"Coaches can read, too": Revealing the nature of the game

Establishing a Territory:

Bra nick starts by talking about how important coaching is in any form of football, be it little league or the pros. He goes on to talk about some of the effective characteristics that coaches have to possess to be successful. It seems that he is focused on showing exactly what goes into being a coach so that their team can win. He reveals that coaches have to have many forms of literacy in order to be able to succeed. Some of the literacies are reading their players, organization of plays, making and pursuing goals, and having the competitive edge.

Establishing a Niche:

Most people know the rules and how to play football, and many also know how hard players work in order to be able to play on a regular schedule. However, it doesn't always seem like many people know exactly all the preparation that coaches have to do as well. Bra nick shows this by discussing the different factors that coaches have to have in order to win their games.

Occupying the Niche:

The end sentence in Branick's introduction is how he occupies the Niche. “How do football coaches, as members of a specific discourse community, go about reading their players and the game in order to get optimal performance and a positive end result”(561)? With all the characteristics and goals of coaching that he provides earlier in his introduction, it's obvious that coaching isn't as easy as just calling plays randomly; there must be a method that coaches follow and a strong communication between the players and coaches so that everyone is on the same page and can go after the same goals.

"Learning to Serve": Word games and food

This reading really hit home with me. The examples he uses I normally see when I work at the Diner depending on the waiters and waitresses working that night. But I digress...

I believe Tony Mirabelli's question was “How do waiter and waitresses compare to workers that have a 'higher education' job (Ie: working for a big business or office)? ” In gathering data, Mirabelli worked at restaurants and interviewed other members to get a better sense of how they interacted with customers. He also took notes about the customers he served and many text based items from the restaurant. He was able to see how the senior waiter (John) evolved through his time there and how far he's come. Mirabelli talks about how the knowledge of an item on the menu affects the customers he serves. If a waiter doesn't know specifics about an item, customers normally don't order them. In a restaurant like Lou's in the text, there are a significant amount of items that a waiter would have to memorize to be able to explain to customers. Knowing what main course meals are, what they come with, what can be substituted, and so on can be a staggering amount of information.

His findings seem to be that waiters not only have to know basic literary skills, but they have to go above and beyond to really interact with customers to make them feel like a member of the family at the restaurant. Also, waiters need to be able to think quickly and be good at 'suggestion' to be able to make a sale and to excel with getting higher tips from customers. Reading not only the menu, but people themselves, is a difficult skill to learn. Waiters and waitresses have to be creative to succeed, and Mirabelli suggests that being a waiter could be even more difficult than a white collar job because of the interaction with other people. It's harder dealing with a customer face to face than it is through a telephone.

Project 4 Proposal

I planned on examining the discourse community of the Union Street Diner. The Diner is a “mom n' pop” restaurant that is an Athens local location. The restaurant is a community in itself: the workers interacting with customers in order to provide a service to others. As a member of the community itself, I feel that there's an interesting dynamic between the workers themselves and the customers they serve.

I believe this community is significant just to show the relationship between the community and the “outsiders” of sorts that aren't directly related to it. Swales talks about how others can be partially assimilated into a community and then they leave. I think there might be more to that statement. In the case of the Diner, I do not believe that there is partial assimilation. I think the customers they serve are part of the discourse itself; perhaps as a symbiotic relationship. Without the customers, the Diner would not be able to function; without the Diner, the specific demographic that takes advantage of the 24 hour service wouldn't have a cure for hangover food cravings. I believe there is something to say about specific relationships between the community and the people not assimilated themselves.

Without a doubt, Swales will be used as a source in the paper. Along with his characteristics of a discourse community to define it, I wanted to go deeper into his thoughts on an outsider's partial assimilation with a community in comparison to my thoughts about symbiotic discourse communities. With the Diner itself, the terminology used is not a hard code to crack. Anyone outside of the community itself can pick up on it easily with listening a few minutes to any of the workers talking to each other as we work.

I was also thinking about using Gee as a source talking about the different levels of authority. I wanted to compare new workers to old workers and how they differ. Myself, for example, I've worked their the shortest amount of time but I'm already in a position of authority in my own right. Other workers have been there for years and years, but do significantly less and are not as highly regarded as others. In the case of the Diner, it's also an interesting relationship because it's under new management. The Diner is trying to get it's feet before doing major expanding; everyone there is trying to learn everything (Owners and Managers are trying to learn other jobs to better train new workers).

