Final Portfolio

I believe I do have a grasp on rhetoric, and writing rhetorically,  but I know that my writing doesn't show this.  I was capable of building rhetorical arguments, but on the fourth paper I completely missed the audience, and as a result, the focus of the paper, which only acts as evidence against my writing ability.  However I feel most of my writing have strong core arguments, and for the most part are clear enough to understand.  As evidence of this In paper four I formed a rhetorically effective argument, but completely missed the audience intended.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/14v4FTjMN2BmSDw1hCqqmlGQZZJ5qLvMUcHiTTwfyBy4/edit#

However I feel that some oversights in my writing do not necessarily mean a lack in ability on my part.  With a little more attention to detail I think I can craft a writing to my intended audience.

While I do believe I can write at atleast a college english level,  I do not feel, given my performance, my grade deserves to be raised. 



(I'm also writing this portfolio blind.  Since my outline for it is locked in my dorm.)

paper 4 (Re-posted.)

Bradley Schneider

English 151

J. Whicker

                                    Arguments from authority

            The structure of language and communication promotes the development of a hierarchy of authority, and since writing (In its traditional sense.) is a form of communication, these hierarchies of authority must also exist in writing.  To tie authority to writing I’m going to first define authority, and explain some founded theories on authority relationships; second define a valid argument from authority, third discuss objective or argumentative writing; and finally use the previous three premises to conclude what variables of authority relationships are important in the propagation of information, and postulate what things people look for in an argument from authority.

            In our society the existence of hierarchies of authority is undeniable, but there is no single or natural authority in our society.  In essence authority is the transfer of power amongst members of a community, which is done to ensure that the needs of that community are met. As Hobbes said: “The power of the mighty hath no foundation, but in the opinion and belief of the people.” which means if the community no longer has faith in the ruler, and they no longer act in accord with the ruler, the ruler loses the power they were given.  The needs mentioned earlier legitimize the exchange of power between individuals. However power isn’t always given, often enough it’s taken in opportune moments, in the absence (or removal.) of a controlling body; filling the role it once had.  Two earlier ideas on authority presented by Plato and Aristotle focused on the metaphysical spheres, (for Plato enlightenment, and for Aristotle natural ability.) which determined the placement of authority. (Thus legitimizing the authority relationship; without placing importance on the internal individuals.)  However these postulations failed to explain the process of legitimization. As was said earlier an authority relationship is legitimized by the leader’s ability to meet the needs of their subordinates within the medium they’re working.  Within a discourse community such as the writing community (As I understand it.) these authority relationships are often less diverse, and authority is simply given to those who’ve proven their expertise within the field.  While within a single field: these figures of authority need to agree relatively consistently for their arguments to be considered cogent.

These figures of authority within different fields (as mentioned earlier.) are referred to by people outside of the group to support arguments that they’re forming; this is an argument from authority.  The standard form for an argument from authority is as follows                        (premise₁ → premise_2…→ conclusion):    Person A (claimed to be) an authority on Subject S; person A makes claim C about subject S; therefore, C is true.  An explanatory example of this given by Labossiere, “Not surprisingly, this argument is used when a person lacks the required knowledge and expertise and therefore needs to rely on another source of information. For example, most lawyers are not experts on DNA testing or ballistics, so they hire experts to testify in court. In effect they are saying that what the expert says about the DNA or gun is true because the expert is an expert.” which allows an individual to reach a decision or make a claim.  The problem with arguments from authority is that there are unconsidered variables which if present would make the argument invalid.  There are six defined criteria for an argument if it’s to be considered valid, and they are as follows: The authority must have sufficient expertise in the subject matter in question, the claim being made by this authority is within their area(s) of expertise, there is an adequate degree of agreement among the other experts in the subject in question, the authority in question is not significantly biased, the area of expertise is a legitimate area of discipline, the authority in question must be identified (you need to cite a specific expert; rather than attributing the argument to “experts”.).  (Labossiere.)  If any of these criteria (especially the first five) are broken the argument of authority is invalid, but these criteria are often overlooked, and arguments, regardless of their origin, are accepted as truths. Simply put arguments from authority are taken to be stronger arguments than they usually are.

