Here's my essay.
I've worked long and hard on this sucker.
And now here I am wondering if I've even followed the prompt...help.
Sunday, November 22, 2009
Friday, November 13, 2009
Taking an Approach
From my understanding, "taking an approach," as descirbed by Harris, is a technique in which the writer channels another mode of thinking, or perhaps even another style of writing altogether, to express his ideas. It is similar to both forwarding and countering in that it involves acknowledging the validity of a previously established idea, and then expanding on that idea. It is different in that it does not so much use this idea to support the current argument, but to offer insight into the argumentative processes of the writer. The act of "taking an approach" makes most sense to me when compared or thought of as an introduction or premise to a piece of writing. During an introduction or prologue, the author can explain the inspirations for his written text - perhaps a particular idea of another intellectual, or the stylistic aspects of another piece of writing - which descirbe the approach he will take in his writing.
I know that definition is a little bit hairy, but it's even more difficult (in my opinion) to find examples of a writer taking an approach (at least online). It seems the author almost has to blatantly say, for example: "I'm writing this piece from a Freudian point of view, but updating some of his theories to coincide with today's culture" to know for sure that he is taking an approach. Otherwise, how can a reader know for sure what has inspired the writer's thinking? With that being said, I was able to understand Andrew Sullivan's basic approach by reading about his background. I know that he writes from the perspective of a self-proclaimed "libertarian conservative," gay, Catholic, British man. Obviously, all of these traits affect his views and therefore how and what he writes about on his blog.
I know that definition is a little bit hairy, but it's even more difficult (in my opinion) to find examples of a writer taking an approach (at least online). It seems the author almost has to blatantly say, for example: "I'm writing this piece from a Freudian point of view, but updating some of his theories to coincide with today's culture" to know for sure that he is taking an approach. Otherwise, how can a reader know for sure what has inspired the writer's thinking? With that being said, I was able to understand Andrew Sullivan's basic approach by reading about his background. I know that he writes from the perspective of a self-proclaimed "libertarian conservative," gay, Catholic, British man. Obviously, all of these traits affect his views and therefore how and what he writes about on his blog.
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
Contradicting Myself
At the end of a previous post of mine, Harris vs. Sullivan, I wrote:
After re-reading that, I'm wondering just what I was thinking. Who did I think I was to make such a sweeping statement about writing and what it means to write? This is a concept I am still struggling with, even though it appears as if I were once an expert on the subject. I admit, a "true" piece of writing is all of the things I mentioned before. It is analytical, it is personal, and it is honest. But that is not all; writing is much more than that. While it is analytical, it is also consensual, it is personal, but still relatable, and it is honest and yet ambiguous. Furthermore, writing is more than just a list of adjectives. It is a style and a process all its own that is deeply dependent upon the individual actually doing the writing. The writer sifts through his thoughts and decides which ones are meaningful enough to be written down - which ones reflect what he's really thinking. The writer, therefore, decides what is true and untrue, what should be written and what should not. In this way, it seems that all writing is a true form of writing.
Okay. Obviously I just countered my previous idea that blogging is writing in its truest form. I did this by first acknowledging the valid traits of writing that I mentioned before - how it's analytical, personal, and honest. I then expanded on these ideas by saying that their opposites could also be used to describe writing - it is consensual, relatable, and ambiguous. I then took the piece in a new direction and offered a different explanation of "true" writing. This time I suggested that perhaps all writing is true writing, as opposed to blogging being the ultimate "true" writing.
P.S. I'm not sure why my block quote looks like a poem. I couldn't get it to all be aligned.
In many ways, bloggers are the kind of expert academic readers that Harris
describes. They analyze texts, turn them into something personal, and get at the
core of their message. While I think both Harris and Sullivan would agree that
blogging is a form of writing, I am willing to propose that blogging is perhaps
writing in its truest form.
After re-reading that, I'm wondering just what I was thinking. Who did I think I was to make such a sweeping statement about writing and what it means to write? This is a concept I am still struggling with, even though it appears as if I were once an expert on the subject. I admit, a "true" piece of writing is all of the things I mentioned before. It is analytical, it is personal, and it is honest. But that is not all; writing is much more than that. While it is analytical, it is also consensual, it is personal, but still relatable, and it is honest and yet ambiguous. Furthermore, writing is more than just a list of adjectives. It is a style and a process all its own that is deeply dependent upon the individual actually doing the writing. The writer sifts through his thoughts and decides which ones are meaningful enough to be written down - which ones reflect what he's really thinking. The writer, therefore, decides what is true and untrue, what should be written and what should not. In this way, it seems that all writing is a true form of writing.
