Reading Response #11

          "Sponsors of Literacy" is an article written by Deborah Brandt, for College Composition and Communication (possibility targeting college students that are aiming to improve their composition), that takes a look at the increased importance, or expectations, on the "economic development" (334) of literacy writing throughout the 20th century through one specific conclusion: "sponsor of literacy." (334)  To Brandt, sponsors, those who are "powerful figures who bankroll events or smooth the way for initiates," (335) "deliver the ideological freight that must be borne for access," (335) meaning that a person's life--surroundings, job, sex, personality, and the social context they live in--is depended on the sponsor's willingness to provide not only a situational context for a moment in a person's life, but to also provide "the most tangible aspects--material supply, explicit teaching, institutional aegis." (348) Therefore, people in various socioeconomic classes can be involved with any sort of these sponsors, despite their difference of abilities and personal frustrations they might face; a "relatively accessible economy of institutional and commercial supports" (338) that depends on what they get themselves into at a certain place in a certain time.        

          Relating to other articles, I can see some similarities in Bill Bryson's "Good English and Bad," in that compared to Brandt's point that differences in writing can trace back to a rise in literacy expectations, along with various context a person might experience, and uses interviews she conducted to provide her point, Bryson would say that the reason for those differences of writing would be because of the rules themselves, based on the Latin language, where the language "in which the parts of speech are almost entirely notional." (61) To Bryson, this problem, the inability of anybody to grasps the textuality of English, lead various authors to come up with their own writings on how to approach the language (and allowing others to apply their writings for their own theories on writing) that can eventually produce satisfying grammar for readers alike, while Brandt would point out that the battle of a person's background and the raised literacy standards beyond its' control would only make that person apply those writings to satisfy general readers alike, but to the sponsors themselves to keep whatever work that person has with what he or she can grasp with their own literacy skills. In other words, Brandt noticed that the writers she knew had "dramatic changes" based on the subject's pasts and current work conditions, while Bryson wrote that the authors from his text wrote not for a goal in mind, but to figure out a condition of English language that can satisfy many writers themselves; a concept still in debate today.

Thinking about the ways my culture (and local community) encourages--and emphasize--writing, it usually boils down to a few ideals. For the purposes of this list, the following quotes are not actually quotes, but ideals I've noticed masqueraded as quotes for general purposes:

-"Reading complicates the mind beyond where we would like to have it, so unless the text deal with [X], why bother?"
-"I want to become a writer myself, so the more I read, the better a writer I can be!"
-"These students are in danger of becoming of what they shouldn't be, so as a class, I better alert them of concepts in [X] for them to learn to become [Y]."
-"I do not like the idea of [X], so here's a proposal--[Y]--to make [X] simpler to use."
-"I have to read [X] to get a good grade/make my boss happy. If I'm lucky, I'll at least get the bare minimum."
-"this makes no sense"
-"I like what [author] did at [event in book], when it turns out [what character thought/worked/did]"
-"[X] deal with [Concept]. Therefore, [Object] symbolizes [X] because of [more info on X] [example] [concept of x] [example] [concept x] [example] [concept x] [conclusion of x]"


Going by the list, it seems like those who stress good writers/readers--authoritative figures such as teachers, professors, literate family members, and corporations bosses--empathizes thinking on behalf of the readers themselves, so that the more the student learns about the whys and hows in regards to writing, they can understand the purpose of the text. As such, various tools such as grammar, spelling, and writing constructs are taught to allow those readers reach at their conclusions in a clear, conceive matter that can satisfy everyone involved with that specific writing.

Applying and Exploring Ideas

         Using the categories (race and class impact), I would say my primary literacy sponsors were the following:

-Teachers (academic)
-Parents (civic)
-Peers (social)
-Books (assigned by teachers or my own free will) (academic, social, civic)
-Internet (see above) (academic, social, civic)


So, in some way, class impact and race had some say in my literacy sponsorship, but in reality, social impact and my own free will had more of an influence. Were they adequate? Yes. Any regrets? No. Anything I wished I learned from them? Nothing's coming to mind, so. not at this moment.

          From what I can recall, no literacy sponsors withheld certain kinds of literates. Yes, there were "approved reading lists in school," but I would argue that was due to a social context rather than authoritative control, where an academic setting refuses us to read certain books and read other books for their own gain. No, the "lists" were generally there for us, the students, to read for us to take away themes and subjects that we wouldn't otherwise bother reading in our spare times, and generally, the majority of students had no such interest and would try to make the best of the situation and craft something that would at least appeal to the teacher. For those students who actually took the work seriously, my assumption is that they would pace out their time spent on their own social lives and the text within, and when the time comes to work, they would pace themselves for less exhaustion on their mental capabilities. However, I do remember seeing other students reading whatever captured their interest during lunch, and despite social rumblings from my peers, I would sometimes read "certain kinds of books" during some periods of class and allow anyone who was interested share those books if curiosity strikes (and it did happen occasionally). So to answer the question, if seen in a certain way, a big literacy sponsor "forced certain kinds of literates" on me, but in a boarder sense, I never had problems with reading any kinds at all, and even then I don't see the reading lists as a withheld literacy either (it was really a "necessary evil" if anything).

          All in all, the article proposed a topic I have a interest in: literacy is tied to whatever sponsor the writer has to personally satisfy, and if the circumstances around him change, then he has to change with it, or either has to change along with it, or resist that ideology and move on to a different path neither he or the sponsor expects. If Brandt intended to write the article as why these sponsors has importance in our lives that we, the people, might never notice in the first place, where our writing can actually improve under them instead of being conformed to be like them, then she had my interest throughout the entire point, and I would have no qualms of agreeing with her idea. I wish she would of tied her point and her examples in a more concise matter (I'm not sure on how literacy sponsor can create "both a sanctioning force and a reserve of ideological and material support" (347); maybe Brandt could of clarified her "statistical correlation"(336) more specially to other economic classes), but as the article stands, I enjoyed the time spent reading it.         

Reading Response #10 (Dawkins)

          "Teaching Punctuation as a Rhetorical Tool" is an article written by John Dawkins (for students who want to know about punctuation rules, or fellows who take grammar seriously) that points out the hypocrisy "manuals of style and college handbooks" (140) have in regards to punctuation rules. To Dawkins, punctuation is "one of the 'mechanics' of writing, after all," (140) and as such, good writers have no trouble breaking the rules, simply because "the punctuation rules in handbooks and style manuals are not sacred text." To response, Dawkins proposes that punctuation is really formed by its' usefulness, and writers aware of this "punctuate according to their intended meaning, their intended emphasis," (141) so the "principles" (142) really depend on how urgent the function of the each single independent clauses express themselves, which ranges from "hierarchy of functional punctuations marks" (where questions marks have a maximum "degree of separation" and commas have the minimum) (142) that can either be raised or lowered, a pattern of "pre-clausal, post-clausal, and medial" (143),  or to "Degrees of Separation Between Clauses" (147) (where the use of those mark depend on how much 'meaning' can be clarified). If successful, Dawkins says that thinking punctuation of that mindset will reveal a fundamental principle to any writer: "writing is thinking." (153)

          Similar to Sarah Allen's "The Inspired Writer vs. The Real Writer," Dawkins convince the reader that the preconceptions of punctuation/reading, taught in a setting that same reader might not have a particular interest in, only further frustrates the abilities to get himself to actually read and write, and instead proposes ideas that the concept in hand is about as flexible as the writer wants it to be. For Dawkins, it was about looking into the principles themselves and finding out that punctuation entirely depends on the importance of specific independent clauses, while Allen believes that the emotional resonance of the self can entirely depends on how much work that self is willing to work to arrive at writing nirvana; the writer someone wants to be against the true writer within in other words. To simplify, both writers agree that following predetermined concepts/rules will result in personal frustration, but both arrive at different conclusions to make student writers be themselves--with Dawkins in favor of textual objectively against Allen's emotional subjectivity.

