Show & Tell
ojovivo
❣ Chile in a Photography ❣
No title available
EXPECTATIONS
🪼
★
gracie abrams
No title available
Claire Keane
blake kathryn
No title available
trying on a metaphor
No title available
No title available
#extradirty
KIROKAZE
I'd rather be in outer space 🛸
art blog(derogatory)
oozey mess
seen from Malaysia
seen from United States
seen from Netherlands
seen from Malaysia
seen from Malaysia
seen from Germany
seen from Nigeria
seen from Romania
seen from Malaysia
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Malaysia
seen from Colombia
seen from United Kingdom
seen from Vietnam
seen from Malaysia
seen from Mexico
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
@ellebearrr-blog
I Believe Essays
The I believe essay was fun but challenging. I had no idea how much I used the editorial "we" until it hit me square in the face. I think it's more comforting to write in "we" than to go out on a limb and have others disagree with me. I'd rather assume people think like me, but that's obviously not reality. Definitely something I need to continue to work.
Interesting
Seriously Slackin
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CTAud5O7Qqk
After finals....we'll all float on okay, OKAY?!
(This is how I feel)
ISIS, Boko Haram, and Batman
As I prepare for class tomorrow, I'm realizing how many--and by many I mean a bajillion--tools my author uses in his piece. It's going to be difficult to prioritize what tools are most and less influential.
On the flip side, I strongly feel I picked the right article. The fact that a news writer can explain his opinion indirectly through a Batman analogy is AWESOME. As a fellow news writer, I'm just kind of geeking out to this. Plus, who doesn't like Batman?
Batman and ISIS
Finding a piece I'd like to analyze is much more difficult than I imagined. There are so many different genres and styles to choose from.
I've looked through the New York Times website and found one columnist who has a definite style (which I think is awesome and I could learn a lot from him).
Thomas L. Friedman wrote one of the opinion editorials I chose discussing ISIS with a Batman narrative--pretty bad ass.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/05/opinion/sunday/thomas-l-friedman-isis-boko-haram-and-batman.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
DECIDING WHICH BOOKS I'M GOING TO BUY MYSELF FOR MY BIRTHDAY
It’s just like:
Any book that helps a child to form a habit of reading, to make reading one of his deep and continuing needs, is good for him.
Maya Angelou (via quotes-shape-us)
Meta
How much time, if any, do you spend thinking about why you write the way you do?
I can’t say I’ve consciously thought about why I write the way I do. I’ve thought about edits and revisions, but never why I make the choices I do. I don’t think most teachers, up until know, have encouraged students to think in this Meta consciousness. Usually I just aim to fulfill the guidelines of an assignment to make the teacher happy and get a good grade.
If you’ve ever read the book, “Awakening Your Life’s Purpose,” by Eckhart Tolle, I think his values relate closely to this term of Meta. This book focuses on multiple religious studies, but especially Buddhism. In Buddhism, meditation is vital. During this time, you separate yourself from your body as a higher being. In consciousness there are physical/emotional reactions, what you think about those reactions, and how you think about what you think. This highest level allows you to control and overpower your body’s physical and mental cognitions.
In the same way, analyzing why you think the things you do, you can think about why you write the way you do. This Meta consciousness allows you freedom to see past your “limitations” and then surpass them.
At face value, the lines between verbal irony, sarcasm, and compliments can be blurry. After all, the phrase 'That looks nice' could be all three depending on the circumstances. In the final of a three part series on irony, Christopher Warner gets into the irony you may use most often and most casually: verbal irony.
In Christopher Warner's TedEd Talk, he describes verbal irony as meaning something opposite of what is said. He takes the description of sarcasm one step further by describing sarcasm as a form of verbal irony, with a pinch of attitude and ill intentions. While I agree with his description, I don't think all sarcasm is meant to be offensive or hurt people's feelings. I often use sarcasm in normal conversation just to make somebody giggle, to make an understatement or an hyperbole. Overall, the separation between the two really stumps me! I think the difference between the two can been seen in the speaker, the receiver, and the audience. In verbal irony, the speaker says something that they mean the opposite by, which only the audience can see. The receiver (who can also be the speaker, at the same time) is blind to the intentions. At the same time, the audience can clearly see the irony in the situation and can usually link the value of the irony to the "big picture". In successful sarcasm, both the speaker and the receiver understand the speakers intentions. There isn't usually an outside audience in casual, conversational sarcasm. Additionally, sarcasm isn't always used to mean the opposite of what the speaker is saying. Sarcasm is often an understatement or an hyperbole to make a dramatic point. I think I'm on the right track here, but who knows.