I also want to look at Tony Mirabelli's article on “Learning to Serve”. The article itself is based on food service, so it will relate to the community as a whole. It might also address something on the relationship between the workers and customers. This article also talks about misconceptions between food service workers and other workers as part of a big business company. Food service isn't rocket science; treat customers well and cater to them. People think that food service are just blue collar workers who didn't want to go through school and get a “real” job. However, in some cases it's what's necessary to do in order to get that higher education and a better job. It's also, unknown to many people, a strenuous job trying to be a Diner worker (or food service in general) being able to think quickly and accommodate to everyone at once so everyone is happy.

Along with that, Mirabelli talks about how authority between the customer and the waiter changes based on who is the one talking. While the customer has higher authority because a waiter is to serve them, Mirabelli talks about how waiters can use witty techniques of conversation to 'suggest' a specific dish if the waiter knows what the kitchen wants to sell.

Resources

• Mirabelli, Tony. “Learning to serve.”Writing about Writing: A college Reader. Ed. Elizabeth Wardle and Doug Downs. Boston, MA: Bedford/St. Martin's, 2011. 57-65. Print.
• Gee, James Paul. “Literacy, Discourse, and Linguistics.”Writing about Writing: A college Reader. Ed. Elizabeth Wardle and Doug Downs. Boston, MA: Bedford/St. Martin's, 2011. 57-65. Print.
• Swales, John. “The Concept of Discourse Community.”Writing about Writing: A college Reader. Ed. Elizabeth Wardle and Doug Downs. Boston, MA: Bedford/St. Martin's, 2011. 57-65. Print.

"Identity, Authority, and Learning to Write in New Workplaces": 'Order Up!' vs. 'Come Get the Damn Food!'

The three ways Wardle reports newcomers belong are Engagement, Imagination, and Alignment.

Engagement is referring to, in simplest forms, just talking and discussing with other members of a workplace; being active instead of passive. This helps develop relationships between co-workers. An example would be just talking to superiors in a workplace and getting to know them. At the Union Diner (my project 4 topic), I started this by talking to everyone who was working with me that night. I tried to find everyone's name and tried to get to know them better throughout my first night there. I also made sure I knew what was expected of me in my job and tried to make sure I got things done in a timely fashion to their expectations. As the dish washer, I know my position isn't the most glamorous, but it has to be done. Doing the dishes in a timely fashion helps keep the Diner running smoothly, never running out of clean dishes to serve food on.

Imagination talks about a newcomer expanding on the job; finding new ways to pursue the goals of the workplace they are a part of (in good or bad terms depending). It also discusses what I think is making a name for yourself and find out how you belong and relate to the other workers in the workplace. An example would be making your job methods more efficient in order to make yourself useful in the workplace, I guess. At the Diner, the owner bought a new rack for dishes to be hung on to create more space. He made it my job to assemble it and reorganize the dishes. When I got there, all the dishes were scattered and just placed in a different area depending on who else did the job the nights before I worked. I organized it into a system that everyone understands and it has stayed that way since I reorganized.

Alignment refers to molding yourself into the position. You need to be able to focus your priorities onto a focus that is the same as the rest of the workplace. I guess an example of this is a new worker understanding how their job is done and makes sure it is done the way they are told to do it. Once they are skilled at doing it their way, they can branch out and explore new ways that get the job done, but might be more efficient. At the Diner, everyone is working to make a satisfying meal for the customers. We all need to make sure we are on the same page in order to provide that experience for those who come in. If one particular person isn't doing their job quite as well as the next person, then the entire place suffers. For example: a cook isn't cooking food appropriately, food gets out late. If a server isn't courteous with customers, they could walk out frustrated.

"Discourse Communities and Communities of Practice": Confusing, but understandable...

To me, the conversation between Swales and Gee is discussing what exactly is “discourse.” Swales talks about how a group can be discourse community if they meet a specific series of characteristics. He also talks about how other people can be partially assimilated into a discourse and then leave the community. Gee counters with how his beliefs are that a “Discourse” is more of a ongoing process that everyone is born into. People who aren't born into a specific discourse is doomed to only being a pretender to what they want to be a part of. Through life, Gee also discusses how mentors are “gatekeepers” of sorts that test their students constantly on their knowledge of a specific discourse. Swales focuses on the community while Gee focuses on the individual.