          To use Dawkin's principles as an example, allow me to take these two sentences:

• My sister's treehouse made a great place to play with her friends.
• The treehouse was made of wood scraps and cardboard. 

And write them in three different ways to serve his idea for some of his ideas...

1. Made of woodscraps and cardboard, my sister's treehouse made a great place to play with her friends.
2. My sister's treehouse--made of wood scraps and cardboard--was a great place to play with her friends. 
3. My sister's treehouse made a great place to play with her friends, since it was made of wood scraps and cardboard.     

Notice that sentence two emphasizes the sentence about wood scraps and cardboard, while the two still uses commas to arrive at this point. This is intentional; in the second sentence, I wanted that sentence of wood scraps to stand out for the minimum degree of separation of the commas of the other two sentences, simply because if the wood scarps weren't mention, then it would simply be an ordinary treehouse in a textual sense, and the sentence would simply focus on how much of a great place it is. Now that the materials are mentioned, the treehouse suddenly has this security to it the other two sentences misses, all because using a, according to Dawkins, medium degree of separation, the reader now has a good idea of what exactly the treehouse looks like, resulting in, hopefully, a clearer picture of the treehouse itself in the reader's mind. 

Questions for Discussion and Journaling 

           According to Dawkins, "Fragments and comma splices, violations of the coordinate clause and elliptical coordinate clause rules for commas, and inconsistencies in use of the comma with introductory word, phrase, and clause--these and other failures to follow the rules are frequent enough to raise questions about the rules themselves." (140-141) Going by this sentence, I'm assuming that to Dawkins, Punctuation, under the handbook rules he's against, consists of sentences that are not only complete, but has a beginning, middle, and end, along with forming one under it own terms. This too includes commas, where two separate independent sentence cannot join under a comma, or that the structure he mentions must follow a consistent rule, or risk muddling the intent of one of the sentences. 

Applying an Exploring Ideas

          Using an article called "Warhol's Self-Portrait as a Toilet," let's look at three sentences from piece about Andy Warhol and why he was what he was...

1. "The mysterious image gets at something important about Warhol that I didn’t quite hit on in my Newsweek review: Every object he made, and almost every action he took, was in some sense about him – but not because they reveal anything about the man himself or about his creative persona."
2. "There’s no winkling out intention or meaning; Warhol’s stuff, like natural stuff, is simply there, in its ineluctable strangeness and removal from us."
3. "If an umbrella and a sewing machine really were to come together on an operating table, without anyone there to arrange the meeting, you’d be faced with something truly Warholian."     

And now let's see what happens when I switch the punctuation around...

1. "The mysterious image gets at something important about Warhol, that I didn’t quite hit on, in my Newsweek review--Every object he made (and almost every action he took) was in some sense about him, but not because they reveal anything about the man himself, or about his creative persona."
2. "There’s no winkling out intention or meaning. Warhol’s stuff--like natural stuff--is simply there; in its ineluctable strangeness and removal from us."
3. "If an umbrella and a sewing machine really were to come together on an operating table--without anyone there to arrange the meeting--you’d be faced with something truly Warholian."

Has anything changed? No, not necessarily. Yes, some parts of the sentence is now empathized, due to the nature of a dash ("like natural stuff," "without anyone there to arrange the meeting"), the wording is the still the same, and some parts are not as important anymore ("and almost every action he took), but all this does is support Dawkins' purpose: The more one understand the hierarchical system, then the consequence leads to sentences that raises, or lowers, the importance of that individual part of the sentence.
       
Source: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/09/18/andy-warhol-at-the-metropolitan-museum-is-the-daily-pic-by-blake-gopnik.html

Meta Moment

         So why did my teacher wants me to read Dawkins' article, where punctuation is rhetorical rather than conditional? Well, as a student himself, he understands that we, as undergraduates, are under this mindset that punctuation is something that can be easily crafted; the more we use it and understand its' rules and regulations, the better "writers" we would become. Our teacher, Mr. V, knows that this way of thinking will particularity leave all of us students, especially himself, into this state of frustration, where the content of the material itself doesn't actually matter unless we, the students, learn our trade until we understand something (and that's just ignoring the different set of rules each set of writing models use). So, by using Dawkins' article, we can gain in knowledge that, quite frankly, it doesn't really amount to anything; all our favorite authors break the rules all the time, so why bother? After all, as long as we writers (like myself) can "punctuate according to their intended meaning," (141), then we shouldn't fret if we suddenly forget to put a semicolon and replace it with an ordinary comma.
       
          All in all, I find it rather conforming that, yes, punctuation is an important tool to learn as a student, it's not necessarily the most important tool to think about. I'm not sure if I necessarily share Dawkins' annoyance with handbook rules of writing, since we would then dismiss rules that could lead into even more interesting stylistic choice of future writers (it might be interesting if there was a famous that did follow by the books, or at least, took the writings of those who created these rules seriously), but Dawkins' main argument for rhetoric grammar at least alerted me of alternative ways of approaching grammar, so I say consider that to be a small victory to my education.

Project 1 Intro/Conversation

         What exactly is the purpose of grammar? Are they truly useful for anyone to take, or are they optional concepts only individuals of higher education, or social status, fully understand? These are the questions I have to ponder about whenever the time comes to write about papers, where there's this disconnect of the construction of the paper and the actual material inside the paper. If I must make an observation, it seems that to a general audience, the foundation of the idea that constructs entire essays is enough for them to hold their interest, even if it goes beyond their own thinking anyways. And yet, if I were to approach, say, English teachers of various High Schools, or writers who can actually make a living out of such constructs presented in academic, it's no longer the material that matters, but now the way I approach the material--the syntax, the wording, and most importantly, the grammar--is now a part of my consideration. In other words, the tools that crafts the expression of an author into its' own idea is critically needed, no matter how important each individual tool may actually be. The result is that the focus is now blurred on whenever or not the construction is important to the writing, or the material can stand on its' own, no matter who writes it.

         So where do I go from here? In John Dawkins' "Teaching Punctuation as a Rhetorical Tool," he clues that "conventional punctuation is grammar based" (141), so whenever people notice so-call mistakes in someone's writing, the problem doesn't lie on the ignorance of the author, but is instead an intentional style based on a hierarchy of different levels (or maximum, medium, and minimum). Beyond that hierarchy lies the importance of these marks, which Dawkins suggest raising (or punctuation "higher in the hierarchy" (145)) or lowering concepts, "a natural consequence of understanding the hierarchical system." (146)   

         So why is it that with various authors have all these tools, never always taking advantage of such potential, getting away from them and write material that doesn't need their assistance, and the students of such authors can not? That's where the teachers themselves come in. In “Resolution on Grammar Exercises to Teach Speaking and Writing,” written by the National Council of Teachers of English, the problem lies with a gap of students that have different background, and to uniform each of their backgrounds in one, English teachers have to conform to predetermined notions of society, and as such, has to follow rules they may not agree with. As such, they would develop "English of educated speakers", who would then pass their judgement of the teachers' subjects as law, believing that he is correct and other such writing is incorrect; a superiority to dialect itself. The result is a resolution that stated that students are allowed to write on whatever heritage he is used to working with, making teachers to "respect diversity and uphold the right of students to their own language."

