Joe Harris speaks about Rewriting

On Monday, November 29th, Duke University professor and author of the book Rewriting: How to do Things With Texts, Joe Harris came to talk to students about the purpose and practicality of his book, as well as the ways in which his moves can vastly improve your ability to write academic papers. Being previously acquainted with the book, it was incredibly interesting for me to see which moves Harris felt were the most important in his technique. Interestingly, his first move, Coming to Terms, is what Harris thought was the most challenging and most important for a writer.

Normally, people would think that the first step has to be the easiest, but for Harris, Coming to Terms is a process that occurs throughout writing, and is incorporated in many of his other moves. Coming to Terms is important, he claimed, because in order to write something truly new and special, you have to understand what has been said about it in the past and what you wish to say about it now.

It was also especially interesting to see Harris put these moves into goals for those of us at the workshop. He went about this by assigning activities for identifying moves in other works and asking ourselves to question the author's purpose for using that move as well as the effectiveness it has within the writing. For example, Harris had us read an excerpt from a student article about the film Gran Torino. We analyzed a section in which the author borrow the term "de cardio racism" from another author. This is clearly a form of forwarding, because she uses another author's concept to further support her own. By discussing works with us, Harris made it easier for us to identify the moves on our own. This in turn can help us write more effectively if we are able to see these moves in our own writing. Overall, I thought the activities were very helpful for identifying ways in which to view my own work and draw my attention to improving my writing.

The 11th Hour

On Monday, October 18th, students, faculty, and community members gathered in the Fine Arts building to watch a screening of the film The 11th Hour. This film, narrated by famous actor Leonardo DiCaprio, brings together scientists and experts from all corners of the globe to discuss the imminent problem of global warming. The documentary urges the viewer to take action in finding ways to protect our atmosphere before it's too late. One truly unique aspect of the film is that it utilizes more than just scientists in the discussion of the state of our planet. The 11th Hour interviewed politicians, scientists, environmental activists, Native Americans, and many others including physicist Steven Hawking, Nobel Prize winner Wangari Maathai, and journalist Paul Hawken, to name a few. Each person that they interviewed had a different area of expertise as well as a different view of the world. What was interesting, though, was that despite the differences between them, they could all see that the Earth is undergoing a rapid period of change, and that it's suffering because of it.

The final message of the film really resonated with me because after the experts showed the audience just how poorly we have treated our planet and ourselves, they provided a number of potential solutions to the problem. What struck me so much was that the solution was not simply to abandon technology and return to nature, but to encourage technology to impact the environment in a positive way. It postulates ways of creating entire cities that run on renewable energy from the sun as well as many other ways to reduce our dependency on fossil fuels. the film is a powerful use of discourse that is used to affect change in everyday life.

Short Assignment 4

Part 1: In Harvey Daniels' article in "Forum: Is There a Decline in Literacy?," the meaning in which the audience perceives the text relies heavily on their form in writing. According to W. Ross Winterowd's article, "Dispositio: The Concept of Form in Discourse," Winterowd attributes the meaning of a text entirely to the writer's form. In utilizing Winterowd's concept of form altering meaning, the method in which Daniels addresses the issue of literacy greatly effects how the audience interprets his meaning. For instance, he immediately starts his article by listing out reasons to disregard the claims of a literacy crisis. By coming straight to his point, Daniels tells his reader that he means to get right to business and disprove the literary crisis. This creates an air of straightforwardness that tells the reader to take his words seriously, giving the article a factual meaning, rather than an opinionated one.

Ledbetter, J.T., and Harvey (Smokey) Daniels. "Forum: Is There a Decline in Literacy?" The English Journal 65.5 (Sep 1976):16-20.

Winterowd, W. Ross. "Dispositio: The Concept of Form in Discourse." College Composition and Communication 22.1 (Feb 1971): 39-45.