Johns comes in with an explanation of the deeper meaning of discourse and discourse community through the use of examples that students can relate too (Ie: AARP and Bicycling examples). She also talks about the reasons why people join groups and how their relationship to a discourse community changes overtime. She provides information on the items that help bring a person into s discourse, but she then provides the new material on how one can be pushed out of a discourse. She talks about the conflicts between being a part of a specific discourse and the sacrifices it might cause. In an academic discourse, Johns discusses that one must devote themselves to academia and distance themselves from social pursuits and family.

She also goes on to talk about the “who's in charge” factor when a new recruit is initiated, and how a person can change through evolution of a community and breaking the old, in place, rules that are there. Authority is that driving force in a community that provides the test to make sure the members are passing through the right gates and growing in the community as they should be. With breaking the old rules, Johns discusses how a student can be in higher praise because they can break the rules, only with that understanding of the rules themselves and “breaking them in the right way” so to speak. This rule breaking is what seems to be a “development of identity in a discourse community”.

"Literacy, Discourse, and Linguistics": Use the Discourse, young padawan...

I believe Gee is talking about “tests” that superiors use to make sure we are ready for the next step in the process of learning a Discourse. The tests that are provided are just a safeguard that the teacher has effectively taught one part of the discourse and that the student “apprentice” has a grasp and understands what is needed of the discourse thus far. If a student isn't ready to proceed, they will be forced to look elsewhere for a discourse or to stay in that particular stage of learning the Discourse until they can master that part.

An example I know first hand is any of the language courses here on campus (But for my personal experience, I will use Japanese Class). Every week, we have two quizzes. The Friday quiz is a review of what we've learned earlier in the week. The Monday quiz is normally based on what we learned last week, but the other half of what we learned. For example: a Friday quiz focuses on grammar learned in the week while the following Monday quiz focuses on the vocabulary. Eventually, you have the Final exam in the class. The rule is if you do not meet a certain grade on the final, you don't progress onto the next stage of the class. So: it's the school's (and the teachers) way of making sure that if the student progresses, he will be able to understand and survive in the next part of the class (or Discourse).

"The Concept of Discourse Community": ...I can't think of a witty subtitle.

In “The Concept of Discourse Community”, John Swales argues six different characteristics of a discourse community:

1)”A discourse community has a broadly agreed set of common public goals.”

To me, Swales is arguing that a community has a set of goals (a purpose) that is known to everyone that is in the community. To a Facebook group, these goals could be promoting an object, idea, or club (the group ANIME [promoting Japanese television cartoons] for example). To a workplace, it's the common goal to keep the business running and functioning correctly.

2)“A discourse community has mechanisms of intercommunication among its members.”

This seems to be that members of any particular community have a way to get a hold of each other and pass on information one way or another. It has many different forms from word of mouth to a sophisticated newsletter. Using Facebook again, it can be the messaging feature to spread information or a post on the group wall. In a work environment, it can be a list of phone numbers if you need to find someone to cover your shift.

3)”A discourse community uses its participatory mechanisms primarily to provide information and feedback.”

This seems to mean that members of a community pursue different advancements in information that could be beneficial to the group, or critiques on what's already there. In a rock band, for instance: members of the band sometimes pose questions to their audience to see if they enjoy a particular style or not. The band Avenged Sevenfold, for instance, has been touring with a new drummer due to the recent loss of their former drummer and they ask the audience to tell them if they approve of him or not; to see if the new drummer keeps the spirit of what the band was before their former drummer died.

4)”A discourse community utilizes and hence possesses one or more genres in the communicative furtherance of it's aims.”

This one is a little more difficult. I believe it's talking about how a community has different ways of meeting it's goals. In a workplace, it can be having some employees who are trained in more than one job. If service gets hectic or people don't show up to work, those who are trained in more places could go to where they are needed to keep advancing the business.

5)”In addition to owning genres, a discourse community has acquired some specific lexis.”

I believe this is talking about the language aspect of a group and the technical terms that it's used to make business run smoothly. In my own community of “Union Street Diner”, it can relate to how orders are called out. We have special terms meaning different things. For example: an “OM” is referring to “Over Medium” eggs, “Walkin' in” means “The next order is...”, “All Day” refers to everything a person should be working on at the time, and so on.

6)”A discourse community has a threshold level of members with a suitable degree of relevant content and discourse expense.”

I believe Swales is talking about how membership changes over time. In a workplace, it can be when members get fired from the job. It can also refer to a senior member teaching new employees how to do their job correctly.

"From Pencils to Pixels": From Graphite hardness to Number of Bits...

