AOW #7: Ghosts

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/31/opinion/why-i-don-t-believe-in-ghosts.html?ref=opinion&pagewanted=2 

This piece goes everywhere at once. They start with talking about how they don’t believe in ghosts – which is what the article is titled – but then they continue on to talk about the writing process. They then discuss the difference between reasoning and imagination and how those two paths of interpretation vary completely and how they both ask for different things. Then, they talk about how you must stick with that you.re good at with writing and morph the other weaker parts around the stronger and known argument.

The author of this piece is Philip Pullman and he is writing for the New York Times. First of all, the author is credible because he has not only written several articles for NYT, but he’s written several books as well. He is also an “award winning author” because of one of his books called His Dark Materials.

The context could be either temperal or causal. It could be temperal because he is somewhat reacting “in the moment” by writing an article written abound his immediate reactions to ghosts. However, the context can be causal as well because in order for him to have a reaction, it takes some time to generate it.

The main purpose for this piece was to basically, just get his opinion out in the open for everyone to see. However, the more specific purpose would be to give his opinion on something Halloween based and prove that he is right – which gives him a wider appeal and audience base because it is Halloween. Also, he has a less popular opinion (that ghosts aren’t real) which gives his purpose

The audience would obviously be readers of the New York Times. Based on that, the audience is most likely older teens and adults.

In this piece, they used many rhetorical elements like syllogism, repetition, and pieces of the classical argument and the rhetorical triangle as well. Syllogism/enthymeme was shown in the beginning when he was talking about fantasy versus reality. He was saying that fantasy is fake and that reality is real. Then he goes on to say that fantasy is childlike – and gives examples like elves or hobbits. Then he assumes the “therefore” and says he writes realism because “fantasy is a lesser form than realism”. Repetition was shown through the repeated diction. He repeated words like: tyranny, tyrant and despotic and despot. They also introduced the rhetorical triangle through ethos when he was talking about his world-renowned book and referring to it all throughout (gives him a sense of superiority). Also, the classical argument was represented within his piece when he introduced the “they say – I say” in his refutation. He said that “they” say that ghosts are real, BUT he says that they aren’t and then he goes into his refutation and sites examples and reason why.

I believe that this author did not achieve his purpose because I was not convinced that ghosts are not real. Even though he was just expressing his opinion, it seemed as if his purpose was to persuade people that his opinion was right. However, I was dead set in my ways and he didn’t do much to get me out of those beliefs!

AOW #6: Old Spice Commercial

Commercial: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=owGykVbfgUE

The commercial was about a man who used the Old Spice shampoo and was talking to women as a whole. He was saying to examine “your man” and see the different between your man and him. He then said if you want your man to be like him, he has to use Old Spice shampoo and not the “girly” shampoo he uses now.

The author of this commercial was now shown however, I did some background research on the company Old Spice. I established their credibility by understanding their previous commercials and who they had in them. They listed celebrities like Neil Patrick Harris and Tony Stewart and this shows me they are credible because these famous people (and their managers) would not allow them do to the commercials if the company was not.

The context of this piece would definitely be temporal. Since this commercial was based on the here-and-now rather than referring back to history, it would be temporal and current. Also, he is asking immediate questions that ask for immediate reaction.

The purpose why this piece was written was to convince women (who aren't single) that their mans aren't manly enough because they don't use Old Spice. They are saying that in order for a man to be a real man - or at least like the man in the commercial - then they have to use old spice because it defines your manhood.

The audience is obviously directed towards young women and men who are dating/married because he specifically asks the women to “look at your man…now back to me” and to tell him to use the manly shampoo. Mainly, though, the audience is women who are not single.

In the commercial, some rhetorical elements that they used were: voice/tone, contrast, emphasis, satire, recurring elements, pronunciation, and pace. With voice/tone comes pronunciation and pace. Throughout the entire commercial, the man was pronouncing his words in a “manly” sort of way by emphasizing his deep voice and adding articulation into his slowed pace. The pace was slow to also emphasize and enhance the potency of this product. Emphasis was also included in the satire of the setting because by emphasizing his attractiveness with the beach and the ship and all other admirable things, it improved the persuasion to the women and his manliness. There was also recurring elements (like “look at you man” and the way the scenes kept changing). Then contrast was included in his normal, serious tone of voice with the hilarity of the scenes changing and what he was saying like, “I’m on a horse”. 

