I think the author is really funny. Everybody has encountered a teacher or friend that is all about grammar. Personally, I was never any good at knowing the rules like the typical grammar snob. It’s fun to hear her incorporate pop culture and sarcasm into her discussion.
The portion of the reading I enjoyed the most was about when to use “lie” versus “lay.” I still have trouble with this rule as a college student. I always find myself second-guessing myself and usually have to look up the rule. Obviously the two words have completely different meanings, but everybody knows what you’re talking about. The people that pin you down for that are the true grammar snobs.
Grammar is important, yet people place unneeded emphasis on it. Really, I just don’t want to become a grammar snob later in life.
Monday, January 28, 2008
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
Wednesday 1/23/08
A couple of things stuck out when I was reading Chapter 8. First was the commentary about how to advance an argument. After being in the Communcations Department and having the opportunity to judge debates, I feel that she has left out some key aspects of constructing a good argument. Additionally, I really enjoyed her conversation regarding original thought and using everything around you.
Pipher’s view on advancing an argument has some very good aspects while also leaving out key components. I completely agree that our personal experience will affect how we view the world. Also, this personal experience will inevitably draw us closer to the audience. Throughout the recent presidential debates, Hillary Clinton has been criticized for being too mechanical and stand-offish – much like Al Gore.
However, Pipher fails to mention having credible sources and evidence to support your opinion. She briefly mentions the importance of being precise when discussing facts, yet facts should always be intertwined throughout the entire argument. In addition, a writer or speaker must construct a strong foundation by clarifying vocabulary. It is essential that everybody participating within the argument know exactly what is being discussed. Finally, whenever a person is arguing something a solution must be offered. It makes no sense to say this is the problem, life sucks, pity me. Overall, I do not disagree with Pipher’s viewpoint, but rather believe she needs to include other key components. Preparing for a debate entails much more than simply telling the audience why and how you’ve arrived at this conclusion.
Next, I completely agree with Pipher when she talks about using original thought, which ultimately comes from being observant of the environment. I know from my current experience with the Philosophy Department that creativity and innovative thoughts are highly valued. One of the basic criteria for undergraduate philosophers wanting to become published is original thought. In all reality, this was probably the most deciding factor when I was evaluating submissions. Original thought only comes from taking a conscious look at the environment and recording those feelings and events.
Pipher’s view on advancing an argument has some very good aspects while also leaving out key components. I completely agree that our personal experience will affect how we view the world. Also, this personal experience will inevitably draw us closer to the audience. Throughout the recent presidential debates, Hillary Clinton has been criticized for being too mechanical and stand-offish – much like Al Gore.
However, Pipher fails to mention having credible sources and evidence to support your opinion. She briefly mentions the importance of being precise when discussing facts, yet facts should always be intertwined throughout the entire argument. In addition, a writer or speaker must construct a strong foundation by clarifying vocabulary. It is essential that everybody participating within the argument know exactly what is being discussed. Finally, whenever a person is arguing something a solution must be offered. It makes no sense to say this is the problem, life sucks, pity me. Overall, I do not disagree with Pipher’s viewpoint, but rather believe she needs to include other key components. Preparing for a debate entails much more than simply telling the audience why and how you’ve arrived at this conclusion.
Next, I completely agree with Pipher when she talks about using original thought, which ultimately comes from being observant of the environment. I know from my current experience with the Philosophy Department that creativity and innovative thoughts are highly valued. One of the basic criteria for undergraduate philosophers wanting to become published is original thought. In all reality, this was probably the most deciding factor when I was evaluating submissions. Original thought only comes from taking a conscious look at the environment and recording those feelings and events.
Monday, January 21, 2008
Extra Credit
After watching the South Carolina democratic debates and reading Dr. Martin Luther King’s letter, it is obvious that there is a great connection between the candidates’ platform and King’s message. Throughout the entire debate, the underlying theme of the candidates’ was changing the status quo. Just as King was justifying his actions in Birmingham, the candidates tonight were lobbying the American people why they are best suited to continue his vision.
Recently there has been much analysis of the role of race, gender, and religion regarding the primary elections. As King points out, religion has been the “arch defender” of the status quo throughout history. In the past, Christianity has justified the oppression of African-Americans and women, and is now preventing the homosexual community from reaching equal rights as well. By no means is religion the sole contributor to such discriminations, yet it has provided a dangerous foundation.
