I really enjoyed this class and I feel like I have learned many valuable techniques to better my writing, along with critical ways to view the newsphere.
I thought that the circulation of news was the most interesting subject to learn about because it was something that I had previously never thought about in-depth.
I learned a new way of thinking where people actually care about the news. The question "so what's going on the in the news today?" always struck me as odd/cool because previously I didn't know that people actually cared (This sounds weird but I'm going to go with it).
The most useful course subject was the "author, audience, purpose" lingo of Harris. I'll use this for sure in upcoming papers, but also if I follow a news story I can critically look at how the story is being portrayed and understand that not all the sides of the story are being shown.
I really loved the peer review because previously I never edited any of my papers after writing them the first time. It was really interesting to see how my peers saw my paper and how they could help me become a better writer.
How I will apply this knowledge beyond this course? I think that writing papers will be easier. And thanks to this class, maybe someday I will come to terms with how the newsphere affects my life.
Thanks for an interesting and fun class!
Claudia
Monday, March 12, 2012
Taking An Approach, Harris style
According to Harris, there is a "weak" way to taking an approach and a stronger way to taking an approach. The weak way in one in which "one assumes the role of a disciple, adopting (rather than adapting) the moves and interests of another thinker". In this taking an approach, "little knowledge is created. Instead the disciple simply shows that the master is correct" (74). I don't know how many of these papers I have written, but the number is probably in the millions.
I really understood what Harris was saying when he used the Jane Eyre example. It is one of my favorite books, so it really caught my eye, and explained "taking an approach" in a way that I could visualize. This is the quote: "Jean Rhys offers a new and dark subtext for Jane Eyre in Wild Sargasso Sea by imagining the first wife of Rochester as a girl torn from her home in the West Indies..." (76). But Harris also makes an important distinction between creative artists taking an approach and academic writers taking an approach. He says "While artists often take new approaches to familiar materials, intellectuals tens to embrace an approach in order to extend it to new questions and texts" Academic writers use a great deal of countering in their approaches and forward the mode of the original writer while also defining his or her concerns, methods, and values.
When taking an approach one must...
--acknowledge influences (nothing those writers whose work has in some way provided a model for your own)
-- turn an approach on itself * I thought this one was most interesting. I think that this distinguishes a good writers from an mediocre writer* (asking the same questions of a writer that he or she asks of others)
--reflexivity (nothing and reflecting on the key choices you have made concerning method, values, and language while constructing your text)
I think that the Onion takes an approach to stories that are "big enough". They are capable of embracing other writings in order to extend it to new questions and texts, but often does it an a satirical way. The Onion take national news stories and applies the same techniques that the larger company uses, to its own blog. But the difference is that they do this in order to poke fun at how the larger company dishes out the news. An example of this would be the article "Media Reminds Public Not To Overemphasize Super Tuesday Results Or Draw Any Sort Of Wide-Reaching Conclusions". They include some real quotes from CNN newscasters and then add in some more fake quotes of their own in order to extend the conversation to new ideas and questions.
This is the Onion article quote: "Let's remember not to place too much importance on anything that happens tonight, or act like any single event could make or break a candidate, signal the overall direction of the Republican Party, or sum up the opinions of voters in general," CNN's Wolf Blitzer said as the results trickled in during his nonstop, seven-hour coverage of the voting. "Come to think of it, even the phrase Super Tuesday may be a bit unfair, as it makes the ballots cast on this day seem more important than others, which is frankly a sensationalist way of looking at things considering we still have 28 states, the District of Columbia, and five U.S. territories left to go." Blitzer later added that presenting extended coverage and analysis of Super Tuesday at all was ultimately unnecessary given that "realistically speaking, Romney pretty much has this thing wrapped up."
The New York Times takes an approach to other academic writings as well. I found the most examples in the Opinion pages, which makes sense. The NYT approaches other texts in an academic way because they like to be fancy and stuff like that. It explains the issue at hand and then goes into further insight, relating the story with other relevant ideas and questions.
The NYT can only gain when they take an approach to other academic writing. They bring up great new dimensions to the story while acknowledging influences of the original writer. The Onion only really gains a laugh and loses most credibility. I would ague that sometimes they can add in something new to the conversation, but those instances are few and far between.