          A similar arguments pops up in "Why Revitalize Grammar?," where Patricia A. Dunn and Kenneth Lindblom actually argue in favor for so-called grammar mistakes. To them, writing is suppose to learn through "communicating, not by memorizing rules," and yet, English teachers continue to look for grammar mistakes and grade the entire parer not by what the writer has to say on the material, but institute that the grammar can has this effect of the material. Therefore, the problem with teachers does not lie with society, but on their own dedication to the rules laid out in textbooks, and if students ever need to reach their subject, then focus at the subject, not the grammar. As they say, if popular writers continually break these rules English teachers enforce, why should they, the student, bother to do the same?  

          Marry Ehrenworth's "Grammar--Comma--a New Beginning" argues for the same purpose of mistaken grammar, but her approach is more practical compared to the observations of Dunn and Lindblom. By practical, I mean that instead of creating their own beliefs of how students should write and use those pointers to challenge what other teachers have done towards correcting grammar, Ehrenworth uses her eighth grade classroom to figure out on where the disconnect of common grammar rules and writer's own interest in those rules is, and she finds out that students simply don't want to write the tenses needed to clarify their writing; they understand how to use grammar, but they see no use to use it in their own writings. The result Ehrenworth tries is to use the structure of other passages (e.g. a passage from Nabokov's Lolita), craft them to be models for the students, and sees if the prompt given to the students will inspire them to write something that gives them a reason on why they should think about writing. In the end, the material all depended on what rhythm appealed to the young writers, and as Ehrenworth noticed, she, the teacher, was working at a "framework of genre choice, and genre-linked craft lessons," (96) leaving the grades of grammar usage useless to students. 

         Do these usage link us to a better understanding on why one prefers to learn the craft than the material? To that, I turn to an article that's in Patrick Hartwell's article "Grammar, Grammars, and the Teaching of Grammar," where he brings up an excerpt of "The Three Meanings of Grammar" from W. Nelson Francis's to "go about the business of defying grammar rather carefully." In the article, Francis talks about three different usage of "grammar," where one is aware of "'the set of formal patterns in which the words of a language are arranged in order to convey larger meanings'" (109), another as "'the branch of linguistic science which is concerned with the description, analysis, and formalization of formal language patterns'" (109), and "'linguistic etiquette'," or a way where "we say that the expression 'he ain't here' is 'bad grammar'." (109) Using these rules, Hartwell suggest that, going beyond that the first two grammar statement go beyond arguing either for control or authority, each of these meanings "forces us to posit multiple literates, used for multiple purposes, rather than a single static literacy, engraved in 'rules of grammar.'" (123) Thereby, grammar can open up more possibilities writers can go with their material, so instead of sticking by the original purpose, expansion can occur, extending the original purpose into something much more complex that can satisfy those who seek better grammar in papers.

Sources:
Conference on College Composition and Communication. “Students' Right to Their Own Language.” CCC 25 (1974): n. p. NCTE.org. Conference on College Composition and Communication. Web. 16 Nov. 2010. 

Dunn, Patricia A., and Kenneth Lindblom. “Why Revitalize Grammar?” The English Journal 92.3 (2003): 43–50. 

Ehrenworth, Mary. “Grammar—Comma—A New Beginning.” The English Journal 92.3 (2003): 90–96.  

Hartwell, Patrick. “Grammar, Grammars, and the Teaching of Grammar.” College English 47.2 (1985): 105–27. 

Wardle, Elizabeth, and Doug Downs. Writing about Writing: A College Reader. Boston: Bedford/St. Martins, 2011. Print. 140-153

Reading Response #9

          "Seeing the Text" in an argument from Stephen A. Bernhardt that favors, or at least focuses, the importance of the way the text is seen visually, leading to a more appealing hierarchy for readers to follow and easier organization for the writer to deal with to academic writers who believe that the text itself is the main aspect of writing overall. Using this "graphic potential" (ROW, 36), papers could then be organized to whatever fits the written material, so if someone wants to create a scientific paper on a particular subject, or write a flyer for religious purpose, then the two pieces do not have to conform to each others rules so thoroughly, because as Bernhardt comments, the true purpose of such information of such work "suggests that visual perception works to pull out figures out of the background, to give them definition against the undistinguished field in which they are located." (ROW, 39)  In other words, the figure compliments, or supports, the text in a way the words themselves cannot on their own.

          This idea returns to Greene's "Argument As Conversation," where Green talks about on how conservations, as arguments, are meant to be communicated to a more social surrounding; bringing the material to a bigger setting beyond the writer himself. Bernhardlt's answer to bring such writing to that surrounding is to craft forms to support whatever text is needed for a specific organization, while Greene would say that the illusion of dialogue (through framing, identification, research, and the understanding of the material) is plenty to get by. However, while their forms are different, both their conclusions reach the same conclusion: to craft creative writing, the connections between the communication of readers and the author himself will entirely depend on whenever or not the author can successfully explain his position on an argument as effectively as possible through any means necessary.  

          To take an example, there's Monday paper for The Post. In the article "Athens voters still lean left, data shows," 10 paragraphs are created to support the headline that Athens voters still believe in a more Democratic government, and to communicate the info, the paragraphs arrive at their point through economic means, arriving at their point efficiently as possible for the reader to understand the material on a whole. Just in case the text can't communicate, an image is present, where one color overwhelms the others in a southeast corner. And to explain the colors that are communicated in the image, information and percentage on few of the counties are used to support the purpose, making sure the information reaches to the reader and doesn't come away from the article with any sort of confusion about Athens voters.

Questions for Discussion and Journaling         
         
          To Bernhardt, the biggest advantage for using partitioning is that the reader can process the materiel is any way that appeal to him (or her), reading at a non-linear pace that will eventually arrive at the overall purpose and be satisfied with the outcome, instead of following the dictation of the author and feel like there was no control towards the text. As for the writer, if used correctly, partitioning can reveal divisions for the whole passage, lending the author to focus on sublevels of the text without losing the overall purpose; the more he splits the material into a easily formed structure, the easier it will be for the purpose to come through. As such, headings without writing might be appropriate to use if its' used to reveal what the text means as quickly as possible, summarize the entire text in an effective sentence that who reads the material can understand before reading, or be the entire text for the reader to grasps the attention of the reader to learn more about the subject.

Applying and Exploring Ideas

          In the article, Bernhardt summarizes on how to be "visually informative" with (visual) gestalt as such: If used correctly, gestalt will bring variation of the surface that "offers aesthetic possibilities," "attract or reader through the shape of the text," "laws of equilibrium," "good continuation," "good figure," "closure," and "similarity" (ROW 43). Knowing these terms, the article shows me that Berhandt wants me to look at text in a more visual level, where instead of judging academic writings by the structure of the text, I should really take into consideration the context of formation, where it's really the way I perceive the length of the paragraphs that will determine on whenever or not future papers will hold my interest. As for the article itself, it explains why Bernhandt argues in favor for the form of the text rather than the complexity of the material presented to me.

After You Read

          Thinking back to McCloud's point that pictures, though fluid, change their meaning by appearance, leading to readers to either see either ideas, themselves or someone else, I would say that McCloud would represent Bernhardt's point by, perhaps, expressing approval of a more pictorial style, where readers can see the ideas, or themselves, much more clearly. As such, McCloud's whole purpose, his words that speak for him, is now in the forefront, despite Bernhardt's argument being aimed towards the text than a transition of words to icons. The result would probably be an amusing comic on how the form of the text means to the audience, leading to how artists will draw the pictures--along with putting the effort of corresponding the text with the images--to make audiences see themselves and make the material more appealing to them somehow.

Meta Moment

          Now what do I think is most appropriate for particular visually thinking contexts? As I mentioned before, a newspaper has to communicate info to readers efficiently as possible, so if, say, a heading is needed for a reader to completely understand the forthcoming article, I have no trouble calling it necessary. There's also graphic novels, where in a primary visual business, the text has to create visuals that supports the attention of the readers, or else the whole core will have to support itself through means beyond the material based on the writings. McCloud's comic about using cartoons for the expression of the self, other, or idea brings visual thinking into a presentation of text that relates to this article, where the theory of who presents the matter is not important, but the expression of the ideals of the author that related to the ideals of the reader is could bring the presentation to a much more easily understandable aid; the reader can now see the his/the author's point instead of figuring out for itself what exactly the point is through his own imagination.