 

I think Baron is saying that it's hard to envision what it will change, but there is obviously change that is going to happen. When he wrote on typewriters, I can imagine how frustrating it would have been to be typing away and then hear that “beep” saying that you've exceeded the memory available on the machine. Especially in today's age, there are many people who can type significantly quickly and would probably be exceeding that memory every other sentence. Reading has changed with the technology as well, switching from paper to digital words on a screen. I think that may be a good example of how the technology isn't always the best. I know a lot of people can't focus reading on the screen unless absolutely necessary because it's hard on the eyes and it's just not the same as a physical copy of the work. That's how I am, but I digress...

I do agree with Baron. New technology is being developed before current technology is being circulated, and current technology is being circulated faster than we can pay for the old technology. With any technology though, be it a new computer operating system or a new word processing software, there is always a reason for the change. Typewriters were replaced by word processing software that could keep up with typist. The spell check and grammar check functions were looked down upon because it would hinder student's analogue writing abilities (pencil and paper); Now it's expected with everything written that we spell check before even a peer review. It may not be apparent to us right at the beginning how a new form of technology will affect us, but we should be ready for change.

"The Future of Literacy": Advancement of Technology over print

I think I can relate most too the study on Danielle DeVoss. I remember getting a computer just about the same time that DeVoss did, but I was an only child so I got free reign on the computer. My parents were also focused on education and literacy development though schools. I was also the same way with computers as DeVoss. I would normally be on the computer playing games or looking around on social networks, but my time was always limited on the computers. In school, at least earlier school, there wasn't much need for us to ever use the computer for anything. As I got into high school, I was always on the computer for a presentation in one class or a paper in the other. 

At the same time, my high school relationship with technology mimics more of Brittany Moraski's story. I was always the computer student, and most of the teachers I had knew it. Whenever a problem came up, they would ask the class if anyone knew (which normally meant 'Eugene, come help me out'.) In one class in particular, I was asked to take the class a second semester in a row. This wasn't because I didn't do well, but because the teacher knew my work and wanted me to teach the class while he dealt with other parts for the senior class “End of the year” stuff (prom and graduation). High school was almost scripted through my computer, and I grew literate through schoolwork and through self-teaching through games and interfacing with the computer.

"Learning to Read" & "Superman and Me": Viva la Self-Advancement!

Both Malcolm X and Sherman Alexie were depraved (in the sense of comparison) in the sense of literacy compared to, say, a middle class white family. Both also were very much the same in how they came to their gaining of knowledge: self-motivation. Malcolm X read most of his works in prison, trying to emulate another prisoner who was respected. Malcolm wanted to be that person; to be able to control conversations and be respected. Alexie, on the other hand, read because it became available to him with his own knowledge. “...I first understood, with sudden clarity, the purpose of a paragraph....” Alexie discusses, “The words inside a paragraph worked together for a common purpose(WAW, pg 364)” When he used the paragraph metaphor to relate it to his life and the things around him, he began learning to read and began to understand his world around him. Literacy, to me, is defined by both as a means of self-advancement.

Race and economic forces were their driving force behind their learning. Alexie started reading everything he could get his hands on because of the social stigma in his reservation. While Indians were supposed to be inferior to non-Indian adults, he made sure he was known as someone who was knowledgeable. Alexie tried to promote knowledge to other Indians in the reservation to help show that Indians are just as knowledgeable. Malcolm X, once he began to understand more material, began focusing on Black history. He made himself learn about the history that was never taught in his time “I had never forgotten how... the history of the Negro had been covered in one paragraph. (WAW, pg 356).” This drove him to read about black history, which eventually helped him be a more influential speaker once he was out of prison.

"Sponers of Literacy": Brought to you by Writing about Writing

I would have to say my primary sponsors are mostly family and school.

Family was a big one, as both my parents are teachers and focused on academics and education. They were the ones that focused me on getting grades and making sure I was learning so I could be better prepared for the “real world” once I got there. They were the ones who taught me most of my types of literacy: reading, writing, manners (civil literacy I guess), work ethics, and money literacy (saving and budgeting). But through them, I also grew to be literate in different things like computers, video games, and religion. I had always lived with mom after my parents divorced, and she was always against computers (unless for school work) and video games. She also has a very defined sense of religion that I was forced to follow when I'm with her. I believe the reason I worked to make myself literate in the things she hates was in spite of her. It's not a matter of dislike to my mother, but more of making myself instead of letting her make me what she wanted. Computers and games were always more interesting than the arts and music that she liked. As for School, it has helped develop me more in reading and writing literacy, along with computer literacy.