I really understood what Harris was saying when he used the Jane Eyre example. It is one of my favorite books, so it really caught my eye, and explained "taking an approach" in a way that I could visualize. This is the quote: "Jean Rhys offers a new and dark subtext for Jane Eyre in Wild Sargasso Sea by imagining the first wife of Rochester as a girl torn from her home in the West Indies..." (76). But Harris also makes an important distinction between creative artists taking an approach and academic writers taking an approach. He says "While artists often take new approaches to familiar materials, intellectuals tens to embrace an approach in order to extend it to new questions and texts" Academic writers use a great deal of countering in their approaches and forward the mode of the original writer while also defining his or her concerns, methods, and values.
When taking an approach one must...
--acknowledge influences (nothing those writers whose work has in some way provided a model for your own)
-- turn an approach on itself * I thought this one was most interesting. I think that this distinguishes a good writers from an mediocre writer* (asking the same questions of a writer that he or she asks of others)
--reflexivity (nothing and reflecting on the key choices you have made concerning method, values, and language while constructing your text)
I think that the Onion takes an approach to stories that are "big enough". They are capable of embracing other writings in order to extend it to new questions and texts, but often does it an a satirical way. The Onion take national news stories and applies the same techniques that the larger company uses, to its own blog. But the difference is that they do this in order to poke fun at how the larger company dishes out the news. An example of this would be the article "Media Reminds Public Not To Overemphasize Super Tuesday Results Or Draw Any Sort Of Wide-Reaching Conclusions". They include some real quotes from CNN newscasters and then add in some more fake quotes of their own in order to extend the conversation to new ideas and questions.
This is the Onion article quote: "Let's remember not to place too much importance on anything that happens tonight, or act like any single event could make or break a candidate, signal the overall direction of the Republican Party, or sum up the opinions of voters in general," CNN's Wolf Blitzer said as the results trickled in during his nonstop, seven-hour coverage of the voting. "Come to think of it, even the phrase Super Tuesday may be a bit unfair, as it makes the ballots cast on this day seem more important than others, which is frankly a sensationalist way of looking at things considering we still have 28 states, the District of Columbia, and five U.S. territories left to go." Blitzer later added that presenting extended coverage and analysis of Super Tuesday at all was ultimately unnecessary given that "realistically speaking, Romney pretty much has this thing wrapped up."
The New York Times takes an approach to other academic writings as well. I found the most examples in the Opinion pages, which makes sense. The NYT approaches other texts in an academic way because they like to be fancy and stuff like that. It explains the issue at hand and then goes into further insight, relating the story with other relevant ideas and questions.
The NYT can only gain when they take an approach to other academic writing. They bring up great new dimensions to the story while acknowledging influences of the original writer. The Onion only really gains a laugh and loses most credibility. I would ague that sometimes they can add in something new to the conversation, but those instances are few and far between.
Reposting Blog....
Revisiting my posts throughout the quarter was actually sort of fun! We wrote so much! But finding one to repost was difficult for me. I decided on one of the first ones, when I am writing about my Internet habits.
" Thinking about it, I guess I never really absorb any information during my time on facebook, which is depressing. I skim over people's statuses, and perhaps relish them for a moment, but once I scroll further down, it pretty much leaves my mind forever. "Reading" on facebook doesn't involve any thinking. It's not like after I log out, I think whoa, that status was very intriguing. I think I'm going to think about that for a little while longer and maybe even discuss with some of my peers. That 's much more likely to happen if I'm actually reading a novel or something.
