are more perceptive to images or actual text, but I think the combination of the two can be particularly overwhelming. That was the challenge I faced with the A/V project because I didn't want my connections to be misunderstood, but I suppose that's the beauty of perception. People will never have an exact understanding of something, no matter how plain and simple it appears to be. Our contexts from which we base our individual ideas of a topic are as diverse as our understandings. That's just a reality we need to adapt to if we haven't already.
I really enjoyed reading about the analogy in Mishra's article with the physician, mechanic, and physiologist looking at their respective subjects (144). The author starts in on the idea that experience shapes perception, and that even those of the same intellectual realm will have a different idea of something that seems so absolute. The parts of a car or the organs in a human body are all laid out similarly, but their relationship can be perceived in any number of ways. It is interesting to me that if A has to connect to B in order for C to function, where is the ambiguity or space for varied perception? It seems to find its place.
Wolf's article was a little more difficult for me to wrap my head around because I have no mind for science and the technology of computers. However, the talk of simulators got me thinking. The author states "no simulated world can be free of a world view" (429). That is an interesting thought because so often, simulators are free from the moral and political constraints of our society. That's not to say they can't have some sort of agenda, just that they are typically used for instructional or informational purposes. When I was reading this, I couldn't stop thinking about Sim City and the Sims that I grew up playing. Players are given the option of a few different base landscapes in which to craft their settlement or house and essentially build day-to-day operations and/or a lifestyle from the ground up. I liked the games because I was playing God with these powerless citizens, but I never thought about the constructs already installed in the software. Really, our choices had already been made for us based on what aspects the game creators considered appropriate for a modern city or modern family of people. Though the game seemed so expansive (often times I'd lose hours, days perfecting my creations), it is really quite limited to the perceptions of only a few people behind the pixels. Granted, Sim City is built based on the goal of entertainment value, but it has a lot to say about what is socially acceptable. When I played the Sims, I did all I could to kill off the people in the family so I could build a graveyard outside and let ghosts haunt future tenants. The sims were quite resilient, but eventually died off. Are my morbid inclinations being controlled by a few people's idea that this may not be okay, unless the poor sims are given a chance to plead for their lives? I suppose its a good thing the game didn't have a God feature at the time where I could strike them down with a lightning bolt. I haven't played in years, but wouldn't be surprised if this was recently added. I guess my point of this rant about video games is that my entertainment was being shaped by the perceptions of a few and I'm not sure I know how I feel about that.
Here's an article on the practical application of Sim City in the real world. (Yikes!)
http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2013/03/simcity_2013_what_the_urban_planning_game_tells_us_about_future_cities.2.html
I really enjoyed reading about the analogy in Mishra's article with the physician, mechanic, and physiologist looking at their respective subjects (144). The author starts in on the idea that experience shapes perception, and that even those of the same intellectual realm will have a different idea of something that seems so absolute. The parts of a car or the organs in a human body are all laid out similarly, but their relationship can be perceived in any number of ways. It is interesting to me that if A has to connect to B in order for C to function, where is the ambiguity or space for varied perception? It seems to find its place.
Wolf's article was a little more difficult for me to wrap my head around because I have no mind for science and the technology of computers. However, the talk of simulators got me thinking. The author states "no simulated world can be free of a world view" (429). That is an interesting thought because so often, simulators are free from the moral and political constraints of our society. That's not to say they can't have some sort of agenda, just that they are typically used for instructional or informational purposes. When I was reading this, I couldn't stop thinking about Sim City and the Sims that I grew up playing. Players are given the option of a few different base landscapes in which to craft their settlement or house and essentially build day-to-day operations and/or a lifestyle from the ground up. I liked the games because I was playing God with these powerless citizens, but I never thought about the constructs already installed in the software. Really, our choices had already been made for us based on what aspects the game creators considered appropriate for a modern city or modern family of people. Though the game seemed so expansive (often times I'd lose hours, days perfecting my creations), it is really quite limited to the perceptions of only a few people behind the pixels. Granted, Sim City is built based on the goal of entertainment value, but it has a lot to say about what is socially acceptable. When I played the Sims, I did all I could to kill off the people in the family so I could build a graveyard outside and let ghosts haunt future tenants. The sims were quite resilient, but eventually died off. Are my morbid inclinations being controlled by a few people's idea that this may not be okay, unless the poor sims are given a chance to plead for their lives? I suppose its a good thing the game didn't have a God feature at the time where I could strike them down with a lightning bolt. I haven't played in years, but wouldn't be surprised if this was recently added. I guess my point of this rant about video games is that my entertainment was being shaped by the perceptions of a few and I'm not sure I know how I feel about that.
