Throughout the year, I believe my TOWs have been greatly increasing in quality and effectiveness.
http://nicolesapenglishblog.blogspot.com/2013/09/tow-3-article-fed-too-familiar-with.html
One of the first TOWs I ever wrote, my September 29 TOW about an article titled "Fed Too Familiar With Lost Labor Seeking New Messages for Policy" is a work of brilliance. I dedicate an entire paragraph to my reason for choosing the article and how well I believe the author achieved her purpose. My chosen rhetorical strategy is that the author "appeals to logos." I also use the phrase "I'm not sure if this next tool has a specific literary term," which I'm sure would have earned no less than a 5 on exam day.
http://nicolesapenglishblog.blogspot.com/2013/12/tow-11-article-catch-cold-go-to-prison.html
By December 1, my writing had significantly improved. To start, I don't dedicate a paragraph to my own reactions and thoughts about "Catch a Cold, Go to Prison: The Recidivism Debate." I identify two strategies (word usage and juxtaposition) and give each of them a well-developed paragraph, quoting the article in each one. However, I still have absolutely no semblance of a conclusion.
http://nicolesapenglishblog.blogspot.com/2014/03/tow-21-article-whats-point.html
Come March 9, I had again improved both the quality of my TOWs and the difficulty of my reading selections. I chose to read the article "Give the PAT the Boot" because it was about football and I knew next to nothing about football. I identified a single rhetorical strategy but thoroughly explained how it was used and what effect it had on the article. I then explained how the context of the article on the website also had an effect on the credibility of the article. I had much more of a conclusion than in the two previously mentioned TOWs and believe that this one was the strongest of the three, showing an upward trend in my writing.
Tuesday, May 20, 2014
Sunday, May 4, 2014
TOW #27: Article (Are Car Journalists "Bought?")
http://www.motorsportmagazine.com/road-cars/opinions/are-car-journalists-bought/
Goal: Understand and write about a topic I try to avoid.
One of the most pressing issues in the media today is the question of journalistic integrity. This is especially true in the car industry, where most of the reviews are positive and companies pay for writers to attend their conventions. Do car reviewers really mean what they say, or are their eyes clouded by dollar signs? In Andrew Frankel's Motor Sport article "Are Car Journalists 'Bought?'", he uses anecdotes and lists to prove that the best motoring journalists say what they really think about cars.
Frankel, a "senior contributing writer" at Motor Sport magazine, introduces the topic of journalistic integrity using an anecdote about a car convention he recently attended. While at the Tokyo Motorshow, Frankel explained to a friend that Honda paid for his plane ticket and hotel room, to which the friend replied, "In exchange for which you write nice things about their cars?" Frankel was not surprised to hear this question, but it made him think. The author uses this anecdote to introduce a common misconception in a way that makes the misconception understandable. He gives the reader the same evidence that his friend had to show why it is conceivable that many people may believe there's a cozy relationship between car makers and car writers. Once this is set up, he can begin to disprove it.
Frankel lists reasons why there might be more positive car reviews than negative, and why car makers care enough to fly writers out to their conventions if there's no guaranteed profit. First, he says, motor journalists quite simply love cars, and would therefore prefer to write positive reviews because they want to believe cars are good. "Secondly," he writes, "cars are still getting better and at an astonishing rate, which is not something I think you can say about watches, films or, in my experience, even dishwashers." Because of this improvement, there is usually something new and good to be written about a car that could not have been written five years ago. He goes on to list other reason why there seems to be a disproportionate number of positive car reviews. The effect of this list is that the misconception is disproven in several different, unrelated ways, leaving it well and truly dead.
Goal: Understand and write about a topic I try to avoid.
One of the most pressing issues in the media today is the question of journalistic integrity. This is especially true in the car industry, where most of the reviews are positive and companies pay for writers to attend their conventions. Do car reviewers really mean what they say, or are their eyes clouded by dollar signs? In Andrew Frankel's Motor Sport article "Are Car Journalists 'Bought?'", he uses anecdotes and lists to prove that the best motoring journalists say what they really think about cars.
Frankel, a "senior contributing writer" at Motor Sport magazine, introduces the topic of journalistic integrity using an anecdote about a car convention he recently attended. While at the Tokyo Motorshow, Frankel explained to a friend that Honda paid for his plane ticket and hotel room, to which the friend replied, "In exchange for which you write nice things about their cars?" Frankel was not surprised to hear this question, but it made him think. The author uses this anecdote to introduce a common misconception in a way that makes the misconception understandable. He gives the reader the same evidence that his friend had to show why it is conceivable that many people may believe there's a cozy relationship between car makers and car writers. Once this is set up, he can begin to disprove it.
