In both J.T. Ledbetter's and Harvey Daniels' articles in "Forum" their form, as discussed in Winterowd's "Dispositio" have a major effect on their respective arguments. In "Dispositio" Winterowd posits that the form and the meaning of any written material go hand in hand. If you alter the form, you alter the meaning. Let's first look at Ledbetter's argument that literacy is declining in the way of children losing interest in literature. He forms his argument by first starting out describing the plight of today's English teacher, who has to put up with constantly changing reading programs. Ledbetter notably does not go straight into his core claim. He doesn't arrive at a concrete example of his claim until about three-fourths of the way through the article, when he says, "Part of the definition of literate is 'familiar with literature.' There can be little doubt that this is declining." Had Ledbetter chosen to explicitly state this at the very beginning of his article, the meaning would be radically altered.
Daniels approaches his argument with a much different form. He basically lists, one by one, instances in history in which scholars foretold of a literary apocalypse and the death of language. By doing this, his meaning takes the form of historical irony, showing wrong all these figures from history have been. He juxtaposes current criers of literacy decline with the old one, showing their similarities. Had Daniels chosen to merely list these historical instances and then go through and list the people today who say their is a literacy decline, the argument would be much less ironic and probably less persuasive.
The Hipster in History: Chasing Cool via the Subculture. I want to analyze the history of the hipster, i.e the youth subcultures throughout the decades and the specific cultures that they were attempting to counter against. This would include the beatniks of the 50s, the hippies of the 60s, the punk rockers of the 70s, the grunge scene in the 90s. (Notice I don't know what the counterculture scene was in the 1980s...I may ask my parents.) The discourse here would be in the strong hatred found between each group: the hipsters of each era and those deemed part of the mainstream culture in which said hipsters chose to rebel against.
I think I will be able to find numerous articles online about the emergence of the hipster today and what they stand for (and against), and youth counterculture throughout history, at least the second half of the 20th century. The discourse between these groups would be strongly rooted in cultural context of their respective times, but I think that the differences between the "subculture" and the "mainstream" have been, at their core, the same for each historical group.
Saturday, November 6, 2010
Thursday, October 14, 2010
3 Questions
Question 1
My friend and I were discussing which Pokemon was best to choose at the beginning of the game. I told him that Squirtle was a much better choice than Charmander because Brock, the first Gym Leader, is a rock Pokemon collector. Rock Pokemon are weak against water Pokemon, such as Squirtle, so it would be an easy way to get through the first gym leader. My friend kept saying, "Yeah, but rock Pokemon are just as weak against fire Pokemon, like Charmander!" I kept telling him he's an idiot because not only are rock Pokemon not weak against fire Pokemon, but they are actually quite immune to fire Pokemon attacks. After about ten minutes of yelling about our disagreements, my friend finally came to the realization that he was thinking of Psychic Pokemon. He was not thinking of the gym leader Brock at all. For some reason, he had Sabrina, the psychic pokemon gym leader in mind.
This was a level 1 conflict level because it was simply a misunderstanding. Just like in Kaufer's example, "It's just that when you said Jones' car, I had Smith's car in mind." My friend had Sabrina in mind when I said Brock. What a moron.
Question 2
Savio describes the current living situation in America as a "chrome-plated consumer's paradise." Lending itself to his analogy perfectly, the paradise he suggests we live in is something that Sproul Hall is fortunately immune to. This is why he considers it epicenter of student rights just as Mississippi is to civil rights. Just as Mississippi had become one of the few places in America where people began to stand up for their rights as citizens and as humans, students had begun to do the same at Berkeley. In both instances, the oppressed majority decided to not just sit around and do nothing, becoming "standardized, replaceable, and irrelevant," as Savio puts it.
Question 4
Arguing in the stasis of cause greatly helps Bullard keep his audience from making accusations about his motives. By drawing upon numerous historical examples of other environmental disasters, he shows his audience that he is not just complaining. He is showing them a history of racial injustice by our government. Had he not included any other examples besides Katrina, it would come across as if Bullard was just looking for someone to blame. By putting the historical examples in the text, it shows that his motive is to simply make his audience aware of a reality that is rarely seen. Wells-Barnett does the same thing. Without her references to multiple historical happenings, her argument would be put in a completely different context. Savio does not argue in the same way as the other two authors. Savio merely mentions that injustice against students had been happening for some time, but he never references specific events in history. Had he done this, his argument may have held a little more weight.