Okay. Obviously I just countered my previous idea that blogging is writing in its truest form. I did this by first acknowledging the valid traits of writing that I mentioned before - how it's analytical, personal, and honest. I then expanded on these ideas by saying that their opposites could also be used to describe writing - it is consensual, relatable, and ambiguous. I then took the piece in a new direction and offered a different explanation of "true" writing. This time I suggested that perhaps all writing is true writing, as opposed to blogging being the ultimate "true" writing.
P.S. I'm not sure why my block quote looks like a poem. I couldn't get it to all be aligned.
Saturday, November 7, 2009
On the Contrary
In simple terms, Harris uses the tactic of countering "not to nullify but to suggest a different way of thinking." Once again, the act of keeping a story, opinion, theory, or idea alive is the goal of countering, just as we have seen it to be the goal of forwarding, as well as blogging (in general). It is different from forwarding though in that you note the limits of an idea or a text and suggest a new, perhaps substituted, way to think about it. When forwarding, as we learned, you note the uses of an idea or a text and apply that information directly to your own, similar, yet slightly more developed, line of thinking. Harris outlines three ways to counter a text, which are: arguing the other side, uncovering values, and dissenting. No matter which of these approaches to countering is utilized, it is easy to offend to the opposing party, which Harris warns against. To avoid unnecessary fights and personal hurt, Harris proposes and encourages "honest yet civil disagreement," in which the purpose of countering is reiterated as a force to "rewrite the work of others in order to say something more," rather than settling on simply disagreeing.
I found an example of countering in Andrew Sullivan's blog, The Daily Dish, in which one of his readers wrote in response to John Nagl's prescription for Afghanistan. John Nagl is a retired United States Army officer who is seen as an expert on counterinsurgency and recently (I'm assuming) released his opinions of how the situation in Afghanistan should be handled. The reader counters Nagl's ideas by first stating two of the claims he believes are true and valid. Thus, fulfilling the first step of countering and offering credit to Nagl. The reader then states a third claim made by Nagl which he (the reader) believes is unrealistic and should not be applied to our relations with Afghanistan - a move that marks the second step of countering. Finally, and most importantly, the reader proposes a new use for Nagl's third claim. He argues against Nagl's idea, but does not stop at disagreement. Rather, he offers a new approach to this idea, keeping it alive, but sending it in a new direction.
I found an example of countering in Andrew Sullivan's blog, The Daily Dish, in which one of his readers wrote in response to John Nagl's prescription for Afghanistan. John Nagl is a retired United States Army officer who is seen as an expert on counterinsurgency and recently (I'm assuming) released his opinions of how the situation in Afghanistan should be handled. The reader counters Nagl's ideas by first stating two of the claims he believes are true and valid. Thus, fulfilling the first step of countering and offering credit to Nagl. The reader then states a third claim made by Nagl which he (the reader) believes is unrealistic and should not be applied to our relations with Afghanistan - a move that marks the second step of countering. Finally, and most importantly, the reader proposes a new use for Nagl's third claim. He argues against Nagl's idea, but does not stop at disagreement. Rather, he offers a new approach to this idea, keeping it alive, but sending it in a new direction.
Monday, November 2, 2009
Forwarding
Joseph Harris outlines the idea of "forwarding" in chapter three of his text "Rewriting: How to do Things with Texts." Basically, the main purpose of forwarding is to present outside sources of information - or other texts, ideas, terms, keywords, and/or images - and then re-present them by adding your own take on the issue at hand. Harris writes that "in forwarding a text, you extend its uses." You don't simply cite it and move on. No, forwarding is all about giving new life to an existing theory, text, or idea. It is about taking what is known, or already understood, and thinking about it differently. It is about personally evolving an idea.
Although we may not always recognize our own use of forwarding, it is something we do quite frequently. Any discussion had with classmates, with a family member, or even with a friend, is most likely an example of forwarding. Think about it, for any class discussion, the teacher presents an idea and asks the class to expand on it, or to offer their opinions. In English class, for example, I and my classmates forward ideas all the time. During every class we are presented with quotes from the blogs we have written and then expand on the more interesting ones. We also discuss the readings we are assigned, such as blogs and other articles. In both instances, we add our own ideas to what we have read, keeping the topics alive and in motion.