          All in all, I can see why Bernhardt argues so hard for more visuals means of text. The looming rumors of the newspaper's demise are still in the air, and from my experiences, the complaints of reading book for school purposes are still as loud as they were decades ago. Even the length of any kind of work could determine on whenever or not I (and for that matter, anyone) will pace myself, so I'm guilty of visual means myself. Is that a bad thing? Does the problem lie with the predilections of television (or for my generation's taste, Netflix streaming, with Youtube videos on the side) around my area? I'm not sure, but if Bernhardlt is suggesting that text should follow in the wake of the appeal of what can be seen for text, I cannot say I blame him for thinking that way.

Reading Response #8

          "Intertextuality and the Discourse Community" is an article, written by Jame E. Porter, that argues that plagiarism, in the way various institutions describe it, is simplifying the idea of how people reading such text (freshman university students and academic researchers) will write their papers, trying to seek original material where it's difficult to think such terms. As such, Porter says that in order to understand the rhetoric of writing, one should look at intertextuality, where writings have "traces" that evokes other writings, or ideas at the time, and eventually accept the familiarity needed to create any sort of articles, instead of someone trying hard to follow the rules of "plagiarism" and complicated their thinking that isn't needed. Once the writer is successful at this thinking, then he will reach a conclusion Porter strongly accepts: If the writer doesn't try hard to be another individual and accepts that his surrounding shapes him more than his own thoughts, then he will arrive at a discourse community that believes in "acceptability" rather than "originality", where social forces beyond them will shape their writings much more than their own thoughts on writers that inspired them to becomes writers in the first place. 

          Michael Kleine's research almost agrees with the sentiment. Thinking back to his article, his notes made a point that his subjects were very eager to talk about their work, even to the point of excitement that their work can be seen with conservations of peers, comments from other academic members, and the language used to express those writings. Does this mean that Porter's article is indeed a positive one for whoever takes his theory of intertextuality seriously, where Porter discuss that a "discourse community" can evaluate any kind of material in their work and make it worthy of discussion? Most likely.

Before You Read 

            Now what is the difference between an author and a writer? If someone were to ask me, I would say that the big difference would lie in the way the person writing inserts himself into the text. If the purpose was to express something that the person wanted to express that exists in his mind, then he's an author. However, if the purpose was to arrive at a point that the reader has to either agree or disagree with, then he's a writer. It all depends on skill too; if I see more and more of the author within the text I'm reading, then I'm not reading his goals, I'm reading intentions; an authorship I'm suppose to look for. Yet, if I have to rely on the text to figure out what it is the person creating the words, then I can't rely on the writer himself, I have to look at the text, figure out what it means, and find a reason the writer argues for, or against, the overall work. So, if there's a book that revolves around a story that's all about the ideals of the person writing it, then it's an author. If there's an article in a local newspaper, then it revolves around the words the writer has to work around.

Question for Discussion and Journaling 

          Thinking about my own evaluations, I would say that in the past, I would argue that it was about ideals, or how the way I write would all depend on whenever or not the people reading my material agreed or disagreed on my material; express myself on the topic I was either interested in, or the project I was assigned to do. Afterwards, it was up to the people reading actual the material on whenever or not they wanted more or less, but generally, it would be up to my mood at the time. In a way, it does match my own thoughts on evaluation--write what the writer thinks and see if he reaches at a point that satisfies him and I at the same time--, where my various biases might cloud what the writer wanted to reach at in the first place. We will just have to see if that will change as time goes by.

          For Porter's own article, I would say that it matches with his own principals pretty well.
There's this overwhelming need to reach at a conclusion that will appeal to a wider audience than to his own needs as a writer, and going beyond that, he argues strongly for writing for groups of common interests. Even his analysis on the Declaration of Independence could been seen as a lack of faith on his part for relying on that text for three pages, where his thoughts on the matter only serve to agree with his point of intertextulaity--that text rely on rhetoric background than the writer's own thoughts on the subject--than his argument for a more border community to judge such work.

Applying and Exploring Ideas

          According to the Student Handbook, Plagiarism is "Academic Dishonesty", a "Code A offense" that will result in the description below:

          "[a] student found to have violated any of the following regulation will be subject to a maximum sanction of expulsion, or any sanction not less than a reprimand...Plagiarism involves the presentation of some other person's work as if it were the work of the presenter. A faculty member has the authority to grant a failing grade...as well as referring the case to the director of judiciaries."

If someone was to use Porter's paper as a source to rewrite the offense, I would see it like this:

          "Plagiarism involves the ideas used by the student's social backgrounds without the writer himself consciously knowing. A faculty member can excuse the student from the failing grade if he, the student, can use the material to arrive at an conclusion that is wholly his own. If the writer just uses his research that still evokes other writer's arguments of a similar topic, to the point where the wording is exactly the same, then the faculty member has every right to grant consequences he sees fit."

Is there a difference? On a fundamental level, no, both rulings deal with the same issue: If a student claims another writing as his own, he will receive dire consequences. Looking at the structure of each, the difference seems to lie on how serve the punishment is; the original demands harsh punishment for the student to resort to such thinking, while my own will depend on the subjectivity of the member itself. So, the results would be less serve to the student, perhaps reviling himself of anxiety that doesn't need to be there in his own mind.

Meta Moment 

          Thinking about it, the way I see "writers" is still about the same, where the rhetoric of the writer and how he approaches the material is much more important than the material he has to work with. The only idea Porter's article did was to reconfirm my theory that, to writers, the way they see whatever it is they're writing about means something to tell in other ways readers cannot see, so to the reader, their goal is to figure out what it is the writer wanted to express, and once that's done, see if it fits with the thinking of either the writer's context, or matches with the thoughts of the reader itself. That isn't to say that I will ignore Porter's argument; on the contrary, if I were to use his writing, then that would mean I would have to stop thinking about becoming "original" and just come up with ideas, concepts, or abstract thinking that I see appealing and hope that audiences would join with me and perhaps sharpen my own thoughts on various topics.

          All in all, no one would find me arguing with Porter, since looking at his article, I would agree that trying to look on the accomplishments on the past will actually benefit the writer into reaching a point that can appeal to a certain audience that is past himself, since this is an idea I believe in before I read his argument. Going beyond that, I see his point on how plagiarism might simplify ideas too much, since all text refers back to previous text anyways. In fact, that topic opens up even more questions too: How much is too much?  What's the difference between a reference and outright theft? How much context is needed to excuse a passage from plagiarism? Hopefully such questions will be answered as class keeps going.

Reading Reponse #7

         "Voice in Writing Again: Embracing Contraries" is an argument written by Peter Elbow on how voice can be persuasive in critical writing, and as such, Elbow analyzes on why someone would use "voice" to help strength one's writing, or to be "himself", but also on how "voice" gets in the way of the true meaning of the text. In his own words, it revolves learning "to adopt contrary stances toward voice---reading texts through the lens of voice and also reading them through the lens of "text" or not-voice," (ROW 57) along with learning "to be wiser in our scholarly thinking and writing." (ROW 58)

          If asked on how Elbow's writing matches Klein's writing about scientific voices, I would point out that Klein mention his passage that the scientists "remembered far more about the research process itself---about procedures, methodology, empirical data-gathering, etc.---than they did about the rhetorical implications of their work." (WAW 28) Or, to simplify, a scientific voice does research first, or thinks more of what the writer thinks about material, before the actual writing begins, or the actual reading, begins. As such, when applied, the writer's thoughts on the process becomes more important than the ideas presented, and the arguments relay on the writer's thoughts on the material itself to carry the thinking into a finished product.
          As a result of the result of scientist thinking, voice, at least under Allen, is the complete opposite, where the opinion of peers and the feelings of the self creates a personal satisfaction to the writer that might not form if one thinks only on the research mindset of a scientific voice. The result is a concept that's more formal, where writers could try to use their connections to not only create social connections, but to find a way to stray away from the "haunting ghost" that plagues the ideal of many writers.

