Here are the sources I plan to use.
I hope to, first and foremost, to find enough material in Foucault's "What is an Author" to base my entire paper one. I like his ideas of circumventing the author, the meaning of an author's name (in 4chan, simply, Anonymous, which has already made its way into popular culture especially with hacker attacks on various organizations), the history of author function and how it culminates 4chan's author-absence. Etc.
I will also use two sources from Computers and Composition written 11 years apart:
"The Author-Function, The Genre Function, and The Rhetoric of Scholarly Webtexts" by Christopher Basgier
Abstract: In this article, I compare Michel Foucault's (1994) author-function and Anis Bawarshi's (2000) genre function as explanations for the use, categorization, and value of scholarly webtexts. I focus much of my analysis on Anne Frances Wysocki's (2002) “A Bookling Monument” because it is explicitly designed to destabilize our reading practices. I also situate Wysocki's webtext along a spectrum with Charles Lowe's (2004) “Copyright, Access, and Digital Texts” and Collin Gifford Brooke's (2002) “Perspective: Notes Toward the Remediation of Style.” In using the author-function and the genre function as lenses on these pieces, I aim to articulate multiple possible modes of being for scholarly webtexts and their users. In the process, I illustrate the ways these concepts speak to the status and social function of authorial ownership and originality; multimodal complexity; and formal reflexivity. Ultimately, I argue that bringing traditional concepts like authorship and genre to bear on scholarly webtexts not only reveals the values of the Computers and Writing community but also presents a unique opportunity to continue testing the uses and limits of our rhetorical theories.
This article also uses "What is an Author" but also includes information on Genre and scholarship on the web. I will use the article to attempt to define a new genre of writing, the image board, and how it not only shapes the kind of writing that happens, but creates a new system of text-production that is inextricably linked with images, one in which image and text give meaning to each other and are, in some cases, meaningless without the other. Finally, if feasible, I will justify the use of public image boards as a legitimate forum for academic discussion, one in which even the uneducated are free to participate, resulting, maybe, in a more democratic dissemination of knowledge.
"The Evolution of Internet Genres," Marcy Lassota Bauman
Abstract: New Internet writing environments differ significantly from print forms. They allow texts to evolve—to change their purpose and audience over time. They allow for new forms of collaboration—texts organize themselves without an omniscient editor shaping them. As a profession, we need to understand and experiment with these forms.
I will use this article to more clearly define the function of the image board. Although this piece was written in 1999, it is relevant to 4chan, which is still primitive in its design (it started in 2003 and hasn't changed since) and is based on a model which came before it. If space permits, I may examine 4chan's popularity in the face of more modern, complex, interactive and pretty websites.
The next three articles are from CCC
Peter Elbow, "The Music of Form: Rethinking Organization in Writing"
Abstract: Written words are laid out in space and exist on the page all at once, but a reader can
only read a few words at a time. For readers, written words are trapped in the medium
of time. So how can we best organize writing for readers? Traditional techniques of
organization tend to stress the arrangement of parts in space and certain metadiscoursal
techniques that compensate for the problem of time. In contrast, I’ll describe five ways
to organize written language that harness or bind time. In effect, I’m exploring form as
a source of energy. More broadly, I’m implying that our concept itself of “organization”
is biased toward a picture of how objects are organized in space and neglects the story
of how events are organized in time.
I choose this because Elbow is so popular within our community and citing him might help legitimize my paper. But also because talks about writing a paper which doesn't need to be read linearly to be understood, but can be looked at all at once to extract all relevant information. He uses the metaphor of an ant trying to understand a painting by walking across it vs. a birds eye view of the painting which reveals it all at once. I will argue that 4chan, through its organization, allows such a birds eye view. One, at times, needn't even read the post to know if he wants to read it, the image accompanying the text will be an indicator as to whether or not its worth his while. I'm not sure yet to what extent, great or small, I will use this article.
D. Diane Davis, "Finitude’s Clamor; Or,
Notes toward a Communitarian Literacy"
Abstract: To the extent that rhetoric and writing studies bases its theories and pedagogies on the
self-present composing subject—the figure of the writer who exists apart from the writing
context, from the “world,” from others—it is anti-communitarian. Communication
can take place only among beings who are given over to the “outside,” exposed, open to
the other’s effraction. This essay therefore calls for the elaboration of a “communitarian”
literacy that understands reading and writing as functions of this originary sociality, as
expositions not of who one is (identity) but of the fact that “we” are (community).
This paper is useful in understanding the relationship between individual contributors to 4chan. Mainly, I will argue that when a poster attempts to assert his individuality he is immediately marginalized by the group, but when the whole gathers into a single collective, their force is unstoppable. The individual is anti-social, the group is communitarian, and, given the right conditions (which are spontaneously determined and can seldom be repeated), the community can exert power outside of itself (which I will show later with my Wired Magazine articles).
Brian Jackson and Jon Wallin's "Rediscovering the “Back-and-Forthness” of Rhetoric in the Age of YouTube"
Abstract: Web 2.0 applications such as YouTube have made it likely that students participate
in online back-and-forth exchanges that influence their rhetorical literacy. Because of
the back-and-forth nature of online communities, we turn to the procedural, critical,
and progressive qualities of dialectic as a means of accounting for what makes public
deliberation effective and how we can teach students to deliberate.
I may or may not use this article since 4chan is neither web 2.0, nor anything like YouTube in terms of organization. However, there are moments in which members actively interact with each other and have a real rhetorical influence on one another (such as in the famous example of Train Man).
I will use the Train Man's story (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Densha_Otoko), maybe, to appeal to the sentimental side of my audience (does it exist?). This is a famous and early example on the influence of the image board, 2channel (the Japanese precursor to 4chan), on popular culture. In short, a thread that was started on the site brought the community together to support a man in a particular situation he needed help with. This later led to a movie, TV show, books, a play, etc.
Finally, I have found several articles on Wired Magazine's website which directly reference 4chan. These articles are all basically about the real-world influence the site has had on culture. From producing internet memes which have found their way into everyday life (LOLcats) to its power to make no-names famous (Train Man, Creepy Chan) to its ability to spontaneously come together in its attacks against such companies and organizations as AT&T and the Church of Scientology.
If I follow the order of these articles, which was random but strangely makes sense, my paper will be organized something like this:
How author-absence and the genre of image board are central to text production on 4chan and is the reason for its popularity and influence. How its organization is useful for new inquiries into discourse, communication, rhetoric and pedagogy. How the site has proven able to enact real social influence (something our community may learn from), not through sheer numbers (like Facebook), but through it's ultimate lack of authorial presence (I hope to bring it back full circle to Foucault).
Thursday, November 3, 2011
Thursday, October 27, 2011
Social Theories
Audience:
I found Ong's article a good introduction to the idea of real vs. imagined audience. As Ede and Lunsford said in their article, Ong was the first to take up this matter in depth. He begins with a short look at the history of the relationship between speaker/hearer (rhetoric) through literature/culture and the lack of serious inquiry into what roles are imposed on the reader by the writer. Since it is impossible for a writer to write directly to one reader and every reader (except in very exceptional circumstances) in the way a speaker addresses his physically present audience, the writer is forced to create a role for his reader. All knowledge hitherto has concerned itself with the "the oral performer, the writer, and techniques, rather than with the recipient of the message." Ong suggests the time is now ripe for a "history of readers and their enforced roles." He goes on to show us how every writer is forced to write for whatever audience he may hold in his imagination. The audience must also fictionalize itself by playing whatever role the writer has cast him in. The audience is a fiction. I especially enjoyed his analysis of Hemingway (what a breath of fresh air his allusions to literature are!). Hemingway's style involved a sense of camaraderie with the reader which he made effective through grammar. Here, Hemingway's many streams of genius intersect to make the reader feel like a close companion of Hemingway's narrators.
