"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.
Sunday, September 16, 2012
Thursday, September 13, 2012
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.
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.
Tuesday, September 11, 2012
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.
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.
Sunday, September 9, 2012
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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.
Thursday, September 6, 2012
Monday, September 3, 2012
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?
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?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)