Both have always been accessible to me. Family is mostly a forced sponsor so it's hard to avoid it. School has been helpful in developing because of the different classes focusing on different things to further my literacy in different areas. Both also try to help me develop as best they can. One of the only things I wish I could have had access to is a better sense of language literacy. By that, I'm talking more of different languages instead of just English. Thinking of the growing businesses, it might have served me better to learn different languages earlier on so I would be able to use them more often.

Project 2: A moment of reflection...

Wikipedia has always been a thing that has been almost front page on the internet since creation. Every time I did a Google search for something I didn't know, Wikipedia would be one of the first hits, and every time it helped me out of my jam. Wikipedia, obviously enough, is a mother-load of knowledge for anyone to come in and help themselves too. The thought of being able to be a part of that with something of my choosing was quite a thought. It's always been the same old song and dance through school of “Wikipedia is bad” this and “Wikipedia isn't a reliable source” that. True, it's possible to find an article that doesn't make sense and has obviously been subjected to vandalism. In “The Charms of Wikipedia”, Nicholas Baker provides a look on a past edit on the subject of aging: “Aging is what you get when you get freakin old old old.(1)”. Even though vandalism (like the previous example) is possible, Wikipedia provides a new and efficient outlet to distribute knowledge.

Starting on the article, I was having a hard time thinking about something local to do that would actually have enough information to squeeze out 1200-1500 words on. To my demise, I wasn't finding anything that I was interested enough in to do a paper on and/or had enough information on. When I turned to the “requested articles”, I easily found something that I could probably pull off. After getting my topic, the searching began. Although, when you research a religious “secret society” for a Wikipedia article, it's pretty difficult to find neutral, third-party sources. So, I delved into what I could find on the very biased site, and went at the situation from a different angle. Instead of finding information about the society itself, I looked at it's beliefs and how they related to it. A couple web sites and a couple books later, I had enough information to start writing.

The writing itself was rather easy since it was a topic I was interested in. Refining was the biggest problem in the process. It was hard to find information that would be neutral enough to pass on Wikipedia, but I was still having problems finding third party sources. Eventually, I found enough to satisfy the Wikipedia moderators and now it's up and going strong. Looking back, I can certainly say that Wikipedia writing is different from any other writing's I've done in the past. From earlier writing, it's quite a different process than writing a Wikipedia article. Retrieving sources (at least in preliminary stages), incorporation, summary, and quoting remain the same between all styles of writing in my opinion.

Wikipedia requires you to stay neutral, a change from the norm for most people. In revising: retrieving sources (for more details), incorporation, summary, and quoting seem the same, but evaluating the sources to incorporate and writing styles make the biggest changes. Sources become more difficult to find once you get into finer details, at least finding sources that aren't associated directly with the topic itself. More difficult subjects (secret societies and heavier religious topics for example) have a multitude of books on the subject, but are very closely related to the topic itself. Newspapers seem to be the best source of “third-party” sources, but those can be hard to find with the more “under-the-radar” topics. The writing style change didn't trouble me as much as expected, but it obviously was a big change. Wikipedia also shows the new take on one editor to a piece of work. In “Wikipedia is good for you!?”, James Purdy makes the argument that “Effective Wikipedia contributors revise articles frequently. They take advantage of the wiki capability to edit the articles they read. (219)”

Wikipedia is a social network for knowledge. As different editors find your page, they can make changes themselves or suggest changes through a discussion section. For example, if an editor has a question about a specific part of a topic you didn't cover, you can go look for it and place it in the article. Also, if you don't, there's a possibility for another editor to see the comment and do it himself. The more edits an article gets, be it with suggestions or straight edits, it's feasible to say more edits amount to a better article. Better articles provide more helpful information to those searching. With the different editors joining in, it helps with providing new insight to articles. James Porter, in “All Writing is Autobiographical”, would also say that the edits help show more personalities. “I have my own peculiar way,” Porter describes of his own writing, “of looking at the world and my own way of using language to communicate what I see....I have begun to understand...that all writing, in many different ways, is autobiographical (58).”

Starting the article, an article that was related (in article type, for lack of better description) was a good place to start to get a better sense of formatting the article. That puts a new facet on the thoughts of plagiarism. Is is plagiarism to use the template, or is it expected on a site like Wikipedia? It also adds to the social context that Wikipedia provides with templates being used by many different articles. With similar templates for related articles, it proves that Wikipedia also plays it's part in intertextuality.