Frankel lists reasons why there might be more positive car reviews than negative, and why car makers care enough to fly writers out to their conventions if there's no guaranteed profit. First, he says, motor journalists quite simply love cars, and would therefore prefer to write positive reviews because they want to believe cars are good. "Secondly," he writes, "cars are still getting better and at an astonishing rate, which is not something I think you can say about watches, films or, in my experience, even dishwashers." Because of this improvement, there is usually something new and good to be written about a car that could not have been written five years ago. He goes on to list other reason why there seems to be a disproportionate number of positive car reviews. The effect of this list is that the misconception is disproven in several different, unrelated ways, leaving it well and truly dead.
Sunday, April 27, 2014
TOW #26: Visual Text (Fire!)
Goal: Less claim, more devices
A man called Hysteria, holding a bucket of water, rushes up a ladder while yelling, "Fire!" to quench the flames of the Statue of Liberty's torch. Herbert Block's "Fire!" was first published in the Washington Post on June 17, 1949. Block, commonly known as Herblock, was an American political cartoonist active from 1929 to 2001. His drawings often commented on foreign and domestic affairs from a liberal perspective, as demonstrated by this criticism of the xenophobia and communist hysteria beginning in post-WWII America. In "Fire," Block relies mainly on cultural memory to argue that America's anti-communist witch hunts were exaggerated to a fundamentally un-American level.
America has always been particular about its patriotism. There are certain phrases that can rile up a crowd--just chanting "USA," for example, is usually effective--but our most significant symbols are usually images like the American flag or the Liberty Bell. By incorporating the Statue of Liberty into is political cartoon, Block is directly attacking the symbol that America holds so dear. However, Block is not the one with the water bucket. It's Hysteria, meant to represent the sociopolitical panic caused by the fear of spreading communism, who is about the put out the eternal fire of liberty. Block juxtaposes this American idealism with reality to show the hypocrisy in defeating liberty for the sake of protecting it.
Although we today objectively know that this cartoon is accurate, Block's audience in the 1940's and 50's either already agreed with him or was too committed to the very conformist culture that Block is protesting to appreciate or be swayed by the cartoon. In fact, people probably began to suspect that Block was a communist in hiding. It was a bad time for political cartoons, but Block's reach into cultural memory made this one seemingly effective.
Wednesday, April 23, 2014
IRB Post #4: Tuesdays with Morrie
A man sees his former college professor on an episode of Nightline and is reminded of his promise to keep in touch. He flies out to see his ALS-stricken professor and is so touched that they have weekly meetings. This is the premise of Mitch Albom's Tuesdays with Morrie, an account of the weekly meetings where they discuss love, life, and death.
Although it is a memoir like I Am Malala, this one promises to be more of an emotional narrative than a collection of facts and events. I look forward to reading a book with a little more heart.
Although it is a memoir like I Am Malala, this one promises to be more of an emotional narrative than a collection of facts and events. I look forward to reading a book with a little more heart.
TOW #25: Article (Facebook, Amazon, Our Government and Your Privacy)
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/04/23/facebook-amazon-our-government-and-your-privacy/
Writing Goal: Provide effective, relevant evidence to support my claim
Every day, we give out personal information on the internet--to shopping sites, to social media, to emails. When it comes to invading our privacy, is there really a difference between Facebook and the NSA? John Stossel, an analyst for Fox News and former co-anchor of 20/20, feels strongly about the government's ability to track its citizens and their technology usage. In "Facebook, Amazon, Our Government and Your Privacy," Stossel uses direct comparisons and simple sentence structure to argue that the moral issue is not that the government invades our privacy, but that it does not have our consent to do so.
Stossel's main argument is based on comparing and contrasting the ways that private websites and the government invade our privacy. He begins by reminding his audience that they nonchalantly agree to be tracked and give out personal information on the internet. Nobody even reads the terms and conditions because we're so accustomed to threats like identity fraud that we don't take drastic steps to prevent it. On the other hand, the government doesn't want to steal your identity; they say they just collect patterns of phone numbers. Looking at both groups, Stossel argues, "By comparison, the National Security Agency's data mining seems relatively benign.[...] But the distinction we care about shouldn't be whether they know my name. The important difference is whether what you do is voluntary." The most important comparison doesn't lie within the actions or their intents, but within . We choose to their give our information out to private sites but not to the government, and that difference is all that matters.