Here's an article on the practical application of Sim City in the real world. (Yikes!)
http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2013/03/simcity_2013_what_the_urban_planning_game_tells_us_about_future_cities.2.html
Thursday, October 3, 2013
Monday, September 30, 2013
Iconoclasm
Looking at our reading schedule for this week, I didn't expect to be learning through the lens of a postmodern comic strip. I have to say it was a different way of looking at rhetoric at its most fundamental and it took me a little while to become comfortable with. That being said, I think these chapters made a number of interesting points, some more prevalent than others.
I liked the idea that words are abstract icons (chapter 2). When we see a word, we are taken to some image we have in our head pertaining to its meaning. Now, I struggled with this at first because I thought about reading a novel or other form of dense text and can't say that I have an image of every word I read. Basic conjunctions, adjectives and adverbs to name a few. I suppose there is some image ingrained into my neurological workings that is activated subconsciously when reading these words, but I cannot think of a specific example of say the word "slowly" without comparing it to something else. I think of a person walking down a sidewalk at a slow pace. Perhaps this is the icon stored within my mind, or maybe it is something else. I thought this an engaging theory. Other than the minority of the population who are blind, we most commonly identify with symbols and images. That brings up another discussion. What is an image to the blind if they have never been able to see anything? I would imagine they still identify with objects and people based on some sort of memory, having to rely on their other senses. Is a smell or sound an image? I wonder.
I understood the point McCloud was trying to make by breaking down an image to its most basic, but I can't say this is always the most plausible way to go about simplifying the meaning and locating the central idea. Sure a simple stick drawing will be enough for me to identify it as a person, animal, or whatever it may be, but I think such a loss of description lessens the greater meaning of an image or drawing. A stick figure shows us how we can generally identify, but a meticulous painting will do the same and open the door to other ideas that only such detail could uncover. Maybe I read into this too much, but I like detail. In my art and in my writing.
Chapter 4 was a little more difficult for me to follow. I liked McCloud's idea of sound creating conversation, acting as its own character in everyday narrative. Without the sound of the bulb flashing, the family's string of responses would not have been. Such a prompt was essential to this mini story. The sound took the place of what would have been someone asking the group a question or making some sort of statement. I thought this an interesting companion to the idea brought up in class of what writing really is and how it can be seen in different ways. I didn't get the shift from sound to McCloud's idea of panels suggesting time. I guess it was another example of how time can be manipulated, but I didn't care for the side by side placement. Sure, how a person views something is everything. Formatting is one tool to influence what a reader takes away from the piece. I guess I just needed a little more explanation of the time aspect of this chapter.
I felt like the last chapter should have come before all the rest. The quick history of the shift from images to words in our learning process would have been a good way to set the other chapters up. I remember being Tommy with his toy at one point, not knowing what each thing was doing or how to describe it. I think this chapter helped me to understand why it was so hard for me to read the rest. I haven't read a book with pictures for years, especially one that was trying to make some sort of intellectual point. It was really hard for me to follow what was being said in what order, I had to remember how to read a comic, but still found myself going back a number of panels to understand. I guess this says a lot about how we learn to read text and what imagery does for a reader or author's understanding of the words. It's much more intrinsic than any of us think.
After reading chapter 2, I was surfing the web and found an interesting article called "How Do Blind People Picture Reality?" I was surprised to learn they see things very similarly to you and me.
http://www.livescience.com/23709-blind-people-picture-reality.html
I liked the idea that words are abstract icons (chapter 2). When we see a word, we are taken to some image we have in our head pertaining to its meaning. Now, I struggled with this at first because I thought about reading a novel or other form of dense text and can't say that I have an image of every word I read. Basic conjunctions, adjectives and adverbs to name a few. I suppose there is some image ingrained into my neurological workings that is activated subconsciously when reading these words, but I cannot think of a specific example of say the word "slowly" without comparing it to something else. I think of a person walking down a sidewalk at a slow pace. Perhaps this is the icon stored within my mind, or maybe it is something else. I thought this an engaging theory. Other than the minority of the population who are blind, we most commonly identify with symbols and images. That brings up another discussion. What is an image to the blind if they have never been able to see anything? I would imagine they still identify with objects and people based on some sort of memory, having to rely on their other senses. Is a smell or sound an image? I wonder.
