Critical Photo Essay

Want to find out about D2L's usability? Click the hyperlink! Desire 2 Learn
(You WILL have to download the presentation to hear the audio, and it has to be on a Mac (I don't know why (Sorry))). After you have download the presentation (you need PowerPoint), click "slideshow" and then "view from start" to experience the presentation properly.

The Female Stereotype and Oprah!!!

I have to say that I am a little confused about the reading choices for this week. I would expect to find these two pieces of writing in a class about women and gender studies (a minor I will be officially pursuing next semester). I feel that Jamieson was talking about 19^th and 20^th century women; I feel that her analysis falls short for the 21^st century reinvention of the “new woman.” I have met many women that not only engaged in open debate but they did so with much more competition than men. Her description reminded me of the quiet housewife who only whispered her stance as to not be bothersome. I did not understand much of this with the overarching theme of our class; however, I did enjoy the line that housewives were invariably the “storytellers” of the household. This skill effectively locked in their indispensable use in television.

The womanly role in television is a fascinating subject that has helped continue the stereotype. However, this role of the storyteller has evolved into just that: the woman’s story being told. Paradoxically, this has helped to reverse the stereotypes in certain ways and was likely an integral step in boosting women towards equality. In a strange way, the role of women in television has split into multiple uses. On the one hand, women are still exploited through television (via ads or shows/movies that use stereotypical roles). The scantily clad woman slowly reaches into a cooler full of beer; her voluptuous breasts are nearly popping out of her bikini as she firmly grasps the shaft/neck of a bottle of beer. She pulls it out of the ice bent over at an exact 90 degree angle as sweat glistens off of her perfectly smooth skin. I believe you are getting the picture; the Sexualization of the female body draws the attention of a male audience. Wysocki talks about the sexualzation of women in ads, but only a printed one out of a magazine. In this context, we lose the action that the woman enacts in a picture; however, we are allowed to “fill in” the situation (pursuant to McCloud’s ideas about comic book frames involving faces and situations being filled in by the individual). So it seems that watching the action unfold is purely physical stimulation; inversely, seeing an individual picture staged in the middle of a scene requests that the observer fills in the rest of the scenario using themselves.

Women have also used television to positively influence their outlook and reinforced their capabilities within our culture. Oprah is a great representation of the positive female movement on television. Not only is she extremely successful and rich, she has placed herself in an infallible position for women to emulate (power, success, and strength). This link will show a little parody about Oprah that admits her strength while exposing a male invented weakness. Warning! There is nudity and swearing, so enjoy!

The Writer | Reader | Writer Cycle of Fluidity

As I read Christian Kohl et al, I could not help but to start connecting the discussion of authors/readers (who can also be authors to the same text) to our very own blogger hierarchical writings. My blog, for example, is merely an extension of my analytical readings of theory for the week and I post at the top of writer/reader/writer chain. After my post has been submitted, the other students (reader/writers) analyze my analysis and make their own analysis on the subject. Their comments then become a further extension of what I had originally wrote. Thus, they have placed themselves in a position within the hierarchical writer/reader/writer formation. If a good discussion were to occur and each further submission to the chain were also extensions of previous comments, we will see a somewhat similar formation to that of Wiki documents (I will later introduce an experiment to see how this process works on Blogger under certain constraints); Kohl explains that “in principle all users have the same right to write to read” (Kohl 169).

As we progress further down the chain of literary events (in our class blogger assignments), the original content is absorbed and then transformed by each subsequent reader/writer. Kohl says, “[the] collaborative process of writing dissolve[s] the central intention of the author” (174)  Generally, these submissions transformations are not the intent of the original author, but the writing merits new directions and ways of thinking. In The Database and the Essay, Johndan Johnson talks about these transformations of ideas; he says, “like language… people can attempt to forge new connections in certain situations; they can connect objects together in various ways to shift meanings” (202).

The strange thing about this process is that it has a “cycle of literary life” when used in our Blogger assignments; the original writer becomes the reader (when reading other people’s comments) and can eventually become the writer again, but only under the pretense of a lower position of the literary hierarchy that was originally held by the original author. In other words, the original writer’s concepts have been repurposed (retaining some fragments of the original) by a new writer (the reader turned writer). The original author has to succumb to the new writer’s direction if he/she wishes to continue off of the new writer’s ideas. This process leaves traces of each writer’s contribution to the discussion as an author and as a reader. Kohl says that “the writing must function in absence of author and reader. The text as a unit carries the traces of all authors” (174). With this in mind, the hierarchy constantly renews itself as long as there are continued contributions to the ideas through writing comments.