Ede and Lunsford expand on Ong's claims. They define two polar opposites ("Audience Addressed" and "Audience Invoked") and claim to find a middle ground which is, always naturally, the only productive area worth working in. After using a Mitchell and Taylor article as a backdrop to their explanation of Audience Addressed, they move on the Audience Invoked, which is obviously favored by them. "The central task of the writer, then, is not to analyze an audience and adapt discourse to meet its needs. Rather, the writer uses the semantic and syntactic resources of language to provide cues for the reader--cues which help to define the role or roles the writer wishes the reader to adopt in responding to the text." Although they ultimately agree with Ong, they of course manage to find some minor faults with his original (and general) claims. Ong's claims are, in fact, too general. His distinctions between a speaker's and a writer's audience don't work in many situations. "When one turns to precise, concrete situations, the relationship between speech and writing can become far more complex than even Ong represents." Further, Ong's fictionalizing of audience works better in fiction than rhetorical work. It may be because there is a more direct correlation between a fictional speaker and a fictional audience than a real speaker using his real name to address real problems.
Ultimately, as seems to always be the case when one writer critiques another, the answer lies somewhere in the middle. It must be in the middle because the middle is harder to name; if it can be named, it can be torn apart and critiqued. All these 2nd place writers seem to hide in this gray area and claim truth behind ambiguity. "The most complete understanding of audience thus involves a synthesis of the perspectives we have termed audience addressed, with its focus on the reader, and audience invoked, with its focus on the writer. We must, therefore, have no focus, or focus on something like the reater/wrider.
I enjoyed Ong's article because it made me more aware of, not who my audience may be, but what role I want to create for them. I wonder, however, if it is truly essential to think in these terms. Might it not become a hindrance if, instead of letting the words pour from my soul upon the page, I am too worried about creating an audience? In my own creative and personal writing, I am always envisioning future readers (since there can only ever be future readers) such as myself or potential biographers. I always leave little notes for myself (Hello, future me! It's you from the past!) or Easter eggs for interested fans and devoted researchers of my work. Actually, I don't really, but wouldn't it be fun!
Collaboration
I especially liked the readings on Collaborative Learning and would be interested to learn more once I start teaching. Would this be even more effective in socialist/communist countries where the collective is already valued? I liked the way Bruffee's structured his article. It starts with a basic history and definition of Collaborative Learning. CL does not actually change what is learned, but how it is learned: more efficiently. He starts with a sort of psychological and philosophical justification of CL stating that "The view that conversation and thought are causally related assumes not that thought is an essential attribute of the human mind but that it is instead an artifact created by social interaction." Further, "O think we as individuals, we must learn to think well collectively." He segues into applying this idea in the classroom. By guiding students' conversation towards what they read and write, they will eventually be able to read and write in the same manner. Their complexity in written thought is therefore strengthened by their complexity in speech and interaction. Further, as has been discussed in previous articles, this will make students part of a discursive community, one in which they are writing and interacting with peers. This creates what Bruffee calls, "normal discourse." This skills learned here can be carried forward to all aspects their academic, business, government and professional lives. Bruffee then states, in his next section, what is probably my favorite quote of the week. "To say that knowledge is indeterminate is to say that there is no fixed and certain point of reference...against which we can measure truth. If there is no such absolute referent, then knowledge must be a thing people make and remake. Knowledge must be a social artifact." I'm sold. While normal discourse is necessary to keep the conversation going and indoctrinating neophytes into the the ongoing conversation, abnormal discourse is essential to progress and the production of knowledge.
Trimbur, writing after Bruffee, of course finds fault with the original. Namely, the issue of consensus, which is problematic on two fronts: it may cause totalitarianism of ideas, and it ignores "wider social forces that structure the production of knowledge." Trimbur employs two tactics which seem cliche to me by now: paradox and middle-ground-building (is there a term for this?). First, he argues, "Consensus...can be a powerful instrument for students to generate differences, to identify the systems of authority that organize these differences, and to transform the relations of power that determine who may speak and what counts as a meaningful statement." (Does he define 'consensus' besides the obvious meaning?) This, as I understand it, seems to be saying something like "consensus is good because to creates differences, but the forces that foster these differences must be changed so that no more differences will exist." Please correct me. His next tactic is to define polar opposites and find the ideal away from both of them. "Their effort to save the individual from the group is based on an unhelpful and unnecessary polarization of the individual and society...it is through the social interaction of shared activity that individuals realize their own power to take control of their situation by collaborating with others." He goes on to state that Bruffee's version of consensus invests a real world authority that binds the discourse communities. This seems practical to me, but Trimbur prefers a "critical version" of consensus which doesn't simplify anything, but complicate things with further distinctions. We now have "consensus as an acculturative practice" and consensus as an "oppositional one." Triumber even admits he is doing this: "it will help to cast consensus not as a 'real world' practice but as a utopian one." He wants to "transform the productive apparatus, to change social character of production." This is not the place to do it. It's time he pick up his gun and join the next bandwagon revolution whose sole purpose is change, for better or worse.
Intertextuality
Finally, we have intertextuality. I found this section a little useful in thinking about my research project. The imageboard culture is a sort of intertextual hotbed. Original Content is rarely produced (Porter uses the Declaration of Independence as an example). Rather, members of the community use recognized signs, images, acronyms, etc to convey ideas. Sometimes, people will express their opinions, but even these are unoriginal. There can only be so many opinions on any given topic that it's rare to see anything new, even if it is Original (ie, not part of the vocabulary). Although Porter is referring to his three examples, the same can be said of imageboard culture: "[it] contains phrases or iamges familiar to its audience and presupposes certain audience attitudes. Thus the intertext exerts its influence partly in the form of audience expectation. We might then say that the audience of each of these texts is as responsible for its production as the writer." Therefore, the image of a t-rex with one of his claws in his chin has no real meaning other than what the community collectively agrees that image is to be used for. Porter quotes Bartholomae in reference to intertextuality and pedagogy: "The struggle of the student writer is not the struggle to bring out that which is within; it is the struggle to carry out those ritual activities that grant our entrance into a closed society." Therefore, success in 4chan (if there is such a thing, I'm not sure why anyone would care to achieve it) does not necessarily rest on what has to say or his ability to post Original Content, but rather his command of the existing sets of images, phrases, etc I've alluded to earlier.
I have more to say about intertext and 4chan, but I'm running out of time before class and I'd like to look at another idea expressed by Porter. I like his idea that "Research assignments might be more community oriented rather than topic oriented; students might be asked to become involved in communities of researchers." Since no freshman student ever wants to write about anything in class. I wonder what would happen if, on the first day of class, the teacher asked each student to choose a community to become a part of (or is already a part of). After this, I would tell them, "Fine, for the rest of the semester, your assignments will be to write for these communities in whatever form you find necessary." The key criteria for evaluating their writing after that, as Porter suggests, "should be 'acceptability' within [their] discourse community."
I found Ong's article a good introduction to the idea of real vs. imagined audience. As Ede and Lunsford said in their article, Ong was the first to take up this matter in depth. He begins with a short look at the history of the relationship between speaker/hearer (rhetoric) through literature/culture and the lack of serious inquiry into what roles are imposed on the reader by the writer. Since it is impossible for a writer to write directly to one reader and every reader (except in very exceptional circumstances) in the way a speaker addresses his physically present audience, the writer is forced to create a role for his reader. All knowledge hitherto has concerned itself with the "the oral performer, the writer, and techniques, rather than with the recipient of the message." Ong suggests the time is now ripe for a "history of readers and their enforced roles." He goes on to show us how every writer is forced to write for whatever audience he may hold in his imagination. The audience must also fictionalize itself by playing whatever role the writer has cast him in. The audience is a fiction. I especially enjoyed his analysis of Hemingway (what a breath of fresh air his allusions to literature are!). Hemingway's style involved a sense of camaraderie with the reader which he made effective through grammar. Here, Hemingway's many streams of genius intersect to make the reader feel like a close companion of Hemingway's narrators.
Ede and Lunsford expand on Ong's claims. They define two polar opposites ("Audience Addressed" and "Audience Invoked") and claim to find a middle ground which is, always naturally, the only productive area worth working in. After using a Mitchell and Taylor article as a backdrop to their explanation of Audience Addressed, they move on the Audience Invoked, which is obviously favored by them. "The central task of the writer, then, is not to analyze an audience and adapt discourse to meet its needs. Rather, the writer uses the semantic and syntactic resources of language to provide cues for the reader--cues which help to define the role or roles the writer wishes the reader to adopt in responding to the text." Although they ultimately agree with Ong, they of course manage to find some minor faults with his original (and general) claims. Ong's claims are, in fact, too general. His distinctions between a speaker's and a writer's audience don't work in many situations. "When one turns to precise, concrete situations, the relationship between speech and writing can become far more complex than even Ong represents." Further, Ong's fictionalizing of audience works better in fiction than rhetorical work. It may be because there is a more direct correlation between a fictional speaker and a fictional audience than a real speaker using his real name to address real problems.
