My Portfolio Ideas (Sci Writ)

For my portfolio, I will be working with my profile and my feature. 

My profile is, at least in my opinion, pretty good (and I think Doug agrees at least a bit). I like it a lot and I spent a lot of time on it the first time around. I have a few minor things to change, but most of the work is done and I just want it to be graded. 

My feature is the opposite.  A LOT needs to be done on it. That's why I want to do the easier profile as well. I want most of my work time spent on the feature. I think I can make some improvements and hopefully get it up to a more professional level.

I have learned a lot while I have been working on these so far. I have never been asked to work on something that needed to sound so professional and finished in the end. I feel much more prepared for mu future in writing now that I have been asked to produce realistic projects. 

How Science Reporting Works (Sci Writ)

Presidential Throw-Down Part II

As always, I have a lot of opinions about the debate....I was surprised by how different this time was compared to the first debate. I think a lot of that could be related to Biden's display at his debate. The democrat's stepped up their game in my opinion and did a lot of good things rhetorically speaking. But I, of course, want to talk about Romney. 

Let me begin by saying that the binder full of women comment was one of the most offensive things I have ever heard a politician say. Seriously. Why? Firstly, it's a made up story. Secondly, it is completely out of touch with the lives of modern women. He made a big point of addressing women's role in the workforce in reference to their families. 

"I recognized that if you’re going to have women in the workforce that sometimes you need to be more flexible. My chief of staff, for instance, had two kids that were still in school.

She said, I can’t be here until 7 or 8 o’clock at night. I need to be able to get home at 5 o’clock so I can be there for making dinner for my kids and being with them when they get home from school. So we said fine. Let’s have a flexible schedule so you can have hours that work for you."

I am a woman. I am NOT a baby factory. I am NOT a housewife. I am a woman that desires to be taken seriously in the workforce and Romney's sexist stance masquerading as concern for equality is not winning me over.

That aside, I couldn't help but notice the two very different debate styles emerge. Obama came to this debate much stronger than the last. He answered questions with details and outlined plans. Romney didn't (although at this point we shouldn't expect anything else). 

His tactic was interesting rhetorically. He relied heavily on anecdotes. For every issue brought up there was some struggling American who had personally asked Romney for help. And he definitely wants to help them. How? Hell if I know...

I think this has something to do with relating to the average person. Romney has a hard time with that for obvious reasons. He's a very rich man and he can't just deny that. So he talks about all of these average Americans that came to him in an attempt to say, "I am not quite like you, but I can understand your concerns and fix them for you."

That's always the answer. "I can fix it". "I know what it takes to fix it." How, Mitt? What exactly is your five point plan? Now, I am a biased voter, but I do not want to totally ignore Romney. I want to know what his plans are. I want to decide if I find them valid. In fact, I haven't cast my absentee ballot yet just in case some miracle happens and I become an undecided voter again. But so far these debates have not been at all educational. 

This worked well for Romney in the first debate. In fact, rhetorically it was not all that bad of an idea. But now that fact checks have been done and Obama is more prepared is just fell apart. He needed to come with a new strategy. 

Body language was also a huge factor, especially for Obama. The first debate made his seem very standoffish and reserved. This time? Wow, the difference. He was confident. (some say arrogant, but I am inclined to think those people are stupid). We gain so much by looking at someone when they are NOT speaking. I imagine that this debate would be interesting to watch muted. 

Interviewing Notes on Writing (Sci Writ)

Yesterday, I did my interview with an old friend of mine. He is a paleontology student who is involved in some really great research outside of class. (And yes, he's a real person!) 

When I had asked him all of the questions that I had about his life and his work, I decided to ask him about writing. He said some interesting things in regards to science journalism that I thought I would share with all of you...

He stated that science is about absolute truths. It is about facts and what can be proved.   Therefore, the amount of debate within scientific communities is small. For instance, of all the paleontologists in the entire world there are only 8 who do not believe that birds are not dinosaurs. And most of them are slowly dying off. It's a small, small percentage that is considered by most in the field to be sort of ridiculous. Nevertheless, he said that when journalists write about birds and paleontology they almost always include quotes from these 8 alongside the others.

The person I interviewed said that he does not understand why writers are so intent on providing multiple angles. There just aren't multiple angles in science, he said. A lot of things are taken as undeniably true by majorities. His example was of intelligent design and evolution. There is little debate at all about the truth of evolution, but journalists will often present the two as BOTH completely reasonable options. 

He also said that there should be more science education for writers and writing education for scientists. It seems as though a lot of the problems with science journalism could be solved by a greater understanding of both fields by both parties. In the meantime, he said that he was content to write everything instead of having writers mess it up for him. 

Rhetoric Project (450)

Mitt Romney and the Catholic Vote

When the gender-specific preventative services provision of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (or "Obamacare") was enacted, controversy raged at the hands of Catholic institutions that believed that their religious freedoms were being denied. The was because--with the exception of houses of worship--the mandate required insurance coverage of contraception to all employees including those of religious institutions like hospitals and schools. This was termed the "contraception mandate". 