I understood the point McCloud was trying to make by breaking down an image to its most basic, but I can't say this is always the most plausible way to go about simplifying the meaning and locating the central idea. Sure a simple stick drawing will be enough for me to identify it as a person, animal, or whatever it may be, but I think such a loss of description lessens the greater meaning of an image or drawing. A stick figure shows us how we can generally identify, but a meticulous painting will do the same and open the door to other ideas that only such detail could uncover. Maybe I read into this too much, but I like detail. In my art and in my writing.
Chapter 4 was a little more difficult for me to follow. I liked McCloud's idea of sound creating conversation, acting as its own character in everyday narrative. Without the sound of the bulb flashing, the family's string of responses would not have been. Such a prompt was essential to this mini story. The sound took the place of what would have been someone asking the group a question or making some sort of statement. I thought this an interesting companion to the idea brought up in class of what writing really is and how it can be seen in different ways. I didn't get the shift from sound to McCloud's idea of panels suggesting time. I guess it was another example of how time can be manipulated, but I didn't care for the side by side placement. Sure, how a person views something is everything. Formatting is one tool to influence what a reader takes away from the piece. I guess I just needed a little more explanation of the time aspect of this chapter.
I felt like the last chapter should have come before all the rest. The quick history of the shift from images to words in our learning process would have been a good way to set the other chapters up. I remember being Tommy with his toy at one point, not knowing what each thing was doing or how to describe it. I think this chapter helped me to understand why it was so hard for me to read the rest. I haven't read a book with pictures for years, especially one that was trying to make some sort of intellectual point. It was really hard for me to follow what was being said in what order, I had to remember how to read a comic, but still found myself going back a number of panels to understand. I guess this says a lot about how we learn to read text and what imagery does for a reader or author's understanding of the words. It's much more intrinsic than any of us think.
After reading chapter 2, I was surfing the web and found an interesting article called "How Do Blind People Picture Reality?" I was surprised to learn they see things very similarly to you and me.
http://www.livescience.com/23709-blind-people-picture-reality.html
Monday, September 23, 2013
Writers Gone Hyper
In this week's reading, I was pleased to find a few observations I had made earlier in the semester made their way into the articles by Sosnoski and Jackobs. My observations were not so deeply analyzed, and these articles only brought up more questions to be answered.
I enjoyed reading Sosnoski's breaking down of how one reads and utilizes a text. This is italicized because the word text in this case is so open-ended (as it has been in pretty much every discussion we've had in this class). Sosnoski does little to help me differentiate actual from fraudulent text, but touches on a number a points I both agree and disagree with. I like how he described his use of a scanning application that allowed him to find exactly what he needed for a particular set of research and writing. Personally, I do not use much other than google, jstor and some other databases for my online research needs, but Sosnoski's inclusion of these utilities in the writing process was crucial. As a full-time student and full-time employee, I do not have the time to sift through a pile of old periodicals or other publications. These filtering applications allow me to get what I need, when I need it without wasting any time reading through something that has no bearing on just what it is I am researching. I suspect I will not be afforded this time once I have a position in the professional or even creative writing world. I understand there are positives to reading any text--regardless of its effect on personal research--but we do not live in a world where endless time is given to accommodate this attitude.
I also liked Sosnoski's comparison of skimming to pecking. Skimming is a requirement in higher education, unless of course a student has only a few classes or no job. I believe it does require a certain amount of training, never provided by any academic institution I've ever been a member of. Skimming is necessary, whereas pecking is just lazy. I think that a lot of educators--especially in high schools--treat skimming and pecking as if they were one in the same. Students need to be prepared to not be able to read every word of a massive amount of text once they are in higher levels of education and the real world.