When relating the technique of forwarding to that of a conversation or discussion, blogs become an obvious source to find such techniques. In essence, a blog is after all, a continuous online discussion. Andrew Sullivan's blog, the Daily Dish, is especially successful at forwarding ideas. A large chunk of The Daily Dish is made up of writings from people responding to previously presented issues. When these people make a new post, they take the previous information and offer their own insight and/or opinion. Foster Kamer, for example, wrote a piece called "The Truth Just Sounds Different," in which he presents a series of quotes from Levi Johnston (concerning the recent scandal between him and Sarah Palin) and offers his take on their purpose, or what he sees them to mean. Kamer suggests that perhaps Johnston is "lying about all this (the claims that Palin pushed to adopt the child Johnston had with her daughter, and that Johston has further secrets about Palin which he won't release because he doesn't want to hurt her). He has a motive: to get access to his son, and to make lots of money." The act of Kamer taking these statements from Johnston and then evaluating them, is the very technique of forwarding.
Although we may not always recognize our own use of forwarding, it is something we do quite frequently. Any discussion had with classmates, with a family member, or even with a friend, is most likely an example of forwarding. Think about it, for any class discussion, the teacher presents an idea and asks the class to expand on it, or to offer their opinions. In English class, for example, I and my classmates forward ideas all the time. During every class we are presented with quotes from the blogs we have written and then expand on the more interesting ones. We also discuss the readings we are assigned, such as blogs and other articles. In both instances, we add our own ideas to what we have read, keeping the topics alive and in motion.
When relating the technique of forwarding to that of a conversation or discussion, blogs become an obvious source to find such techniques. In essence, a blog is after all, a continuous online discussion. Andrew Sullivan's blog, the Daily Dish, is especially successful at forwarding ideas. A large chunk of The Daily Dish is made up of writings from people responding to previously presented issues. When these people make a new post, they take the previous information and offer their own insight and/or opinion. Foster Kamer, for example, wrote a piece called "The Truth Just Sounds Different," in which he presents a series of quotes from Levi Johnston (concerning the recent scandal between him and Sarah Palin) and offers his take on their purpose, or what he sees them to mean. Kamer suggests that perhaps Johnston is "lying about all this (the claims that Palin pushed to adopt the child Johnston had with her daughter, and that Johston has further secrets about Palin which he won't release because he doesn't want to hurt her). He has a motive: to get access to his son, and to make lots of money." The act of Kamer taking these statements from Johnston and then evaluating them, is the very technique of forwarding.
Friday, October 30, 2009
Blogs Get with the Times
The New York Times is undoubtedly one of the best - if not the best - news publications made available to us today. For many other sources distributing the news, it is a force to be reckoned with, to say the least. One of the things that makes the New York Times so successful is that its staff has managed to capture the writing trends of today, while still producing news that confirms and appeals to a more antiquated and traditional style. This has especially been made possible through their use of two mediums - an online news hub and a printed newspaper. Obviously, the online site is the more popular, or societally-smart, medium. It is updated continuously and has articles written with a quick, easy-to-understand, and easy-to-read tone. All of these traits, which harness immediacy and efficiency, appeal to the masses. On the other hand, its news stories focus more on facts and less on opinions and are also published in a newspaper. These are, of course, traits that make the NYT seem more refined and acceptable by the more traditional sense of news reporting.
I, personally, have been reading the online publication of the New York Times, as well as a couple of other blogs to receive my news. While the NYT and blogs are fundamentally different, I think many similarities can be drawn between the two. For example, The Daily Dish - one of the blogs I am following - which is written by Andrew Sullivan, covers much of the same news that the NYT covers - like the healthcare debate, for example. While of course his blog presents the news with a slight bias and demands reader involvement, it achieves the same tasks of the NYT. Both sources of news are just that - sources of news. They have something to say or some information to share and so, they say it. Both the NYT and The Daily Dish are educating me and keeping me informed. The only real difference is that when I read The Daily Dish, I not only get to read news presented by Andrew Sullivan, but also the opinions of a variety of people who write in about the issues. When I read the NYT, I read one article and move on to the next. There is no audience participation or sharing of ideas like there is in a blog.