Part 2: I think it would be really interesting to research relationship between Greek communities and non-Greeks on college campuses in history and today. I would analyze the view of Greeks in universities and how they interact with the rest of the student body and the community as a whole. How past conceptions of Greek life have shaped a Greek stereotype, and the conflicts that arise between Greeks and non-Greeks due to these stereotypes, as well as from communication errors. How do popular websites such as collegeacb.com and totalfratmove.com perpetuate these stereotypes and further expand the Greek/GDI divide? I think that there will be ample information on the stereotypical Greek, however developing an understanding of the conflict between the two groups would be more difficult, and could possibly require me to create my own theory on the conflict.

Response Questions

Hey guys, sorry I didn't get this up earlier. I thought I hit the publish button, but I guess I just hit save, so this wasn't posted last night like I had intended. But here are my 3 response questions. Enjoy!

Question 1

One argument I had with a friend I can directly attribute to Kaufer’s level 1 disagreement, misunderstanding the sense or reference of certain statements. In this case, I was talking with some friends and made a sarcastic comment that I thought very little of at the time. What I did not know was that it was a comment on a very sensitive issue for the friend I directed it to, and she took the comment much more seriously than I had meant it. Out of respect for her feelings, I won’t include the comment, but she clearly misunderstood the sense of my statement, because I said it in a lighthearted, joking manner. Nonetheless, she became very upset with me and started listing off faults of my own, looking for ways to insult me as much as I had clearly insulted her. Seeing that I had accidentally struck a nerve, I decided to just leave and talk to her later when she had calmed down. When I finally did, I realized that she had not taken my comment as sarcastic at all, but as a statement of what I truly believed about her. Once we calmly talked about it, I understood the problem and apologized for the miscommunication that had occurred between us. We came to an understanding that she does not respond well to sarcasm, and that I need to be more careful with what I say around her

Question 2

Mario Savio’s argument in the opening paragraph of An End to History claims that the student rights movement at Berkeley is akin to the civil rights struggle in Mississippi. He also juxtaposes his argument to Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World. This is a rather strong allusion for Savio to make, because for anyone who knows the story of Brave New World, they know that Huxley portrays a society in which people have no control of their lives. At birth, their personalities, moral codes, physical capabilities, and mental capacities are decided for them. They cannot determine any aspect of their lives and the government in charge has removed all human rights. By comparing the control the school’s bureaucracy has over the students to such a startling dystopian image heightens the reader’s opinion of the abuse of power by the bureaucracy. Savio equates the ridiculousness of Brave New World to the injustices caused by the “privileged minority” controlling student expression. The two connections that Savio makes with the civil rights movement and Brave New World makes the traditional, bureaucratic set-up of Berkeley’s administration a violation of the human rights of the students. Therefore, his argument becomes one of defending the rights of American citizens from the tyranny of a system designed to manipulate and suppress them. This becomes an argument, then, of conflicting local values because the agenda of the administration is opposing the freedoms given to each citizen by the Constitution. The administration has the purpose of pleasing wealthy financial supporters, and often, as Savio claims, they end up denying individual student rights in the process.

Question 4

I think that Dr. Bullard’s interview about the Federal Government’s response to hurricane Katrina would have been much more effective if he argued in the stasis of cause a bit more thoroughly. The argument that he gives relies on the emotional response of the listener. While this can be a very effective technique, it relies heavily on Bullard’s capability to predict how the audience will react to what he says. If an audience member reacts in a way that is different from what he predicts, then his comments could have the opposite effect he intends. If, however, he focused on the cause of the government’s delay in responding to Katrina, and argued issue with why they were physically late to respond, then his argument would be independent from audience opinion and emotion. This would also change the appearance of his motives away from making the clichéd claim that the government is racist and possibly towards a claim that not enough resources are put towards disaster response and relief. By changing his argument from a racial affront to a lack of preparation, or even simply relying less on the audience agreeing that the government is racist, he vastly expands the acceptance of his listeners. Savio could also benefit by utilizing the stasis of cause more effectively because his argument relies on the audience automatically accepting the notion that school administrations purposely delegate student issues in order to suppress their rights of expression. If he was less dependent on the emotional appeal, and focused more on cause, then his audience could not only see the problem (and reasons that created the problem), but also find their way to move towards a solution.