In addition, Stossel often uses short declarative sentences for much of the article. This gives him the effect of stating fact or truth; a reader assesses the validity of each individual sentence more than the group of them. For example, Stossel writes, "But we don't place an infinite value on privacy. [...] What we really value is the freedom to choose when we'll do that and when we'll tell people to butt out. We can never tell government to butt out." Although one cannot factually state what all of society values, Stossel presents his viewpoint as if he is doing just that. By acting as if there is no room to argue, Stossel makes the reader more likely to agree with his perspective rather than consider alternatives.
Stossel's comparisons and declarative sentences allow him to effectively argue against government tracking of civilians. He appears blind to opposing viewpoints, but still manages to consider the complexity of the issue at hand: it's okay that the government is getting more involved, but not okay that it's involuntary on our part.
Writing Goal: Provide effective, relevant evidence to support my claim
Every day, we give out personal information on the internet--to shopping sites, to social media, to emails. When it comes to invading our privacy, is there really a difference between Facebook and the NSA? John Stossel, an analyst for Fox News and former co-anchor of 20/20, feels strongly about the government's ability to track its citizens and their technology usage. In "Facebook, Amazon, Our Government and Your Privacy," Stossel uses direct comparisons and simple sentence structure to argue that the moral issue is not that the government invades our privacy, but that it does not have our consent to do so.
Stossel's main argument is based on comparing and contrasting the ways that private websites and the government invade our privacy. He begins by reminding his audience that they nonchalantly agree to be tracked and give out personal information on the internet. Nobody even reads the terms and conditions because we're so accustomed to threats like identity fraud that we don't take drastic steps to prevent it. On the other hand, the government doesn't want to steal your identity; they say they just collect patterns of phone numbers. Looking at both groups, Stossel argues, "By comparison, the National Security Agency's data mining seems relatively benign.[...] But the distinction we care about shouldn't be whether they know my name. The important difference is whether what you do is voluntary." The most important comparison doesn't lie within the actions or their intents, but within . We choose to their give our information out to private sites but not to the government, and that difference is all that matters.
In addition, Stossel often uses short declarative sentences for much of the article. This gives him the effect of stating fact or truth; a reader assesses the validity of each individual sentence more than the group of them. For example, Stossel writes, "But we don't place an infinite value on privacy. [...] What we really value is the freedom to choose when we'll do that and when we'll tell people to butt out. We can never tell government to butt out." Although one cannot factually state what all of society values, Stossel presents his viewpoint as if he is doing just that. By acting as if there is no room to argue, Stossel makes the reader more likely to agree with his perspective rather than consider alternatives.
Stossel's comparisons and declarative sentences allow him to effectively argue against government tracking of civilians. He appears blind to opposing viewpoints, but still manages to consider the complexity of the issue at hand: it's okay that the government is getting more involved, but not okay that it's involuntary on our part.
Sunday, March 30, 2014
TOW #24: IRB (How to Talk About Books You Haven't Read)
Goal: Stay on task in explaining the devices.
From chance encounters with famous authors to (rare) incidents of forgetting to read for a class, we all experience potentially awkward situations when we must discuss books we haven’t fully read. Luckily, French author Pierre Bayard is here to save the day with his book, How to Talk About Books You Haven’t Read.
Bayard’s straightforward style of writing makes it easy to understand his ideas and suggestions. In addition to the numerous examples he uses (which I mentioned in my first IRB post), the author gives his tips in the form of simple commands. In the section about talking to authors, he writes, “There is only one sensible piece of advice to give to those who find themselves having to talk to an author about one of his books without having read it: praise it without going into detail.” Admittedly, the sentence preceding the command is a bit lengthy, but Bayard simplifies his writing where it counts. Almost everybody likes cut-and-dry rules and those are what he provides.
Bayard often philosophizes about the nature of books and reading, which may seem boring to the casual reader but fascinating to the truly interested. For example, Bayard muses, “What we preserve of the books we read—whether we take notes or not, and even if we sincerely believe we remember them faithfully—is in truth no more than a few fragments afloat, like so many islands, on an ocean of oblivion…” Bayard uses logic like this to justify the idea that actually reading books isn’t much more valiant than skimming or researching, and in many cases is a waste of time (that could be spent reading worthwhile material). This especially appeals to the portion of the audience that is typically loyal to books and might feel guilty or wrong in forgoing the actual reading experience.