I was hoping there was a term for what Sosnoski described as "de-authorizing." This was a question I had in the beginning of the semester when we were discussion intellectual property. Students will reference in-text quotations from authors other than that of the article itself, but not give them the proper credit. What's to say these authors' didn't do the same in composing their articles? It seems like it's all such a conspiracy, but these are motivated issues within the world of original authorship and beg to be addressed.
I was not really sold on his inclusion of the filming and trespassing sections. I felt while they had relevance, they were a bit out of place for what the rest of the article was trying to emphasize.
Jackobs article was an interesting way to look at how even the world wide web--one of the newest forms of text, writing and communication--can be broken down. This distinguishes what different digital modes exist and for what purposes they are used. It makes me wonder what will follow what forms of communication are readily available right now--e-mail, texting, video chat, blogging, even shared editing privileges on online databases. There really is no limit what these can and will develop into.
The following article ties Jackobs and Sosnoski's articles well with the idea that there is a medium for the written word and its electronic delivery. These do not have exclusive duties, but blend in order to tap into more of the human senses--in the case of this article, primarily the visual aspect (which I thought was appropriate for this course).
http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/3594188.pdf?&acceptTC=true&jpdConfirm=true
I enjoyed reading Sosnoski's breaking down of how one reads and utilizes a text. This is italicized because the word text in this case is so open-ended (as it has been in pretty much every discussion we've had in this class). Sosnoski does little to help me differentiate actual from fraudulent text, but touches on a number a points I both agree and disagree with. I like how he described his use of a scanning application that allowed him to find exactly what he needed for a particular set of research and writing. Personally, I do not use much other than google, jstor and some other databases for my online research needs, but Sosnoski's inclusion of these utilities in the writing process was crucial. As a full-time student and full-time employee, I do not have the time to sift through a pile of old periodicals or other publications. These filtering applications allow me to get what I need, when I need it without wasting any time reading through something that has no bearing on just what it is I am researching. I suspect I will not be afforded this time once I have a position in the professional or even creative writing world. I understand there are positives to reading any text--regardless of its effect on personal research--but we do not live in a world where endless time is given to accommodate this attitude.
I also liked Sosnoski's comparison of skimming to pecking. Skimming is a requirement in higher education, unless of course a student has only a few classes or no job. I believe it does require a certain amount of training, never provided by any academic institution I've ever been a member of. Skimming is necessary, whereas pecking is just lazy. I think that a lot of educators--especially in high schools--treat skimming and pecking as if they were one in the same. Students need to be prepared to not be able to read every word of a massive amount of text once they are in higher levels of education and the real world.
I was hoping there was a term for what Sosnoski described as "de-authorizing." This was a question I had in the beginning of the semester when we were discussion intellectual property. Students will reference in-text quotations from authors other than that of the article itself, but not give them the proper credit. What's to say these authors' didn't do the same in composing their articles? It seems like it's all such a conspiracy, but these are motivated issues within the world of original authorship and beg to be addressed.
I was not really sold on his inclusion of the filming and trespassing sections. I felt while they had relevance, they were a bit out of place for what the rest of the article was trying to emphasize.
Jackobs article was an interesting way to look at how even the world wide web--one of the newest forms of text, writing and communication--can be broken down. This distinguishes what different digital modes exist and for what purposes they are used. It makes me wonder what will follow what forms of communication are readily available right now--e-mail, texting, video chat, blogging, even shared editing privileges on online databases. There really is no limit what these can and will develop into.
The following article ties Jackobs and Sosnoski's articles well with the idea that there is a medium for the written word and its electronic delivery. These do not have exclusive duties, but blend in order to tap into more of the human senses--in the case of this article, primarily the visual aspect (which I thought was appropriate for this course).
http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/3594188.pdf?&acceptTC=true&jpdConfirm=true
Writing Vs. Literacy and the Workplace
The articles by Baron, Wysocki, and Johnson brought up a number of crucial points in our continued discussion on what writing is and how it can be appropriately defined. While these articles are obviously connected, they create a foundation for a perhaps unintended discourse within the field of rhetoric. The main comparison I took issue with was pitting writing against literacy in an effort to define the two individually. Baron does a nice job summarizing how writing has developed from a need to communicate without speech to a viral spreading of ideas through digital means. From the beginning of this course, I've taken issue with the fact there are those who deny writing by means of typewriter, computer or other electronic device as actual writing. Rarely do I sit down and put pen to paper if what I am composing is anything substantial. Baron's article pointed out how there was a time when writing was carving on stone tablets. It seems silly to think there was a debate whether transferring these symbols to papyrus and eventually paper deprived communication and/or writing as it were. I understand how fraudulent writing is of growing concern with growing availability of access due to the digital revolution, but I can't say writing is any less valuable than it was thousands of years ago. I think the digital age has allowed us to continue the tradition of development in writing capability and any other subject requiring study and application.