Brush strokes
Rhetoric is an art—as an artist, we study styles, formations and ways to create ideas. As an English Rhetoric and Writing major, I study the brush strokes of successful writers. These structures help me, as a writer, to convey my ideas and influence my audience.
Almost everything can be considered rhetoric. From interior design, to marketing, everything aims to influence and portray message to the audience. If you are effective, your overall message will shine through. I like to think rhetoric is used to influence others for good, but it commonly is not. Corrupt politicians—although not ALL politicians are bad—often use rhetoric to dupe others and follow their personal agenda. If they are an expert at their trade, they’ll leave those in their dust actually believing it was their own idea. These notions bring up lots of questions and concerns for the art of rhetoric. How do we stop those with ill intentions from making a mockery of the art? How do we, ourselves, continue to use rhetoric for good? And how do we protect ourselves from being fooled?
It coordinates activities (“Lift. . . now”), perceptions (“Look at that bird”), and knowledge of things not immediately perceivable (“many fish are in the river in the next valley".
I enjoyed this first line of Bazerman’s “Rhetoric’s of Speaking and Writing”, more than anything. I thought it applied to the whole piece. Language, specifically rhetoric, coordinates, creates perceptions, and knowledge. These creations are influenced by the authors audience and their sense of reality—their beliefs, their experiences, their present moments.
The present moment means the audiences state and mood, at the time. The mode of communication and the distance between the speaker and audience are also of imperative importance.
For example, in today’s society, texting and emailing have become a regular way to communicate. Friends, couples, and even employers find this channel of communication acceptable and encouraged. But, this channel is fatally flawed. It shows no emotion, no voice inflection, body language, or intent. This is why texting often results in miscommunications and arguments. Neither the speaker nor the audience is necessarily wrong, but often times, things become unclear in the in-between.
The most effective way to communicate would be face to face, but even this channel is flawed as well. It is through rhetoric that human’s may become better communicators. By understanding each other’s motives as well as our own, we level the playing field—at least a little bit more.
All in all, this explains why some speakers and writers are considered more successful than others; they employ better rhetoric. This is why some painters, sculptors, musicians are famous, and others are not. It doesn’t necessarily mean they are “better” or “more skilled”, but rhetoric allows the creator to connect more with the audience, which is the ultimate goal.
Different isn't always wrong
I have the tendency to write in long, complex sentences. I am terrified of simple sentences and am unsure of how to add them into my writing since I am always thinking in scrambled thoughts. Spelling is not my strong suit. No matter how hard I try and how much I "Google", spelling doesn't seem to stick to my brain. My perfectionist side also seems to get in the way of my creative side sometimes. I tend to write, rewrite, rewrite, rewrite.....
When others have pointed out my flaws, it definitely doesn't feel good. It makes me feel embarrassed, shamed and sometimes even stupid. Most of the time, I already know my mistakes, so when others push them down my throat, it's just another cut to the jugular. When I correct others grammar usage, it doesn't always feel good. Initially I may feel smart and competent for recognizing a "mistake" that they didn't. I don't think (but who knows since I only see reality from my POV) that I've ever intentionally offended someone about their language or grammar unless they ask for me to edit their pieces. But after completing the activity in class, I've realized the importance of how to approach critiquing others writing or grammar. You must consider if your feedback is even wanted and not simply correct somebody just because you understand something differently then they do.
What is "good" prose style?
First and foremost, well written prose has a clear voice. This voice is distinct, unique and separates the writer's style from that of other writers. Organization is also very important. Dependent upon the order and arrangement of a piece, prose can have different meanings and understandability. (< Is that a word?) Basically, without good organization, the most genius piece can seem illogical and not make sense. Good prose also employs great diction, appropriate rhetoric and creativity.