Ultimately, as seems to always be the case when one writer critiques another, the answer lies somewhere in the middle. It must be in the middle because the middle is harder to name; if it can be named, it can be torn apart and critiqued. All these 2nd place writers seem to hide in this gray area and claim truth behind ambiguity. "The most complete understanding of audience thus involves a synthesis of the perspectives we have termed audience addressed, with its focus on the reader, and audience invoked, with its focus on the writer. We must, therefore, have no focus, or focus on something like the reater/wrider.
I enjoyed Ong's article because it made me more aware of, not who my audience may be, but what role I want to create for them. I wonder, however, if it is truly essential to think in these terms. Might it not become a hindrance if, instead of letting the words pour from my soul upon the page, I am too worried about creating an audience? In my own creative and personal writing, I am always envisioning future readers (since there can only ever be future readers) such as myself or potential biographers. I always leave little notes for myself (Hello, future me! It's you from the past!) or Easter eggs for interested fans and devoted researchers of my work. Actually, I don't really, but wouldn't it be fun!
Collaboration
I especially liked the readings on Collaborative Learning and would be interested to learn more once I start teaching. Would this be even more effective in socialist/communist countries where the collective is already valued? I liked the way Bruffee's structured his article. It starts with a basic history and definition of Collaborative Learning. CL does not actually change what is learned, but how it is learned: more efficiently. He starts with a sort of psychological and philosophical justification of CL stating that "The view that conversation and thought are causally related assumes not that thought is an essential attribute of the human mind but that it is instead an artifact created by social interaction." Further, "O think we as individuals, we must learn to think well collectively." He segues into applying this idea in the classroom. By guiding students' conversation towards what they read and write, they will eventually be able to read and write in the same manner. Their complexity in written thought is therefore strengthened by their complexity in speech and interaction. Further, as has been discussed in previous articles, this will make students part of a discursive community, one in which they are writing and interacting with peers. This creates what Bruffee calls, "normal discourse." This skills learned here can be carried forward to all aspects their academic, business, government and professional lives. Bruffee then states, in his next section, what is probably my favorite quote of the week. "To say that knowledge is indeterminate is to say that there is no fixed and certain point of reference...against which we can measure truth. If there is no such absolute referent, then knowledge must be a thing people make and remake. Knowledge must be a social artifact." I'm sold. While normal discourse is necessary to keep the conversation going and indoctrinating neophytes into the the ongoing conversation, abnormal discourse is essential to progress and the production of knowledge.
Trimbur, writing after Bruffee, of course finds fault with the original. Namely, the issue of consensus, which is problematic on two fronts: it may cause totalitarianism of ideas, and it ignores "wider social forces that structure the production of knowledge." Trimbur employs two tactics which seem cliche to me by now: paradox and middle-ground-building (is there a term for this?). First, he argues, "Consensus...can be a powerful instrument for students to generate differences, to identify the systems of authority that organize these differences, and to transform the relations of power that determine who may speak and what counts as a meaningful statement." (Does he define 'consensus' besides the obvious meaning?) This, as I understand it, seems to be saying something like "consensus is good because to creates differences, but the forces that foster these differences must be changed so that no more differences will exist." Please correct me. His next tactic is to define polar opposites and find the ideal away from both of them. "Their effort to save the individual from the group is based on an unhelpful and unnecessary polarization of the individual and society...it is through the social interaction of shared activity that individuals realize their own power to take control of their situation by collaborating with others." He goes on to state that Bruffee's version of consensus invests a real world authority that binds the discourse communities. This seems practical to me, but Trimbur prefers a "critical version" of consensus which doesn't simplify anything, but complicate things with further distinctions. We now have "consensus as an acculturative practice" and consensus as an "oppositional one." Triumber even admits he is doing this: "it will help to cast consensus not as a 'real world' practice but as a utopian one." He wants to "transform the productive apparatus, to change social character of production." This is not the place to do it. It's time he pick up his gun and join the next bandwagon revolution whose sole purpose is change, for better or worse.
Intertextuality
Finally, we have intertextuality. I found this section a little useful in thinking about my research project. The imageboard culture is a sort of intertextual hotbed. Original Content is rarely produced (Porter uses the Declaration of Independence as an example). Rather, members of the community use recognized signs, images, acronyms, etc to convey ideas. Sometimes, people will express their opinions, but even these are unoriginal. There can only be so many opinions on any given topic that it's rare to see anything new, even if it is Original (ie, not part of the vocabulary). Although Porter is referring to his three examples, the same can be said of imageboard culture: "[it] contains phrases or iamges familiar to its audience and presupposes certain audience attitudes. Thus the intertext exerts its influence partly in the form of audience expectation. We might then say that the audience of each of these texts is as responsible for its production as the writer." Therefore, the image of a t-rex with one of his claws in his chin has no real meaning other than what the community collectively agrees that image is to be used for. Porter quotes Bartholomae in reference to intertextuality and pedagogy: "The struggle of the student writer is not the struggle to bring out that which is within; it is the struggle to carry out those ritual activities that grant our entrance into a closed society." Therefore, success in 4chan (if there is such a thing, I'm not sure why anyone would care to achieve it) does not necessarily rest on what has to say or his ability to post Original Content, but rather his command of the existing sets of images, phrases, etc I've alluded to earlier.
I have more to say about intertext and 4chan, but I'm running out of time before class and I'd like to look at another idea expressed by Porter. I like his idea that "Research assignments might be more community oriented rather than topic oriented; students might be asked to become involved in communities of researchers." Since no freshman student ever wants to write about anything in class. I wonder what would happen if, on the first day of class, the teacher asked each student to choose a community to become a part of (or is already a part of). After this, I would tell them, "Fine, for the rest of the semester, your assignments will be to write for these communities in whatever form you find necessary." The key criteria for evaluating their writing after that, as Porter suggests, "should be 'acceptability' within [their] discourse community."
Thursday, October 20, 2011
Something to respond to (optional)
After reading last weeks articles about teacher response to student papers, I was given a chance to do just that. One of my co-workers, a "beginning writer," came to me for help on a writing assignments. I read it, an "analysis" of the movie, Blood Diamonds, and was, of course, horrified. I tried my best to offer helpful advice while keeping last weeks readings in mind, and waited eagerly for an improved draft. To my dismay, his paper actually got worse! He took out all the extraneous and off-topic details and replaced it with pure drivel. I began to think about the student/teacher binary. You are either one or the other, but it seems dangerous to think that once you are teaching a class, you are automatically given full reign without any checks and balances. Shouldn't the study of actual teaching be for all teachers and not just students of Education? If we tell our students to peer-review each others papers, why shouldn't teachers peer-review each others teaching styles? How about having a fellow teacher unobtrusively sit in on one of our classes (I write this as if I'm a teacher myself) and afterward give us feedback on how we did? Seems reasonable to me. I offer here an opportunity for you to do that, sort of. I will copy and paste my response to that students first draft. The content of his drafts are not important, I don't think, but I'll post it if anyone cares.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hey, I just read your paper. It's not bad, but there are a few things you can do to make it better. First, what are you trying to convey to the reader? The focus of the paper should be on addressing the issues raised in your first paragraph. You're right in your analysis of the meaning of the title, but you should show specific examples from the movie that support this. Instead of just giving a plot summary of the movie, use a few powerful scenes to illustrate the reality of what really goes on in the diamond industry of Africa.
The second paragraph can be condensed (it's way too long). Focus on a few really meaningful scenes that best portray what you think is the message of the movie. Focus on detail rather than trying to fit it all in.
I think you come closest to achieving your goals in the third paragraph. I want you to expand this. What tone, exactly, is the director trying to hit and how does he achieve it so well? The images of young, machinegun-wielding children is a step in the right direction, give the reader more examples like this and show us the effect they had on you while watching the film.
How does DiCaprio's greed drive him to do the things he does? Is the director trying to make comparisons between his greed and the greed of global consumerism/materialism? Are he and people like him the only ones to blame, or are we all to blame for participating in the consumption of diamonds that leads to so much suffering and devaluation of human life?