Hillary Clinton ended the debate tonight by saying that we govern best when led by our moral beliefs. I agree that people will become actively engaged with a movement if they are passionate and led by an ideal. However, we must first judge whether our moral beliefs are just and worthy. The same logic that Dr. King expressed while comparing just and unjust laws should apply to our personal beliefs too.
There is still a need to read and acknowledge Dr. King’s viewpoint, as it is pertinent to the unequal circumstances still evident today. The only thing I didn’t like about the letter was his apology at the end. Dr. King was completely justified in his writing and should not have entertained the idea of apologizing to the illegitimate keepers of the status quo.
Recently there has been much analysis of the role of race, gender, and religion regarding the primary elections. As King points out, religion has been the “arch defender” of the status quo throughout history. In the past, Christianity has justified the oppression of African-Americans and women, and is now preventing the homosexual community from reaching equal rights as well. By no means is religion the sole contributor to such discriminations, yet it has provided a dangerous foundation.
Hillary Clinton ended the debate tonight by saying that we govern best when led by our moral beliefs. I agree that people will become actively engaged with a movement if they are passionate and led by an ideal. However, we must first judge whether our moral beliefs are just and worthy. The same logic that Dr. King expressed while comparing just and unjust laws should apply to our personal beliefs too.
There is still a need to read and acknowledge Dr. King’s viewpoint, as it is pertinent to the unequal circumstances still evident today. The only thing I didn’t like about the letter was his apology at the end. Dr. King was completely justified in his writing and should not have entertained the idea of apologizing to the illegitimate keepers of the status quo.
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
Pipher 5-7
There are so many topics and issues Pipher engages the reader in, which provide for an exciting read. The underlying theme expressed throughout her message seemed to be in relation to the expressivism philosophy of writing. Each chapter encourages writers to find their unique voice while communicating a personal message. Though I don’t agree with some of her political viewpoints, her passion for the issues is evident. Ultimately, authors should attempt to emulate Pipher’s enthusiasm in their own writing.
The portion of the text I enjoyed the most dealt with framing arguments. I completely agree with Pipher when she said, “If we write, in traditional ways, about raising the minimum wage, people will have their usual political, knee-jerk reactions.” Essentially, we cannot directly confront third rail issues without expecting some sort of negative reaction. Instead, writers need to think of other ways to discuss controversial issues. For example, Pipher suggests that writers should tell an emotional story to illustrate an unfamiliar point of view. Successful writers are able to place the reader in the shoes of another through stomach wrenching accounts, both fictional and nonfictional, showing the complete and unedited story.
Finally, writers need to inspire their audience to take action. Writers wanting to change the world must provide the foundation for change itself. In all reality, agents of change must persuade, motivate, and provide logical reasoning among people in order to achieve their goal. In the end, authentic people who can empathize with a specific cause are the only ones capable of inspiring change.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
You can lead a horse to water, but the can’t make him drink. However, the job of the writer is merely to act as the horse’s leader.
The portion of the text I enjoyed the most dealt with framing arguments. I completely agree with Pipher when she said, “If we write, in traditional ways, about raising the minimum wage, people will have their usual political, knee-jerk reactions.” Essentially, we cannot directly confront third rail issues without expecting some sort of negative reaction. Instead, writers need to think of other ways to discuss controversial issues. For example, Pipher suggests that writers should tell an emotional story to illustrate an unfamiliar point of view. Successful writers are able to place the reader in the shoes of another through stomach wrenching accounts, both fictional and nonfictional, showing the complete and unedited story.
Finally, writers need to inspire their audience to take action. Writers wanting to change the world must provide the foundation for change itself. In all reality, agents of change must persuade, motivate, and provide logical reasoning among people in order to achieve their goal. In the end, authentic people who can empathize with a specific cause are the only ones capable of inspiring change.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
You can lead a horse to water, but the can’t make him drink. However, the job of the writer is merely to act as the horse’s leader.
Monday, January 14, 2008
Whaling Essay Critique
During the previous class discussion, everybody seemed to agree that writing doesn’t fit neatly into one category. However, good writing seems to be characterized by an experienced writer who takes into account his/her audience with a clear purpose. Obviously different people will value varying aspects of the writing process, which affects how they evaluate particular pieces of writing. In all reality, each theory of composition has its strengths and weaknesses that help to explain the process of writing.