         So what would happen if I could get personal in my academic papers, where I can write in first person without any consequence? Well, there would be this constant battle of the material that I was suppose to use and my own feelings on those text. Crudeness is bound to happen, to the point where the materiel would simply be used to strength my thoughts, instead of crafting a better procedure of systematizing the material and thoughts into a position that would not rely on one another to lift the weight of the actual point. So, if I had my way, academic writing would lead me into this martyr mythology mindset that would constantly fight to what really matters: my thoughts on the materiel given.
          Now, if I receive feedback as "You have too many passives and nominative constructions here," and/or "You sound kind of distant, uninvolved, or bureaucratic to me here", I would first think that the problem would lie in my trying too hard to be "objective" to what amounts to a "subjective" project. To be more specific, if I get the first statement, I would think that I approached my material too coldly, and that would signal that I did not research the materiel enough to be interested in it. If it's the second I get, then I ponder too much that my thoughts did not correspond with the expectations the teacher expected from me. As a response, I would start thinking about those problems, then I would start rewriting the material to make it more "personal" to make it seem warmer to does who read it and hope it works in my favor. Or maybe I would start reading the materiel again and start looking into the purpose of the text instead of what the author wants me to get away with it. Either way, as long as I learn and the teacher is happy with the new results, then all is right in my world.



Question for Discussion and Journaling  
     
           So how do I see "voice"? Well, the way I see it deals with the appeal of my need to "understand" another person; what if there was someone else who shares whatever it is I think about, and if so, how do they see it compared to me? Do they share my frustrations in regards to be with another? Is there a passion they have I can latch onto and try to add to whatever it is he/her thinks about the material? Basically, it's me pursuing the character of another and see if their thoughts and feelings can stimulate me in regards to my own thinking, or a way of expression I can listen that can make either one of us richer for getting to know the "voice" of someone else. Yes, it is different to how other people might see "voice", and I've seen others try to construct "voice" as something that another will try to defend as something worthwhile, or pointless, and as such, I would state that some of those passage might match with Elbow's writings on such a topic, where a contradiction of "voice" can leave a much more fascinating "voice" process to him.
          Does this make Elbow's point that ignoring voice will be beneficial to writing anyways? Judging by my own thoughts on infographics online, where info takes all meaning into an overall purpose of sharing information for a specific goal (because there's really no point of trying to personalize information into a pure stance to whoever writes the statistics), almost making them voiceless to the common eye, I would argue they do indeed have an agenda to tend to. It's just that it really looks harmless unless you put your own character into it, in which case, problems will indeed arrive, since emotion can override reason if the information is taken in certain ways.

Applying and Exploring Ideas         
        
          But enough about objective info, what exactly do I look for in "sincerity" and "resonance"? In my case, it all about individualism in relation to the sense of the aura of community. If you mange to be "sincere", then someone is exposing themselves into purity; a fully realized position that the self is true to himself and can not be allured by others, just himself.  If that purity can be seen by someone else, where the feeling of that self is naked to someone else and that other happens to find himself/herself in the same position, then it "resonance" with them, either in artificial terms or truly personal terms.
          Can these concepts apply to however one reads the material, where listening to it can create an interpretation for someone to observe, or reading it silently to let someone read on their pace and come up with their own interpretation? I say it does, and in using "ear training", I find myself understanding the context on how someone else see the text much more easier, and I find myself wishing I have to time to just listen to those interpretations so my own version of the text can be just as insightful as the other, where I would apply it not as quotes, but a legitimate point to consider as I reach a conclusion that portraits both me and the other in, at the least, a cathartic way that reveals ourselves somehow.
                   
Meta Moment
        
          So is it possible to be against compromise, but still be open to various interpretations of one single text? I would say so, because it revolves back into the individualism mindset of writing for a purpose of self. Basically, if a writer is willing to go beyond on how he views one topic, won't succumb into a delusional viewpoint that his word is the final word, but stands faithfully in his own opinion anyways (maybe because his own thoughts and exceptions is simply different than someone else), then it's possible to extend someone's thoughts into something that shouldn't only make himself happy, but can appeal to a much wider audience beyond himself, making it better for the two to come out of such material with a better background of what it is they seek in the first place, leaving the text to firmly stand on its' own without any problem (but still be open to interpretation if needed).

          All in all, I certainly feel like I've gained more perspective on the overall concept on how I should approach voice (I've always had trouble if I should approach the material as its' own thing, or if my thoughts on the matter would somehow make it richer), and I find myself to be relived that I can now, if not articulate my thoughts on this "voice" concept, think about "voice" into a greater context to whoever it is I try to please. Hopefully, I can try to arrive at a point where I can comfortably say that Voice is ideally desirable, but never imitated to its' full potential.

Reading Response #6

          "Decisions and Revisions: The Planning Strategies of a Publishing Writer", written by Carol Berkenkotter, and "Response of a Laboratory Rat--or, Being Protocoled", written by Donald M. Murray deal with the struggle of planning material for writing and how thinking out loud, or "talk-around" protocol that could potentially leave to, at the least, written proof of how thought could be used as a strategy, or better yet, help reach a better understanding of how important planning is writing as a whole. As such, it could give potential writers (or academic members that seek theories on writing itself) this idea on how free-flowing revisions truly are, and as such, could be used to help solidify any kind of topic in hand, like when Donald Murray writes down a note--in paragraph 1 of page 223 of Writing About Writing--on how to better structure his point by using sub-plans as "putting in different order because that maybe be, try to emphasize this one," or "May want to put the techniques of editing and teaching first and the techniques of the writer second." Eventually, this reaches to the point where Donald himself comments on Carol's article, admitting that his protocol reveled, maybe a little too much on his part, how intriguing his work habits are in a boarder scope, returning to Berkenkotter's point that evaluation of one's circumstances on his writings--the revisions, the setting, his way of thinking--play a big part in the final writings as a whole.

         Because of this need to be conscious about one's writing style, the articles in this Reading Response relate to Sarah Allen's article "The Inspired Writer vs. The Real Writer", where she admits to her audience that she has this unconscious drive--a battle of sorts--against the writer inside her own head and reality she truly feels about writing (in other words, she has a hard time to reach to her central right away, and it's something that still eludes her to this day). To Allen, it's all about emotional frustration that will eventually be lifted from her work being previews of the peer reviewing sort, while Berkenkotter believes the solution really lies in personal evaluation of one's work. In other words, both aim to find solutions for writers to reach their point more effectively, but at same time, suggest different ways to find that point, with Allen more of the side of pro-communications and Berkenkotter on a more personal process.

          Now let's talk about me; does thinking out loud benefit me? Is that concept a writing ritual within me? Well, in regards to personal satisfaction, I certainly like to think so. What about the music I sometime play as something for my brain to listen to while it similarly think about concepts that it has to mull over? That could be another ritual if one wants to look at it that way. What about events before writing? There's maybe taking care of one subject at a time, and after it's all done, I might just sit around for a bit and let my brain rest to gear itself for the next subject at hand. So to answer the question of benefaction on my writing, I can see a couple, maybe even more if those haven't stick out the most.