I think the New York Times does a phenomenal job of actually doing its job and providing good and sound news. This is hard to come by today and deserves much credit. I think that blogs, too, also deserve credit, for they do the job of a newspaper, and then do some more.
I, personally, have been reading the online publication of the New York Times, as well as a couple of other blogs to receive my news. While the NYT and blogs are fundamentally different, I think many similarities can be drawn between the two. For example, The Daily Dish - one of the blogs I am following - which is written by Andrew Sullivan, covers much of the same news that the NYT covers - like the healthcare debate, for example. While of course his blog presents the news with a slight bias and demands reader involvement, it achieves the same tasks of the NYT. Both sources of news are just that - sources of news. They have something to say or some information to share and so, they say it. Both the NYT and The Daily Dish are educating me and keeping me informed. The only real difference is that when I read The Daily Dish, I not only get to read news presented by Andrew Sullivan, but also the opinions of a variety of people who write in about the issues. When I read the NYT, I read one article and move on to the next. There is no audience participation or sharing of ideas like there is in a blog.
I think the New York Times does a phenomenal job of actually doing its job and providing good and sound news. This is hard to come by today and deserves much credit. I think that blogs, too, also deserve credit, for they do the job of a newspaper, and then do some more.
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Teaming Up: Jarvis and Sullivan
One idea found among Jarvis's text and diagrams about the spread of news is that in times passed, the process (of gathering news) lead to the product (the packaged story). Nowadays however, Jarvis says that the process is the product. In other words, news today can no longer be packaged, distributed, and then ingested - at least not just once. After we find the news, or perhaps after it finds us, we don't just forget about it and move on; we continue to circulate the story. We talk about it with our peers, family, and friends, we search for background information, and we read about it from various sources, among other things. All the while, more and more facts and pieces of information are added to the story, making it fuller - or more substantial. Picture making a snowball: as you push your tiny lump of snow across the yard, it will get bigger, denser, and more compact until of course, you stop pushing it. A news story works the same way.
This idea of news being continuous and being found within the actual process of forming/finding news is exactly the idea Sullivan wrote about in his article, "Why I Blog." It is also, coincidentally, a large reason why blogs have become so popular. Blogging, which seems to be Sullivan's forte, is possibly the best example of Jarvis's new press-sphere. A blog contains and allows for the interaction between peers, other sources, government, and the media via online discussion and the incorporation of links. Sullivan directly addresses the continuity of news within a blog by acknowledging that "if it stops moving, it dies." I think it's safe to say that Sullivan and Hedges are arguing the same ideas.
For the most part, I'd say that I agree with the idea of news being in continuous circulation and therefore always growing and changing. This is (or seems) true for big pieces of news, but I will have to argue that it is not so true for the smaller or more trivial pieces of news. For example, I recently read an article from The New York Times website about how humans are built to run. It pointed out many of the anatomical characteristics that make humans, in general, successful runners. While I found this article to be rather interesting, I still haven't heard anyone else talking about it, heard about it on the news, or read any similar articles anywhere else. So, in this case, I ingested the news and its' process ended. Other, much larger stories though, such as the war in Iraq, have been ingested time and time again because everyone has heard and is talking about it, hearing about it, or reading about it.
This idea of news being continuous and being found within the actual process of forming/finding news is exactly the idea Sullivan wrote about in his article, "Why I Blog." It is also, coincidentally, a large reason why blogs have become so popular. Blogging, which seems to be Sullivan's forte, is possibly the best example of Jarvis's new press-sphere. A blog contains and allows for the interaction between peers, other sources, government, and the media via online discussion and the incorporation of links. Sullivan directly addresses the continuity of news within a blog by acknowledging that "if it stops moving, it dies." I think it's safe to say that Sullivan and Hedges are arguing the same ideas.
For the most part, I'd say that I agree with the idea of news being in continuous circulation and therefore always growing and changing. This is (or seems) true for big pieces of news, but I will have to argue that it is not so true for the smaller or more trivial pieces of news. For example, I recently read an article from The New York Times website about how humans are built to run. It pointed out many of the anatomical characteristics that make humans, in general, successful runners. While I found this article to be rather interesting, I still haven't heard anyone else talking about it, heard about it on the news, or read any similar articles anywhere else. So, in this case, I ingested the news and its' process ended. Other, much larger stories though, such as the war in Iraq, have been ingested time and time again because everyone has heard and is talking about it, hearing about it, or reading about it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)