My friend and I were discussing which Pokemon was best to choose at the beginning of the game. I told him that Squirtle was a much better choice than Charmander because Brock, the first Gym Leader, is a rock Pokemon collector. Rock Pokemon are weak against water Pokemon, such as Squirtle, so it would be an easy way to get through the first gym leader. My friend kept saying, "Yeah, but rock Pokemon are just as weak against fire Pokemon, like Charmander!" I kept telling him he's an idiot because not only are rock Pokemon not weak against fire Pokemon, but they are actually quite immune to fire Pokemon attacks. After about ten minutes of yelling about our disagreements, my friend finally came to the realization that he was thinking of Psychic Pokemon. He was not thinking of the gym leader Brock at all. For some reason, he had Sabrina, the psychic pokemon gym leader in mind.
This was a level 1 conflict level because it was simply a misunderstanding. Just like in Kaufer's example, "It's just that when you said Jones' car, I had Smith's car in mind." My friend had Sabrina in mind when I said Brock. What a moron.
Question 2
Savio describes the current living situation in America as a "chrome-plated consumer's paradise." Lending itself to his analogy perfectly, the paradise he suggests we live in is something that Sproul Hall is fortunately immune to. This is why he considers it epicenter of student rights just as Mississippi is to civil rights. Just as Mississippi had become one of the few places in America where people began to stand up for their rights as citizens and as humans, students had begun to do the same at Berkeley. In both instances, the oppressed majority decided to not just sit around and do nothing, becoming "standardized, replaceable, and irrelevant," as Savio puts it.
Question 4
Arguing in the stasis of cause greatly helps Bullard keep his audience from making accusations about his motives. By drawing upon numerous historical examples of other environmental disasters, he shows his audience that he is not just complaining. He is showing them a history of racial injustice by our government. Had he not included any other examples besides Katrina, it would come across as if Bullard was just looking for someone to blame. By putting the historical examples in the text, it shows that his motive is to simply make his audience aware of a reality that is rarely seen. Wells-Barnett does the same thing. Without her references to multiple historical happenings, her argument would be put in a completely different context. Savio does not argue in the same way as the other two authors. Savio merely mentions that injustice against students had been happening for some time, but he never references specific events in history. Had he done this, his argument may have held a little more weight.
Thursday, September 23, 2010
Lehrer's Scientific Arrangement in "The Future of Reading"
In Jonah Lehrer's "The Future of Reading" he writes with a set agenda. He wants to persuade his readers that, while the future of reading, one that involves Kindle and e-ink, is all good, it has its drawbacks. One of those drawbacks, he explains, is a loss of comprehension. Exactly how he goes about with this persuasion is scientific in the way he arranges his thoughts.
The first point in which the reader finds his argument is when he says, "My problem is that consumer technology moves in a single direction: It’s constantly making it easier for us to perceive the content." Up until this point, he has simply told the reader that he is an avid book reader and that he has a bit of a problem with e-readers, but he doesn't say exactly what. Even now, he does not explain right off the bat exactly what he means by "making it easier for us to perceive the content....we will trade understanding for perception." More importantly, he doesn't explain why he feels that is bad. This would be his introduction, using Bacon's terms. This is Lehrer's introduction of his "experiment", one in which he will conclude with a cause. Drawing on the idea of the ascending and descending ladder, the cause will in turn result in new experiments. So, this being his experiment, his hypothesis is that more easily perceived content will result in a drop in comprehension.
As the scientific arrangement progresses, Lehrer moves on to the methods and materials step. This would be the section where he explains the neuroscience behind his reasoning. He explains that there are two methods of reading. One of these involves more difficult text to read physically, due to ink smudges and whatnot, or mentally, due to an awkward phrasing or unknown word. This method, however, results in better comprehension, as explained through the neural activity of the human brain.
After the methods and materials section, Lehrer goes straight on to his results. He explains as clearly as possible, what he wishes for readers to do. He states, "here’s my wish for e-readers. I’d love them to include a feature that allows us to undo their ease, to make the act of reading just a little bit more difficult." This brings everything full circle. The reader has heard his views, read the reasons and facts behind it, and, if the persuasion has worked, is now on Lehrer's side as he presents his results.