Then I go to sites that I think are fun, like postsecret.com, a stumblupon poetry site that I really like, and AOL to read the latest gossip on the block. Then I dink around listening to some music I like.
summary time-
writing - I do not write anything on the Internet. well, nothing of any importance.
reading - sometimes I read articles I find on AOL news, but generally I just skim for the important details.
watch - well of course I watch funny youtube videos and occasionally TV shows on hulu.
in conclusion-
the time I spend on the internet is basically wasted because I'm not reading or writing anything of any importance. the only exception is when I'm reading poetry blog-like things because they are awesome and help me with my own writing processes. but basically, staring at a computer screen usually ends with me getting a headache and sub sequentially taking a nap.
el fin"
Then I go to sites that I think are fun, like postsecret.com, a stumblupon poetry site that I really like, and AOL to read the latest gossip on the block. Then I dink around listening to some music I like.
summary time-
writing - I do not write anything on the Internet. well, nothing of any importance.
reading - sometimes I read articles I find on AOL news, but generally I just skim for the important details.
watch - well of course I watch funny youtube videos and occasionally TV shows on hulu.
in conclusion-
the time I spend on the internet is basically wasted because I'm not reading or writing anything of any importance. the only exception is when I'm reading poetry blog-like things because they are awesome and help me with my own writing processes. but basically, staring at a computer screen usually ends with me getting a headache and sub sequentially taking a nap.
el fin"
If I were to rewrite this post, I wouldn't be so damn pessimistic. I actually get a lot from the Internet. Saying that I am only wasting my time on the computer is only telling half of the story. Although it may seem like I do a lot of "little nothings" on the Internet, at the end of the day they add up to create/ shape my outlook/personality in some way. Spending time on Facebook actually does help me keep in touch with my old friends, which was an pro-Facebook argument that I had previously rejected. I also seriously undermined how much the Internet helps me to explore new music, which is a big part of my life. This connects me with multiple communities and is constructive when it comes to creating myself. Also, what I'm watching on the Internet does keep me informed. Before, I thought that if I wasn't reading BBC online news that I wasn't doing anything productive, but that simply is not true. Simple because I enjoy comical or satirical youtube videos does not mean that I am gaining nothing from the experience or learning about new things happening in the world.
Monday, March 5, 2012
Extended Essay #2
Claudia Locke
WRIT 1122
Extended Essay #2
The Virginia Ultrasound Bill
The Virginia state congress has a new bill regarding abortion procedures. The “Ultrasound Bill” would require women seeking an abortion to first have an ultrasound. The bill was drafted under a Republican majority congress and if passed, Virginia will be the eighth state to require an ultrasound before an abortion. The addition into the bill of allowing women to make “informed consent” has made way for anti-abortion and pro-life groups to enter the picture. There is dispute what the Virginia Senate Health and Education Committee’s intentions were when drafting the bill. The newsphere is trying to unwrap the story to see if the congressmen’s true interest is to convince the woman to forego the procedure after seeing the fetus’s image. The only constant that runs through news articles is the contradictory information that is being presented in each one. One source claims that a transvaginal ultrasound does not help to protect the safety of the woman before an abortion, and another source refutes that statement. Even after reading multiple articles from viable news sources, it is difficult to understand what is and is not necessary in an abortion procedure. The majority of articles on the Internet are in opposition to this legislation. The newsphere covers a lot of politicians’ opinions but not a lot of information about the specifics of the law and what current abortion procedures are. The newsphere also aligns this controversial story with upcoming political elections.
The New York Times covered the ultrasound bill issue on February 20. The purpose of the article “Ultrasound Abortion Bill Nears Vote in Virginia” is to inform the reader about the upcoming legislative vote regarding a change to abortion procedures. The NY Times is slightly left of other non-partisan news sources, meaning that the audience is pro-choice and anti-government interference in private matters. The NY Times usually does a good job with providing both sides of the story, but failed to do so in this article. The article focuses on the politics behind the bill and the opposition to the bill, but does not provide supporters opinions, save for the writings about the “anti-abortion” supporters. Reporters Sabrina Tavernise and Erik Eckholm from the New York Times write,
“Anti-abortion groups say that it is a tool for “informed consent,” and that they hope some women will be deterred when they see or hear about the physical traits of the developing fetus”.