I would like to take this idea and apply it to the comments to this post. The experiment will require multiple comments and would require each comment to feed off the previous one. In other words, there should be only one original comment and the subsequent comments should be replies to the previous one. In this experiment, I will comment more than once through the chain, but I am required (as I hope everyone else will abide by) to only repurpose the comment I have just read by rethinking and re-contributing to the chain. Think of it as a literary game of “telephone” and enjoy the comment string!

Infographic

Looking for a NRA handgun course? Click here!
The Infographic is up!

Ehh... Graphic Qoutes

I feel like I should direct everyone to the blog I wrote last week.  Solomon was published; so, apparently, I was on to something (just saying).  However, I think it should stay in last week. I would like to dissect how the graphics are incorporated into the writing.  In Martin Solomon’s piece there are more graphics than text (thanks Doug)!  But what we are really seeing here is a form of critical photo essay. Specifically, I like how Solomon still uses graphics to display the quotes for his argument. He shows us two different styles of graphic quotes.

The first one (figure 6) is large and easy to read. With a quick cast of the eyes, the quote and the graphic are understood; this style can be best utilized with shorter “quicker” quotes that are quickly recognizable to the reader. What is important to note is how the quote steals your attention being placed inside a rectangular box. We can consider a quote a form of graphic that we use constantly within writing, but this style develops is a multi-layered eye catcher that extends its rhetorical effect. It seems more prominent; it commands more attention; it forces you to undeniably acknowledge the quote. This is the biggest stylistic lesson that I will take away from Solomon’s format.

 The second graphic quote is radically different in style. I acknowledge that this was not his intent, but regardless the style is present. The graphic (figure 7) has a much more cluttered feel to it. There are to large bold number figures that draw your eyes away from the quote originally. The quote itself is smaller and condensed within yet another layer (designated by the line just above the quote, and the line just below it). This graphic requires much more of our attention. Not only are there multiple, overpowering distractions, we are forced to focus closer on the text. I believe this technique can be used to draw the reader into “deeper” more involved quotes.

Excuse me. What's the question? Questions about ?.

In what ways does the font size and style of question marks affect our reading? Does the style of the font placed with a question mark effect the rhetorical way the question is asked? In what ways do our eyes subconsciously discern from a multiple layers that question marks can underlie?

You may have not noticed (I’m hoping you didn’t) that all of the above question marks are in a different font. If you did, thank you for your close reading interest! However, I would venture to guess that most of you scanned right passed the question mark already knowing the structure of the sentence is interrogative.  What if I had expanded the question marks in font size?

In what ways does the font size and style of question marks affect our reading? Does the style of the font placed with a question mark effect the rhetorical way the question is asked? In what ways do our eyes subconsciously discern from a multiple layers that question marks can underlie?

? (The forth question mark used (next to size))…

Before, the question marks just represented a grammatically functioning symbol. Now, however, we can easily discern the different Identities of the question marks. We have removed the veil of obscurity into a new truth; the question marks are unique. To answer part of the first question, (as the ladies already know) size does matter. And I am willing to bet that the font styles also matter and can have a rhetorical function also (question 2).

First, I will observe what the font style of different question marks look like to me. I encourage everyone to make their own observations as to what the question mark may represent for them. The first,?, is Plantegent Cherokee and resembles a cartoonish format to me (the question mark only). I see it springing off the pages in the Sunday cartoons section of the newspaper with an enthusiastic, !, jumping off the page with it. Second, we have a Times New Roman question mark: ?. Although this question mark is from a generic formal font style, the look of the question mark feels out of place in a formal writing environment. It has an early 1900s newspaper headline look or how Sherlock Holmes would style his question mark: British. The final two question marks are from remarkably similar font styles: Calibri (body), ?, and Calibri Light (header), ?. The basic form of these two question marks is almost identical, but the Calibri Light is (you guessed it) lighter! I, however, see both of the question marks as more of a formal styled symbol. The line to the period mark is mechanically straight and the semi-circle is nearly perfectly round. Could these small, almost unnoticeable, stylistic variations serve a rhetorical purpose?