Wysocki did not center his article on the debate of what writing is and what it is not. I found his ideas regarding literacy to be particularly interesting, mainly because I liked his use of the working knowledge and how he linked it back to our earlier discussions of intertextualiy. The computer has given writers the ability to compile their often endless sources of information into the tiniest form of portable storage. A writer can access their personal library from arguably anywhere in the world at any time of the day. The digital era has given us the opportunity to access more information than ever before, compose faster, and publish more frequently through a multitude of channels. On the other hand, writers can be lazy about it--relying on editing programs and failing to check sources properly. I cannot say I've always made sure those other writer's I've referenced in the past were genuine, checking their sources in the process. If authentic writers go about their processes the right way, these digital sources should offer us assistance in getting the word out. I guess now we just need to find out exactly what the right way is.
I like Johnson's article because it discusses more specific examples of how work is published digitally. The blog is in fact writing in my mind, just an informal one--most of the time. It is not always right, does not always matter for anyone other than the writer, and is certainly not always perfect. Blog writing allows its users to write in a stream of consciousness sort of way, opening us up to ideas we may have otherwise never had. Would blogging be a course requirement (in this and many others) if it were not engaging and effective? I think not.
With graduation coming up and grad school on the horizon, I have thought to myself how much I want to get out of working in the service industry. I thought, oh great another two years of this, maybe more considering my degree? Hell, maybe forever. I realized that I'll have a degree under my belt come summer. After speaking with quite a few people, I was enlightened to the fact there are many positions available for someone with an English degree. All throughout college, I've had this idea that an English degree means teacher or novelist. Not so. A few friends who work for Microsoft recommended I look into technical writing positions to work my way through the rest of my schooling. Though I haven't delved into this search as of yet, I have began to research. This is one of the articles that got me started.
http://www.writingassist.com/resources/articles/technical-writers-as-subject-matter-experts/
Wysocki did not center his article on the debate of what writing is and what it is not. I found his ideas regarding literacy to be particularly interesting, mainly because I liked his use of the working knowledge and how he linked it back to our earlier discussions of intertextualiy. The computer has given writers the ability to compile their often endless sources of information into the tiniest form of portable storage. A writer can access their personal library from arguably anywhere in the world at any time of the day. The digital era has given us the opportunity to access more information than ever before, compose faster, and publish more frequently through a multitude of channels. On the other hand, writers can be lazy about it--relying on editing programs and failing to check sources properly. I cannot say I've always made sure those other writer's I've referenced in the past were genuine, checking their sources in the process. If authentic writers go about their processes the right way, these digital sources should offer us assistance in getting the word out. I guess now we just need to find out exactly what the right way is.
I like Johnson's article because it discusses more specific examples of how work is published digitally. The blog is in fact writing in my mind, just an informal one--most of the time. It is not always right, does not always matter for anyone other than the writer, and is certainly not always perfect. Blog writing allows its users to write in a stream of consciousness sort of way, opening us up to ideas we may have otherwise never had. Would blogging be a course requirement (in this and many others) if it were not engaging and effective? I think not.
With graduation coming up and grad school on the horizon, I have thought to myself how much I want to get out of working in the service industry. I thought, oh great another two years of this, maybe more considering my degree? Hell, maybe forever. I realized that I'll have a degree under my belt come summer. After speaking with quite a few people, I was enlightened to the fact there are many positions available for someone with an English degree. All throughout college, I've had this idea that an English degree means teacher or novelist. Not so. A few friends who work for Microsoft recommended I look into technical writing positions to work my way through the rest of my schooling. Though I haven't delved into this search as of yet, I have began to research. This is one of the articles that got me started.
http://www.writingassist.com/resources/articles/technical-writers-as-subject-matter-experts/
Tuesday, September 10, 2013
Discourse Narrative
Walter Fisher's article proved a bit of a challenging read. I understood (or at least I think I did) many of his and others' philosophies, but keeping them all in mind as the essay jumped from one to the next was where I had difficulty. That being said, I was interested by a number of the proposed situational concepts. The most logical connections I made were between Fisher's definition of narrative, his idea of the master metaphor, and the discussion of public moral judgement.