The last paragraph, as it currently is, seems unnecessary in a critical analysis of the film. If you think it is important, then tie it in with the your main point. Why did audiences like the movie so much? Why does this issue have so much relevance now?
Your last paragraph in any paper should focus on wrapping up all of your points in a small and memorable unit of text. There should be no new information in your last paragraph. Use it to restate the objectives you sought to address in your opening paragraph.
There are some grammatical and stylistic issues with this paper, but those aren't important until you get closer to a final draft. One thing to keep in mind, however, is that when you're referring to events in the narrative of any story, you always use the first person. For example, instead of saying, "Solomon was separated from his family and was taken hostage to work for the warlord" it should be, "Solomon is separated from his family and is taken hostage to work for the warlord." I'll help you with grammar and technical things like that as you work on more drafts.
Hope this helps, sorry if there's too much information here. Let me know if you need more help.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So there it is. It's a little wordy, I know. I tend to ramble when I write, but I felt there was a lot to say. You can critique this if you want, but my idea in posting this is to suggest that, as beginning teachers, which all grad students are, it might be important to consider looking at our own competence and effectiveness of our teaching. Or, have we already forgotten what it means to be students and comfortably assumed the role of gatekeeper?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hey, I just read your paper. It's not bad, but there are a few things you can do to make it better. First, what are you trying to convey to the reader? The focus of the paper should be on addressing the issues raised in your first paragraph. You're right in your analysis of the meaning of the title, but you should show specific examples from the movie that support this. Instead of just giving a plot summary of the movie, use a few powerful scenes to illustrate the reality of what really goes on in the diamond industry of Africa.
The second paragraph can be condensed (it's way too long). Focus on a few really meaningful scenes that best portray what you think is the message of the movie. Focus on detail rather than trying to fit it all in.
I think you come closest to achieving your goals in the third paragraph. I want you to expand this. What tone, exactly, is the director trying to hit and how does he achieve it so well? The images of young, machinegun-wielding children is a step in the right direction, give the reader more examples like this and show us the effect they had on you while watching the film.
How does DiCaprio's greed drive him to do the things he does? Is the director trying to make comparisons between his greed and the greed of global consumerism/materialism? Are he and people like him the only ones to blame, or are we all to blame for participating in the consumption of diamonds that leads to so much suffering and devaluation of human life?
The last paragraph, as it currently is, seems unnecessary in a critical analysis of the film. If you think it is important, then tie it in with the your main point. Why did audiences like the movie so much? Why does this issue have so much relevance now?
Your last paragraph in any paper should focus on wrapping up all of your points in a small and memorable unit of text. There should be no new information in your last paragraph. Use it to restate the objectives you sought to address in your opening paragraph.
There are some grammatical and stylistic issues with this paper, but those aren't important until you get closer to a final draft. One thing to keep in mind, however, is that when you're referring to events in the narrative of any story, you always use the first person. For example, instead of saying, "Solomon was separated from his family and was taken hostage to work for the warlord" it should be, "Solomon is separated from his family and is taken hostage to work for the warlord." I'll help you with grammar and technical things like that as you work on more drafts.
Hope this helps, sorry if there's too much information here. Let me know if you need more help.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So there it is. It's a little wordy, I know. I tend to ramble when I write, but I felt there was a lot to say. You can critique this if you want, but my idea in posting this is to suggest that, as beginning teachers, which all grad students are, it might be important to consider looking at our own competence and effectiveness of our teaching. Or, have we already forgotten what it means to be students and comfortably assumed the role of gatekeeper?
Cognitive Theory
I'll start with Dias' "Distributed Cognition at Work." Dias describes distributed cognition as "the degree to which, within specific activities, knowing and/or learning and/or thinking are often distributed among co-participants, as well as mediated through the cultural artifacts available—artifacts which include semiotic, technological, and organizational structures; the process is dynamic and interactive, within a delicate, subtle, constant interplay among participants and means as they operate in tandem (although often with friction) toward the object of the activity." (I wonder if one could use this definition for any action. I would not be surprised to see the act of opening a door defined in this manner within an academic paper). This is a useful definition to bear in mind as the author spends the next 15 pages explaining that different means of communication and intellectual/social interactions are used in academic and professional settings. The hierarchical structure of a national bank in which every member, from the lowly mail room clerk to the president himself, fulfills his role for the greater good of the collective organism, the Bank, is different from the university setting in which one is either a student forced to engage, rather humorously, in the discourse of Great Men, or e a teacher/researcher who holds the key to some invisible treasure chest of knowledge. The Bank, therefore, is something like a pyramid in which every brick knows its place and worth and is essential for the soundness of the structure, while the university system is more like a spinning wheel—either you are on the wheel or trying to get on it, or you're doing something else altogether. I may be giving Dias too much credit though, for his point ultimately boils down to his final paragraph and this one sentence: "the relationship between students and teachers is radically different from that among fellow employees" (150). He proves this by contrasting the difference between how a bank is run (reports and analysis disseminated through the organism) and a university (exercises fed into the wheel). Finally, he suggests that because the two spheres of distributed cognition are so different, one ought to prepare students for the professional one.
Bizzell, in "Cognition, Convention, and Certainty," wants to reevaluate what is called the "writing problem" in the university. She echoes someone from one of our earlier readings that the academic setting is merely one of many discourse communities a student is engaged in. Deficiency in one, is not a cognitive deficiency, but rather an impeded node of access, conditioned by social situations, to that specific discourse community. She goes on the distinguish between two theoretical camps which try to solve this problem: those that are inner-directed and those that are outer-directed. One believes in a one-size-fits-all linear progression of education; the other admits that "universal, fundamental structures can't be taught" and one should instead "teach students that there are such things as discourse conventions" (another idea echoed in previous readings and one that I agree with but find a difficulty with implementing this on a broad scale). Bizzell also finds problems with both camps and, conveniently, proposes a synthesis of the two. "We should think of the current debate between the two schools as the kind of fruitful exchange that enlarges knowledge...I would like to show here how one inner-directed theoretical model of writing can be enlarged by an outer-directed critique." I seem to have missed the "enlarged" portion of this paper, for as I read one, I found Bizzell merely criticizing various other theories. (I was struck by how hostile she was towards Flowers and sensed a stroke of jealousy in her writing, but that could just be me). She goes into great deal explaining Flowers process only to dismiss it as problematic. I didn't read Flowers' article, but as I flipped through the pages, I wish I would have for it seems genuinely interesting. Finally, after going through various theories, Bizzell ultimately concludes that "If the work of these disciplines continues to converge, a new synthesis will emerge that revivifies rhetoric as the central discipline of human intellectual endeavor...one's work and the understanding that guides it cannot be achieved autonomously...In other words, let us emphasize not only discourse but also community."
Bizzell, in "Cognition, Convention, and Certainty," wants to reevaluate what is called the "writing problem" in the university. She echoes someone from one of our earlier readings that the academic setting is merely one of many discourse communities a student is engaged in. Deficiency in one, is not a cognitive deficiency, but rather an impeded node of access, conditioned by social situations, to that specific discourse community. She goes on the distinguish between two theoretical camps which try to solve this problem: those that are inner-directed and those that are outer-directed. One believes in a one-size-fits-all linear progression of education; the other admits that "universal, fundamental structures can't be taught" and one should instead "teach students that there are such things as discourse conventions" (another idea echoed in previous readings and one that I agree with but find a difficulty with implementing this on a broad scale). Bizzell also finds problems with both camps and, conveniently, proposes a synthesis of the two. "We should think of the current debate between the two schools as the kind of fruitful exchange that enlarges knowledge...I would like to show here how one inner-directed theoretical model of writing can be enlarged by an outer-directed critique." I seem to have missed the "enlarged" portion of this paper, for as I read one, I found Bizzell merely criticizing various other theories. (I was struck by how hostile she was towards Flowers and sensed a stroke of jealousy in her writing, but that could just be me). She goes into great deal explaining Flowers process only to dismiss it as problematic. I didn't read Flowers' article, but as I flipped through the pages, I wish I would have for it seems genuinely interesting. Finally, after going through various theories, Bizzell ultimately concludes that "If the work of these disciplines continues to converge, a new synthesis will emerge that revivifies rhetoric as the central discipline of human intellectual endeavor...one's work and the understanding that guides it cannot be achieved autonomously...In other words, let us emphasize not only discourse but also community."
