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
Monday, September 30, 2013
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)