After harsh criticisms voices by multiple republican candidates for presidency that the mandate was a, "direct attack on religious liberty," it was amended. Contraception coverage would be handled directly by insurers--thus bypassing the religious institutions. This compromise was not met with great enthusiasm. The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops opposed the amendment saying that catholic insurance agents were still being denied their religious rights. 

This issue has been central to the upcoming presidential election. The United States has the third largest Catholic population in the world with 68 million registered members comprising about 22% of the overall population. There are approximately 230 Roman Catholic universities and 625 Catholic run hospitals. The ability of a candidate to secure the "Catholic vote" is pivotal to the success of their campaign. And recently, this has meant addressing the contraception mandate. 

As a result, some interesting rhetorical tools have been used in ads specifically targeting this formidable demographic. As the republican candidate, Mitt Romney's best possible move is to completely decry the birth control mandate and to appeal to those staunchly in opposition of it. His running mate, Paul Ryan, illustrated this when he stated that the contraception mandate would be eradicated on day one of a Romney administration. Romney also put out a Catholic-centered ad addressing the issue:

Ethopoeia

The very first line: "Who shares your values?" immediately makes the watcher aware of the moral theme of the ad. Moral values are very important to most voters, especially Catholic voters. The enthymeme presented in that very first title card is that Mitt Romney is the one who shares your values. This already gives Romney a certain relatable quality. In rhetorical terms it is called ethopoeia -- or putting oneself in the place of the other to understand and express beliefs more effectively. 

If a voter believes that a candidate shares their values and thinks similarly to them then they more inclined to support their campaign. There is a very personal element to voting. For example, the "who would you rather have a beer with?" angle that worked so well for George W. Bush. If a candidate like Romney can find common ground with the American people it is advantageous. 

While increasing Romney's appeal, the ad simultaneously discredits Obama's moral basis. It claims that a war was declared on religion as a direct result of the Obama presidency. The video highlights the polarity of the candidates in a way that is designed to directly benefit Romney. He shares your values. Obama does not. When stated in such simplified terms, it makes a voter's choice seem much less complicated than previously perceived. This is even further emphasized by the cinematographic choice to have Obama shown in black and white while Romney is portrayed in full color.  

Borrowed Ethos
Romney's ad quotes the San Antonio Express News as saying, "Obama's Insurance Decision Declares War on Religion." However, the quote was part of an editorial written by George W. Bush's former speech writer. By attributing the quotes directly to the publication, Romney is able to exploit some of its credibility. It is a way of increasing the ethos of a position by misrepresenting its original origins. When information looks like it comes from a supposedly unbiased source it is a lot easier to pass it off as certifiable fact. 

In fact, the Romney ad borrows credibility multiple times. He does this with a specific Catholic angle when he quotes Pope John Paul II's famous, "Be not afraid". This resonates well with a populace that is loyal to the pope. There is an unspoken conclusion that, because Romney is using what the pope said in a speech, he must agree with the pontiff's position. And if he agrees with the pope then he must naturally align with all Catholic points of interest. 

It's much easier for Romney to lay out his position when it is through the words of others. Of course he is going to react negatively towards Obama and the contraception mandate. After all, he has an election to win. But when he utilizes quotations of others that align with his own agenda then he makes his position seem more accepted and logical than those presented in opposition. Suddenly, Romney isn't the only one that's saying these things. A major publication and a well-respected pope are fantastic outlets for the Romney campaign to utilize, especially when appealing to Catholics. 


Red Herring 
The rhetorical tools being used are even more impressive when Romney's own personal religious position is taken into account. He is a vocal Mormon. There is no conceivable way in which he would personally recognize the authority or credibility of John Paul II. Mormons and Catholics are traditionally at odds with one another so Romney's ad is all the more impressive in its ability to mask this fundamental discrepancy. It's a fantastic example of a red herring, or the intentional misleading from an actual issue or point of interest. 

All of the major points of the ad hinge upon Romney's ability to relate to the Catholic populace. If the red herring tools were to be extracted then it would not be nearly as possible for him to claim that he shared the same set of fundamental values that the ad relies heavily upon. 

Pathos
The quoting of John Paul II also employs pathos. He was a pope that was very well liked in Catholic communities. Since his death, there have been an abundance of movies, books, and other paraphernalia dedicated to remembering a pope that was considered so wonderful he is going to be named a saint. His picture is an immediate emotional appeal to a Catholic sense of pride, inspiration, and sadness. There is no greater endorsement than a figure that is universally recognized to have such a powerful impact. 