Thursday, October 13, 2011
Product Theory
I'll start with my favorite article this week, Hartwell's "Grammar." I found this piece lively, informative and clever. Also, it may be one of the few articles I will remember a week from now. His description of the 5 types of grammar was very helpful and changed my understanding of what grammar actually is. I've never really had a firm grasp on types II and IV as my grammar education stopped in middle school. I took Principles of Modern Grammar in college which did not teach me anything other than how to diagram sentences and I don't even remember that anymore. I've always wondered how the heck am I supposed to write good sentences if I don't have a grasp on all these advanced technical terms I hear every once in a while like modals, conditions and the hundreds of different verb types. Then Hartwell hit me, mastery of type II and IV grammar does not correlate with type I grammar. I can write, maybe, complicated and deeply embedded sentences without knowing the names of the techniques I'm using, and that's OK.
Although Hartwell does well to shatter the myth of grammar, he offers only vague, idealistic alternatives. This is something I've noticed in almost every article I've read in class so far. They all do a good job of proving some specific idea wrong, but are very vague in what ought to be done. Hartwell says, "Those of us who dismiss the teaching of formal grammar have a model of composition instruction that makes the grammar issue 'uninteresting.'" And what is this model? One that "predicts a rich and complex interaction of learner and environment in mastering literacy." That's nice, but I have a better one. It is one where all student writers will leave prepared to write the next Great American Novel, or write treatises which will lead to world happiness, or discover a cure for cancer through discourse, etc. I know all the secrets, just don't ask me to elaborate.
Sommers does a good job in "Responding to Student Writing" of at least showing us how to grade better. The important thing I took from this article is the confusion and ambiguity of the average comment on student papers. Teachers simultaneously nitpick comma placement and spelling while asking the student to fundamentally restructure and rewrite their entire paper. Sommers offers a clear strategy for grading papers that will better serve the student: "Our goal in commenting on early drafts should be to engage students with the issues they are considering and help clarify their purposes and reasons in writing their specific text." She then explains clearly what was wrong with one of the examples and offers us an example of what could have specifically been said to that student. I imagine a course in which the student will be asked to write three drafts of a paper, each one focusing on a different thing. The first one on structure and general development of ideas. The next on flow of logic and one sentence smoothly transitioning from one to another. And the last, after a good paper has already been written, will focus on punctuation, spelling and diction. Thus reversing the old mode of thinking that grammar is the foundation of good writing and the most important first step.
I tried reading "Teachers' Rhetorical Comments on Student Papers," but the research aspect of it was dull and the subject even more so. It seems that the general conclusions of these papers are always echoed in the other readings anyway. If I save 25% of my time by NOT reading the paper, but only miss out on a 5% increase in knowledge, then it is worth, in my opinion, not to read the danged thing and just listen to the people that did ;)
Connors' article was a little more interesting to me, even though the subject was not. Anything told in narrative or a historical perspective can usually hold my attention. I found it to be a good review on the history of composition with a focus on grammar, but did not add much to my knowledge that I didn't already get from the historical readings from earlier in the course. I always like a good quote before an article or chapter or anything. But I wondered if any variation of the opening quote might not also be true. "He that loveth little things shall grow little by little." Or, "He that despiseth big things shall perish in large degrees." Or, "One shall grow or perish in relation to his stock in things."
Finally, I was confused by Elbow's article. It was too long for its seemingly narrow scope. All I got out of it is that we ought to include nonacademic discourse in our students' education to make them more well-rounded in their post-academic life (perhaps a hard pill to swallow for those whose lives are entirely academic).
Although Hartwell does well to shatter the myth of grammar, he offers only vague, idealistic alternatives. This is something I've noticed in almost every article I've read in class so far. They all do a good job of proving some specific idea wrong, but are very vague in what ought to be done. Hartwell says, "Those of us who dismiss the teaching of formal grammar have a model of composition instruction that makes the grammar issue 'uninteresting.'" And what is this model? One that "predicts a rich and complex interaction of learner and environment in mastering literacy." That's nice, but I have a better one. It is one where all student writers will leave prepared to write the next Great American Novel, or write treatises which will lead to world happiness, or discover a cure for cancer through discourse, etc. I know all the secrets, just don't ask me to elaborate.
Sommers does a good job in "Responding to Student Writing" of at least showing us how to grade better. The important thing I took from this article is the confusion and ambiguity of the average comment on student papers. Teachers simultaneously nitpick comma placement and spelling while asking the student to fundamentally restructure and rewrite their entire paper. Sommers offers a clear strategy for grading papers that will better serve the student: "Our goal in commenting on early drafts should be to engage students with the issues they are considering and help clarify their purposes and reasons in writing their specific text." She then explains clearly what was wrong with one of the examples and offers us an example of what could have specifically been said to that student. I imagine a course in which the student will be asked to write three drafts of a paper, each one focusing on a different thing. The first one on structure and general development of ideas. The next on flow of logic and one sentence smoothly transitioning from one to another. And the last, after a good paper has already been written, will focus on punctuation, spelling and diction. Thus reversing the old mode of thinking that grammar is the foundation of good writing and the most important first step.
I tried reading "Teachers' Rhetorical Comments on Student Papers," but the research aspect of it was dull and the subject even more so. It seems that the general conclusions of these papers are always echoed in the other readings anyway. If I save 25% of my time by NOT reading the paper, but only miss out on a 5% increase in knowledge, then it is worth, in my opinion, not to read the danged thing and just listen to the people that did ;)
Connors' article was a little more interesting to me, even though the subject was not. Anything told in narrative or a historical perspective can usually hold my attention. I found it to be a good review on the history of composition with a focus on grammar, but did not add much to my knowledge that I didn't already get from the historical readings from earlier in the course. I always like a good quote before an article or chapter or anything. But I wondered if any variation of the opening quote might not also be true. "He that loveth little things shall grow little by little." Or, "He that despiseth big things shall perish in large degrees." Or, "One shall grow or perish in relation to his stock in things."
Finally, I was confused by Elbow's article. It was too long for its seemingly narrow scope. All I got out of it is that we ought to include nonacademic discourse in our students' education to make them more well-rounded in their post-academic life (perhaps a hard pill to swallow for those whose lives are entirely academic).
Wednesday, October 12, 2011
Dissonance Blog
I'm not sure what is new for me to say here as I feel I've said it all in class. That is, what I intend my research paper to be about. 4chan will be the subject of my interests, though I'm not entirely sure what claims/conclusions I will make about it.
I suppose, I would first start with a brief history of the website, the context from which it was borne and the state of the internet that allowed it to flourish the way it did. Next I would explain a few key terms and the organization of the site with a special focus on /b/—the main board on the website. Next, the layout of threads, the rules governing which threads get displayed and for how long, and limitations on text/images that naturally lend a certain shape/form to the content posted. Finally, I will attempt a kind of profile on the average user of this site. Although all users are necessarily anonymous, certain assumptions can be made about them based on the content posted. I'm not sure if it matters "what a 4chan user looks like." If not, I will instead focus on the anonymity of the website, it's implications for authorship and accountability, and why Anonymous is such a powerful force online when identity and cult of personality is valued IRL (in real life). This will make up Part I, which will be all about defining the website, though my ideas on Anonymous may ultimately make up a larger portion of the paper if I come across any research/theory I can draw more elaborate ideas from.
Part II may focus on something like the relationships between text in images, text alongside images and, to a lesser degree, images in texts. There many "forms" of images that have a general tone and are then manipulated with text or used in different situations to convey a specific emotion, feeling or attitude. One common example is the MFW (my face when...) reaction image which is usually a photo of a shocked/surprised person and is meant to signify that the reader's reaction to the thread is similar in degree to that of the person in the image. There are also certain conventions used when telling a personal narrative in a thread. For example, green text is frequently used, there are no sentences, per se, individual lines are used for a complete thought, and the sometimes begin, ungrammatically, with the word "be." Such as, "be 23 years old/filling my car up the gas station when..." Anyway, the point of all that is to show how the nature of the website itself lends to create new styles of writing that can't exist in other mediums. One final thing about this is that the content is usually very expressive in nature with no emphasis whatsoever on grammar or punctuation. The most successful posts are those that are the most emotionally charged or appeal the visual senses.
In Part III, I will use some certain set of theories/articles/research/etc to tie all this together and extract some meaning from it all. This will be the hardest part.