Yes they did accomplish their purpose because they were trying to persuade the audience that their “man” was too “girly” and that Old Spice is extremely manly and will make you “god-like” (like the man in the commercial). They were able to accomplish this “man-ifying” purpose by having an attractive man play the front man as well as having him direct his focus on the women instead of men – which most commercials like this are directed towards. It gives it a different and interesting element.

AOW #5: Taylor Hawkins Article

o A summary of the piece

This article was about the drummer from the Foo Fighters, Taylor Hawkins, and him discussing his drum style and drum set. He first talks about the new Foo Fighters album, Wasting Light, and how he played the drums on that record. He said that the Foos tried to keep their originality by writing music and playing it as people did in earlier centuries. He explained how they “record[ed] Wasting Light to tape” and didn’t “manipulate” it in order to create “honest, real rock ‘n’ roll” (pg 46). Later, he explained a separate album that he created himself called Red Light Fever with his band Taylor Hawkins and the Coattail riders and how much it sounds like Queen (his favorite band).

The author of this article is Ken Micallef writing for Modern Drummer. On his website, www.kenmicallef.com, it explains that he has written for “such publications as JazzTimes, Rolling Stone, Blender, Downbeat, Musician, Time Out, Interview and the Holy Roller Roundup” which are some of the most prestigious rock ‘n’ roll and music magazines. It also says that he wrote a book The Way They Play about classic rock drummers and their techniques.

The context of this piece would definitely be temporal or causal. It would be considered temporal because Micallef interviewed Taylor Hawkins “right then and there” and created the article in the exigence of that setting of immediate response. However, it could be causal because this article can be seen as a direct after-effect of the more temporal interview.

The purpose this was written was to showcase Taylor Hawkins and his talent away from the stardom of the Foo Fighters. It was, more or less, to express to the audiences that he truly has talent behind the lime-light of the post Nirvana drummer, Dave Grohl. It was also to explain to the readers of Modern Drummer (usually drummers themselves) some of Hawkins’ techniques so they can pick them up themselves.

The audience of this piece would be the fans of the Foo Fighters (both those who drum and those who don’t) as well as regular drummers. It would be for fans of the Foos because on the cover, it directly mentions Taylor specifically as the “Foo Fighters’” drummer and not just a regular one. Also, it appeals to regular drummers as well because it gives specific insight to how Taylor plays the drums, with specific techniques that only drummers would know e.g. “You drum fills in ‘Rope’ are almost quintessential ‘70s” (pg 48).

Voice/Tone – Through the diction and the overall stylistic composure, I could make out a strong voice within the piece. The way they included Taylor Hawkins’ quotes as well as his interview, I could pick out exactly how he may have sounded as well as how the interviewer sounded as well.

Enthymeme – in this passage, he includes enthymeme because even though he explained what a great drummer Taylor is, he left out the assumed part that he should be a great drummer because he is in a band with former Nirvana musician, Dave Grohl. This could lead to some argument that even though he’s in a band with a well renowned musician, that he might not be so good himself. However, the article later proves to us that he truly is. The “proving” and “argument” part can also pertain to the classical argument part of the rebuttal or refute.

Yes they did because their main purpose, I believe, was to show to the audience that Taylor Hawkins is a very skilled drummer once taken away from his highly acclaimed best friend (and lead singer) Dave Grohl. He accomplished this by showing Taylor’s more explanatory side and how he does really know what he’s doing. They also show that even though he “rocks off the grid”, he had a technique and it is very impressing.

UNIT 1: Reflection

Essential Question:

v  What makes an effective Argument?