                                                    Question for Discussion and Journaling
          Now, going by my own judgment of Murray's writing, I get the impression that he writes down ideas that comes to him. Once the idea is all written on paper, he then thinks about it, even speaking out loud to himself, and sees if he can try to sharper the point; maybe the syntax of one sentence isn't clear, or he might of extended a paragraph that could of benefited from being two sentences instead of five. Satisfied, he would then think about revisions about think in a more rhetorical mindset than he did in previous drafts and plan out text that could fit his body of work for better evaluation for himself and his self-conscious audience.

Compared to me, similarities do arises; I would spent time thinking about whatever it is I read, then once I have a good idea of what it is that fascinates me in the first place, I would write it down as it appear inside my mind. Once finished, I would then evaluate my writings and see if I'm truly satisfied with the idea, and if I'm not, I'll post it anyway and hope revisions come when I continue, instead of letting my brain stopping me until the text beforehand is one hundred percent perfect. The only difference worth nothing is that Murray writes down an idea and then revisits the wording to better suit his true opinion, while I find myself being mostly satisfied with my validity in writing and hope whoever it is who read it understands where I come from and goes along with the material. If not, then the fault lies with my ignorance, myself, and nothing else. 

          As for Berkenkotter, I suspect that she learned that planning itself requires planning; sub-processes needed for better revisiting. Even so, she finds herself that the way the writers organizes the way writers take to the material, how they edit their material, plays an important part in the final text, and as such, hopes that researchers forgo a notion. That notion is that the materiel itself matters, but rather, approaches and tools a writer like Murray uses that can carry upon the complexity of the text. You will hear no argument from that on that sentimental.

          Thinking about it, that lies a problem with my writing: I don't seek to make sense out of material I'm given, but rather, I want to use the material to arrive at a destination that brings me honest satisfaction; something to be proud of. As such, when I write, I prefer to take my time and allow myself to let a part of me I'm not aware of think about it, and when it's happy with the results, I type it up and move on before any part of me starts having second thoughts and could alter the text into something I'm still not satisfied with. The result? Just writing that has thousands of ideas and hopes that it gets across to someone who shares such ideas. Not the ideas themselves, but rather, the character that surrounds the writing. Because of that, my writing might seem crude to some, thus, placing amateur writers like mine under, well, amateurs; a level where I'm getting the ideas, but have trouble on how I should express such ideas. Honestly, if there is a way to disguise my writing into a style that can be analyzed long after I'm gone, proof that someone like me can do something for this world, where loneliness can eventually be overcome, only then will I be...satisfied.  

          Therefore, I did learn something from Berkenkotter and Murray that can help my writing. It's not the material/introspection that writers like myself fumble over, it's trying to express that material, small cracks of our thoughts, in a way that can be fascinating to ourselves that usually worry writers. Revisiting should not be seen as something that will alter the text into concept the writers wishes to ignore, but instead can hone in into ideas that can be formed into something much greater than the writer himself has ever thought of.  


         So, what's left to be said? These article bring upon a subject that trouble writers such as myself, and I'm thankful that I now know it's a subject that's worth thinking about. Hopefully, this is material I find myself coming back to in the future, and if I find myself in the same spot as I am now, then it's not the writing that should be blamed, it's me.

Reading Response #5 -- Naked Nudity (Berger)

          "Way Of Seeing", written by John Berger, is an analytical article about looking at one aspect of the core difference of looking at man and women (according to Berger, "men act and women appear"; "the surveyor and the surveyed"), in this case, how the perspective of man looking at a woman can not only influence his own thoughts on women, but how he sees her when applied to nudity, specifically European oil paintings during the time of the Renaissance and beyond. Even then, Berger tells a crucial element of these paintings (according to Kenneth Clark): Being naked is descriptive, while being nude is artistic. In other words, if you're naked, you are yourself, but if you're nude, you are seen naked by others, not yourself.                
       
          In a strange way, the article is similar to McCloud's "Vocabulary of Comics" in that it tells the primary difference between the way we see objects; with McCloud, simplifying cartoons can allow audiences to see themselves, while with a "mask" on (or with a photo/realistic drawing of a face), you see another. With Berger, the paintings allows those who sees the nudity a chance to see the purity of the women right in front of them; they are still seeing someone else, and she will refuse to look inside of her, but it's the determination of the way the painter sees the subject matter that will make the difference. So, with cartoons, it's possible to observe oneself; with oil paintings, you are seeing an interpretation of another.         

          For example, in "Birth of Venus" (http://www.windows2universe.org/mythology/images/Birth_of_Venus.gif), the image is centered on the naked women amidst a more island setting. Despite covering herself in a state of modesty, there is still an air of confidence in a desolate setting with viewers on her left and right, attracted to do something about her pure sexuality. In comparison to something more current, like the cover of September's Cosmo (http://www.cosmopolitan.com/celebrity/exclusive/lucy-hale-september-cover-cosmopolitan?click=cos_pop), the model (Lucy Hale) is still the central of her space, but her modesty is already in place, therefore, her sexuality now has to be implied rather than constructed, already in place. The confidence is still there, as seen with the model placing her fingers onto the straps of a pair of jeans, but there are no spectators around her to support that sexuality. As such, both pictures are geared to accomplish the same goal-assert sexuality by striking a pose--but the approach are aimed for different audiences; the sexuality of the magazine model is implied, attracting their audience to something greater, while the sexuality of "Birth of Venus" is explicit, where the women is the main objective.         

          Taking a look of modern day celebrities, they too can be a part of Berger's point between man and woman. Looking at a picture of Tom Cruise (http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20628429,00.html) and Jessica Simpson (http://www.celebuzz.com/photos/jessica-simpson-catches-a-flight-out-of-lax/jessica-simpson-catches-a-flight-out-of-lax-3/), they both look superficially alike; they wear shades, their teeth can be seen among a peculiar simile, and they both wear an element of black, whenever it's a t-shirt or a dress. The difference lies in the way the photographer happens to take them; thanks to one leg assuming the weight of the other, the width of both arms, the slickness of his hair, a rugged beard, and the color of his clothing, there's sheer confidence in the way he walked away from the photographer; a sense of confident stability in a world of movie-making. As for Simpson, with the length of her hair, the position of her one hand, the actual position itself, the consistence in her clothing color choice, there's this power Simpson herself has to go through in order to reach a goal that is not that important in that picture; a sense of feminine power among the world    she got herself into, and such, is just another day for her.  

                                                       Questions for Discussion and Journaling            

          I am going under the assumption that the painter knew what they were doing, because as long as a love for the arts can inspire artists to create whatever pleases them, and social events can allowed them to bring that love into fruition, then the imagination of the artists back then knows no bounds. Hopefully Berger can see where I'm coming from.         

          As for an audience, the title of the source of the text mentions "Context For Critical Reading And Writing", and through the text itself, Berger keeps homing in on how men sees women throughout artistic means. By that I mean he writes on how man survives women before a treatment, or how some painting come into being simply because a masculine authority figure wanted to own a piece of the woman he has interest at that time. Therefore, I'm guessing that the audience is those  who seek to figure out more about the difference man and women, and how culture itself seems to change over time, but the way they are portrayed does not. In other words, perhaps it is aimed for the average college student, and going beyond them, older artists who seek to learn context on why other artists paint nudity in such a way.

                                                           Applying and Exploring Ideas           

          In regards to seeing spectator and subject inside interactions of text, the concept can work; as the reader observe what the author has written about whatever it is the author wrote about, the reader not only has to figure out on what it is the author is trying to accomplished in his work, but will also remember that the author is aiming for an audience far greater than he can comprehend. As such, as the spectator, he has to figure out the subject in hand and figure out what the author set out to do, why certain passages exist in that specific context, and come up with a conclusion that not only supports his reading of the text, but can make the work itself worthwhile to an overall conservation for others if the mood exists. Because of this, the reader has to be careful when he inserts himself into, say, the main character, because the expectations of the reader might not match the context the main character finds himself in, and for that matter, the purpose of the text itself as from the author.         