I liked how Fisher applied such a literary term as narrative to the events surrounding a day in the life. Our routines, who we approach and how we converse with them, our reactions and subsequent actions are all bits of a continued narrative in a giant web of communication that is our day to day life. This perception seems like an extended version of what many others we have read--in this and most probably other courses--have limited to a discourse. While I understand the importance of discourse within our communities, I feel like its often over emphasized and not well defined. The narrative described throughout the Fisher essay was formulated to include the more organic activities of human beings into the series of events that shapes how we think, feel, and act among others. That may sound a little broad, but I wanted to applaud Fisher for his introduction of this idea to knowledge.
I also enjoyed Fisher's interpretation of the master metaphor in explanation of narrative. From what I understood, the master and auxiliary metaphors shape the events that shape the greater narrative. I like how well this was broken down to explain how communication works within our communities. Every action seems to have some sort of meaning, no matter how minimal. What we do is a reflection of what we have learned and experienced. No action is empty. I think it is at this level where we can start to discuss personal and community motivations, but that is another issue entirely.
Finally, Fisher defines the public moral judgement in all-consuming terms. Because this most commonly deals with matters of life and death, each person is bound to have an opinion on all matters public. I liked this excerpt because Fisher stated quite plainly that these matters are not genre-specific and pay no mind to their boundaries. There are so many things that cannot be separated. I think about personal biases, skewed motivations, even specific debate such as the separation of church and state. This might not be specifically what Fisher was referring to, but he got me to think about this idea of a trans-discourse (so much for overuse) and how people may not even know what is affecting their actions and beliefs. A pretty basic example might be when a jury in a court of law is asked to disregard a statement made by a witness, plaintiff or counsel member. I do not believe this can necessarily be done, though I do believe there are those citizens who can exclude whatever they were asked to ignore from their final verdict.
Fisher has given us a lot to think about and has given us a blank canvas to do so.
I liked how Fisher applied such a literary term as narrative to the events surrounding a day in the life. Our routines, who we approach and how we converse with them, our reactions and subsequent actions are all bits of a continued narrative in a giant web of communication that is our day to day life. This perception seems like an extended version of what many others we have read--in this and most probably other courses--have limited to a discourse. While I understand the importance of discourse within our communities, I feel like its often over emphasized and not well defined. The narrative described throughout the Fisher essay was formulated to include the more organic activities of human beings into the series of events that shapes how we think, feel, and act among others. That may sound a little broad, but I wanted to applaud Fisher for his introduction of this idea to knowledge.
I also enjoyed Fisher's interpretation of the master metaphor in explanation of narrative. From what I understood, the master and auxiliary metaphors shape the events that shape the greater narrative. I like how well this was broken down to explain how communication works within our communities. Every action seems to have some sort of meaning, no matter how minimal. What we do is a reflection of what we have learned and experienced. No action is empty. I think it is at this level where we can start to discuss personal and community motivations, but that is another issue entirely.
Finally, Fisher defines the public moral judgement in all-consuming terms. Because this most commonly deals with matters of life and death, each person is bound to have an opinion on all matters public. I liked this excerpt because Fisher stated quite plainly that these matters are not genre-specific and pay no mind to their boundaries. There are so many things that cannot be separated. I think about personal biases, skewed motivations, even specific debate such as the separation of church and state. This might not be specifically what Fisher was referring to, but he got me to think about this idea of a trans-discourse (so much for overuse) and how people may not even know what is affecting their actions and beliefs. A pretty basic example might be when a jury in a court of law is asked to disregard a statement made by a witness, plaintiff or counsel member. I do not believe this can necessarily be done, though I do believe there are those citizens who can exclude whatever they were asked to ignore from their final verdict.