While the new legislation might coincide with the will of anti-abortion groups, the NY Times article does not illustrate other justifications for this bill, primarily being the safety of women during the abortion procedure. Vaginal ultrasounds are often performed by doctors before abortions in the first trimester anyway, but opponents say that “the legal act of requiring it for nonmedical reasons is a violation of the doctor-patient relationship”. Delegate Charniele L. Herring, a Democrat who opposes the bill, said “the requirement that the probe be inserted vaginally was tantamount to ‘state-sponsored rape’”. The only new information that the NY Times provides are their critics’ outrage of the cost of the ultrasound being borne by the woman in the prospective bill. The NY Times also inserts a quote from Tarina Keene, executive direction of Naral Pro-Choice Virginia, regarding forced bodily intrusion in order to further their argument and communicate to the liberal readers that there are pro-choice activists working against the bill in Virginia. The New York Times uses harsh diction and excludes other possible benefits of the bill in their report.
The Washington Post also covers the “Ultrasound Bill”, and does a much better job at presenting all sides of the story. The purpose of the article “Virginia ultrasound bill joins other states’ measures” is to engage the readers in a controversial issue and encourage them to find out more. The Washington Post article inspires the readers to physically engage in the issue by including a summary of the protests in Virginia that are in opposition to the bill. The Washington Post news article covers all of the information that the NY Times does, but brings up an important point that was avoided in the previous article. Washington Post writer Lena H. Sun writes,
“Providers need to know how far the pregnancy has progressed to ensure that an abortion is taking place within a state’s legal time frame, that medically appropriate methods are being used, and to rule out ectopic pregnancies”.
This simple explanation introduces an entire new component to the bill, implying that it has nothing to do with women’s rights, but rather the safety of women. The Washington Post suggests that the bill’s purpose is aimed at doctors, and ensure that they submit themselves to the same regulations of other health clinics in America.
Comedy Central’s “The Daily Show with Jon Stewart” covered the ultrasound bill debate, with a high dose of satire and mockery. The purpose of this particular news clip was to convince the audience that the Republican congressmen who are in charge of the ultrasound bill are incompetent and inconsistent with their values. “The Daily Show” is to the left on the NY, and it was shown in this clip through Stewart’s aggressive demeanor and ironical statements pointed at Republican state lawmaker Kathy J. Byron, who introduced the bill. Stewart showed footage of Bryon from January 2011, in which she attacked state efforts to mandate the HPV vaccine, saying that “The substitution of our judgment for the judgment of parents is exactly the type of government intrusion into healthcare that America rejected at the polls last November”. Stewart’s satire reaches the younger, liberal audience because he adds a dose of comedy and excitement into the news stories that directly relate to their lives. “Saturday Night Live” reports on the news in their “World News with Seth Meyers” bit, and creates a similar viewpoint in their sketch “Really?!? With Seth and Amy”. The writers and audience also have a liberal bias, so the actors Seth Meyers and Amy Poehler ridiculed the Virginian measures to change abortion procedures. Poehler declares, “The Virginia House of Representatives this week passed a bill that required women to have a transvaginal ultrasound before having an abortion. Really? Now don’t get me wrong. I love transvaginal. It’s my favorite airline. I have so many miles on Transvaginal that they upgrade me to ladybusiness”. Meyers goes on the mock the news story, going as far as saying “But Virginia wasn’t done. They also passed a bill saying that life begins at conception. What’s next? Life begins at last call? Life begins when you click ‘send’ on your match.com profile. I mean, really!’” The story got many laughs but “dumbed- down” the real issue that is being debated. “The Daily Show” and “Saturday Night Live” both focus on poking fun at the legislative changes, rather than discussing them in depth and presenting the audience with viable information. They focus on the act of passing the bill, rather than the motivations of Congress behind it, such as the pro-life argument or safety precautions. This type of “news source”, however absurd is may seem, still reaches out to a significant number of people and informs the audience of upcoming legislative changes.
The National Review online article “Abortion Advocates Wage a Misinformation Campaign over Virginia Ultrasound Legislation” was by far the most knowledgeable source that focused only on abortion procedure facts, rather than debating the pro-life aspect of the bill. Just like the Washington Post, this article explains how the bill would increase the safety measures taken by the doctor before the procedure. The authors, Daniel McConchie and Mailee R. Smith counter the ultrasound news stories that were presented by other mainstream news sources. The authors state that :
“ABC News reporter Serena Marshall wrote in her story, ‘Many women receive abortion very early in their pregnancies, which would mean that, in some cases, a trans-vaginal ultrasound would be required.’ Ed Schultz on MSNBC stated that the bill would require women seeking abortions would require a highly invasive trans-vaginal ultrasound first.’”