          For humor, it does play a certain role in what the spirit of a person is, to the point where humor can be classified as "sophisticated", "crude", "condensing", "ironic", "silly", and so on and so forth.  However, any way you think about humor, it is simply another extension of whomever one meets another, and as such, on an ideal level, humor is simply life that is stretched into something that is believability instead of plausibility.
                                                                    Meta Moment            

          Thinking about it, I would say that the overall relationship between all the subjects in this article point to this idea that art is a concept where the viewer's own thoughts on topics such as art is at this argument against the way the art itself is suppose to be treated. To a more authority figure,  they expect the model to achieve this goal of arousing interest on the subject, and if it works, the figure would be all together satisfied. If it fails, then the problem lies with the viewer not understanding what it exactly is, and as such, he must either learn the context of the subject, or forever be label ignorant to a mass audience. Therefore, trying to expand one's understanding towards, say, oil painting of nude figures is nothing to be upset about, but if one comes away with the notion that the paintings were created because of pure lust instead of something greater, like the way nudity is seen, then one is learning not from enlightenment, but from ignorance. Because of this, writing can be connected by figuring out what it is people of different opinions can learn from other interpretations, and no matter on how intense the argument becomes, as long as people are seeking to figure out why a piece of an objects exists, rather than what it is, then there shouldn't be any trouble in expanding one's knowledge, providing they all reach the same goals somehow. If not, be prepared to see that knowledge come together for something that can be added to the thinking of the overall product.         

          All in all, this has been a intriguing article to ponder about, and I can see why an article such as this can be easily applied to writing, which is that it all depends upon the context of the piece itself, and how others tend to see that piece and try to figure out a way to either make it more logical or more appealing to a mass audience. Of course, nudity doesn't have to try hard to reach mass appeal, but if it's personal satisfaction that was supposed to be reached, then I say bring on more articles like it and let me figure out on why the state of being naked is more fascinating than it really should be.

Reading Response #4 -- Dancing With Cartoons (McCloud)

          "Vocabulary of Comics", drawn by Scott McCloud, is a deconstructed, or rudimentary, comic that tells those who seek to learn more about their craft, academic members of various institutions, and those who have a simple way of looking into animated pictures that the essence of drawing itself is a mere representation of a complicated idea: drawings are merely icons, and the more simple the icon is, the easier the purpose of the symbol is hopefully seen. The easier that symbol becomes, the easier it is the person seeing that symbol can see itself within, who would then place its' beliefs, ideas, and dreams inside that icon, placing that symbol into the eyes of the beholder, where one could see something within the symbol another cannot see (and that's just going beyond the theory that thanks to Childlike Features, Universal Identification, and Simplicity, children having an easier time applying this concept to themselves at that age). To add, McCloud says that going past the idea that images are either practical or non-practical, icons are images that can represent anything, to physical objects such as places, people, or ideas, or more abstract images, such as ideas, philosophies, and concepts. Therefore, as the chapter ends, McCloud stresses that because of the way we humans see others compared to the way one can see itself in cartoons, there is a essential difference between the amplification through simplification nature of cartooning, to seeing another when seeing a more realistic drawing.

          This idea that cartoons could really expose character, depending on the way it's drawn, almost contradicts the public opinion of drawings itself, which amounts to something that doesn't have anything beneficial or meaningful to their social surroundings or their personal lives, therefore, pointless to their lives they leave. Sure, it's there to relive laughs whenever needed, and there is this one character that brings utter joy to their personality, but unless cartoons are in a setting that adds to their social life, the idea that drawings can enrich them into a drive to find more work and share them into social means is something that does not arouse curiosity to those off the street. This is where Kleine's article, ""What Is It We Do When We Write Articles Like This One--and How Can We Get Student to Join Us", comes in. To Kliene, his article is him creating a model of Hunting and Gathering, which is them used to follow his observation of writing in an more social setting, to make writing more appealing to fellow college students; changing procedures to make this more fascinating. McCloud does the same thing, in that he analyzes the way people might see cartoons and how there can be a deeper meaning in them, simply to make the material more fascinating for those who have an interest in it. The only difference is that McCloud is aiming to make his material look interesting for a much more wider audience, while Kliene proposes a new model to make it more it more sociable to those who are writing papers for College.

Before You Read

           As for favorite cartoons, there's too much to talk about, but in relation to favorite characters, there's "Duck Amuck", a cartoon that defines on how its' crew, consisting the combined efforts of Michael Maltese, Maurice Noble, Ken Harris, Ben Washam, and others under the guidance of Chuck Jones, see in its' characters, in this case, Daffy Duck and Bugs Bunny. Why this cartoon out of hundreds of others? Well, the cartoons tells me on how rich these characters could be, and it works like this: in the whole cartoon, Daffy and Bugs are in a constant battle of control, where one wants to take his existence into serious consideration, while the other will have none of that and reveal to the audience watching that his character is really a true farce. The result is a cartoon where Daffy, the frustrated test subject, wants us to think of one way of looking at himself, but the director, Bugs, constantly challenges that personality by focusing on what primarily interests him, in this case, aggravating Daffy into a state of helplessness, where that personality has to fight something greater than he is in order to assert himself as the main character of that cartoon. As such, this reveals on what makes Daffy Duck, at least under Jones: a character who is constantly fighting to bring himself into pure respect among others, and instead of being depressing when things do not goes his way, it actually brings out on how rich a character he truly is: a craving duck with high ambitions for something greater than himself. This contrasts with Bugs Bunny, who is really just satisfied with the way situations are with himself, and instead of finding purity amiss the world around him, he seeks to find happiness in his own life, and if the opportunity arrives that challenges that approach, or in Duck Amuck's case, a chance to expose someone else for what they truly are, he will take it and enjoy every minute of it. So, obviously, a cartoon like that tells me on how each character operates, and as far as I'm concerned, there's something appealing about seeing the characters as who they truly are on screen, in the name of comedy, for six to seven minutes like that cartoon, and if given the chance to talk more about Daffy Duck in the future, it shall bring nothing but glee on my part.

          Looking around in my room, I do see some patterns that remind me of a human face. For example, the rug in my room has circles that remind me of eyeballs, the guitars in a painting in my room has a circle and a line below it, and the air conditioner, if looked right, resembles a face that is fast asleep. With the air conditioner, the face is a lot more abstract, with the two knobs as eyes and the lines below it as multiple mouths. With the guitars, it's just one circle and a black line below, but that's enough as far as I'm concerned. Ditto for the "eyes" on my rug; there's about two circles in each circle, some looking like the moon with a circle inside, while one looks like a ring, along with others moving the "pupil" around. Now, of course, they're not really eyeballs, since the human eye has a shape that never matches with the circles needed for such objects like a rug, painting, or an air conditioner, but once you get past the superficial similarities, it's not that hard to see them without thinking about faces, as I just said.

Questions for Discussion and Journaling

          In regards to adult liking cartoons, obviously the popularity of show like Family Guy, South Park, The Simpsons, and others--where the gags brings them utter joy, and plots that gives adults material that either matches with their own thoughts on the subject or material that reminds them of the time and place they are in, only in an exaggerated matter--tell people that interest in adult is there, so the idea that someone could outgrow cartoons might come into question. It's only when someone tries to watch a series out of the appropriate age demographic where things become problematic, like when someone who is not aware of the hopes and dream of a certain generation tries to seriously analyze something like Scott Pilgrim, or someone else watching anime that is aimed to a more feminine audience, because as far as the public is concerned, they're just there to appeal to a certain age group and have no business invading those spaces (unless an opportunity arrives to make those audiences aware on how much they're wasting their time on such things), since it does not comply to what others want to see. I'm not sure on how McCloud will see this, but judging by his comment that no one will take himself in the comic seriously if he was drawn in a more realistic matter, I'm assuming he will look at adult animation nowadays and thinks that it matches with his own theories and day no more on the matter. 