Fisher has given us a lot to think about and has given us a blank canvas to do so.
Friday, September 6, 2013
Tuesday, September 3, 2013
Creating A Continued Discourse
Before reading the essays by Davie and Geisler, I had an obvious idea in my head. A discourse is somewhat of an expanded conversation between any number of people, thus, can and will have more than a single direct meaning behind it.
Davie did a great job laying out just what a discourse community is and how it can continue to go by this name. It was Geisler's article that allowed me to apply Davie's translation more theoretically and pair it with topics that flood the news and popular media.
The first subject to stand out was in Geisler's background into rhetorical theory at the beginning of his article. He mentioned rhetoric was originally used to promote a foundational sort of democratic process in ancient communities. Coming from a political family, this got me thinking about modern politics. While I am aware democracy in ancient Greece was a far cry from that in bipartisan America, I cannot help to separate the underlying philosophy of it. Without pursuing an agenda, I think Geisler introduced what could be an important conversation based on Davie's ideas of community discourse.
Politicians stand up at podiums in front of cameras from countless news outlets and say they are speaking for the voters and those who are unable to speak for themselves. When these proclamations are written by (or at least heavily influenced by) speech writers and other advisers, can a candidate really say they are speaking for the people and not to them? Are their messages not commonly edited to satisfy what they believe to be the majority vote? Could there ever be a discourse-motivated candidate on the ballot who could include the wants and needs of every voter into his/her platform? Is it even possible? My answer is no because I think modern politics are skewed at both ends of the spectrum. Much of what the people hear is a simple projection of what a few want the rest of us to hear. This is not discourse in my book.
Politics aside, the other topic that interested me was Geisler's IText and ideas of intellectual property. I took a Gandhian philosophy class a few semesters ago that touched on this very subject. Who ever is the original author to a work if everything written is either based or influenced by another's? Can there be an original author anymore? I think people can be creative with the knowledge they have been given to present something worth wile and innovative--whether intentionally or unintentionally. I think it would be really difficult to be an original, primary author anymore. On the other hand, just a short time ago, blogging and social media were unheard of. Now there is an unprecedented following who rely heavily on these modalities to create and spread their work. Was the first blogger original? Can a future kind of writing not yet invented be the next original form?
I'm hoping time spent in this class will allow me to answer some of these questions.
Davie did a great job laying out just what a discourse community is and how it can continue to go by this name. It was Geisler's article that allowed me to apply Davie's translation more theoretically and pair it with topics that flood the news and popular media.
The first subject to stand out was in Geisler's background into rhetorical theory at the beginning of his article. He mentioned rhetoric was originally used to promote a foundational sort of democratic process in ancient communities. Coming from a political family, this got me thinking about modern politics. While I am aware democracy in ancient Greece was a far cry from that in bipartisan America, I cannot help to separate the underlying philosophy of it. Without pursuing an agenda, I think Geisler introduced what could be an important conversation based on Davie's ideas of community discourse.
Politicians stand up at podiums in front of cameras from countless news outlets and say they are speaking for the voters and those who are unable to speak for themselves. When these proclamations are written by (or at least heavily influenced by) speech writers and other advisers, can a candidate really say they are speaking for the people and not to them? Are their messages not commonly edited to satisfy what they believe to be the majority vote? Could there ever be a discourse-motivated candidate on the ballot who could include the wants and needs of every voter into his/her platform? Is it even possible? My answer is no because I think modern politics are skewed at both ends of the spectrum. Much of what the people hear is a simple projection of what a few want the rest of us to hear. This is not discourse in my book.
Politics aside, the other topic that interested me was Geisler's IText and ideas of intellectual property. I took a Gandhian philosophy class a few semesters ago that touched on this very subject. Who ever is the original author to a work if everything written is either based or influenced by another's? Can there be an original author anymore? I think people can be creative with the knowledge they have been given to present something worth wile and innovative--whether intentionally or unintentionally. I think it would be really difficult to be an original, primary author anymore. On the other hand, just a short time ago, blogging and social media were unheard of. Now there is an unprecedented following who rely heavily on these modalities to create and spread their work. Was the first blogger original? Can a future kind of writing not yet invented be the next original form?
I'm hoping time spent in this class will allow me to answer some of these questions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)