McConchie and Smith counter these supposed “facts” presented by the mainstream news by uncovering values and exploring the bill as a safety regulation rather than pro-life movement. They counter by saying:
“Ultrasound assists an abortion provider in determining gestational age. The farther along in pregnancy that a woman is, the greater the risk that abortion poses. Ultrasound also serves an essential medical purpose by diagnosing ectopic pregnancies which, if left undiagnosed, can result in fallopian rupture and life-threatening bleeding. For example, the FDA has reported that at least two women have died from ruptured ectopic pregnancies following use of the abortion drug RU-486”.
The National Review Online article condones the use of scare-tactics by pro-abortion groups, and urges the readers to look at the use of false information and personal vendetta against the Virginian pro-life governor as a politically timed attack, rather than an opposition to the legislation based on its merits. The National Review Online article has the purpose of illustrating another side to the ultrasound bill that is undocumented and avoided by other media sources.
The newsphere also aligns this controversial story with upcoming political elections, which in my opinion deters the story away from women and instead, focuses on what a couple of old white congressmen will stand by through their campaigns. The headlines “Alabama Ultrasound Bill: Governor Robert Bentley Says He Just Learned About Legislation” (Huffington Post) and “Bachmann Introduces New Bill for Ultrasounds before Abortions” (Life News) create an environment where the personal opinions of the law makers interfere with and trump the basic changes the bill would make regarding procedures. There is much speculation about which congressmen support the bill and how it will affect their campaign, but this bill is important only because it affects a substantial group of citizens, and has the potential to inhibit the constitutional right to privacy given to all citizens if handled poorly. The newsphere successfully covered this legislature because it is one of such contention, however, the story changed from an ultrasounds debate to a pro-life debate. Unfortunately, abortion polarizes the sides in politics so much so that there is no middle ground for news sources to communicate on. Personally, I understand both sides to the proposed legislation and feel that the most telling part of the bill will be how voters react to their congressmen in upcoming polls.
Works Cited
Celock, John. "Alabama Ultrasound Bill: Governor Robert Bentley Says He Just Learned About Legislation." Huffington Post. 26 Feb. 2012. Web.
Ertelt, Steven. "Bachmann Introduces Bill for Ultrasounds Before Abortions." LifeNews.com. 10 Oct. 2011. Web.
McConchie, Daniel, and Mailee R. Smith. "Abortion Advocates Wage a Misinformation Campaign over Virginia Ultrasound Legislation." National Review Online. 23 Feb. 2012. Web.
Sun, Lena H. "Virginia Ultrasound Bill Joins Other States’ Measures." The Washington Post. 26 Feb. 2012. Web.
Tabernise, Sabrina, and Erik Eckholm. "Ultrasound Bill Nears Vote in Virginia." The New York Times. 20 Feb. 2012. Web.
Vozzella, Laura. "‘Daily Show’ Mocks Virginia’s Ultrasound Bill." The Washington Post Local , Virginia Politics. 22 Feb. 2012. Web.
Vozzella, Laura. "‘Saturday Night Live’ Mocks Virginia Anti-abortion Bills." The Washington Post Local , Virginia Politics. 20 Feb. 2012. Web.
Sunday, February 19, 2012
Countering
I liked this section because I'm a terrible arguer. Once in my high school speech and debate class I received zero out of eleven votes for a debate I was in. The fact that I was arguing against lowering the drinking age might have come into play, but regardless, it shook my debating confidence a bit.
Joseph Harris thinks that...
"to counter is not to nullify but to suggest a different way of thinking...respond to prior views in ways that move the conversation in new directions".
Thinking of political debates, all candidates every do is argue and attempt to prove how smart they are and how wrong their opponent is, when a more constructive use of their time would be countering, "opening up new lines of inquiry". But this is understandable, I think, because America would rather have a "winner" and a "loser", a "good" and a "bad", because it is easier to cheer for your team that way.
When you are countering another author's text, first you have to come to terms with their work by identifying their purpose. Then, you can..