Throughout the course of Unit 1, we have touched upon some topics and delved into others; and the elements of a good and effective Argument is definitely a topic we dug deep within to understand. I understand that an effect Argument (big A argument) Analysis (little a argument) included within it. I also know that to Analyze something is to only gain the evidence part of the Argument, whereas the actual Argument is the claim and whether you support-refute-qualify said claim. So, I learned that we need to develop good Analysis in order to develop an effective Argument. I also understand that an effective Argument cannot just be a thesis with some random explanation; it has to be a definitive claim with definitive analysis and support that shows your standpoint clearly to your audience. However, you cannot just make an Argument with basic background knowledge on rhetoric. Even though the argument and analysis might sound clear, I realized – after going through this Unit – that I can’t just subconsciously use rhetoric elements within my analysis; I have to use ones that I clearly understand and not just add them in solely for the purpose of needing to. Based on that, I learned that for an effective Argument, you need to use the parts of the rhetorical triangle. First off, we must use the at least 2 - 3 of the 3 basic pillars of rhetoric: ethos, pathos, and logos. If we4 thoughtfully include at least 2 of these things, then we can continue on to develop the context (or exigence/situation) of our rhetorical analysis as well as our main intention. Once we develop those two pieces, our genre comes together perfectly because, as we learned from the book, “context plus intention equals genre” (Everyday Use). All in all, you need well developed Analysis as well as a strong background on rhetoric in order to make your Argument effective and clear to the audience.

What single assignment, reading, activity, etc was most helpful so far?

Overall, every worksheet and reading that we received has helped me immensely in some way. However, the one that has been the most helpful so far would be the picture of the Rhetorical Triangle (+ Aristotle’s Triad). In other classes, we learned the 3 basic pillars of rhetoric (ethos, pathos, logos), but we never learned how they all come together as one piece of rhetoric writing. Even though I have subconsciously used the pillars in my previous writings, I never truly knew how to pick them out or use them as a skilled rhetorician. However with this paper, I can now see the three pillars as well as how they all fit together. This helps me immensely – not only just for understanding how they fit together, but also for understanding the other parts that make it all fit together. I was able to put all of my past knowledge together and understand what context, intention and genre truly are and how they make my writing whole.  

AOW #4: "Seeing is Believing...Or Is It?" - Science Article by Brian Rohrig

http://www.amazon.com/Captivating-Chemistry-Experiments-Household-Substances/dp/0971848025
= credibility

This entire reading was about optical illusions – in both science and daily life – and how they work in order to fool our perception. They started off with a test to show that all people see certain illusions differently and then they go on to explain what an optical illusion actually is – eventually leading to the many examples of said definition. For example, he explained how mirages are just optical illusions that are created from refracted light rays and distorted imagery.

The author of this piece was Brian Rohrig. On amazon.com, I discovered that he is an “award winning high school science teacher” who received his B.S. in Agriculture and M.Ed. at Kent State University. I also found that he has written eight science books as well as numerous magazine articles – i.e. ChemMatters, the Science Teacher, etc. His versatile writing skills and strong education express his credibility quite clearly.

The context of this piece would definitely be casual. The situation of this article would be casual because the author would have never have made this article unless he had to answer to an originally posed question about how optical illusions work. Since he had to create an article from hypotheses on how things work, it shows me that he had to grow and develop this article through the interactions, questions and discoveries of others throughout history.

The purpose for this article was for readers to learn about illusions from an informational standpoint through unique examples (ones that show different sizes of the moon, one that distorts color, length, size, shape, etc…). Based on that, his overall obvious intention was to have the readers take something new away from his article.

His background and established credibility suggest that his audience is mainly high-schoolers (because he was a high school teacher and worked most of his lifetime just to better improve high school students – based on his awards).

Rhetorical elements:

Organization: The organization of the entire piece was extremely systematic. The clean and crisp organization of the images against the descriptions and writing (which pertains to the images) shows the audience that this information is trustworthy because of the efficient standpoint.

Classical Argument – Intro/Conclusion:     The introduction reflects the introduction of the CA because in the beginning they give a very generalized and well-known fact about optical illusions: that no one truly knows how they work because we all see them differently. Their conclusion is also alike to the CA because they leave us with a “so what” by saying “optical illusions open up a small window into how [the brain] works”.

Enthymeme: They included enthymeme because the author always mentioned logical reasoning but with a few ideas left unstated. In this passage, enthymeme came up when he was discussing how optical illusions work – based on scientific studies with facts. For example he talked about the moon illusion and why it occurs to be larger at some points than others. He gives logical facts about how “our brain sees a flattened dome” which eventually leads to the logical explanation that “the moon appears farther off at the horizon”. However, he does not mention any background on domes (which lead us to the conclusion) because it is just assumed that we know that, at certain points, a dome may look distorted or make images appear larger. This can also pertain to logos because of all of the information he included (even though he allowed us to assume some).