With the degree of contention surrounding academic fields it is necessary to separate yourself from other scholars who you’re competing with.  In presenting a new or alternate idea to explain something within your field is itself an argument,  and  the cogency of an argument , at least among academics, is important in how your paper will be received; whether it be accepted, standing out among other arguments, or denied.   A cogent argument is both valid and strong, in order for an argument to be valid it must have premises, which in combination support the conclusion, but in order for it to be strong there must be a high degree of certainty or a low degree of refutability between the relationship of the premises, and conclusion.  (It is also important to present information with a confidence; as if you’ve put enough research into your paper to be sure of what you’re saying.)  For individuals who aren’t testing the truth values of an argument it becomes necessary to compel them to accept you in another way, and this requires a basic understanding of the target audiences beliefs. 

Authority is innately present in communication, and being that writing is a form of communication, authority is also innately present in writing.  We always assess the information we’re presented with (whether consciously or not.) based on our beliefs, and as we are all writers we must be aware of what people reflect on when they assess information; especially if we’re trying to persuade them to accept our assertions.  If we’re to grow in our professional life we must be able to appreciate structures of authority, and be able to ourselves assess information objectively as quote from Lukes better illustrates, “…one thing is to discover and scrutinize of obedience, and a different one to assess their validity and desirability.”  Being able to tell the difference between poor, and strong arguments limits the mistakes we make in forming our own arguments, and this reduction in the mistakes we make will improve the quality, and pull of our arguments.  Obedience is not always assumed for the right reasons, but that is not to say that authority relationships aren’t useful in our community.  With an understanding of how to use information, both in reading and writing, the quality of the work, and as a result the authority held in the work will improve.

cover letter. Rough draft... paper #4

As this argument is in it's rougher stages Information on the argument form itself would be useful to me.  I'm looking for your feedback regarding your opinion of the purpose of the paper specifically.  I will be making several tweaks, and aditions to the paper, but I'll need your help in deciding where to focus.

Thank-you
   Bradley Schneider





https://docs.google.com/document/d/1I-BaIjx_FjwPeWbqaJlLNAbnn1XE884aw2O5LzLBEcM/edit?pli=1#

february 27th

Penrose/Geisler
Summary:   In 'Reading and Writing without Authority' two stories are presented and compared.  One of a freshman english student, the other a graduate student; both writing about paternity.  For the more developed writer, authority came naturally in the paper.  Leaving us with the conclusion that more seasoned writers naturally write with more authority.

Response:  I like this article as I did the last article we'd had assigned.  The non-abstract examples made it easier to understand the purpose of the paper.

3.  In Janet's paper she simply examines, and reexplains information, while Rodger developes a conversation by explaining gaps in paternal theory.

4.  Rather than risk sounding stupid to her teacher she decides to hide behind the developed authority of other writers.

5.  I think I can creatively think, and develope a paper like Rodge, and I do read critically,  but it's still hard to write with ethos when you don't think it will be taken seriously.

MM:  Atleast for my academic article i'm going to try and write with more ethos.  Mostly because I know it's acceptible in that setting.  

Wardle: february 24th

Summary:  In Wardles paper " Identity, authority, and Learning to Write in New Workplaces." she presented the need for an understanding in identity, and the willingness/ability to change.  If you don't fully assume your role in the world, and if you don't change your position won't improve.

Response: I like the simplicity of Wardle's argument.  She introduces a character and relates it to her main argument, which made it easy to read this paper.

3. Alan refused to change the way he wrote so no opportunity for positive change was presented to him.

4. I think most people are unconsciously changing the way they use language more often than they consciously change the way they use it.  So yes.

5.    Alan's original discourse was quite different than the one he was introduced to,  but i don't think that prevented him from being assimilated.

6.  People are hired to do a job,  whether that job is as a member of community or as a gear in a machine is left to the discretion of the reader.  Neither.

7.  If I see a teacher make an obvious mistake it makes it hard to view them as a figure of authority.

A&EI:  Just being introduced to more dominant, secondary discourse communities leaves me in the position of the novice.  My authority is limited, and my work isn't viewed in a serious respect.  Almost all of my work I've done through writing is for assignment,  and not expected to have weight.

