Self Critique

In this course, blogging has been a weekly task that I have had to complete. I started off strong and completed each week’s blog assignments and put effort into each post. Unfortunately towards the end of the semester I began slacking and failed to every blog. My early posts were the best out of the bunch. I would have to say that the post on the topic of Propaganda was one of the best blogs that I posted.  I chose this as my best work because I remember that I put a lot of time into finding visual examples of propaganda and explaining them in my writing.  Out of the rest of the blogs that I completed, the worst post would be about the discussion forum.  Because I did not participate in the discussion forum I did not have much to talk about and I did not meet the 500-word requirement for this blog in particular. Blogging this semester has been a learning experience.  Finding things to say has been hard and I have had a difficult time reaching the requirement while still maintaining some focus in my writing.  I do not have any aspirations in this domain in the future outside of this class and I would say that my relationship with public writing has not changed much at all.  

Discussion Forum

Sadly I did not participate in the forum discussion.  I had been absent from class the Thursday before and was a little confused about what exactly it was and the point of the assignment.  Because the forum discussion was new and different I found it somewhat overwhelming and it just became more work I had to do in addition to all the other things I had to accomplish that week, so I ended up not participating at all. Obviously I did not think the forum was engaging because I did not do it.  I think that if I had participated I probably would have just read that article and wrote something down and never read anyone else’s responses. Maybe if I understood what the whole thing was about I would have been more willing to participate and spend time in the forum, but I found that overall it seemed too time consuming to read all my classmates responses and opinion and respond to it. In the future I don’t think I would like more forum discussions.  I regret not participating in the forum and I do not really know what it was like, but if I had participated I still think I would not want future forum discussions.

Entering the Conversation

Liberman begins his blog discussing an issue with a newspaper article that falsely claims that omega-3 fish oil supplements helps increase children’s focus and concentration.  He talks about the science writer and how he careless towards what the actual scientific study concluded.  The problem being addressed is the quality of scientific writing in the media today. 

            There are many things that can be learned from Liberman’s post.  After reading his article it made me think more about the validity of the articles that I have read in newspapers in the past. What if the information has been misrepresented like that of the Omega-3 article?  Liberman’s article makes the reader think more about what they see in the media and what they hear on a daily basis. Personally, I think I learned to not trust what you see in the media, even if it seems like it comes from a trusted source such as a popular newspaper.  The importance on researching a topic is also something hat can be taken away from this article.  It is crucial that one uses correct citation of sources, and represents the data correctly in a piece of writing. This article teaches the public to be weary of science articles and to do their own research on the material before coming to any conclusions.

             Liberman uses many pieces of evidence to support his argument against “bad science writers”.  He first uses an article that is promoting the use of Omega-3 fish oil supplements as a means to boost concentration.  Liberman discusses that the science writer for that popular newspaper had completely misused the scientific study.  Liberman states that the study said nothing about omega-3 fish oil supplements increasing focus. In fact the study showed no difference in the use of supplements or not. The evidence he uses is helpful in supporting his argument against bad science writers.  If we can’t trust what a professional writer for a popular newspaper, how do I know I can trust the evidence that Liberman presents? …just a thought.

            The problem of “bad science writers” can be fixed if the authors changed the way the approached their articles.  First they should perform more thorough research on their topic and make sure they get their facts straight.  Another way to fix the problem would to make sure that the newspaper hires trustworthy people with experience in science writing. Another way to prevent this type of false information from reaching the public is by having articles like the omega-3 article checked by an editor.  Either have an editor or another writer review the article for accuracy.  The editor should check the sources and make sure that the material written is in agreement with the study being observed. In addition to an editor checking it before it is published, the public can do their own research on the subject to insure the information they are receiving is true.  Having stricter policies regarding the citation of sources could also help remedy the problem of incorrect information getting to the public.