Romney's voice in the ad claims that John Paul II's words, "brought down an empire." There is, however, no direct explanation of what empire was brought down. Although, there is a hidden message in the man that is pictured alongside the pope and Romney. Lech Walesa was a major factor in ending communism in the country of Poland. Those that recognize him, such as many Catholics with a solid understanding of famous Catholic historical figures, would immediately understand the symbolism of freedom associated with his image. To those that view Obamacare as a threat to freedom, the endorsement of an historical symbol of freedom is encouraging and powerful. 

Anacoenosis
The ad concludes much in the same way that it began. The question "Who do you want to stand with?" once again implies that Romney is the assumed answer to that question. This is called anacoenosis--or asking the opinion or judgment of an audience and implying a common interest with the speaker. And if Catholic websites and chat rooms are any indication, then the tactics used in this ad are indeed gaining him significant ground with Catholic voters. 

Randomness (450)

I came across this today and thought I would share in case someone feel like wasting 4 minutes of their life today. 

Romney: Soft on Wall Street, Hard on Sesame Street

My Thoughts on the Presidential Debate...(less rhetorical, more politically ranty)

I am vocal about my support of president Obama. I have already planned on moving to Canada if Romney wins the election. That being said, I am not surprised by the fact that most polls are claiming that Romney won the debate. Historically, challengers almost always "win" the first debate against an incumbent. 

Romney was able to dominate a lot of the debate through basically being obnoxious. He interrupted, lied, and insisted on having the last word. Poor Jim had a rough time trying to keep the governor quiet. 

That being said, I don't think Obama did nearly what he could have. A lot of Romney's claims about the president's policies were not correct (that's fact check speaking, not me), but Obama did not do enough to refute the incorrect claims. He also did not bring up the 47% thing which I find completely surprising given how detrimental to the Romney campaign that was. Obama has done this before. He acts way too nice in a debate and ends up coming out on bottom when his opponent doesn't play by the rules. 

Romney has yet to talk about the specifics of his plans. I kept waiting for some sort of outlining of his tax and healthcare plans, but he never said anything that I hadn't head a million times before. No seriously man, where are you planning on getting all of this money!?! (Other than from PBS, of course). He also continually misrepresented his own platform. It's like he didn't know his own policies. I can't even count how many times he said things that were against all of his own campaigning. Especially in regards to healthcare. Apparently, he wants to replace Obamacare with Obamacare. 

It is so strange to see all of the news reports claiming that Romney dominated the event. It just goes to show his rhetorical prowess. Yea, if you lie about everything and won't stop talking you're going to look a little better. But the facts speak for themselves. Just because it looks like a president and it talks like a president doesn't mean it should be elected. And I can't believe that after an hour and a half of discussion, Obama leaving the stage first is what people wanted to talk about in the post-debate coverage

All that I got out of the actual discussion was that Jim Lehrer needs to stand up for himself. And according to Romney, it's more important to fund the military unnecessarily than help me with health insurance as I get older. If you can afford not to die then the terrorists will win! 

Presidential Debate Drinking Game (450)

While we were making a lost of probable debate topics today in class, my thoughts went to how we could turn our list into a drinking game. I found this online and thought I would share. 

Take one sip of beer when:

• Someone mentions “Obamacare” or “Romneycare,”
• If Obama says “47%,”
• If Romney says “Fast and Furious.”
• Anytime Ronald Reagan or Bill Clinton get mentioned.
• Anytime Michelle Obama or Ann Romney get mentioned.

Take two sips when:

• Romney says “47%.”
• Obama says “Obamacare.”
• Obama talks about Ann Romney.
• Romney talks about Michelle Obama.
• If the candidates talk about dogs.

Chug your beer when:

• A candidate goes over their allotted time. Drink until they finish speaking.
• If Obama starts singing.

Finish your beer when:

• Romney starts singing.

From inquisitir.com

Thoughts on Womanhood (450)

This picture reminded me a lot about what we talked about in class today about womanhood through the lens of this current political campaign. 

On one hand, there is a prevailing opinion that women need to be taken care of. With that come all of these mandates about abortion and about contraception. And to some that makes sense. But it excludes the ability for women to think for themselves. It's like Mary's "Like a Boss" article. A man of status and money is someone that a woman would want to depend on regardless of his understanding of what womanhood consists of. 

That aside, I think this reveals an underlying element of most of the gender-charged things that people have been posting. Women need to be taken care of. Men can take care of women. That line of reasoning includes a hidden point of "logic" that women are stupid and men are not. Women need to be taken care of (because they are too stupid to do it themselves) and men can take care of women (because they are not stupid and know better what women need to be doing). 

It reminds me of the Gorgias reading when it comes up that a rhetorician could persuade an audience in regards to matters of health and diet more than an actual doctor or cookery expert could. The rhetorician wouldn't have nearly the knowledge base, but he could be convincing enough to have his point taken above what is based in fact. That's what these male politicians are doing. They are standing up and persuading an audience to feel a certain way about women's health issues without being a woman or understanding how women's health works. This man doesn't have any idea why someone would want an abortion, but if you ask him if one should have one he will resoundingly say no. He will persuade others to say no. Meanwhile, actual women who want to have abortions will be screwed over by this rhetorician masquerading as a women's health activist. 