Feb. 22nd Johns

Johns:

Summary:
1.  The conventions of a discourse community make it hard for a new member to be taken seriously. (new ideas come unwelcome.)

I felt this article was easier to relate to than the other 2(3) on discourse communities. 


2.  The scientific community uses to follow Pythagorean ideals of thought constructs until mode was challenged by the scientific method.
3.  Yes i'm beggining to step into a scientific discourse community,  and my being opinionated may conflict with the ideals of the Physics discourse community.
4.  With english people are more likely to blame others,  which may make you prejudice to the idea that everything you've lost has been stolen or done at the fault of another.  Other languages may not share these patterns of thought.
5.  My authority in all early academic texts is derived from established authorities.
6.  established authorities don't need to worry about being  brushed aside and ignored, while new writers are at risk by being buried by detail focused errors.

MM:  Following the path of least resistance will increase the chances of you establishing yourself as an authority in a discourse community.

february 20th post

In the article "The Concepts of a Discourse Community" Swales defines the makings of a discourse community, providing six qualities that are needed for a group of individuals to be a discourse community.

I didn't like much of Swales' article it was dry, and I didn't feel like any of the information he presented was much of a revelation.

1.1. Discourse communities members share a broad set of common goals.
1.2. There is active intercommunication between members.
1.3.  A discourse community has participratory mechanisms, which incentivize providing information & feedback.
1.4. Use relevent resources (for reference & understanding) to further their aims.
1.5.  Discourse communities develope a lexis.  (use of acronyms & jargon)
1.6.  Reliability of information provided is weighed by the assumed expertise of an individual member.  (heirarchy  novice<expert.)

3. Swales didn't think a first year college class would be a discourse community, but a graduate level class would.  (probably because they have like career specializations.)

5.  A discourse community is my english 151 class.  we all share common goals, interact, use similar resources, provide feedback, developed a lexis, and have a

MM: no


Gee:
      Gee discusses that language and grammer are less important than discourse in our communication patterns.

    Like Swales' article  this paper was rather dry,  but atleast it had more new information than the later article.

3.  Discourse: saying-writing-doing-being-valuing-believing combinations
      discourse: connected lengths of language that make sense.
4.  Primary:  first connections
      Secondary:  connections made outside of our comfort zone.
      Dominant:  Inspirational
      non-Dominant:  social interaction
5.  This makes everyone loose members of the same discourse community.
6.  This is similar to his ideas of Discourse and Identidy because an individual has to on his or her own learn to read& write.. "say-do-believe"
7.  In a scientific community there is an expected level of understanding of the discourse communities focus.  Failure to meet this level of understanding is obvious because a lack of participation or presentation of lacking information.
8.  Bad information is ignored, and growth is more likely to happen in the right direction. (progress.)

13.  I would like to be an apprentice in the Physics discourse community in the near future since I'm pursuing a degree in Physics.
 A&EI: 2.  value of knowledge carries over into academia.  (wanting to know more ensures you'll try to learn more.)
4. Friends & Family hold different expectations for language and formality.  Knowing and following these or atleast following the most mild of the two (family) prevents much conflict.

paper #3 cover letter

In our paper we tried to build and present the idea that a literacy is a tool with which we interact with our world, and since we learn by applying our literacies; current literacies effect the way future literacies are understood.  This idea provides us enough evidence to conclude that the earlier a literacy is introduced, the greater its effect on an individuals accumulative literacy, how a person understands the world.
Any constructive critique of the paper is appreciated.

Question

What qualities do the public look for when analyzing information from a specific discipline?  (The illogical reasons people accept/don't accept information. [Based on differences in vernacular.])

arguments from authority.

February 8th

Malcom X:
Summary: Even with the disadvantage of being in prison, and having no substantial education in his earlier life Malcom was able to find literary sponsors, and learn to read.  Malcom felt nobody should have to do what he did to learn to read.  In a more fair system.
Reflection:  I read this article first mainly because I am familiar with his story somewhat, and I was most interested to see his article,  which I also liked more than most articles we've read in our assignments.