I am also interested in expanding what I consider my audience. Rather than simply writing for a teacher with no expectation of anyone else ever reading what I've written (except future biographers), I will also write with my classmates and Anonymous in mind. I hope my paper will be interesting and relevant for the academic and online community alike, trolls and all.
I suppose, I would first start with a brief history of the website, the context from which it was borne and the state of the internet that allowed it to flourish the way it did. Next I would explain a few key terms and the organization of the site with a special focus on /b/—the main board on the website. Next, the layout of threads, the rules governing which threads get displayed and for how long, and limitations on text/images that naturally lend a certain shape/form to the content posted. Finally, I will attempt a kind of profile on the average user of this site. Although all users are necessarily anonymous, certain assumptions can be made about them based on the content posted. I'm not sure if it matters "what a 4chan user looks like." If not, I will instead focus on the anonymity of the website, it's implications for authorship and accountability, and why Anonymous is such a powerful force online when identity and cult of personality is valued IRL (in real life). This will make up Part I, which will be all about defining the website, though my ideas on Anonymous may ultimately make up a larger portion of the paper if I come across any research/theory I can draw more elaborate ideas from.
Part II may focus on something like the relationships between text in images, text alongside images and, to a lesser degree, images in texts. There many "forms" of images that have a general tone and are then manipulated with text or used in different situations to convey a specific emotion, feeling or attitude. One common example is the MFW (my face when...) reaction image which is usually a photo of a shocked/surprised person and is meant to signify that the reader's reaction to the thread is similar in degree to that of the person in the image. There are also certain conventions used when telling a personal narrative in a thread. For example, green text is frequently used, there are no sentences, per se, individual lines are used for a complete thought, and the sometimes begin, ungrammatically, with the word "be." Such as, "be 23 years old/filling my car up the gas station when..." Anyway, the point of all that is to show how the nature of the website itself lends to create new styles of writing that can't exist in other mediums. One final thing about this is that the content is usually very expressive in nature with no emphasis whatsoever on grammar or punctuation. The most successful posts are those that are the most emotionally charged or appeal the visual senses.
In Part III, I will use some certain set of theories/articles/research/etc to tie all this together and extract some meaning from it all. This will be the hardest part.
I am also interested in expanding what I consider my audience. Rather than simply writing for a teacher with no expectation of anyone else ever reading what I've written (except future biographers), I will also write with my classmates and Anonymous in mind. I hope my paper will be interesting and relevant for the academic and online community alike, trolls and all.
Thursday, October 6, 2011
Process Theory
I will start with the two articles that I found most interesting and which had the most connections, though written decades apart. They are Lowe's "Moving to the Public: Weblogs in the Writing Classroom" and Elbow's "A Method for Teaching Writing." I found myself agreeing wholeheartedly with Elbow's article, though he seems to lose focus in the second half. As I read through the first half, Elbow echoed many ideas and concerns I've had about my own experiences in the classroom, but I became increasingly disheartened as the article's age weighed on me. It was written over 40 years ago, and little has changed since? It seems that the basic purpose of writing—to produce a desired effect on the reader—has been largely forgotten or ignored. Yet, we do not write for the sake of producing good grammar and expressing truth, but in the hopes that our truth and how we choose to express it may have some kind of positive change in our audience. It is this idea that Elbow cannot stress enough and reiterates dozens of times throughout the article that seems to remain unshared by contemporary teachers (or whoever is in charge of what is taught by teachers). Elbow makes it more obvious that style and truth must necessarily follow the reason for writing in the first place.
I've come to the conclusion that as long as the format for teaching remains unchanged, so will the method. This is where Lowe's article comes in. Weblogs, and the internet in general, may offer us the opportunity to reimagine the ways in which we teach writing, why we bother teaching it, and what writing is good for. He draws from two points made by Elbow: that student writing should be made available to other students for evaluation and feedback and that the student should have some specific intention/audience in my mind when he writes. I like Elbow's idea that students should "send off letters to the newspaper and see which ones get published." I've sometimes imagined a class where your grade was a reflection of how successful you were in submitting your paper to some place and getting it published. Anyway, with the internet, we now have infinite and easily accessible places to get published. With weblogs, we can publish ourselves. Lowe expands Elbow's idea of a communal classroom when he says that "by extending the discourse to a large community outside of the classroom, our student bloggers regularly confront 'real' rhetorical situations in a very social, supportive setting." Our success can now be determined by how, not just teachers or peers but, the entire world responds to us.
Even if the internet and it's various modes of production are just a fad, it is important for writers to write to what is relevant in that moment. Writers must be able to write for all occasions and to all readers, at least the ones they care to influence. Even if all this technology is just a passing phase and we will one day return to writing whatever it is we once wrote, it is still better than writing in a dead and irrelevant, yet "superior", community. It is time for writing that engages with the world since we are living in an increasingly connected world.
Lowe seems to agree with me, or I with him: "The scholarship often depicts the writer, working alone, drawing on deeply divined personal truths or engaging in inner dialogue as the means of creating knowledge. While composition theory and practice now recognizes the importance of collaboration and social interaction...we still that our field's expressivist heritage may lead many writing teachers to put the private unnecessarily in front of the public, partially because writing teachers are themselves more comfortable with the private."
I have nothing meaningful to say about the other readings. Murray's was too short. I remember thinking it seemed more like a good pep article better suited to the beginning of this course to sort of get us in the mood and spirit of composition theory. Perl's was too long with more information than I could ever find any use for, unless I someday find myself needing that exact information by which point I'll probably forget that it exists. If I had to choose something to take away from the article, I guess it would be the two conclusion's Perl comes up with about the writing process on page 34-5: "Composing does not occur in a straightforward, linear fashion" and "Composing always involves some measure of both construction and discovery." He goes on to explain what he means.
I've come to the conclusion that as long as the format for teaching remains unchanged, so will the method. This is where Lowe's article comes in. Weblogs, and the internet in general, may offer us the opportunity to reimagine the ways in which we teach writing, why we bother teaching it, and what writing is good for. He draws from two points made by Elbow: that student writing should be made available to other students for evaluation and feedback and that the student should have some specific intention/audience in my mind when he writes. I like Elbow's idea that students should "send off letters to the newspaper and see which ones get published." I've sometimes imagined a class where your grade was a reflection of how successful you were in submitting your paper to some place and getting it published. Anyway, with the internet, we now have infinite and easily accessible places to get published. With weblogs, we can publish ourselves. Lowe expands Elbow's idea of a communal classroom when he says that "by extending the discourse to a large community outside of the classroom, our student bloggers regularly confront 'real' rhetorical situations in a very social, supportive setting." Our success can now be determined by how, not just teachers or peers but, the entire world responds to us.
Even if the internet and it's various modes of production are just a fad, it is important for writers to write to what is relevant in that moment. Writers must be able to write for all occasions and to all readers, at least the ones they care to influence. Even if all this technology is just a passing phase and we will one day return to writing whatever it is we once wrote, it is still better than writing in a dead and irrelevant, yet "superior", community. It is time for writing that engages with the world since we are living in an increasingly connected world.
Lowe seems to agree with me, or I with him: "The scholarship often depicts the writer, working alone, drawing on deeply divined personal truths or engaging in inner dialogue as the means of creating knowledge. While composition theory and practice now recognizes the importance of collaboration and social interaction...we still that our field's expressivist heritage may lead many writing teachers to put the private unnecessarily in front of the public, partially because writing teachers are themselves more comfortable with the private."
I have nothing meaningful to say about the other readings. Murray's was too short. I remember thinking it seemed more like a good pep article better suited to the beginning of this course to sort of get us in the mood and spirit of composition theory. Perl's was too long with more information than I could ever find any use for, unless I someday find myself needing that exact information by which point I'll probably forget that it exists. If I had to choose something to take away from the article, I guess it would be the two conclusion's Perl comes up with about the writing process on page 34-5: "Composing does not occur in a straightforward, linear fashion" and "Composing always involves some measure of both construction and discovery." He goes on to explain what he means.