Argue the other side- show the usefulness of a term or idea that a writer has criticized, or note problems with one that they have argued for
Uncover vales- surface a word or concept for analysis that a text has left undefined or unexamined
or
Dissent- identify a shared line of thought on an issue in order to note its limits.
A large majority of the Onion's articles are "countering" articles, but it is difficult to assign them to one of the three sections that Harris writes about. Most of them use sarcasm as their main countering tool, and I'm not sure which section that falls under... so if any of you know, that would be great if you let me know :)
I'll try to use the article "Obama criticized for Living in Lavish Mansion while Most Americans Struggle to Make Ends Meet". I'm pretty sure that they are dissenting... but in a very sneaky manner. The author agrees with all of the commentators, but too much so. They take what criticizers say and blow it up to a whole new level, at times adding in false quotations of both influential people and others that I'm pretty sure are imaginary (I can't even imagine how the Onion deals with lawsuits).
This is an excerpt from the article...
"What message does it send to the American people when their president is living in a ritzy palatial estate at the same time they're struggling to keep their heads above water?" political strategist Robert T. Carlson said Wednesday, noting that Obama's gated home features a lush rose garden, a private balcony, an ostentatious room seemingly devoted to the color blue, a solarium, "fancy portraits" of John F. Kennedy and George Washington, and a movie theater. "So much for all that 'shared sacrifice' he keeps talking about.And just look at those gaudy columned porticoes," Carlson continued. "It must have cost a fortune to build that place."
I looked up "Political strategist Robert T. Carlson and could not find him in Google. Perhaps I should have known that this person did not even exist, I guess I'm gullible. But I think that this unique strategy of "identify a shared line of thought on an issue in order to note its limits" works on most Americans. The others readers probably didn't think twice about the existence of Robert T. Carlson, only about the topic that he brought to light.
So I'm going to put the Onion in the "dissent" category- identifying a shared line of thought on an issue in order to note its limits". But they share the line of thought in a sarcastic way.
I have a feeling that Joseph Harris would not be pleased with the Onion as a viable "countering" website because they argue the validity of the opponent but do not suggest any new direction of thinking.
Joseph Harris thinks that...
"to counter is not to nullify but to suggest a different way of thinking...respond to prior views in ways that move the conversation in new directions".
Thinking of political debates, all candidates every do is argue and attempt to prove how smart they are and how wrong their opponent is, when a more constructive use of their time would be countering, "opening up new lines of inquiry". But this is understandable, I think, because America would rather have a "winner" and a "loser", a "good" and a "bad", because it is easier to cheer for your team that way.
When you are countering another author's text, first you have to come to terms with their work by identifying their purpose. Then, you can..
Argue the other side- show the usefulness of a term or idea that a writer has criticized, or note problems with one that they have argued for
Uncover vales- surface a word or concept for analysis that a text has left undefined or unexamined
or
Dissent- identify a shared line of thought on an issue in order to note its limits.
A large majority of the Onion's articles are "countering" articles, but it is difficult to assign them to one of the three sections that Harris writes about. Most of them use sarcasm as their main countering tool, and I'm not sure which section that falls under... so if any of you know, that would be great if you let me know :)
I'll try to use the article "Obama criticized for Living in Lavish Mansion while Most Americans Struggle to Make Ends Meet". I'm pretty sure that they are dissenting... but in a very sneaky manner. The author agrees with all of the commentators, but too much so. They take what criticizers say and blow it up to a whole new level, at times adding in false quotations of both influential people and others that I'm pretty sure are imaginary (I can't even imagine how the Onion deals with lawsuits).
This is an excerpt from the article...
"What message does it send to the American people when their president is living in a ritzy palatial estate at the same time they're struggling to keep their heads above water?" political strategist Robert T. Carlson said Wednesday, noting that Obama's gated home features a lush rose garden, a private balcony, an ostentatious room seemingly devoted to the color blue, a solarium, "fancy portraits" of John F. Kennedy and George Washington, and a movie theater. "So much for all that 'shared sacrifice' he keeps talking about.And just look at those gaudy columned porticoes," Carlson continued. "It must have cost a fortune to build that place."