Making Reading Difficult

In Jonah Lehrer's article "The Future of Reading," he combines the persuasive use of relating to the reader with the rational style of a scientific paper. This combination creates an effective argument that both emotionally and logically appeals to the reader. Lehrer utilizes what Alan Gross describes as Baconian Induction when formulating his argument. By organizing his paper in this way, he creates an argument that is clear, concise, and appealing to an intellectual audience.

Lehrer begins his article by addressing his personal experience with both printed and non-printed books, and how he views our society's ongoing divergence from printed literature. He then reinforces his beliefs about the need for complexity of reading through the use of a scientist's study of the electrical impulses in the brain while reading. Because of this, it is apparent that deep thinking is imperative for a person to truly comprehend and appreciate a piece of writing. This concrete, factual introduction to Lehrer's argument validates his claim while simultaneously causing the reader to utilize the method of reading he is describing, as the scientific explanation itself requires deep reading.

He then brings in Francis Bacon's concept of an ascending and descending ladder. As Gross describes it, it acts two-fold, "ascending from experiments to the invention of causes, and descending from causes to the invention of new experiments." Lehrer uses this concept throughout his article as he builds his claim that while the availability of virtual texts is positive, the resulting decrease in comprehension and deep thinking of the material creates a situation in which the reader will understand a sentence one second and forget it entirely in the next. He proposes that the clarity of the screen and simplicity of the language being used is lowering the challenge that comes from pushing through "complex clauses and smudged ink."

Lehrer concludes his paper by then suggesting an experiment for his own readers. He suggests to them that in order to reconcile online reading with the intellectual drawbacks, they must find ways to make the reading difficult again for the audience. He suggests changing fonts, colors, etc. to bring back the challenge of reading. As he says, "our eyes will need to struggle, and we’ll certainly read slower, but that’s the point: Only then will we process the text a little less unconsciously." This ties together his argument while at the same time representing the descending ladder by proposing yet another experiment to further his conclusions.

It is at this point, however, that I feel the need to point out some ironic discrepancies existing in Lehrer's article. To begin with, he has published his article online in a very clear and simple manner, making the reading fast and unconscious (with the exception of the description of the neural impulses of the brain, which take a bit more comprehension). The article does not utilize vocabulary that is altogether challenging to understand or develop complex sentences that require any hesitation at all by the reader. On top of that, he does not follow his own advice at the end of the article. His presentation is very easy to read; the font is clear, the colors simply black and white, and he has done nothing to change the contrast of the screen as he suggests to his readers. So I now leave my own readers with this question:

If it is so important for these changes to be made in order to stimulate what Lehrer calls, "e-readers" into a deeper understanding of the text, then why does he not implement these suggestions as an example?

Also, as I have just demonstrated Lehrer's suggestion of changing the colors of my own blog to make your eyes strain, has his idea proven to be effective? Was the struggle to read my article helpful in slowing you down and focusing on the message? Or has it simply given you a headache a made you angry at me for making my page look so awfully annoying?

The Power of Reality

In the Project for the New American Century, the Letter to President Clinton on Iraq is a frightfully chilling document for any American today. This letter, written in 1998, is an urgent plea from eighteen men and women to President Clinton to change foreign policy with regards to Iraq. The information and argument presented in this letter is so disturbing because only three years after it was written the terrifying future that these authors predicted came true. On September 11, 2001, the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and what was intended to be the White House were targeted and attacked by Al-Qaida suicide bombers, and it has been debated for the past nine years as to whether or not the Iraqi government was aware of the plot. I do not intend to give my own opinion as to the culpability of Saddam Hussein's regime, however, the authors of this letter have created a shockingly powerful and compelling argument, specifically in retrospect of the September 11th attacks.