The author accomplished their main purpose. First of all, their main purpose was to extend the knowledge of the readers on an interesting and well-known topic of optical illusions. They accomplished this purpose because the reader not only took away some new-fangled information, but they were also left to think about why it was all important (with the “so what” in the end).

PRESENTATION2

https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dzrbq65_0gq28znhs

PRESENTATION

https://docs.google.com/present/edit?id=0AVzcknkt4xujZHpyYnE2NV8wZ3EyOHpuaHM&hl=en_US

IRB #2: Jagger by Marc Spitz

The author is Marc Spitz who was originally a music journalist that later created this book about Mick Jagger’s “legacy”, so to speak. He also is the author of other books and biographies about musicians like David Bowie. He has even written for the New York Times and other prestigious journalistic sources like the magazine Spin.
Even though the book is a biography, the entire section was far from a cut-and-dry reiteration of Jagger’s life. Though, before he develops the past, he begins telling us about the present and why people should start to rethink why Mick Jagger acts the way he does. People may call him over-dramatic and stuffy but Spitz makes us reluctant to believe what is said about him by opening up a new path of discovery to why it is better for Jagger to be the way he is (rather than a “show-and-tell” rocker).  After laying out this disclaimer, he explains how young Jagger, an upper-middle class teen, was prestigious in school and had a good relationship with his parents – unlike many of the world-renowned rockers. He then discusses how the band came to be and the decisions and sacrifices they all had to make in the beginning (like Mick had to drop out of college as well as drop a few band members to make the band perfect).
The context of this section/entire book would definitely be spacial. It would be spacial because a biography is a book about someone’s life – and a book about someone’s life is obviously history now. So, based on the definition of spacial – which is a piece of writing that comes from an event in history – this book is definitely about several events in history, however, all of the events are just focused on one person.
The overall (and generalized) purpose for why this was written was to get Mick Jagger’s history in writing. Whether it’s for fans or just regular people, the purpose was to get all of his past together instead of in bits-and-pieces of it in interviews, articles and videos. However, the more specified purpose would be to show that not all rockers or musicians are the same. Basically, it is telling us that we can’t judge them by a few actions because their history is what defines them, not what they do to hide it.
The audience that this book is written for would be people who love rock-and-roll or a “bluesy” type of music. More specifically, this book is for people who like the Rolling Stones as a band. The demographic of this audience is usually adults, but sometimes teens.
The most prominent rhetorical elements that I discovered throughout this section were: pathos/imagery, confirmation/refutation, diction, syntax and theses.
Pathos/imagery: This was included within the entire section. Because it is a biography, perceptibly there should be a lot of emotion. Even if an event or massive change in Jagger’s life was just touched upon, there was still an immense amount of emotion behind lying in the backgrounds of each one mentioned. Spitz brought in emotion through Mick Jagger’s actions and how he acted in the situation, in immense detail. For one event, he explained Mick Jagger’s nervousness to go onstage and he explained the emotion so densely that I could not only feel what he was feeling but see it as well.
Theses: Within this part of the book, Spitz included an abounding amount of theses and counter-arguments about Jagger. He explained how people called him “Brenda Jagger” (which is a demeaning name for “snobby”) and how (refuting this claim) people should rethink who Jagger really is. Also, he mentioned a claim about how some people believe that Jagger’s solo record was terrible, even though he has the “temptation to defend Mick” because Mick did not do that for himself. (Refuting goes with theses).
Confirmation/refutation: In this section, there were two elements of the Classical Argument Structure included. The confirmation was assumed through all of the facts that he added and the refutation was an aside that was built-in (and expected) after every new thesis he introduced. At one point Spitz even said, “there is a temptation to defend mick (as I just did)…” and clearly put it out there that he was refuting a certain thesis provided beforehand.
Diction: Unexpectedly, in this section, I discovered that I didn’t know some of the diction used because it was very high-end and developed.
Syntax: the sentence structure was extremely elongated and hard to understand at times. After reading for a while, I started to get used to this structure but, at first, it was hard to discern what Spitz was trying to put out to his audience.

Yes, I believe that the author completely accomplished their purpose. They did because the purpose, as stated before, was just to get a good background on whom Mick Jagger really is and why we should rethink our judgments against him. While reading this story, I not only learned to reevaluate who he is, but I also learned (which was another one of the author’s purposes) some valid information in the history and making of the Rolling Stones.