The current traditional view of composition is one that greatly emphasizes the mechanics of writing. Based on this theory, the whaling essay would not be judged as “good” writing as it fails to meet some standard requirements. For example, there is no clear thesis statement. If there is one, then it is hidden in the all-inclusive block of writing that is hard to follow. The most obvious suggestion for the writer is to have a clear intro, body, and conclusion. By simply breaking up the large block of text, the writer can organize the paper more clearly. These major problems must first be dealt with before moving onto areas that can improve the essay.
Overall, the writer has significant problems with his/her organization skills. Also, the writer does not cite sources consistently, using varying format. There are minor problems with the grammar, but those should be pushed aside before really looking at the big issues. A good piece of writing can communicate its message clearly to a broad audience, which is something this paper does not do.
The current traditional view of composition is one that greatly emphasizes the mechanics of writing. Based on this theory, the whaling essay would not be judged as “good” writing as it fails to meet some standard requirements. For example, there is no clear thesis statement. If there is one, then it is hidden in the all-inclusive block of writing that is hard to follow. The most obvious suggestion for the writer is to have a clear intro, body, and conclusion. By simply breaking up the large block of text, the writer can organize the paper more clearly. These major problems must first be dealt with before moving onto areas that can improve the essay.
Overall, the writer has significant problems with his/her organization skills. Also, the writer does not cite sources consistently, using varying format. There are minor problems with the grammar, but those should be pushed aside before really looking at the big issues. A good piece of writing can communicate its message clearly to a broad audience, which is something this paper does not do.
Tuesday, January 8, 2008
Writing Strengths, Weaknesses, and Ambitions
Strengths:
For the most part, I genuinely enjoy writing for multiple reasons. However, the most obvious and evident reason is that I feel confident putting my thoughts down on paper. For as long as I can remember writing has been come easy for me. I can recall writing simple state reports in grammar school or research papers during middle and high school without much effort. I feel that one strength of mine is organization and the ability to clearly convey my thoughts. Prewriting activities and rudimentary outlines help me arrange my thoughts in a logical and effective manner, which is an aspect of the writing process ignored my many struggling writers.
Weaknesses:
An area of weakness in my writing is its eloquence and flow. At times I have trouble transitioning smoothly from one point to another. I feel that part of this problem is that I make a “jump” within the paper assuming that the reader is thinking what I’m thinking. It’s as if I expect the reader to be on the exact same page as me constantly, which is a false notion that often times leads to confusion. Additionally, I have a tendency to talk down to the reader instead of talking with them. A disconnect between the author and reader creates distance that has the potential to create a very dry and uneventful paper even if the topic is significant.
Ambitions:
One ambition of mine is to write creatively in the future, particularly short stories for publication. Even though I have had the opportunity to write for the Ball State Daily News for the past two years and for Expo Magazine this past semester, branching out into other literary genres is very appealing. Writing for the two on-campus publications has given me experience that I will always look back on for guidance. In all reality, I sometimes regret not majoring in journalism during college. In the end, the principal ambition of mine is to continue to write and reach a large audience in the future.
For the most part, I genuinely enjoy writing for multiple reasons. However, the most obvious and evident reason is that I feel confident putting my thoughts down on paper. For as long as I can remember writing has been come easy for me. I can recall writing simple state reports in grammar school or research papers during middle and high school without much effort. I feel that one strength of mine is organization and the ability to clearly convey my thoughts. Prewriting activities and rudimentary outlines help me arrange my thoughts in a logical and effective manner, which is an aspect of the writing process ignored my many struggling writers.
Weaknesses:
An area of weakness in my writing is its eloquence and flow. At times I have trouble transitioning smoothly from one point to another. I feel that part of this problem is that I make a “jump” within the paper assuming that the reader is thinking what I’m thinking. It’s as if I expect the reader to be on the exact same page as me constantly, which is a false notion that often times leads to confusion. Additionally, I have a tendency to talk down to the reader instead of talking with them. A disconnect between the author and reader creates distance that has the potential to create a very dry and uneventful paper even if the topic is significant.
Ambitions:
One ambition of mine is to write creatively in the future, particularly short stories for publication. Even though I have had the opportunity to write for the Ball State Daily News for the past two years and for Expo Magazine this past semester, branching out into other literary genres is very appealing. Writing for the two on-campus publications has given me experience that I will always look back on for guidance. In all reality, I sometimes regret not majoring in journalism during college. In the end, the principal ambition of mine is to continue to write and reach a large audience in the future.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)