Thursday, September 22, 2011
Modern Rhetorical Theory
I thought that "The Basic Aims of Discourse" was a good place to start for this week's reading. The article was simple, to the point and informative without getting into too many details about who thought what in what way compared to someone else's thoughts. The author defines discourse as "the full text" because a sentence or paragraph by itself in "another context may have a very different aim" (129). The aim of discourse is "the effect that the discourse is oriented to achieve. Therefore, we have the text and its intentions. The author expands discourse to also mean the relationships between writer (encoder), reader (decoder), text (signal) and the thing to which the text refers (reality). Depending on which of these things is emphasized in any given discourse, the author further breaks things down. If the decoder, for example, is emphasized in the discourse, we call it persuasive. If it is aimed at conveying the thoughts of the of the encoder, it is expressive. If the text is generated for its own sake, the discourse becomes literary. The author also does a good job of condensing the history and movements of discourse theory. He plots the trajectory of the major schools of thought on a table. The interesting thing is that, with a few minor exceptions, they all pretty much have the same ideas, just use different names. Using Aristotle's original terms, any instance of discourse can be plotted on a scale ranging from the Poetic--personal, expressive, internal, emotive, suggestive--to the Scientific--representative, certain, informative, external. I feel drawn to the ancient modes. The aims of discourse haven't changed in the last two-thousand years, we have not evolved new modes of communication independent of language (besides images, but I feel that is something else altogether), so the purpose of language is not different either. It seems to me that all these great minds have a fondness for complicating a simple matter out of boredom and the selfish allure of invention.
"The Rise and Fall of the Modes of Discourse" was the last article I read. I felt I must have learned something about discourse because the article seemed like review by the time I got to it. I was excited to read it as the article pretended to be of practical use in the first paragraph. It quoted a line from Butler: "all a rhetorician's rules/ Teach nothing but to name his tools" implying that this article would be different. It wasn't. Not only did it merely name tools, but proceeded to deny and diminish the usefulness of the tools while offering no alternative. The article starts with the traditional classifications of rhetoric--Description, Narration, Exposition, Argumentation--and moves to the rise and fall of single-mode text books and thesis texts. It also goes into painful detail of all the "important" text book writers and the minor differences in terminology and modes stressed throughout the period. By the end of the article, the author graces us with nuggets of his intellect and valuable opinions. "The only teachers still making real classroom use of the modes are those out of touch with current theory" as if the only good teacher is the one who blindly subscribes to every new theory (instead of focusing on actual teaching). He then mocks modal discourse: "the modes were only powerful so long as they were not examined for evidence of usefulness" while offering nothing that is (453). Finally, he ends his masterpiece with this final sentence: "The real lesson of the modes is that we need always to be on guard against systems that seem convenient to teachers but that ignore the way writing is actually done" (455). Is he trying to be ironic?
"Current-Traditional Rhetoric" goes into greater detail on the changes in theory around the turn of the last century. Although this author doesn't like it either, he at least explains why. It started when the committee members of the Harvard Reports, "knowing nothing about writing instruction...gave support to the view that has haunted writing classes ever since: learning to write is learning matters of superficial correctness" (61). The author calls this the Scientistic Approach. He calls it "mechanical" but "comprehensive, primarily because it attempts to into account all features of human behavior--the sensory and rational, the ethical, and the aesthetic." Persuasion was considered to be "the apotheosis of human art...because it addressed itself to the total person: the emotions and the will, as well as the understanding, the reason, and the imagination" (62). I am greatly confused by this. It would seem that this would be the most ideal form of writing; the best writing achieves these things. But the author calls it "mechanically conceived." What is organic writing then? If it's aims are not rational, ethical or aesthetic, and it does not address itself to the total person, then what does it do? I disagree that such writing is necessarily mechanical. The author goes on to give us a survey of the trends in different aspects of current-traditional rhetoric. The "managerial view of invention," treatment of description, narration, exposition and argument by various texts, rules on paragraphs and principles of arrangement, views on style with no clear definitions besides "the matching of sign to nonverbal reality" (71). He faults the mechanical model for asking the student to "select the subject, narrow it to a thesis, make an outline of the essay, write the essay, and edit for correctness" (74). The author is a genius if he wrote the article without doing any of those things. Finally, he laments the entrenchment of current-traditional rhetoric in the college curriculum.
Corbett's "Introduction" was the most useful and entertaining article offering both contemporary and ancient examples of rhetoric and how they exemplify the its basic principles. The discussion on the techniques employed in the HP advertisement was very informative. He starts with what has by now become familiar to me: the "communications triangle." It is made up of subject-matter, speaker/writer, listener/reader and the text itself. He then explains almost step-by-step how each aspect of the advertisement appeals to the different points on the triangle. The next example of from the a scene in The Illiad in which Odysseus pleads with Achilles. Here the author again presents an example of great rhetoric, then goes into great detail about how and why it works and how it embodies rhetorical ideals. He classifies this particular example as deliberative discourse, concerned with future time, using exhortation and dissuasion with focus on the advantageous and the injurious. It is a model of "the well-organized oration," containing an "exordium, narration, proof and peroration." As Odysseus proceeds through each of these, the author stops at each turn to explain what exactly Odysseus is doing and how well he adheres to these basic tenets. Having given us sufficient examples of real rhetoric in practice, the author goes on to give us a little history on the ideas of rhetoric. He defines the Five Canons of Rhetoric--Inventio, Dispositio, Elocutio, Memoria, and Pronuntiatio. Then moves on the the Three Kinds of Persuasive Discourse--deliberative, forensic, and epideictic. Finally, he ends with the relevance and importance of rhetoric for our times. His finally view seems to be more optimistic and positive about rhetoric as he ends on this little gem from Quintilian: "Therefore let us seek wholeheartedly that true majesty of expression, the fairest gift of God to man, without which all things are struck dumb and robbed both of present glory and the immortal acclaim of posterity; and let us press on to whatever is best, because, if we do this, we shall either reach the summit or at least see many others far beneath us" (26).
"The Rise and Fall of the Modes of Discourse" was the last article I read. I felt I must have learned something about discourse because the article seemed like review by the time I got to it. I was excited to read it as the article pretended to be of practical use in the first paragraph. It quoted a line from Butler: "all a rhetorician's rules/ Teach nothing but to name his tools" implying that this article would be different. It wasn't. Not only did it merely name tools, but proceeded to deny and diminish the usefulness of the tools while offering no alternative. The article starts with the traditional classifications of rhetoric--Description, Narration, Exposition, Argumentation--and moves to the rise and fall of single-mode text books and thesis texts. It also goes into painful detail of all the "important" text book writers and the minor differences in terminology and modes stressed throughout the period. By the end of the article, the author graces us with nuggets of his intellect and valuable opinions. "The only teachers still making real classroom use of the modes are those out of touch with current theory" as if the only good teacher is the one who blindly subscribes to every new theory (instead of focusing on actual teaching). He then mocks modal discourse: "the modes were only powerful so long as they were not examined for evidence of usefulness" while offering nothing that is (453). Finally, he ends his masterpiece with this final sentence: "The real lesson of the modes is that we need always to be on guard against systems that seem convenient to teachers but that ignore the way writing is actually done" (455). Is he trying to be ironic?
"Current-Traditional Rhetoric" goes into greater detail on the changes in theory around the turn of the last century. Although this author doesn't like it either, he at least explains why. It started when the committee members of the Harvard Reports, "knowing nothing about writing instruction...gave support to the view that has haunted writing classes ever since: learning to write is learning matters of superficial correctness" (61). The author calls this the Scientistic Approach. He calls it "mechanical" but "comprehensive, primarily because it attempts to into account all features of human behavior--the sensory and rational, the ethical, and the aesthetic." Persuasion was considered to be "the apotheosis of human art...because it addressed itself to the total person: the emotions and the will, as well as the understanding, the reason, and the imagination" (62). I am greatly confused by this. It would seem that this would be the most ideal form of writing; the best writing achieves these things. But the author calls it "mechanically conceived." What is organic writing then? If it's aims are not rational, ethical or aesthetic, and it does not address itself to the total person, then what does it do? I disagree that such writing is necessarily mechanical. The author goes on to give us a survey of the trends in different aspects of current-traditional rhetoric. The "managerial view of invention," treatment of description, narration, exposition and argument by various texts, rules on paragraphs and principles of arrangement, views on style with no clear definitions besides "the matching of sign to nonverbal reality" (71). He faults the mechanical model for asking the student to "select the subject, narrow it to a thesis, make an outline of the essay, write the essay, and edit for correctness" (74). The author is a genius if he wrote the article without doing any of those things. Finally, he laments the entrenchment of current-traditional rhetoric in the college curriculum.