           

Open Writing

          Posting any form of writing online can have consequences.  The internet is a place that is open for anyone to view what you have written, whether it is on your facebook status, your twitter, or your English blog.  Because of this, you must be careful what you write online.  If you post something that is offensive to other people you could get some vicious feedback or comments, or worse in-person confrontation.  You could also allow people whom you do no know (creepers!!!) to learn things about you that you do not want them to know.  That is why it is crucial when posting writing online to watch the openness of your writing.

            Although there are many disadvantages to the openness of writing online, there are plenty of benefits as well.  Being able to express your opinions and thoughts is one advantage to publishing writing on the internet.  Another benefit is the amount of people it can reach.  Because your writing is on the internet, it has the ability to reach millions and millions of people.  This can be beneficial if you are looking for comments or feedbacks in regards to your writing.  In class we are commenting on each other’s blogs and making statements or posing questions for the author to consider.  This can help students get an idea about what other people think about their opinions or writing style.

            The openness of writing on the internet can also pose challenges.  Because you are able to write about anything, it makes it harder for students to focus on the topic being addressed.  Students might also worry about what to write because they know everyone can see it.  Someone might be less likely to be confident in their writing because of all the possible critics they might have out there on the internet. Overall the challenges of openness are not quite as big of a deal as they would seem.  I feel that I do not have probably posting my writing for this class online, mainly because I honesty do not care about what I write.  Most of my writing does not come from the heart so I do not take anything personally when it comes to negative feedback.  I know this is not the case for many other people.  Most people put time and effort into a piece of writing and may be a little weary to post it onto the internet.  I feel that the best way to address this issue is for them to just be confident in their writing and go a head and post it.  The problem of not knowing what to write, or staying focused on the topic is not an issue with this class because each blog prompt has clear direction for what we should be writing about.  In expressive and personal writing, people are able to write about anything they want which makes the openness a little less challenging.  Overall I think that the benefits of publishing writing online are about equal to the possible consequences and challenges.

Feedback and Critique

     I feel like I am fairly good at offering up criticism to other people in regards to their work.  I try and use good judgment when evaluating a peer’s paper and try to give them as much information that I can think of.  I focus on the things that they did right and how they can expand on those ideas.  I try to not to be harsh about my suggestions, but instead I want to critique them in a way that will only help them.  In some areas I am good at critiquing and in others I am not able to provide good tips.  In regards to grammar I feel as if I can help with structure and proper punctuation within a sentence.  I think that good criticism is very blunt and explains to the writer what exactly they need to fix.  I also think that a critique should also offer up ideas to the writer so that he or she may have something to ponder upon and fix in their final draft.   I also think that in order to be helpful the critic must present his or her thoughts in a way that will be accepted by the author of the paper.  No one wants to listen to someone forcing things upon them. The critic, however, must not be afraid to say what he or she thinks.  The point to having someone critique your paper is so that you get a second opinion and good advice on how to make your paper better.  Constructive criticism can be hard to write sometimes, but if you just make it your main goal to help the person then they will hopefully understand your comments and use it for good. Based on what I know, I feel that I can provide good criticism because I am not afraid to mention a new idea or thought to the writer of the paper I am critiquing.  I will always try and understand what the author is trying to say, then respond with a question or thought that will hopefully help them continuing in the direction they are headed and expand on the details of their paper.  Having someone other than yourself read your paper is very helpful because they can catch many mistakes that you missed.  I also like that they can think of more content to include in your paper if you do not have all the right ideas.  Personally the most helpful critique someone can give me is their opinion on whether they consider my paper to be strong and effective in arguing my point.  I worry about how much of my content is actually helping my case and how much is just filling space.  I really want my papers to be well written and organized, so having someone comment and critique in that particular area would really be helpful.  If people weren’t so nice about critiquing it would also be helpful.  It really hard to gain anything when people just say “good job” or “nice paper”.  I would want someone to go into detail about what they really thought of my paper.  I think it would also be helpful if they offered tips on how to improve it. Overall I think that a critique should be detailed and include useful tips, ideas, and thoughts for the paper.