Not Political, But Still Rhetorical (450)

This video above is of a young man that is discussing what women are getting wrong. 
It's FULL of enthymemes! And the conclusions that he draws make him look pretty bad, much like the Romney video that we watched in class. As I understand it, enthymemes are largely based in assumption -- assumption that your audience understands your point, assumption that certain ideas are factual, and assumption that you can draw conclusions based on incomplete or missing information. 

Some initial assumptions he makes are that a) women are dressing specifically with men in mind b) the content of someone's Faceook pictures is a critical piece in social interactions in real life and that c) a woman who shows cleavage will never get any guy but a bad guy. Now, all of these are things that he assumes his audience will agree with without explanation. 

When he DOES offer explanation it is in the form making categories. Women are placed in either the body category or the mind category. He claims that you have to be one and you can't be both (and your Facebook pictures should indicate which one you belong in). 

I found it interesting that he blatantly denies having any ethos factor in his little speech. He repeatedly says that he is not one to judge. He relies a lot on logos, or a perceived logos. He says he isn't a credible judge, but he believes that he understands the logical side of what women are doing. 

And then the pathos. Oh, the pathos. He's obviously targeting younger women. He breaks down self esteem in parts using emotional appeals: "you have no one to blame but yourself" and then plays the nice guy to appeal to make the idea seem almost comforting. Here's a guy that finally knows how to make the nice guys fall for me! Yay! 

And then there's the men. Men are not the focus of the video, but he makes a lot of claims about them that are anything but subtle. Women, if you dress like a slut then men will just not be able to anything but have sex with you. That doesn't really speak well of men. Apparently, there is an enthymeme here that a man's factory setting is sex maniac and all it takes is a well placed set of boobs on Facebook to send him into an inescapable libido frenzy. 

The only thing I have to say to this man is...dude, I just critically analyzed your speech with my brain, and there just so happens to be a picture of me on Facebook where my boobs look fantastic. Riddle me that! 

Thoughts on Research so Far (Sci Writ)

http://www.jmir.org/2012/3/e65/

This is the article that I am going to use for my brief assignment. 

When I decided to take this class, I envisioned writing a lot about chemistry, physics, and biology. You know...the "real" sciences. I imagined a lot of people in lab coats with beakers and various toxic chemicals. 

The research that I have done for this has made me really aware of the scientific and research communities. But what it has done most has allowed me to become educated about issues that actually impact me. Who knew! Science has direct impacts on my life.

This journal article is about research done that will quite possibly be very important to me. Right now, I have untreated anxiety. I used to do therapy and medication which is the standard model, but I stopped. This article discusses online therapy which is something that makes so much sense. I kind of already do that via Reddit (haha r/anxiety is my favorite place on the internet). But to have an ACTUALLY qualified therapist? That's huge.  

I had planned on doing a different topic for my interview profile. But now that I have gotten so excited reading about the work being done on anxiety disorders I am considering finding a resource in that area. I don't really know where to look for something like that, though -- especially on campus. 

Practice Science Brief (Sci Writ)

I know this a bit behind schedule, but without further ado: 

Despite being one of the most common psychological disorders, social anxiety disorder (SAD) is one of the most complex to treat because cases are so varied and unique. Usually, a combination of medication and cognitive therapy is the standard approach, but until recently there had been no way of predicting how well these methods will work on a patient.

MIT researchers, using MRI technology, looked at the brains of non-medicated SAD patients as they were exposed to pictures of angry or neutral faces. What they found was that, looking at a patient’s brain, medical professionals could more accurately determine the factors present in each case of SAD. When a case is better understood, it can be better treated. The study resulted in more than a 40% variance in results compared to patients used as control subjects.

The results indicate that it is possible to determine biomarkers that substantially indicate how successful psychological treatment can be for a particular socially anxious patient. Additionally, if these biomarkers exist for SAD, then perhaps similar screening could be used in the treatment of similar psychological disorders. 

http://archpsyc.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1356542

Campaign Speech (450)

Jill Stein: People's State of the Union
Above is the link to the transcript of a speech by Jill Stein, the green party candidate for president. 

I have been doing a lot of reading lately about the presidential campaign currently taking place. I have noticed an interesting trend in opinions. A surprising number of people have equated voting this time around to picking the "lesser of two evils". With our two-party system, a lot of voters feel that they MUST pick one of the two. We often forget that there are actually other people running for president as well. 

I took an online quiz recently that was intended to tell me which candidate my opinions most closely aligned with. I was matched with Jill Stein. Ever since then I have been doing quite a bit of research about the third party candidates. That is how I found this speech. 