1.  Ironically enough I think he's writing to an audience that struggles with reading.  Or less ironically, anyone who's disadvantaged in some similar way.
2. To him literacy isn't just the ability to read and write it's also the level of understanding of what you're reading
3.Islam, prison, and the library in prison where he got the books.  The most useful sponsor of his would have to be the dictionary.  Without it he would have struggled even more greatly to learn to read.
4.With his limited literacy when he began the interpretations that built upon this may have been susceptible to flaw.
6.I don't find it hard to believe.  I know college students who don't read unless assigned to,  and  Malcom truly wanted to read.  This claim is reasonable.

A&EI: Well I don't think Skype, and texting are really presentable as equals to the world wide web, but they certainly replace or divert a portion of literacy away from older modes.


Baron:
Summary: In Baron's paper "From pencils to pixels: The stages of literary technologies" he laments about the mal-effect of newer technologies on writing, edging out or damaging the older modes of literacy.
Reflection:  I didn't like this paper mainly because I thought his scope on the issue was too limited allowing him to only see the aggressor, and the shrinking modes of the past.  The way we share information is modernizing.  For the better I think.

2. Well if technology isn't changing the shape, and nature of writing it's surely still doing that in effect by the damage it's done. (Although technology's always changed literacy.[the printing press made literacy realistic to a broader audience])
4. Steel-edged printing press, and the type writer come to mind.
6.All the images in the text are designed to discredit the internet.  Although it was just as easy to burn the book of , or edit the passages of, writers in the past, and erasing someones voice is virtually impossible now.

Alexie:
Summary: Through his life Sherman Alexie dealt with discrimination because he was Indian. From this he builds on how he taught himself to read through comic books, and how that helped him become the talented writer he is today.
Reflection:  I liked this story because it reminded me of Malcom X's own struggle.  Even with his discrimination Alexie proceded through life without much resentment.  (With this being said it's important to note the degree of discrimination to which he was subjected was quite less than that of Malcom's.)

1.  If a child is labeled as being stupid there must be an impact on his self-esteem, as a result his motivation, and without motivation how is someone expected to be driven to become educated.  This is especially cruel for children.  Because there isn't much a child can do to overcome that.
A&EI: While it might help... the motivation to read and write, I don't think, is enough to (for everyone.) escape poverty.  There are other barriers which exist.

paper 2

Paper 2 is posted on the main 'writing-writing' blog.   Sorry for the inconvenience.

Brandt

Summary:  'Sponsers of Literacy' focuses on how people actually learn to write, and more on how they acquire literary skills, and from this presents the idea of literary sponsorship, which is basically one writers style becoming a part of a newer writers style, which can be seen as advertisment for the original writers.  In turn this writer teaches the newer writer to write.

My thoughts:  I liked this article because it focused on how writers learn to write without psychology being so essential in this definition.  Or atleast only applying psychology/sociology to writing, and not other outside things.
A&EI: My main literary sponsor was education, and the public library.  I didn't really have much other exposure

2.  Brandt's saying that sponsors benefit from their sponsorship is simliar to saying that companies benefit by advertising their product because even though they have to provide a service to get their style out there it's still reaching a larger audience by proxy, and maybe even directly.
4.From my understanding of the word stratified i think she means that there are layers of influence in a persons literary development, and by "stakes" she was referring to balancing literacy with society, and your creative expression.

February 1st homework.

Summary:  In each of the essays a known writer talks about: importances of writing seriously (King), show even skilled writers first drafts are "shitty" (Lammot.), seeing your story clearly. [focusing on the material of the paper, not your emotions,](Haruf.), how becoming a writer is hard [even skilled writers struggle to find acceptance/success.](Diaz.),  restraining the urge to let your inner critic ruin perfectly fine work. (Goodman.), and finally to read your work, and revise it as necessary after. (Sontag.) 
      All of these writers have either encouraged others to continue trying to be a writer or sharing some information on what they find useful in improving the quality of the material.


My thoughts (reflection.): These essays provide tips, and insights from successful writers, and I think after reading these essays I can improve on my own writing about writing styled essay.


UtE: I think Steven Kings message of writing to important to be treated like a chore, and  Lammot's focus on working past the "shitty first-drafts"  encourage the reader (Including Tony, which may help him develop a passion, and discipline in writing.) to work at their writing, and put themselves into their work.