According to James Kinneavy, the persuasive power of this letter comes from more than just the words or tone the authors used. The intention, or aim, of the argument requires an understanding of the purposed effect that the writing has on the intended audience. In this case, this letter is intended to be read by President Clinton, so the persuasive power is one of a political call to action. However, since the letter has been published for the public viewing since its release, the new power it possesses over the reader, rather than a logical political agenda, is one of emotion and sadness because of the tragic attack on this nation. This shows how the writer's words and intentions can be perceived differently depending on the reader's current reality, a point Kinneavy claims is essential to any persuasive act.

For most Americans (those old enough to remember the attacks), that reality is both painful and confusing. To this day, it has never been made clear to the public whether or not Saddam Hussein's Iraq funded Al-Qaida, or even if they had any knowledge of the attacks whatsoever. Because of this mystery, the letter has a much stronger argument when the authors say, "the security of the world in the first part of the 21st century will be determined largely by how we handle this threat." The world we currently live in is viewing firsthand the truth of this statement. In as little time as a few days after the 9/11 attacks Americans already saw how drastically airports began changing the procedures of their security checkpoints. When the authors of this letter were able to predict in 1998 that the United States could, "soon face a threat in the Middle East more serious than any we have known since the end of the Cold War," the reader is inevitably required to ask him/herself how the bombings on September 11th happened when three years prior to the attack the President was clearly aware of that possibility.

Based on the persuasive components to a piece of writing, according to Kinneavy, this letter has a powerful persuasive influence over the reader. Kinneavy emphasizes the importance of the relationship between the author (or as he calls it, encoder), the words (s)he uses, and the current reality of the reader (decoder). In the case of this letter, this relationship differs greatly because of the current reality of our world. If this letter had been read by a viewer (other than the President, the intended viewer) in 1998, they probably would have been considerably less affected by the authors' words. The current context of the letter, however, speaks volumes to the reader, because it means that people saw that the United States was greatly threatened and that no steps were taken to prevent any potential attacks. This jarring news brings new sentiment to the argument and stimulates wonder about the surprise of the bombings. Because of this new reference point, the persuasive power of the letter is of a very dynamic and continually evolving nature, and proves Kinneavy's point that the piece itself is only as persuasive as the reality it exists in.

An Emotional Appeal for a World Community

In Studs Terkel's NPR interview titled "Community in Action," Terkel tells of a childhood event that radically shaped his opinions of mankind. Terkel remembers an emotional scene in which a community of people banded together during the Great Depression to take care of one another and survive. This heartwarming story acts as a genuine emotional appeal to the audience to treat others as, in his words, "a community in action." Terkel argues that it is through community and togetherness that people achieve greatness. He effectively argues this through the use of ethos and pathos, which use the author's trustworthiness and the community's values to persuade the audience.

The interview of Terkel first establishes his intellectual credibility by accounting some background information to the listener. Studs Terkel is a Pulitzer Prize winner who spent most of his career studying the lives of others. His many life experiences give him a very sensible opinion of how people should react to one another. Moreover, his old age (93 at the time of the interview) gives him an air of wisdom and dependability. He speaks in a strong, genuine tone that compels the audience to take his word as honest truth.

The real heart and soul of this interview, however, is within the actual story of a neighbor being evicted from their home during the Depression. The people of the community encircled the family in love and moved them back into their old house, turning back on the utilities. This togetherness exemplifies his belief that, "it's the community in action that accomplishes more than any individual does, no matter how strong he may be." This sense of a natural human connection is what Terkel says encourages us to achieve our greatest successes and, as the story proves, holds us up when we face our greatest struggles. This is the most compelling part of his argument because it appeals to the audience's morality in an incredibly memorable way.

Studs Terkel's interview effectively uses what Jack Seltzer describes as epideictic rhetoric, which is most often used to "create and reinforce community values." Terkel quite obviously appeals to community values -- he urges the world to care for one another and develop a certain feeling of brotherhood for one another. His belief in a "community in action" spurs the audience to reach out to their own community and be unafraid of taking care of other people. His world community dream is one of compassion, empathy, charity, and above all else it is one of love.