I am posting this because I think a comparison could take place. I think looking at this speech and those of more well known candidates could be interesting. How does this differ rhetorically from campaign speeches that more people heard? Is there a noticeable difference between candidates that are striving towards an office that they might actually win, and those, like Stein, that have little to no chance of campaign success.  

Ooh! Another Story Idea (Sci Writ)

I would be incredibly interested in learning about the science of religion. There are a lot of historical and philosophical work done on religion, but how about scientific? I don't entirely know where that would end up going. I also think I may need to more closely define "science writing" before I begin. Does anyone know how "science-y" one has to get to be a science writer? Is historical or sociological research under that umbrella?

Story Ideas (Sci Writ)

My blog had a conniption recently and apparently did not save the post that I did detailing my story ideas. Me and technology do not mix well apparently. 

I am interested in trying to work with a story about anxiety. It is a topic that has a lot of current research. Studies of the brain and how it works are always fascinating, especially when well written. Additionally, information about medications and their effects is equally interesting in my opinion. 

The "story" element would be fairly easy for me because I happen to have a severe anxiety disorder. I initially worried about working with a topic when I have "a dog in the fight", but as of right now I have little to no knowledge about the topic. And I don't really have any strong feelings towards any of the current medical opinions being thrown around. 

I am curious as to whether writing science writing in the first person can ever be a good idea. Is that too much of a personal investment? Or can a narrative carried by the author be more relate-able to a reader? 

Gorgias Questions (450)

The question that I kept coming back to during the reading is rather convoluted and philosophical, but hey! we're reading Plato so that's probably ok (if not encouraged). 

Plato's writing is rhetorical. His rhetorical purpose is...to....discredit rhetoric? How the hell is that working. He clearly does not like or approve of rhetoricians and their art, and uses what they preach in order to tell us that. 

My question then is whether this is on purpose or not. Is Plato ignorant that he is utilizing exactly what he claims to be simultaneously defeating? Or is he demonstrating rhetorical weaknesses? Or is Plato a crazy dude who actually secretly has a thing for rhetoric and does it all the time? I just don't get how this can all work. 

Also, it took me an absurdly long time to figure out what cookery is. 

Intro for Rhetoric (450)

My blog has been rather temperamental lately, so I apologize that this is so late. Also, from now on my blog posts for this post will be followed by (450) so that you know what of this mess you actually have to look at :)

I like Pina Coladas and getting caught in the rain. I'm not much into health food. I am into champagne. 

I'm a Junior studying Writing, and whenever somebody asks me what I plan on being later in life with a degree in English I generally respond with "homeless", "the President of the United States", or "trophy wife". I actually want to be Johnny Depp in Secret Window before John Turturro shows up. Or, in other words, I want to live in a kick-ass cabin in the woods and write short stories in my bathrobe.

Before I was an English major my dream was to study psychology and work with violent sexual offenders with the Behavioral Sciences Unit of the FBI. Although I didn't go that route, I can still tell you almost anything you want to know about most serial killers, which I have found makes a lot of people uncomfortable and is not a good conversation starter at parties. 

I was raised in Alaska, and rocked the stereotype by being a competitive sprint dog musher for most of my younger years. Nowadays, I like reading, writing, playing mandolin, and spending time with people I love. I also like Pilates. I don't actually do it. I just think it's a good idea. 

Hi! My name is (huh?)...My name is (who?)...My name is [scratches] Slim Shady!

I spent way too long trying to think of a title for this introductory post, and that one Eminem song was literally all that came to mind. So...yea...there's that. 

I'm Carson and i'm a writing major. There's not a complex reason as to why I went this route. I just love working with words. It's as simple as that. 

My personal focus leans more towards creative writing. I am interested in this class because I want to broaden my writing ability. Also science is fucking awesome. 

I spent a VERY brief amount of time as a physics student. I wanted to be an astrophysicist and work specifically with identifying planetary bodies that are similar to Earth (with the eventual hope being to find evidence of life). I still read a ton of astronomy and astrophysics books and articles. 

Obviously, physics is pretty much my main area of interest within science writing. I am also really into most medical themed writing. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WIhuTovT4eM&feature=relmfu

Encomium of Helen

While reading Gorgias of Leontini's "Encomium of Helen", I was struck by the elegant, yet simple logic that he uses in regards to blame and causation. It can so easily be applied to writing and to rhetoric (as I am sure it was intended). This may come across incredibly muddled, but I will do my best to explain my question: 

If we apply Gorgias' argument to language and writing, in so far as blame or intention is difficult to assign, then can it be said that both reader and writer are "blameless"? I simple mean that it is language, and the limits of it, that dictate what is understood and what is created. Would rhetoric then be the way of addressing the limitations of language? 

After writing this blog post, I am certainly feeling the limitations of language (haha). 