MM: Although the idea of revising after reading isn't new to me hearing it again is definitely useful to me. I learned the importance of separating your emotions from your writing. (at least anything that detracts from the project.)    The most important lesson I can try to take from these essays is to calm my inner critic, and worry about critiquing my work after it's completely written.  (so I don't lose track of what i'm writing in the first place.

January 30th

Harris:
Summary: Harris focuses on the merit of revision through multiple-drafts, and the possible benefits that may come from this.  Through the article he deconstructs the idea that a better paper will always come from revision. (specifically multi-draft.)

I personally don't feel multi-draft writing yields more success, and I will usually refine my views, and the ideas I'm presenting to get an overall finer product without completely re-writing the paper.

Responses:  One-draft writer.  
                    My final draft is built from the scaffolding of the original paper.  I only edit, and add to the original ideas.
                    The disadvantage to this is that if i do not put in an appropriate amount of research I may stray from the more important ideas of the subject.

Ransom:
Summary: In this response to Berkenkotter's research of Murray,  Domineq Ransom feels that the methods of evaluating a writer are inadequate because the gaps that are left in the "Think Aloud Protocol" because of fear of critique, and a lack of reflection from the subject.  She instead suggests it would be more effective to evaluate your own writing process through notes in the margin, which allow you to reflect on the development of your view on the subject material.

The thing I liked most about this article was that it managed to assert its views, and compare them to previous studies while being succinct.  ( I think a reader can deconstruct an idea without the step by step guidance of a writer.)

list: Study yourself  (?)

I've not personally taken notes for the sake of exploration,  and I tend to only write for an objective. The ideas for this objective oriented writing are developed long before pen comes to paper.

january 27th

Barbara Tomlinson brings attention to metaphors students use while revising in an effort to allow a student to reflect on which of these metaphors they use in the process of revision.


Personally I didn't take in much value from the 'metaphorical' approach to writing.  I do sometimes approach my paper as if it were a pile of raw ore, with unneeded bits of junk and inconsistencies, but most of the time problems are too varied to apply this way of thinking.


1.  It's my belief that Tomlinson values  an interview more as evidence of discourse, and not as evidence of composing practices because composing practices aren't fully exhibited in conversation, as they are in writing.
2.Tomlinson asserts that writing can be seen, and can't be seen as a metaphor because writing cannot be looked at as something else, because this takes away the individuals form of writing, and makes it easy for a student to base their writings solely on comparisons.
3.I like to take the "refining ore approach in writing.  Mostly because I have my beliefs on the subject, but my voice isn't fully tuning  to its purpose, and it's just a matter of me finding that tune.
4.I feel it's too difficult to have a paper that's too inflexible to change, and there aren't many topics tailored to such a precise ordering of thoughts.
5. I don't think my metaphorical view on my revision process makes too much impact because I take different approaches to different papers, which may not have room for certain familiar metaphors.

paper1 final.

Without any specific observations left on my paper I found it challenging to find things to change, as I've not had a chance to read on the subject more, my perspective is unchanged.  My main efforts were in simplifying some of the sentences I thought were unnecessarily complex.

            Bradley Schneider                 

Originality

            A common assumption of many people is that a talented writer is someone who can form original ideas without derivation or inspiration from society; alone.  However, with added perspective, I feel that the definition of originality:  “The capacity to act or think independently”, makes it impossible to be original, because a large portion of the individual’s identity can be attributed to society.  So if originality is to be expected of a writer it would be unreasonable to adhere to such an inaccessible definition of the word “original.”, moreover the weight of a writer’s creativity shouldn’t be tied to the impact of his writing, but rather by his ability to marry the familiar with the unfamiliar, as better said by R.G. Martin “Originality, as I am advocating it here, is not mere verbal volatility-it it(is?) a putting together of the familiar into the unfamiliar in some kind of defensible way, some way that makes as much sense as the materials from which it was constructed.” , which I feel adequately provides a basis of understanding creative work.  I feel the fallacious way in which we understand originality may have adverse effects on those whose educational progress (In respect to creativity.) is centered around this old way of thinking.

