Response: Toward a Composing Model of Reading

After reading “Toward a Composing Model of Reading” I looked back on my experience with my Wikipedia article and considered the five acts described in the article. On the front of planning I’d like to think I spent the most time attempting to decide which information to include and what to throw out. Neutral voice was harped on a lot during the planning process, but I didn’t consider it a problem, I know how to write neutrally, because when not neutral my words pull at the reader like this. Freedom in planning was also taken away by the general format guidelines we had, find an article like yours and try to be similar to it, that way you won’t get deleted. I agree with the authors on drafting. I always think to myself, “Once I get a rough draft down I can mold it to get the job done”. The authors emphasize reading more than writing throughout this article, but for our purposes I’m only focusing on the writing (until revision I suppose). Again, alignment is chosen for us by the almighty Wikipedia standard. To be an effective article the voice of our article couldn’t sway towards favoring the subject, or bad mouthing. As far as monitoring is concerned you’ll just have to check back in a few weeks. If more changes need to be made to appease the Wikipedia gods then so be it. On a side note I noticed this article always made the role of writer female, where as the role of the reader was male. Was this some Oedipus complex coming out from these authors or was it a sign of the times. A lot of feminism was mentioned as well, maybe I’m reading into this a little much. 

Post 4 Intertextuality

Porter and Murray seem to have opposing sides in a single argument, but under closer inspection one can see that their arguments aren’t too different. Murray claims that all writing is autobiographical and Porter claims all writing is influenced by other writing. MY autobiography pulls from the ideas and events of my life. Of course part of my life, my autobiography, is reading. Murray explains how we take the ideas out of our mind and put them on paper. Porter on the other hand explains how those same ideas are put in our minds in the first place. I can’t reference Shakesphere without reading it, and once I read his work it is part of me. Autobiographical doesn’t mean original, we stand on the shoulders of those before us (I’m sure I stole that quote from someone several years ago). The idea of originality only applies to making new connections. All that there is and ever will be is already here. We as a human race only need to fit the puzzle together. (That was deep)

Response: All Writing is Autobiography

Murray is asking the reader to reconsider all styles of writing. He argues that all writing is autobiographical and reflects the life of the writer; no matter how unbiased or distant the writing seems. Murray argues that the facts we choose and the types of comparisons we make are directly related to our personal experiences. In reference to encyclopedic writing Murray’s suggestion implies that even unbiased neutral articles are still influenced by our experiences. Murray suggests we write about things that are important to us. Our writing will be better if we’re interested, but it will also take on our voice. As we work on our Wikipedia project we must bear in mind our interest and personal involvement on each particular issue and take special care to stay unbiased. If not, our article will probably be deleted. 

Rhetorical Situations and Their Constituents

Grant-Davie defines a rhetorical situation by summing the articles written by Bitzer, Vatz, and Consigny. He defines it as, “a set of related factors whose interaction creates and controls a discourse”. The constituents of a rhetorical situation are defined as the exigence; the driving force behind the rhetoric, the audience; the target of the rhetoric that are willed to take a certain course of action, and constraints; the limiting factors that can hinder or help the rhetoric. A compound rhetorical situation is a continuation of rhetoric. Grant-Davie uses the example of an editorial in a Colorado newspaper as an example of compound rhetoric. The communication process is reciprocal and involves several parties. Each continuation of the rhetoric is met with more constraints. Here constraints are positive and lead to a more concise discussion of the topic at hand. This sort of compound rhetoric is essential in group writing projects like Wikipedia, where feedback of the audience constrains the writer and hones the article to make it better with each edit. As a college student I need to be aware of the rhetorical situation because my audience is extremely critical. I am constrained by correct grammar usage and concise content. The constraints act as a funnel. They ensure that by the time I reach the end of an essay I’ve made my argument valid and my call to action clear. 

Post Two Errors in Writing

          Williams describes errors as social constructs by describing the process of identifying the error. It’s the classic question; which came first, the chicken or the egg? To identify an error the error must first be made. The error can only be pointed out and corrected by a prominent editor for a solution to be created. The implications in written language today are far reaching. The social media and user created reference materials available today don’t typically pass under the eyes of a world-class editor. Thus the average reader today is exposed to errors that they internalize and repeat.

            The question of errors in Wikipedia versus a traditional encyclopedia rests solely on the editors and writers. An elite few write and edit traditional encyclopedias where thousands of eyes pour over Wikipedia’s articles and point out flaws because, in a user created reference, they are expected. When a reader enjoys a novel by Stephen King they aren’t hunting for grammatical errors and thus many aren’t found. While reading the assigned article I found an error myself, “The most obviousest set of rules be those whose violation we instantly notes, but whose observation we entirely ignore.” The error is trivial and doesn’t affect the authors’ ability to make his point, but it’s there. And the fact it exists is what this article is about, where is the line between error and perfection, and who is to decide what is acceptable and what isn’t?

Post One

I am the working man. My name is Joe Cook of Zanesville, Ohio. The high school I attended, Maysville Local, wasn’t known for its grammatical strength. I started my OU career in the fall of 2008 during my senior year of high school at OU Zanesville. My major is Civil Engineering with a focus in environmental and water management systems. I work uptown at Century National Bank as a teller and am also a research assistant for the Civil Engineering department. I’m active in the American Society of Civil Engineers as the current sophomore class representative and in Engineers Without Borders as the Vice President. I also hate promoting myself, so to that end I’ll move on.

            As mentioned previously I started my OU career in 2008 and unfortunately that is also the last formal English class I’ve had. My professor was one Michael Nern. I recall him to be a self proclaimed cynic. The class was 151, but being at a branch the class was not challenging. His class was very cut and dry with little discussion or interaction between students. To put it bluntly, 151 was one of the most boring classes I’ve ever had.  I gained valuable research knowledge, but my creativity was stifled. I would like to see an incorporation of more fictional writing in 151. Personally I enjoy writing short science fiction stories. Unfortunately I don’t see sci-fi happening in 308j.

            The course peaks my interest from a societal standpoint, as I wrote sociatal, the computer corrected it to societal. Personally I read a lot into others’ grammar on social media sites to judge their general level of intelligence. Spell check seems to be the superficial makeup of writing today, sure it looks nice, but no amount of spell checking can make an essay beautiful or well structured. I like the fact you’re class will let us take a look at these things, but I’m also afraid because it seems as though you have no prior experience grading essays involving these issues. Unfortunately I signed up for this class because it was the junior comp. class that fit my schedule and I’m here solely to fulfill my tier requirements. I’m glad the issues are interesting and hopefully a level of challenge and creative freedom will come with your course. Time will tell.

     This is my blog for 308j. The class has given me my first introduction to blogging. I hope this goes over well.