What I Have Been Taught About "Pre-Writing"

Despite being a writing student and having to compose papers at an alarming rate, I rarely do much pre-writing. I like to jot down a few ideas, but in general I don't go through a lot of steps prior to putting words on paper. I have, however, been instructed to use multiple techniques to get the words flowing. Here are the lessons that I most remember: 

Sit Down and Figure Out Your Topic/Audience/Purpose

This is the pre-writing tool that I find most valuable because it just makes good sense. Naturally, you need to be aware of all facets of your piece before you can work on any of the finer points. 

Write Your Thesis Statement First

After years of hearing, "Write a thesis statement", "What is your thesis statement", "You must have a strong thesis statement", I have developed a personal dislike for the term. After all, it seems that you can make a coherent piece without having to have one sentence that is specifically designated for explaining yourself (What do all the other sentences do then?). Maybe that's just me. A lot of the teachers in my past insisted that we all write this sentence first and then craft our essays around it. 

Narrow Your Topic

I find this to be good advice. A lot of people (myself included) have difficulty narrowing down what it is that needs to be said. Unless you plan on writing pages and pages for the rest of your life, most topics need to be trimmed. 

Take a Lot of Notes

Writing down thoughts you have is the best way to remember them for later. I write notes for my writing almost constantly. I sleep with a pen and paper next to my bed. If I can't write it down then I record it as a voice memo on my phone. To not rely on just your memory when you sit down to write is probably the best advice I have ever gotten from a teacher. 

Tale to Someone Else

I rarely do this, but I can understand how it could be helpful. You might know a lot about your topic, but if you can't explain it effectively to anyone else then you aren't going to be able to write about it either. 

Make a Cluster Diagram

I don't know if anyone else had to do this in Elementary School, but I remember having to make a bunch of these. You would start with your main idea in the center of the page and then draw lines branching out into all of your sub-topics. I, even as a first grader, found this to be a complete waste of time. 

Make an Outline

This another one of my least favorite pre-writing lessons. While jotting down a quick sketch of how you want a paper to progress is helpful, a full-fledged, bullet-pointed outline seems counter-productive. That didn't keep every High School teacher I had from requiring a turned in outline, though. 

Answer Who, What, When, Where, Why, and How

Though necessary for journalism, these points don't really seem to apply to most writing that I have experienced. Observational writing like this just isn't as prevalent as other, more analytic forms. It seems that teachers also encouraged our writing to follow this pattern (your first paragraph would be who, etc.) 

Spew

This isn't something I was taught by a teacher, but it is the most useful technique I have been introduced to. My dad coined the term "spew", which in essence is simply the act of writing without thinking about it. I open up a word document and just start going for it. Most of the time the writing is awful and occasionally nonsensical, but it is a great way to overcome the difficulties we often have with beginning a piece of writing. 

Pre-Writing is Necessary

There seems to be a prevailing opinion in educational communities that dedicated and organized pre-writing is the only way to write something that works. I didn't pre-write this blog post. And to be honest, the odds of me even editing this is slim. My point being, pre-writing, while potentially useful, is much less important than Ms. Hurff in the seventh grade seemed to believe. 

Thoughts clouded by copious amounts of NyQuil

Every day, my mom gets on AOL and looks through the trending articles. She then proceeds to update me on the celebrities with botched face-lifts, the children that have died in tragic house fires, and the foods that may prevent hypertension. After reading Heffernan's article I realized that for the past nineteen years I have been listening to content farm article headlines. 


Content farm pieces add an interesting variable to the debate: "what is writing?" These articles are written by robotic, "unpaid freelancers" with limited knowledge of their subject matter and "deadlines are frequently as every 25 minutes." The question is: does writing have to be good? Or do any words strung together constitute writing? And who decided how or why writing is good?


In addition to this point, are content farms a new movement in the writing world? We are all aware of how writing is shifting because of online formats (heck! We have this class now which is specifically focused on writing for digital formats). Fast-paced, multitasking, and utilitarian writing is not uncommon online. These content farm articles seem to fit perfectly into the 140 character world that we have begun to create. Is this something that should bother us, or should we merely prepare ourselves for the future of online writing? 


Google is very interested in making sure that it is involved in your life and that you listen to what it wants you to hear. It's rather terrifying really. That being said, why were they so concerned with making sure that advertisement infested articles were filtered out while in the meantime Google was actively infiltrating every single aspect of the internet. Hypocrisy at its finest. 


I will write another post tomorrow about the other articles 

Ceci n'est pas une blog post

While reading McCloud, I thought to myself, "Man! I wish all of our readings were comics. This is so much easier to get through!" 

It is quite true that graphic elements and textual elements are not often found in such close quarters. In my own personal writing, I spend so much time trying to perfectly describe settings, people, and actions. Why is it so wrong to show instead of tell? When did we decide that multi-dimensional writing was to be the exception and not the rule? I would be interested in experimenting with this concept. It seems that this visual presentation could work on a lot of levels. If I figure something cool out I will definitely be posting my efforts. 