            Previously accepted views on originality, as I’ve stated, create problems in the course of education of language, and writing; in particular, plagiarism.  To explain how plagiarism arises out of the currently dominant view of originality I feel it necessary to share an example of such an assignment that encourages plagiarism presented by R. G. Martin, in which he/she says: “The assignment to write 1000 or 5000 words "on" Robert Frost or T. S. Eliot is itself a "plagiarized" assignment (i.e., one totally devoid of originality), and it invites the same in return. The second cure (to designate the copied material as inferior) thus requires the teacher to give enough thought to the assignment so that it cannot be met by copying. I suspect that the only unplagiarized topics are questions which have not been asked or answered before, at least with-in the students' experience. "Robert Frost" is a plagiarized topic, on which thousands have written. A paper that is simply "about" Frost is usually a mere collection of publicly available facts-in the sense in which, as a rule, encyclopedia-entries are themselves epitomes of plagiarism (what we don't want in an encyclopedia is originality!).” it is this style of education that creates the dependence on memorization or regurgitation, which, in itself is a “subtle act of plagiarism.”  I’m not aware of any comprehensive approach to fix this problem; nonetheless I feel it is a problem worth acknowledging. 

            Within the classroom a typical teacher (I can say most of mine fell into this sort.) will respond to instances of apparent plagiarism in the same way they would for a student cheating.  The problem with this is that bad paraphrasing, and otherwise unconscious instances of plagiarism could result in discipline for the student.  This is unfair since the student’s curriculum strongly encourages the recycling of ideas to make a point (As said in paragraph #2), rather than spending the time to write questions which require thought, and creativity [paraphrased from R.G. Martin]. Martin goes on to compare situations in mathematics where it is rare to find the repetition identicle questions.  (example: [attributed to Martin]:  5x=92)  Another example of a problem in high-school curriculum for writing is the teacher’s attempt to prepare a student for standardized tests in using multiple-choice questions,  of which none of the work (aside from a vague partial of the material the student has memorized.) is the student’s.  If it is the goal of a teacher/school to facilitate creativity in his/her class then the extra work used into asking unique questions would be required.  (An example of a question demanding a unique answer for writing (presented by Martin, corresponding to the previous citation.): “Does Robert Frost’s poetry carry out his Maxim that a poem ‘begins in delight and ends in wisdom’?”)  With the higher education requirements of a teacher, and the responsibility they are placed with in educating a generation of non-drones, it isn’t unreasonable to expect thoughtful effort in their course work.

The issues with the currently accepted construct on originality poses a problem to both the writing communities and the development of creative writing at a lower educational level.  The obsession with putting titles of ownership on ideas may itself contribute to a misunderstanding.  People so quickly proclaim “their ideas” without acknowledging that they are at most building on that idea by asserting their perspective.  While people may have their own original and unique views on ideas, the ideas themselves are not new (within the lifetime of the person.)  Although it’s impossible to be certain there are any unknown primal thoughts,   it is not unreasonable to postulate that within the constraints of human thought, and language, there are few remaining if any, and to assert otherwise is to stifle the progress to knowing these primal things. For progress to be made within our educational system I feel it would be beneficial to divert from our currently accepted understanding of originality.  For the sake of creativity, and, as a result, societal development, our education systems must encourage attainable originality.

january 25th

1.Murray is described as doing an abundance of "revision" internally;  I also make the conceptual revisions while thinking about what i'm writing.

2.The audience of Murray,  over the long expanse of time he's written,  has been reflected towards himself.  I've not written (atleast not dedicatedly) long enough to write to anyone other than the assigner of a paper.  Or to myself if i'm writting some kind of note or journal.

3.Berkenkotter learned that planning and revision have areas which can overlap when writing a paper.

AEI: By in large i'm a procrastinator, and as such most of the thought and revision in my writing is composed off paper.  Editing tends to go neglected.

MM: Well if I did learn one thing it was that i spend far too little time, and thought into writing a paper.  176 logged hours of tape attributed to a single work dwarfs the total amount of time in all of my highschool writing.

paper 1 (attempted repost.)

Cover page:

Bradley Schneider

English 151:  paper #1.

J. Whicker

My objective for this paper was to challenge the construct of originality, and the problems that it’s commonly accepted form gives rise to.  The flow of my paper is someone unsmooth, and I would appreciate pointers in how to fix that.