          As for McCloud comments that if drawings looked more realistic and people being more preoccupied with the drawing, not the purpose of the drawing, I would say he has a point. The thing is, though, is that as he mentions in the book, when someone looks at a realistic drawing of someone else, they are not seeing themselves, they are seeing another. Once that happens, then something will feel "off" about those drawings, and as a result, different way of approaching those drawings, like how to correspond to the overall story and why a technique like that is approached has to be applied to make it work. That doesn't mean, however, that cartoons are just "blank states" that fulfill the artist's purpose; as seen with my thoughts on Daffy, if seen in one way, that purpose could really create a character that can form a personality (with the artist/director/craftsman seeing his own creation being important) that can exists on its' own, because for one thing, it's really the character the audience sees, not the people who make it; in other words, people's own thoughts takes center stage than the director's thoughts on the subjects. As such, it's really up to the audience themselves on whenever or not they should approach a character, and if they want to hear the creator's own thoughts on the matter, then once again, it's up to them.
 
Applying and Exploring Ideas

          If asked on why some adults "grow out" of my cartoons, I would probably say it simply doesn't apply to their lives anymore. As people grow up, responsibility, time, and a sense of power comes into adult's lives, and unless cartoons are a part of giving some adults that power, or when cartoons no longer gives them material that personally relates to themselves, then there is really no point of watching such drawings that doesn't give share their own thoughts on themselves of the world around them. That doesn't mean they're finished with cartoons; if their kids are into that sort of thing, where their responsibility coincide with the child's attitude toward the cartoon, or when adults remember on what made them happy as children themselves, there's a chance that cartoons will never go away in the long run.

          Now, should more teaching strategies contain visual imagery? I say, judging by the current popularity of comic books, the possibility of this kind of teaching could work wonders. Thinking about it, I can see students having a much easier time understanding where the plot is going, and with their imagination already done for them, they could now focus on the text and try to find the context of the overall story and see if it matches with the pictures instead of trying so hard to find the purpose of the text itself. 

          All in all, because of my own thoughts on drawings, where I figure out on the possibilities animated characters could bring to anybody and why they should be taken seriously, McCloud's comic is a subject I find myself coming back to over and over again, and if there's a way for me to talk about such a topic in the future, perhaps even writing about it for an academic audience, I would take that opportunity and go with it. If it inspires others to look into it more seriously, then color me blissful.

Research Tools: Summary

ArticlesPlus-Finding Scholarship 

          If a student wants to find Scholarly article for their research, Ohio University offers a way for that student a way to find it in their local library. To find what they are looking for, the student first logs onto the ArticlePlus website and type in their topic in the search box. Once typed, the student should find 'Scholarly Peer Reviews Journals' by moving the cursor to the left of that screen, and if so, it should then click on the update button. Once successful, there should be a PDF file of an article, which should motivate the student to click on the article, move the cursor to the left of that screen, and see if they either want to print the article, email the article, or save the article to their local drives. If there is no PDF, and the article instead links 'Find It With LinkSoruce', then the student will click on it to find a webpage that tells it on where the location of an article is available in other databases, finding the article to make research much easier to work with.

Finding Full Text from Citation 

          If a students wants to find text just from a citation, then there are a few steps needed in order to get the material needed for such a task. First, the student has to take a look at the source and identify the author, the publication date, and, most importantly, the title of the journal. Once that is secured, then that student should go to the library home page, click on Alice, click to change the source to 'Periodical Title' on the top of page, and then type in the title of the journal. There should be the paper and the electronic resource of that paper, while the electronic resource should have specific databases that the library has. Now that the source are available, the student then has to check the volume number and issue number, along with the author's name. If done right, the PDF should be there at the database. However, if the full-text is not available, the student will have to go back to the homepage and click on, above 'Periodical Title', in order, 'Services', 'Borrowing', and 'Interlibrary Loan and Document Express'. If done right, the student will then fill out a request, and once completed, the service will scan it and and send the file to students for free, completing the search for the full text.

How to get a book from OhioLINK

          As a resource used to find books outside of the library at Ohio University, OhioLINK is divided up into a few steps to insure that the book will be sent to fellow students. For the resource to work, one has to first check if the book is available, or "Status Available" at the website. If the book instead has "Status Due" or "Status Due Off Campus," where students cannot check out the book at the library, then one has to move the cursor to OhioLink at the right of the screen. After the site check around the state the Ohio to see if the book is available, the student then moves the cursor to "Request" at the left of the screen once it finds the book at another library. If it works, then the student will tell the website where its' location is, log in his or her's OhioID, and select a pick-up location. Click on the Submit button, and when the screen says the request was success, saying an email will be sent when the book arrives after three business days, then the process is complete.

Project 1 Proposal

          Construct: How semicolons, hyphens, and other punctuation marks are actually useful 
                                tools people don't know about. 

          Construct At Its' Most Visible: -When sentences do not form together to construct a 
                                                      single sentence, it becomes broken down into multiple 
                                                                        sentences that serves to support the single idea of the 
                                                      sentence to the broader paragraph.
                                                  
          Who Keeps It Alive: -Those who follow the rules of punctuation, but are fully aware they 
                                        are not rules, but guidelines that should still be taken seriously.
                                                      -Lawyers
                                                      -Lawmakers
                                                      -Writers
                                                      -Accounting Workers 
                                                      -Social Workers
                                                      -Teachers

          Influence Ways Of Thinking: -It makes the sentence specific; making two sentences that 
                                                                      share the same point without having to pad one long 
                                                     sentence.

           Write In Specific Ways:  -It arrives at a point as effectively as possible.
                                              -It reaches to the idea of the paragraph more quickly.
                                              -Empathize sentences that are needed to make the point of a 
                                                paragraph stronger.

          Conceptions About "Good" Writing:  -It punctuates meanings, not overall ideas.

          Search Terms: -"Rules"
                               -"Sentence structure"
                               -"Punctuation mark"
                               -"Independent Clauses"
                               -"Separation"
                               -"Emphasis"


          Brainstorming Questions: -What is good use of that sort of punctuation? 
                                              -Where did I learn this sort of materiel?
                                              -What happens if you use that sort of punctuation the wrong 
                                                              way?
                                              -How does that kind of punctuation expand the form of a piece 
                                                of writing?
                                              -Can you still go to a certain point without using that sort of 
                                                punctuation? 

         Research Ideas: -Find sentences that heavily use commas and study what happens when 
                                              you remove then and replace them with semicolons, hyphens, and 
                                              other punctuation.
                                 -Conduct research in library to see if various opinions on that kind of  
                                 punctuation is seen by various authors.
                                 -Discuss punctuation with teachers and what happens on when they 
                                  see that kind of punctuation in student's writings 

         Research Material (as of now): "Teaching Punctuation as a Rhetorical Tool", pg. 139,  
                                                      Writing About Writing 
                                                      3 other sources.                                    

         Goals:  -Why don't we see people use this kind of punctuation? Is it because of a lack a 
                     knowledge, or experience? 
                    -What exactly is the fundamental difference between a semicolon, a common, 
                           or a hyphen?
                    -Can you construct sentences without depending on commas, semicolons, etc.?
                    -How long does a sentence truly need to be to reach to a point? Does this kind 
                          of punctuation reach that point more efficiently?