Also, I freakin' love Magritte! He did so many pieces commenting on this theme. His ideas concerning perception and reality are fascinating, and if you have a chance all of you should look into his other major pieces. 

In regards to Sosnoski, I think that hyper-reading can be looked at as a negative reader quality. But I prefer to look at it as an element that writers could use to their advantage. Rhetoric involves writing for your audience. If you know that your audience is full of hyper-readers how do you write for them? I imagine it has a lot to do with highlighting the critical points that you need to get a across so that skimmers can easily grab important information. Also, if you can grab a reader with a few points you could potentially turn a hyper-reader into a focused-reader. 

I enjoyed everyone's A/V projects! All of you are so talented and creative. I was amazed by the different topics that everyone chose. My only complaint is that we don't get a chance to do another assignment just like it!

Video Project

I Accidentally Deleted This Post...So, For Your Enjoyment, I Have Written Every Damn Word Again

As the title implies, I deleted my post for this week. I can say without hesitation that it was one of the most disheartening moments of my life. Nothing like writing paragraphs of analysis only to erase the whole damn thing with the click of a mouse...gotta love technology. 

Anyway, I write a lot. Whether it's a second blog post, a paper for school, or a chapter in the novel I am working on; I spend a lot of my time working with words. I naturally use different formats and visual cues in each type of writing. I had not until this week's readings, however, ever considered the fact that, though my writing lacks pictures, it is nonetheless "graphic". But it makes sense. We don't just think about how we create sentences, but the presentation of our finished writing. I carefully selected a font for this post, and thought out paragraph breaks so that you fine people would enjoy reading what I have to say. As Bernhardt said, we do things like this, "as a means of revealing structure, content, and logical progression."

This simple matter of "graphic" proponents has a huge impact on writing. Everyone judges books by their covers. Wysocki echoed this concept when he said, "The visual presentation of a page or screen gives you an immediate sense of the genre." You don't need to read a single word to have an impression of what kind of writing is being presented. I would be interested in seeing an example where the visual properties and the writing do not match in this way. I imagine that it is rare. Would a disjoint like that provide interest or just confuse and anger misguided readers?

In reference to the Solomon reading, I am just happy to know that someone else is as passionate about punctuation as I am. 

Critical Photo-Essay Proposal

I am very interested in the question: What is writing? As writers, we should have a concrete concept of this, but I would be willing to argue that we none of us completely agree on the answer to that question. Naturally, if I write a novel that's probably indisputably writing. But what about the text message I just sent? Or how about the tweet I just...tweeted? (Is that the correct jargon? I don't actually do the twitter thing, I just figured it well illustrated my point). 


For my project, I will be researching how others have addressed this gray area. I will pay almost exclusive attention to writing involving electronic elements, and how technology can, or has already, changed the way that we view writing as a whole. I plan on using visual examples of writing found within the world of the interweb that applies to the research presented in a way that clarifies the points being made. 


I would like to eventually show that the very definition of writing has been altered by online formats, and then offer some scholarly opinions in regards to the positive or negative elements of that change. 

Thoughts and Stuff...

IText

In this article, I was struck by the commentary on meaning assignment. In studying rhetoric, we spend a lot of time discussing how the way we present a piece of writing can influence whether or not the work is successful. In the article, it was said that, "the new forms and functions of ITexts present new challenges to meaning-making." I had never before considered the idea that technology would alter the way in which we, as writers, assign meaning to our texts. 

Essentially, the entire concept of rhetoric has to be altered to apply to the newer, faster mediums in which writing is now being done. With little to no demographic control, writing has to become broader and more accessible in order to be more technologically friendly. How will this change the way that we write? I almost feel that something will be lost if the meaning of writing has to be altered to appeal to the greater reaches of audiences. 

Pencils to Pixels

It is so strange to consider a pencil as technology. When someone says technology my first thought is of iPads, laptops, and cell-phones. A pencil? A pencil is just something that I keep in the bottom of my backpack just in case my computer runs out of battery power. To think that something so simple could cause such an uproar is remarkable. It makes one really consider how every small advancement in our society was at one point revolutionary. 

It is interesting to consider the technology that we use on a daily basis, and think back to a time when it was revolutionary. Our class alone utilizes so many incredible advancements. Heck, I probably wouldn't have been able to spell the word "advancements" without the spell-check feature of this blog (that's a hypothetical example. Of course I can spel) 

This article made me wonder: What will the next revolutionary idea be? What will knock us off our feet the way the pencil once did?

History Now

I just recently had an friendly argument with my father regarding Wikipedia. He, like many of his generation as I have noticed, voiced a hesitation. He claimed that Wikipedia is unreliable, and cited a few examples where errors have not been corrected properly. I agreed with the point that errors are not fixed immediately, but made the point that the 

ability to connect people and utilize vast areas of knowledge is an incredible concept. 