For the organization and discussion ideas, How to Talk is already a worthwhile guide, but the occasional stream of consciousness writing about books as a concept gives it an extra entertaining edge that makes it worthwhile as a book (and not just a how-to guide).
*I repeat from IRB post 1: Page citations are difficult, as this is being read on Kindle Cloud.
From chance encounters with famous authors to (rare) incidents of forgetting to read for a class, we all experience potentially awkward situations when we must discuss books we haven’t fully read. Luckily, French author Pierre Bayard is here to save the day with his book, How to Talk About Books You Haven’t Read.
Bayard’s straightforward style of writing makes it easy to understand his ideas and suggestions. In addition to the numerous examples he uses (which I mentioned in my first IRB post), the author gives his tips in the form of simple commands. In the section about talking to authors, he writes, “There is only one sensible piece of advice to give to those who find themselves having to talk to an author about one of his books without having read it: praise it without going into detail.” Admittedly, the sentence preceding the command is a bit lengthy, but Bayard simplifies his writing where it counts. Almost everybody likes cut-and-dry rules and those are what he provides.
Bayard often philosophizes about the nature of books and reading, which may seem boring to the casual reader but fascinating to the truly interested. For example, Bayard muses, “What we preserve of the books we read—whether we take notes or not, and even if we sincerely believe we remember them faithfully—is in truth no more than a few fragments afloat, like so many islands, on an ocean of oblivion…” Bayard uses logic like this to justify the idea that actually reading books isn’t much more valiant than skimming or researching, and in many cases is a waste of time (that could be spent reading worthwhile material). This especially appeals to the portion of the audience that is typically loyal to books and might feel guilty or wrong in forgoing the actual reading experience.
For the organization and discussion ideas, How to Talk is already a worthwhile guide, but the occasional stream of consciousness writing about books as a concept gives it an extra entertaining edge that makes it worthwhile as a book (and not just a how-to guide).
*I repeat from IRB post 1: Page citations are difficult, as this is being read on Kindle Cloud.
Sunday, March 23, 2014
TOW #23: Article (Why Disaster Warning and Development Go Hand in Hand)
In order to make early action disaster plans more effective, we need to change cultural values in order to make locals more accepting of the plan, according to Andrew Collins's article titled "Why Disaster Warning and Development Go Hand in Hand" and published on SciDev.net, an internet science forum. Regardless of whether or not the article was actually well-written, Andrew Collins certainly has the authority to write it; he's the director of the Disaster and Development Centre at the British Northumbria University. After reading so many articles that didn't give the author's credentials (or, in worse cases, name) it's nice to see a publication that cares about the credibility of its work.
Author Andrew Collins mostly relies on his credibility as a disaster expert in order to make his points. The appeal to ethos is sudden but present; even at the beginning of the article, he is introduced as "disaster policy expert Andrew Collins." He goes on to make a series of broad claims and statements of fact; if the author wasn't so qualified to write on the subject, I would expect to see sources and backing, but because Collins is credible I trust that the information is accurate.
I don't think the article achieved its purpose because I'm not really sure that it had a purpose. Perhaps an outline would've helped, because the piece starts shaky and goes nowhere. With a plea so abstract as "improve disaster warning systems," one must ground their argument in specific examples of how they want this to be done, and Mr. Collins does not do this. I've learned that personal circumstances and cultural values play a part in disaster readiness, but have not learned the author's plan for how to use them to improve. Although the article seemed promising in theory, there isn't much to take away.
http://www.scidev.net/global/disasters/opinion/why-disaster-warning-and-development-go-hand-in-hand-1.html
Author Andrew Collins mostly relies on his credibility as a disaster expert in order to make his points. The appeal to ethos is sudden but present; even at the beginning of the article, he is introduced as "disaster policy expert Andrew Collins." He goes on to make a series of broad claims and statements of fact; if the author wasn't so qualified to write on the subject, I would expect to see sources and backing, but because Collins is credible I trust that the information is accurate.
I don't think the article achieved its purpose because I'm not really sure that it had a purpose. Perhaps an outline would've helped, because the piece starts shaky and goes nowhere. With a plea so abstract as "improve disaster warning systems," one must ground their argument in specific examples of how they want this to be done, and Mr. Collins does not do this. I've learned that personal circumstances and cultural values play a part in disaster readiness, but have not learned the author's plan for how to use them to improve. Although the article seemed promising in theory, there isn't much to take away.
http://www.scidev.net/global/disasters/opinion/why-disaster-warning-and-development-go-hand-in-hand-1.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)