Corbett's "Introduction" was the most useful and entertaining article offering both contemporary and ancient examples of rhetoric and how they exemplify the its basic principles. The discussion on the techniques employed in the HP advertisement was very informative. He starts with what has by now become familiar to me: the "communications triangle." It is made up of subject-matter, speaker/writer, listener/reader and the text itself. He then explains almost step-by-step how each aspect of the advertisement appeals to the different points on the triangle. The next example of from the a scene in The Illiad in which Odysseus pleads with Achilles. Here the author again presents an example of great rhetoric, then goes into great detail about how and why it works and how it embodies rhetorical ideals. He classifies this particular example as deliberative discourse, concerned with future time, using exhortation and dissuasion with focus on the advantageous and the injurious. It is a model of "the well-organized oration," containing an "exordium, narration, proof and peroration." As Odysseus proceeds through each of these, the author stops at each turn to explain what exactly Odysseus is doing and how well he adheres to these basic tenets. Having given us sufficient examples of real rhetoric in practice, the author goes on to give us a little history on the ideas of rhetoric. He defines the Five Canons of Rhetoric--Inventio, Dispositio, Elocutio, Memoria, and Pronuntiatio. Then moves on the the Three Kinds of Persuasive Discourse--deliberative, forensic, and epideictic. Finally, he ends with the relevance and importance of rhetoric for our times. His finally view seems to be more optimistic and positive about rhetoric as he ends on this little gem from Quintilian: "Therefore let us seek wholeheartedly that true majesty of expression, the fairest gift of God to man, without which all things are struck dumb and robbed both of present glory and the immortal acclaim of posterity; and let us press on to whatever is best, because, if we do this, we shall either reach the summit or at least see many others far beneath us" (26).
Thursday, September 15, 2011
Composition Studies Origins
I began this week's reading assignments--my first exposure to the wide world of Composition Theory--with excitement. The feeling quickly wore off as I finished the first few sentences of The Domain of Composition, a work which I didn't understand at first. I think I could understand it now, having gotten into the mindset of reading such work in much the same way I imagine a prisoner resigning himself to the fact that the walls of his cell will never be painted any other color but gray. Have I missed anything important in this article? As one of my literature professors has recently commented something to the effect of, "I could live a happy life knowing I've never read a paragraph of that stuff [composition theory]." Well, that's good for him, but I need this class to graduate. I began to pay closer attention as I realized, whilst reading The Origins of Composition Studies, that the history of the field may actually be a little interesting, but then again, anything can be made interesting when told in story form. It all started after the Civil War, when American colleges began to experience growth based on the German model and certain changes as the emphasis shifted from orality/rhetoric to literacy/composition , eventually blossoming into the university as we know it today. Certain major historical events occurred that forever solidified the status of compositional studies as we know it today, namely the efforts of Harvard to correct student ineptness in writing. I find it interesting that nearly 100 years later, students still don't find first-year compositional particularly helpful and that no other mention is made of composition until first-year graduate school when we are expected to already know everything without ever being taught it.
The issue of mal-education, as I call it, is addressed in 4C, Freshman English, and the Future (and to some degree, in all of the readings). Here, Kitzhaber presents two ground-breaking ideas in how to improve college writing. First, by helping "the high schools do a better job of teaching composition." Second, he proposes "we would have to make Freshman English a much better course than it has been" (132). The way to do this, he claims, is for the field to answer a list of questions taking up half a page. All these decades later, Freshman English has not improved. The authors of Writing Into the 21st Century suggest that this finding "might also provide a point of departure for graduate students and early-career researches, who are wondering where--in the vast landscape of possible research--they should seek to contribute to the field(s)" (472). I agree that out of the thousands of research papers they examined, none of them have had a significant impact on student education and results, therefor, many more thousands must be written. Surely the best way to fix something is by writing about it then studying, ad infinitum, what others have written, then writing about that. Reading this paper, I felt compelled to further the scope of enjoyment for beach-goers by collecting and organizing grains of sand according to size and shape and reporting my findings in hopes of broadening our appreciation and understanding of the sandy shores. Perhaps we can improve the work of artists by subjecting them to a rigorous study on the chemical history of color pigments in paint, documenting trends in the average number of bristles in a paint brush, or finding correlations between the tools used to cut the wood which keeps a canvas stretched and the prevailing artistic styles of the period. Particularly interesting is the study's finding that technology was the least writ about subject in the six year period from 1999-2004 (try as I might, I could not find that sixth year) and the fact that, in my opinion, Made Not Only in Words: Composition in a New Key, is the most engaging and pertinent piece of the week.
I found it interesting that Yancey recognized that most of the writing in today's society is going on outside of the classroom and without teachers; that writers are finding new styles of writing which are tailored to the countless mediums in which it is now possible to write; that average citizens, navigating through the digital age are doing more to further the scope of writing in increasingly more innovative ways than educators; that to become competent in this new period is to engage readers on a social scale (not some minuscule sphere of study which has no influence/relevance to anything outside of it). In "Quartet Three," Yancey details specific ways in which to tailor teaching and curriculum to the changing needs of the 21st century.
I found Where Did Composition Studies Come From? to be the most interesting and informative article. I enjoyed reading about the different trends and modes of thought in criticism and the study of language. I also found the definitions of the various -isms particularly helpful. However, I did not finish the article in time to write anything truly substantial about it.
I look forward to learning more about this vast new field of study which has been opened before my eyes like a treasure box of joys. So far, I am especially interested in further studying the relationship between composition and the emerging technologies, for I believe that to reach the most number of people, one must engage them on their terms and by mastering whatever tools/media/methods/styles/etc they value most.
The issue of mal-education, as I call it, is addressed in 4C, Freshman English, and the Future (and to some degree, in all of the readings). Here, Kitzhaber presents two ground-breaking ideas in how to improve college writing. First, by helping "the high schools do a better job of teaching composition." Second, he proposes "we would have to make Freshman English a much better course than it has been" (132). The way to do this, he claims, is for the field to answer a list of questions taking up half a page. All these decades later, Freshman English has not improved. The authors of Writing Into the 21st Century suggest that this finding "might also provide a point of departure for graduate students and early-career researches, who are wondering where--in the vast landscape of possible research--they should seek to contribute to the field(s)" (472). I agree that out of the thousands of research papers they examined, none of them have had a significant impact on student education and results, therefor, many more thousands must be written. Surely the best way to fix something is by writing about it then studying, ad infinitum, what others have written, then writing about that. Reading this paper, I felt compelled to further the scope of enjoyment for beach-goers by collecting and organizing grains of sand according to size and shape and reporting my findings in hopes of broadening our appreciation and understanding of the sandy shores. Perhaps we can improve the work of artists by subjecting them to a rigorous study on the chemical history of color pigments in paint, documenting trends in the average number of bristles in a paint brush, or finding correlations between the tools used to cut the wood which keeps a canvas stretched and the prevailing artistic styles of the period. Particularly interesting is the study's finding that technology was the least writ about subject in the six year period from 1999-2004 (try as I might, I could not find that sixth year) and the fact that, in my opinion, Made Not Only in Words: Composition in a New Key, is the most engaging and pertinent piece of the week.
I found it interesting that Yancey recognized that most of the writing in today's society is going on outside of the classroom and without teachers; that writers are finding new styles of writing which are tailored to the countless mediums in which it is now possible to write; that average citizens, navigating through the digital age are doing more to further the scope of writing in increasingly more innovative ways than educators; that to become competent in this new period is to engage readers on a social scale (not some minuscule sphere of study which has no influence/relevance to anything outside of it). In "Quartet Three," Yancey details specific ways in which to tailor teaching and curriculum to the changing needs of the 21st century.
I found Where Did Composition Studies Come From? to be the most interesting and informative article. I enjoyed reading about the different trends and modes of thought in criticism and the study of language. I also found the definitions of the various -isms particularly helpful. However, I did not finish the article in time to write anything truly substantial about it.
I look forward to learning more about this vast new field of study which has been opened before my eyes like a treasure box of joys. So far, I am especially interested in further studying the relationship between composition and the emerging technologies, for I believe that to reach the most number of people, one must engage them on their terms and by mastering whatever tools/media/methods/styles/etc they value most.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)