Through edits, it also provides a new look on the “finished” article. In most papers in the past, there's a finished product that is graded and no more revisions or additions are accepted. Wikipedia doesn't discourage edits, but expects them. With possible edits at any time, it really shows that an article is never “finished” on Wikipedia (besides those articles that are 'semi-protected', but besides the point). Thinking about it now, I think it's amazing that knowledge for one topic can be changed all the time with additions or subtractions. It's understandable that such changeability like this puts Wikipedia in a bad scope for using in papers. Purdy discusses, however, that “As Jim Giles reports... Encyclopedia Britannica has errors in some of its articles, too; he claims that Wikipedia is almost as accurate as Britannica for a series of articles on science topics...(207)”

Encyclopedias are obviously neutral sources by nature. I would go so far as to say that the changeability of Wikipedia is more desired than print encyclopedia's. Print has to be redone over and over again if new information comes out. This requires lots of money and lots of time to go back and edit. Wikipedia makes editing as easy as sitting at a computer for an hour (also taking out the monetary costs).

I find myself now checking the posted article pretty frequently now, to see if any changes have been made or if the article gets deleted. It's an interesting feeling to be that third party observer, looking (monitoring) to see what others think of your own work and how they change it. This can allow for new insights to your own knowledge on how wide you should look at your topic and how in depth you should go into each part of your topic. From the drawing board, for instance, right off the bat someone wanted to make sure that I wasn't affiliated with the topic myself. It might just have been for the specific purpose of Wikipedia rules, or that it was a religious article and they wanted to make sure I was just staying as a third party and not just trying to “represent my brand” of sorts.

Wikipedia adds an entirely new world of knowledge distribution. You can get anything from in depth information on a band to a list of foreign holidays and practices, to in depth analysis of a song and how it was made. The world is at the fingertips of everyone who can get onto a computer. I believe it's a great addition and provides many advantages to working methods. Wikipedia allows you to search faster and find what you're looking for more efficiently. New information that arises (or wasn't thought of in the first draft) can be added quickly, making all articles more “up-to-date” since it can be added as things are happening. The social thoughts on writing are changing, and Wikipedia helps people adapt to the changes. Wikipedia provides that place where writers everywhere can share information and learn how to become better writers for future endeavors. In short, as Baker describes it, “Wikipedia is just an incredible thing.(1)”

References:

• Baker, Nicholson. "The Charms of Wikipedia." Rev. of Wikipedia: The Missing Manual by John Broughton. The New York Review of Books 17 APR 2008 1-3 Web. Oct. 3 2011
   http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2008/mar/20/the-charms-of-wikipedia/?page=1
• Purdy, James. "Wikipedia is Good for you." Writing Spaces: Readings on Writing. Parlor Press 2010. 205-224. Print
   http://writingspaces.org/essays/wikipedia-is-good-for-you
  
  
• Porter, James. “All Writing is Autobiographical.”Writing about Writing: A college Reader. Ed. Elizabeth Wardle and Doug Downs. Boston, MA: Bedford/St. Martin's, 2011. 57-65. Print.

"Shitty First Drafts": A fun answer to writing!

Lamont want to say that most people start out their first drafts as if it was the final product and constrain themselves to, what ends up being, a horrible paper. She goes on to say that people need to take the time and just write “ a really shitty first draft” to get out what you feel needs to get out and work from there. She believes the actual process of writing is to write shitty drafts and eventually refining them into pieces that will actually mean something. I believe this is prevalent because of the pipe dream that is the “writer.” Stereotypes can paint writers in a way like writing is a breeze, aying that anyone can just sit at a computer and produce gold on the first go. We've all tried writing novels... Admit it, you have too. It's difficult, and Lamont shows us that writing is not quite as easy as stereotypes make it seem.

Wikipedia allows us to look at other shitty drafts by use of the “View History”. We can look back at the first submission of an article and compare it to what is the current or the latest that the author has written to compare and contrast. I find this to be very beneficial. It helps in the process of writing future articles or papers, showing our glory moments and our shortcomings. We learn from the writing, remind ourselves to not make those mistakes again, take a deep breath, and get started on our next topic.

"Tuning, Tying, and Training texts": ...like a fine wine.

From the eight stories, I can relate to two separate ones: Goyen's “Sculpting” and Vidal's “Painting”.

When I write, I like to try to write the entirety of the article as if I only had one shot at writing it, and as soon as my final word was typed it would be turned in and graded. Once I'm finished, I go back and refine details as they stick out to me. Eventually, I will be satisfied with the work as a whole and go to the finest part of editing, which is grammar and spelling in my opinion. Going with that though, if I come across parts that need to be taken out completely (bigger parts like full paragraphs), then I work with the painting metaphor. I go back, put in different layers to accent pieces that are already in the first draft. I flow between the two: major writing to finer details, and layering on new material as necessary.