Shitty First Drafts

      In the article Lamott mentions just filling your rough draft with all your thoughts then editing it later.  I find that I like to be a little bit more organized with my rough drafts and have trouble with wanting it to be too perfect.  I like that the author says that you should just start writing and not worry about stuff.   I found one part to be very helpful in easing my stress level when first writing a draft and that was the part in the article where it talks about how the first draft is the “get it down” draft and the second is the “fix it up draft”.   I think that approaching your drafts in this technique is a good practice because you wont be as worried about the quality of your paper.  Doing it in this way also let’s the writer focus on all the content that he or she wants to fit into the paper.  Knowing that the first draft is not what you will end up with makes it easier to just write all my thoughts down.  One part of the article I found very weird and not useful at all was the section where it discussed put all the voices in your head as mice in jars.  I don’t really have a problem with lots of voices in my head and I normally have a good focused idea of what I want to say. Because of that, I found that technique to be kind of ridiculous and not applicable for me.  The part where the author discusses school lunches is kind of confusing and I did not really get the point that was trying to be made.  I assume it was just talking about getting a lot of information about your topic so that you have a good amount of material to work with in your paper.  The section titled “polaroids” presented writing a paper is a new way that I found interesting.  The author compared writing a first draft to being able to watch a Polaroid develop.  This analogy is suggesting that you won’t know what your paper is going to look like until it all comes together.  This can be a bit scary if you are the kind of person that likes to know exactly what the plan for your paper is.  I feel as if I always have a good idea of how my paper is going to turn out.   But just like the author mentioned in the article, I sometimes think of something later that I had not thought of before that is perfect for my paper, like that of seeing the final image develop in a Polaroid.  Overall I feel as if this article was helpful when I approached the first paper assignment.  I did not worry as much about the first draft as usual and I just began writing down my thought.  Luckily my rough draft turned out much like I had planned but with even more information and content than I thought I would be able to write.

What is it?

           I think that a rhetorical analysis is when you breakdown a type of “text” and look at the aspects used by the author to persuade the audience.  You analyze the methods used and why the author used them.  You also think about the audience the “text” is targeting and what kind of message it is sending.  For a rhetorical analysis it is best if you categorize the different appeals into logos, ethos and pathos.  It makes locating the deeper meaning or reasoning of the “text” much easier.  The purpose of a rhetorical analysis is to figure out how the author wants to you to respond.  It will also help you figure out why the author wants you to respond that way.  A rhetoric analysis requires attention to small details and picking apart the “text”. You must think about every aspect of the material and how the author is trying to persuade you.  A rhetorical analysis should have three parts with each part discussing ways that “text” appeals either to logos, pathos or ethos.

            I plan on organizing my rhetorical analysis first by discussing my advertisement.  Then I will move on to the three basic appeals and talk about the specific details of the commercial that appeal to pathos first. The appeals in the ad to ethos are not as strong as to logos or pathos so I am choosing to do the pathos appeals first so that my paper will start strong with pathos and end strong with the logos appeal. In the first section of my paper that will discuss the pathos appeal I will include how the ad displays the actors.  I will talk about why these happy emotions shown through the actors appeal to people and persuade the viewer to buy the product.  I will also discuss how the add target women for their product and how that also makes a difference in the appeal. Second I will look at the ethos appeals present in the ad. I will include how the brand in my ad is trusted, has been around for a long time, and many people use it. I will also talk about how the fact that it is number one dentist recommended also adds to the ethos appeal. Lastly I will discuss the appeal to logos.  I will include all the logical reasons shown in the commercial to buy the product.  I will talk about how the Crest White Strips are easy to use and simple.  I’ll also mention the fact that they can be worn anywhere and that it is capable to drink water with them on.  In all three aspects I will be sure to mention how the different details appeal to me personally.  I’ll also discuss how I feel after viewing the commercial and whether or not it was effective in its primary goal. I will also be sure to indicate with appeal I found to be the most convincing out of the three. Hopefully I should be able to do a thorough rhetorical analysis of the Crest White Strips Advanced Seal commercial I found.