I looked up "Political strategist Robert T. Carlson and could not find him in Google. Perhaps I should have known that this person did not even exist, I guess I'm gullible. But I think that this unique strategy of "identify a shared line of thought on an issue in order to note its limits" works on most Americans. The others readers probably didn't think twice about the existence of Robert T. Carlson, only about the topic that he brought to light.
So I'm going to put the Onion in the "dissent" category- identifying a shared line of thought on an issue in order to note its limits". But they share the line of thought in a sarcastic way.
What is lost, gained, altered, or remains the same in that countering?
Seriousness is lost. Also, if a reader is not familiar with the sarcastic tone to the Onion, they might believe that they are in agreement with this article. What is gained is a fresh insight on the issue/ the hypocrisy, which is useful in some cases but not to help further the conversation.
I have a feeling that Joseph Harris would not be pleased with the Onion as a viable "countering" website because they argue the validity of the opponent but do not suggest any new direction of thinking.
Forwarding
Joseph Harris states that the goal of academic writing is "not to have the final word, to bring the discussion to a close, but it push it forward, to say something new, something that seems to call for further talk and writing"(35). The idea of "forwarding" can be defined as "circulating [the author's] writing, highlighting parts of his text for the consideration of others". It is just like reading an email, writing down your response that is meant to forward conversation about the subject, and sending it to more people who can relate to the original email. It is a public exchange of comments that have been put to use in a new context. Forwarding a text also means that the focus has been "shifted away from what the author has to say and towards your own project" (38). This is much like a conclusion of a literary essay, which brings in a new subject after commenting on the author's original purpose.
In forwarding a text, you shape the original to fit your specific goals by either.....
illustrating (looking to other texts for examples of a point you want to make),
authorizing (invoking the expertise of another writer to support your thinking),
borrowing (drawing on terms or ideas from other writers to use in thinking though your subject) or
extending (putting your own spin on the terms or concepts that you take from other texts).
An example of a forwarded text in the Onion is the article "Intelligent, Condescending Life Discovered In Distant Galaxy" which focuses on the momentous leap that NASA scientists have made with identifying life in other galaxies. The actual facts are that "100 billion Earth-like planets in the Milky Way, or one for every sun-type star in the galaxy, said Alan Boss, an astronomer with the Carnegie Institution and author of the new book "The Crowded Universe: The Search for Living Planets." (CNN Tech, A. Pawlowski). The Onion extends the concept that NASA publicized by instigating that the extraterrestrials used "patronizing language and backhanded compliments", saying it was "nice to finally hear from our quaint planet" and that it "certainly took humanity long enough".
In forwarding a text, you shape the original to fit your specific goals by either.....
illustrating (looking to other texts for examples of a point you want to make),
authorizing (invoking the expertise of another writer to support your thinking),
borrowing (drawing on terms or ideas from other writers to use in thinking though your subject) or
extending (putting your own spin on the terms or concepts that you take from other texts).
An example of a forwarded text in the Onion is the article "Intelligent, Condescending Life Discovered In Distant Galaxy" which focuses on the momentous leap that NASA scientists have made with identifying life in other galaxies. The actual facts are that "100 billion Earth-like planets in the Milky Way, or one for every sun-type star in the galaxy, said Alan Boss, an astronomer with the Carnegie Institution and author of the new book "The Crowded Universe: The Search for Living Planets." (CNN Tech, A. Pawlowski). The Onion extends the concept that NASA publicized by instigating that the extraterrestrials used "patronizing language and backhanded compliments", saying it was "nice to finally hear from our quaint planet" and that it "certainly took humanity long enough".
So what is lost, gained, altered, or remains the same in that forwarding?
The seriousness is lost. Almost all of the facts are altered (I had to go to CNN to read the real story). A potential huge discovery is made fun of by the writers of the Onion, and for what purpose? Perhaps just to make the reader chuckle a bit and look at the story from a different angle, so the reader is thinking more along the lines of Of course we have identified life in other galaxies rather than I'm not sure if there is life in other galaxies. The sarcastic tone of voice takes the original story and turns it into a DUH moment for the readers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)