In Wikipedia, the discussions and other edits help make the article more like a group drawing project. One person makes all the touches he needs and puts it up for criticism and revision. Another person can come in and suggest new things for the first artist to revise and think about. At the same time, a third person can come in with an eraser and take things out on his own, then scribble in his own thoughts. Discussion is better for showing us what can work and what might need worked on, along with helping new editors know what kinds of things need to be in an article to be able to stay up. Viewing History is more like Monitoring from our last article. We can look to see what others think about it and watch how our article turns from one drawing with graphite to a masterpiece flowing with vibrant color.

For composing, it's the simple act of learning what's necessary (in the case of Wikipedia) to be acceptable. Moderators and spy bots from that site have their own set of rules for what's allowed on Wikipedia and what's not. Other editors on talk pages or straight editing help us realize what's necessary.

Project 1: Final Touch

Here's a link to my article; edited and finalized.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Odin_Brotherhood

In case the actual page gets deleted, here's a link to the user space...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:LoneWolfBlaze


Enjoy!

"Toward a Composing Model of Reading": Thoughts on Writing Processes

I think, reflecting back on my process of writing our Wiki article, I may have gone through the parts without thinking of it. I know I planned out the article for what I wanted to do, then went straight to aligning the information in some particular fashion to make the article literate. Once I finished what I thought the article might end as, I went to revising. As for Drafting, I guess I did that just by writing the article itself, but I don't think I consciously went through a drafting process. I know I didn't consciously do monitoring, I just had a sense of “doneness” when I believed I was finished. After we had the critique in class, I did have another chance to go back over with “fresh eyes” for drafting. I got to look at the critique from the classmate (as well as taking a look at the Wiki drawing board) and realizing what I might want to add, subtract, expand, or reformat and reword. Most likely, that made the article that much better, and gave me opportunity to use the critique for future writings (as in where I should expand and where I should be more “to-the-point”)

The five functions are pretty much central to how writing is taught. I still remember all the times I had to write back in english classes when I was younger that they emphasized all five parts: Brainstorming (planning), Outline (alignment), Drafting, Revising, and Final Drafting. They didn't really focus on monitoring, but I feel that was because our papers back then were aimed toward a specific viewpoint before we got a chance to write, therefore cutting out the monitoring (or at least most of it). Monitoring may have come in with rereading our papers to make sure the point was addressed, but I digress...

"Intertexuality and Discourse Community": Just like all the rest...

Porter challenges Murray's idea's about writing by saying that every text is related or the same as other text before it, and that "borrowing" is the same as "plagiarism". Porter makes a good point about the Declaration of Independence. The similarities between the Declaration and the English Bill of Rights were new to me, but it does make sense how they relate. I'm not sure if the claim that Jefferson should have been accused of plagiarism if given the chance, but I digress.

I agree and disagree at the same time with Porter. True, there are many similarities between every text, which does challenge the “autobiographical” sense that Murray talks about. I disagree though, thinking that it's hard to find something original, if it's possible at all. Through the texts I've read in the past, there is a sense of familiarity though them all, even if the topics aren't even close to each other. Everyone seems to "borrow" styles, characteristics, and structure from everyone else. Should that mean that everyone should be accused of plagiarism and shunned for it? I doubt it...

"All Writing is Autobiographical": My thoughts

Murray is looking at how all types of writing have a different style across the different genres (essay, fiction, poetry, etc.). Murray, however, wants us to think of all writing as a sort of autobiography. Murray talks about how our writing reflects our experiences, not to mention everyone's personal writing style. We write with our own personal flair and idioms, putting something of ourselves in everything we write. Along with that, the things we write can become autobiographical just by being written by ourselves. In Murray's example of “Black Ice”, it was loosely connected with personal experience and became more so after the writing was complete.

We can compare this to encyclopedia articles by the depth and passion in the article. If there's a lot of information in one aspect or another, we know the author of that part has a particular attraction to that aspect. The details included, and how they are organized, in every article can also reflect what the author or editor feels is important for readers to know. Taking this idea to wikipedia articles, it shows a multitude of different people because of the numerous articles.