Allen

Allen feels that no writer,  or atleast few writers,  are inately gifted as a "good writer",  and that a succesful writer has to trudge out their work like anyone else.  For me I'm only able to write freely (not necessarily skillfully.) when motivated by a time constaint (procrastinating.), and without some force compelling me to continue writing I loose focus, effected by "writer's block".  So i feel my experiances do reflect the experiances of Allen,  even though I attribute importance to other influences/inhibiters.


Murray
GRR:  I was taught to write in a way that was inpersonal, and it was discouraged to present information from the first person.

1.'I think Murray is trying to argue against the construct which discourages writing in the first person.
3. Murray disects himself to enforce the idea that reading is autobiographal, and he also doesn't seem to argumentative.
4.  If I'm to progress in my "autobiographies"  I would surely need to improve or atleast change as a writer.
5.  The texts don't directly display aspects of your life,  but rather, an informed person (informed about the writer's history.) can draw connections between how a person writes, and what they've experianced.

MM:  If you look at writing as an active autobiography then you can appreciate growth as a writer, and give significance to writing where it didn't have it before.  (outside of class.)


Dawkins
GRR:
a. My sister's treehouse, which is made out of wood scraps, and cardboard, made a great place to play with her friends.
b. The cardboard and scrap wood treehouse of my sister made a great place for her to hangout with her friends.
c. My sister and her friends played in the treehouse made of scrap wood and cardboard.

2.Teaching 'this' method of punctuation is easier,  and has greater rhetorical effect (affect.?).
3. Higher marks,  such as the period, can be used to increase the emphasis on a sentance.  Adding to the rhetorical effect.
5.I know don't hold punctuation to be as absolute.
6.I usually think of punctuation as an annoying secondary step of writing, and it becomes customary to focus less on punctuation until i've finished establishing the context material.

MM:If instead of reading this,  I had been simply told that i was expected to use writing rhetorically, I probably wouldn't consider changing my methods, and would continue to value grammatical significance over the rhetorical.

january 13th

Summary:  Stedmen's essay: "Annoying Ways People Use Sources" begins with ineffective ways of using sources, and progresses to show better examples of powerful sourcing.  He compares bad sourcing to slow driving,  Where a slow driver might inhibit a normal driver's progression, making his trip take longer,  a ineffective writer's use of sourcing doesn't flow, and unecessary information is added to a paper making it more difficult to navigate, and making it take longer.

Response:  I feel that this essay focused more on actual examples of using sources instead of focusing on framing or questioning constructs of writing.  In the past my useage of sources was overly thorough to ensure i received the best marking for the paper i could receive, and more often than not I repeated information,  which i don't feel needed to be repeated.

Brad's WAW: 2nd GRR, QD 2-6, MM (Jan. 11th)

What helps me write:
       1.  Thing's i've learned
       2. My immediate mood

The assumptions I make from texts i've read, and things i've heard actively shape my writing, but in later stages of writing I'm receptive to any feedback on what i'm writing. 

QD 2-6
   2.  I don't agree with "Porter's Idea" that intertext makes an individual writer less important.  The originality of a text comes from the experiance of the writer that shaped the ideas and how they were presented, and not just the idea he's writing about.

   3. The idea that a writer forming his own world, rather than funneling information through his own tendencies and inclinations, is admirable.

   4. I didn't assume to understand the writers experiance in preperation to analyzing a passage, and I don't think my writing has never been touched on deeper than it's grammatical form.

   5. I think Porter makes it immensly clear that his work is not original with the sizely volume of citations.  "The most mundane manifestation of intertextuality is explicit citation."

   6. The idea that  writers are isolated, and heroic limits the success of later generations of writers by confusing the characteristics a student of writing's ambitions follow.


"Porter's words"  have certainly broadened my approach to writing, and made me more particular about being socially acceptable,  but " I feel"  that "his idea's are more important for analyzing literature,  not writing it.
     

originality

Writing to me...

Writing has a historical importance both to immortalize the individual, and also to shadow the genesis of the human story,  while there are lapses in accuracy, and completeness it gives a way to observe the progress we've made as a species.  Writing forms the base of all lasting communication, and also gives us the ability to learn from the past, and pass lessons onto the future.


(as for English 151*.)