The first point in which the reader finds his argument is when he says, "My problem is that consumer technology moves in a single direction: It’s constantly making it easier for us to perceive the content." Up until this point, he has simply told the reader that he is an avid book reader and that he has a bit of a problem with e-readers, but he doesn't say exactly what. Even now, he does not explain right off the bat exactly what he means by "making it easier for us to perceive the content....we will trade understanding for perception." More importantly, he doesn't explain why he feels that is bad. This would be his introduction, using Bacon's terms. This is Lehrer's introduction of his "experiment", one in which he will conclude with a cause. Drawing on the idea of the ascending and descending ladder, the cause will in turn result in new experiments. So, this being his experiment, his hypothesis is that more easily perceived content will result in a drop in comprehension.
As the scientific arrangement progresses, Lehrer moves on to the methods and materials step. This would be the section where he explains the neuroscience behind his reasoning. He explains that there are two methods of reading. One of these involves more difficult text to read physically, due to ink smudges and whatnot, or mentally, due to an awkward phrasing or unknown word. This method, however, results in better comprehension, as explained through the neural activity of the human brain.
After the methods and materials section, Lehrer goes straight on to his results. He explains as clearly as possible, what he wishes for readers to do. He states, "here’s my wish for e-readers. I’d love them to include a feature that allows us to undo their ease, to make the act of reading just a little bit more difficult." This brings everything full circle. The reader has heard his views, read the reasons and facts behind it, and, if the persuasion has worked, is now on Lehrer's side as he presents his results.
Thursday, September 16, 2010
"One Day, Now Broken In Two" by Anna Quindlen
The principal aim of Anna Quindlen's "One Day, Now Broken In Two" is only a slight persuasion, but mostly on the side of being merely an explanation. This would be an explanation of a situation that she assumes the American public may be slightly aware of, but hasn't fully realized. In Kinneavy's Basic Purposes of Composition chart, the article would fall under the category of referential diagnosis. Quindlen's tone in the article gives the reader a sense that she is not attempting to persuade them of anything. She simply plays the role of a commentator, assuming her audience has no qualms with the topic, that there is nothing to argue.
Quindlen blurs Kinneavy's boundaries this way. She has a point to make, and when making a point, it generally requires some form of persuasion. However, Quindlen's point is driven home without any persuasion. It almost comes across as fact, as something that was hidden beneath the different sides of the argument. Her point being that there is no pessimistic or optimistic way of looking at the aftermath of the September 11 attacks. She explains that both are correct, which is the way the realists view it. The optimists say, "we are better people than we were before" and the pessimists say "we are people living in a world of unimaginable cruelty and savagery." The realists consider both. She does not persuade. She diagnoses the issue, that September 11 has been split in two: September 11 the day, and 9-11 the terrorist attack.
Quindlen blurs Kinneavy's boundaries this way. She has a point to make, and when making a point, it generally requires some form of persuasion. However, Quindlen's point is driven home without any persuasion. It almost comes across as fact, as something that was hidden beneath the different sides of the argument. Her point being that there is no pessimistic or optimistic way of looking at the aftermath of the September 11 attacks. She explains that both are correct, which is the way the realists view it. The optimists say, "we are better people than we were before" and the pessimists say "we are people living in a world of unimaginable cruelty and savagery." The realists consider both. She does not persuade. She diagnoses the issue, that September 11 has been split in two: September 11 the day, and 9-11 the terrorist attack.
Wednesday, September 8, 2010
Short Assignment 1
"Honesty Is Always The Best Policy" by Michael Lemonick
In “Honesty Is Always the Best Policy” Lemonick attempts to demonstrate his honesty in journalism, mostly regarding articles on global warming. Drawing upon ethos, he establishes credibility with his audience by using certain phrases and wording that show he truly is trying to be as honest as possible in his writing. By constantly demonstrating his lack of certainty, he shows his audience that to be an honest journalist, especially when writing about climate change, you can't be completely sure of yourself, considering the instability of the scientific community.
Lemonick says that he joined an organization whose mission was to write stories that “reflected the best available science – no advocacy, no hype.” Yet, he says later, “I've tried to live up to the organization's mission.” The key word here being “tried”. By admitting that he is not perfect, it gives him more credibility as an honest reporter.
At no point in the article does he give either climate change groups – the skeptics and the sensationalists – the upper hand in the argument. Although he criticizes the skeptics, saying, “scientists no longer doubt that global warming is happening,” he still acknowledges the scientific world's uncertainty, explaining that “The science of climate change, like all of science, is complex and messy.”
Lemonick uses ethos throughout his article, convincing the audience of his character. This works better than going for logos or pathos. There's no better way to convince an audience of your honesty than to simply show them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)