"Rhetorical Situations and Their Contraints": A battle of Understanding

I was confused about “rhetorical situations.” From the reading, I define it as any situation where person X (rhetor) must address and adapt the situation Y (event or activity) hopefully motivating the audience to take action Z (depending on the situation addressed). True enough, that can be a confusing definition. The entire reading was a little “challenging” for me, and I will just do my best answering everything.

The constituents for a rhetorical situation are: rhetor, audience, exigence, and constraints. These terms defined: rhetors are the speaker or writer, the audience are those listening or reading, exigence is the particular subject coming into question or discussion, and constraints are outside influences that affect how well the impact of the argument will be. A compound rhetorical situation, to me, is when more than just one rhetor and/or audience is addressing one situation. The best example he used in the article, at least for me, is the debate on the Best Western sign in Sherwood Hills. The entire town (general public, newspapers, local governments, etc.) was part of the debate. It was an interesting thought to me how one mistake could encompass a entire town:

"The newspaper ran several stories reporting the resort owners' rationale (they f felt they had        applied in good faith and waited long enough) and the council members' reaction (they felt indignant that the owners had flouted the law and were now seeking forgiveness instead of permission)... What might have been a minor bureaucratic matter resolved behind closed doors turned into a town debate..." (Grant-David, pg 114)

It seems that students should be informed because it helps the writers be more convincing and successful. If a writer knows the rhetorical situation and it's constraints, they can play to those restraints and modify themselves to the unexpected. If a writer isn't informed, they might not be as convincing if their timing for the argument is off or they don't adhere to the sympathies of the audience.

Homework 2: "The Phenomenology of Error"

What Williams means by errors are a “social construct” is that everyone makes them, along with the fact that not everyone will recognize them when they occur. If they are recognized, they will either be reacted upon, or ignored. In all the examples he gives about how grammarian's state a rule of grammar and then immediately break said rule just shows how it's part of our writing systems. Throughout the article, I kept having a feeling like something was wrong with a sentence, but I couldn't put my finger on it. When I got to the end and was told there were about 100 errors, it just proved his entire point of ignoring errors. Unless we read everything closely down to the letter, our minds just make the errors fade into the background and make it seem like it's not there. If we don't recognize it, we believe it to be correct.I believe this relates to Wikipedia's reputation of being error-prone because of how available it is to everyone: to read or to edit. Since it's possible that someone who wrote a serious article can be edited by someone else and have the entire article read “Nipples and broccoli”, I believe other teachers fear that if students get their information from there. It might be a stigma that the errors will be more subtle and students won't catch it until they get the grade back on the paper written.

Even with research, I don't think it matters to many readers. An “Encyclopedia”, more or less Britannica (which is probably the most well known encyclopedia), is supposed to represent this tome of all sorts of wisdom, correct down to the final punctuation. Wikipedia, on the other hand, has that everlasting stigma of “everyone can edit posts”. This leads to some being skeptical about the correctness or reliability of an article. I'm not sure about if William's article can help with this particular problem though. True enough, the mistake ratio between Britannica and Wikipedia are almost dead even, but I believe it's the vandalism possibility of Wikipedia is the reason for the skeptics to criticize. Britannica isn't prone to obvious vandalism, therefore it's given a better reputation.

Intro: Homework 1

This is my blog for 308J English class taught by Matt Vedder. Let's get the intro stuff out of the way...

My name is Eugene Sax: a digital media major from Thornville, OH. Hopefully I will be able to get into the game design business, or take the route of film and be a producer. I'm a man of simple tastes. I like long walks on the beach, smooth Jazz, chronic mastication... You know, what most people like. As for English, I'm more drawn to fiction works than non-fiction.

The last english class I was in was AP English in High School. The most rewarding thing from that class was the introduction to different authors. I was introduced to new authors who gave me new insight to different writing styles. The least rewarding was "speed writing We were trained in that class to write quickly without sacrificing content and grammar. It took me longer than desired, but I was able to get up to the standard needed. Also, "Pride and Prejudice" by Jane Austen was horrible for me. I guess I never really saw anything good in that book and had very little interest in it.

 

Not knowing the college standard for english classes, I'm interested to see how they will compare to the AP class. This course differs from other english courses because of the involvement with technology. Most english classes for me focused on just the writing aspect. I'm interested in how technology will blend with english. From 308J, I'm hoping to improve my writing skills. Also, it will be beneficial to learn about how to better include technology in my writing. I've always been interested in mixed media (writing in movies and theater), so I think the class will be exactly what I need to learn another outlet for that with writing on the internet. True enough, the interwebs are pretty informal, but I'm sure there's still a good way and a bad way to write online.