We have talked a lot about the ability of technology to connect people. Wikis are a fantastic example of the possibilities. We can all connect and share our experiences and knowledge with others. There are some douche bags that give sites like Wikipedia a bad reputation, but, as a whole, I would say that the benefits outweigh the potential lunacy. 

There is simply a necessity to verify facts that are found on sites like these. But, then again, these days you should probably verify everything you read on the internet. For instance, I can tell you on this blog that the man that invented chloroform used it to kill himself in prison after after throwing sulfuric acid on prostitutes. Or, that Jagermeister was intended to be a cough syrup originally. You probably should verify that before you take my word for it. (Except I got those facts from Reddit and we all know that Reddit is always full of truth). 

Introduction Video

What is Rhetoric? No, Seriously. What the Hell is Rhetoric?

I've been an English major for a couple of years now, and I still have no idea what the hell "rhetoric" means. It seems to be a word that becomes more complicated the more that you know about it. Reading this week's articles, I came across some points that I found quite interesting and thought provoking.  


Firstly, Covino and Jolliffe made me feel a lot better about not understanding rhetoric. They acknowledge the fact that, "there is no short answer...rhetoric might be understood as the study and practice of shaping content." One could possible understand rhetoric (or at least I do) as the set of tools you have to present yourself to the world. Elements like delivery, style, and arrangement can have an effect on the way an idea or concept is perceived. In that way, rhetoric is essential to the transmission of thoughts from one to another. 


Rhetoric's function then is to offer explanations and persuasion. As Grant-Davie puts it, "a rhetorical situation is a situation where a speaker or writer sees a need to change reality and sees that the change may be effected through rhetorical discourse." A writer has the opportunity to alter another's state of thinking through strong rhetoric, and in turn alter their sense of what is real. When thought about in this light, rhetoric is a powerful tool. The ability to shape another's perceptions through your work is an outcome that many writers hope to achieve, and a strong understanding of what discourse is most applicable in which situation can go a long way. 


My favorite point made by the readings was one stated by Porter. He quotes that, "property and 'creativity' in language lies in the speaker's ability to create new meanings." The message is that the creation of words and sentences is not the integral part of writing. This naturally comes as a shock to a writing student. I spend a great deal of time focusing on words and sentences. But when I really think about it, I often use what I have heard from others to create my own words. I borrow and sometimes downright steal the words of others. What makes it my own is the meaning that I assign to it. I never realized that by doing that I was actively engaging in a rhetorical situation. I may not understand it, but I apparently do it. 

The World in Shocking Technicolor

I never really experienced a world free of technology, as my generation was surrounded by technological innovation from a very early age. In fact, it's hard to imagine not having that element of life present. It is how we connect to the world around us, and how we manage to present ourselves to others, but it is so commonplace that I think we often miss how impressive technology is. 


Whitacre's videos made me think a lot about this point. People from across the globe that would otherwise never cross paths come together to sing. It is a powerful example of how we can all be unified through the use of technology. We need not be geographically close at all, but can still share moments and create things together. That is much like this class. I am currently in Alaska, and I doubt any of the rest of you are. But here you are, reading my words, connecting with me on a level that would not be possible without the internet. We are being drawn out of our surroundings and are able to experience the world on a grand level. 


The most amazing thing I found within the Whitacre videos, however, was the sense of intimacy that remains intact despite this technological merging of individuals. It is easy to get lost in the world of the internet. Personal identity is not a necessary element, unfortunately. But Whitaker placed emphasis on individuals. Despite having hundreds of people in his virtual choir, he knew certain names and locations to share. The singers were made to be people, and not one technological entity. That's beautiful. 


I often wonder how technology will effect my writing. I certainly don't want to get lost; one amongst millions of nameless voices. These videos give me hope that technology is not going to bring an end to the personal, but simply change the way that we are able to connect ourselves with others. 

Howdy Y'all

I like Pina Coladas and getting caught in the rain. I'm not much into health food. I am into champagne. 

I'm a Junior studying Writing, and whenever somebody asks me what I plan on being later in life with a degree in English I generally respond with "homeless", "the President of the United States", or "trophy wife". I actually want to be Johnny Depp in Secret Window before John Turturro shows up. Or, in other words, I want to live in a kick-ass cabin in the woods and write short stories in my bathrobe.

Before I was an English major my dream was to study psychology and work with violent sexual offenders with the Behavioral Sciences Unit of the FBI. Although I didn't go that route, I can still tell you almost anything you want to know about most serial killers, which I have found makes a lot of people uncomfortable and is not a good conversation starter at parties. 

I was raised in Alaska, and rocked the stereotype by being a competitive sprint dog musher for most of my younger years. Nowadays, I like reading, writing, playing mandolin, and spending time with people I love. I also like Pilates. I don't actually do it. I just think it's a good idea.