I believe changing their size and style relation to the main text could serve to imply different kinds of questions. The comical question mark could represent a sarcastic question. The professional question mark could represent a very serious question.

I ask; will you consider using your question marks as a form of stylistic representation? Even if I asked using the personal handwriting font?

?Calibri (body) ?Plantegent Cherokee ?Times New Roman ?Times New Roman ?Calibri (body) ?Calibri Light (header)  ?freestyle script

Pilots, Drones, and Simulations

Wolf’s points on not being able to see outside the lens of cameras and the correlation of simulations versus real time/life develop a few questions and some interesting insights. Wolf talks about the simulations (training for real-world situations) and their possible disconnect with reality; the first thing that came to mind was drone pilots. The simulation for a drone pilot is almost exactly the same as the actual act of flying a drone. The drone displays live streaming video to the pilot, half-way around the world, flying it. The experience then becomes a synchronized act. Pilots develop the muscle-memory necessary to pilot these expensive machines through simulation alone. However, the stress of knowing you are flying a real drone with a hefty price tag can affect the pilot’s performance; this stress cannot be recreated in a simulation.

Recently there have been other claims of stress that effect drone operators. Some have talked about the indifference the job enforces on them. The missile strike on a target appears to feel like a video game. This “feel” is easy for the public to digest but it left a sour taste in some of the pilot’s mouths. They did not know who they were killing, but they knew it was a real life human being. The transmission of the video to the pilot does not take away from its real world implications. So Wolf’s claim that simulations can’t recreate real world situations is both true and false. In many ways it can create the experience and the necessary muscle-memory to successful operate in real-time; a simulator, on the other hand cannot yet fully recreate the stresses associated with the real world. I believe that this experience may one day be harnessed to its full potential, though.

Another interesting faucet is the loss of the peripheral when using a camera lens. The “big picture” may not always be realized by those viewing the square piece of the puzzle. Paradoxically, a drone is perceived to “see all,” but in reality is grounded by the same principle as my camera phone—we can’t see everywhere at once. This can play a rather grim role in the drone pilots’ distaste for the feel of indiscriminant killing. What if these people are innocent bystanders mistaken for threats in a gun battle? The drone operators are not always capable of choosing targets, sometimes they are given targets. Their peripheral picture can be lost and reduced to a square viewing of a target.

On a lighter note, Mishra’s speak about graphic interpretations and Wolf’s talk of plane instruments brought me once again back to drone pilots. The instruments represent certain mathematics and wind dynamics that the user doesn’t have to have P.H.D. level knowledge on to understand how to read it. Of course, there is a learning curve to know how to read it as Mishra talks about. Once the basic knowledge has been obtained to operate it, the user need not bother with the sciences behind the technology.

A Firm Digital Handshake

McCloud's cartoony representation was (for lack of a better word) brilliant. Seeing the icon displayed in its many facets was intriguing. I specifically liked his representation of objects becoming a part of ourselves. “The vehicle becomes an extension of our body. It absorbs our sense of identity. We become the car” (McCloud 38). The idea of an object melding into our body seems like a strange science fiction movie; however, the more I see cell phones plastered to people’s foreheads and hands, the more I begin to understand what McCloud is saying. Interesting enough, my hand connection with the laptop also forms this symbiotic relationship. My hands make a physical connection with the computer, but I also have to make a personal connection with the machine. In many ways this computer will absorb my identity; it can form a digital identity of myself; it can be customized to iconically represent the identity I have with myself; it can also display my dialogue identity—this writing specifically. First, however, the computer and I must congeal into one. 

This begins almost immediately when you access your computer. If this machine is newly purchased, you will first enter your computer name, your log-on name, and your password. Although these features have a practical use, such as anti-theft, their main function might be the initial connection to engage the user and the machine into their symbiotic relationship. The relationship using this digital handshake can be accomplished on a foreign machine with the same results. For example, when we enter our classroom and sit at one of the classroom computers it is not ours (we do not own it), but once we log-on using our student network identification the computer becomes us; we own it. We can mark the save my password box on the internet and download pictures to your computers with some kind of privacy. However, the feel at a public computer seems a little different. If you check the box to remember your login and password and leave the computer someone can access your private domain. Any picture you save to the computer can be dissected by anyone. I personally feel a disconnect towards public computers. Could it be that the symbiotic handshake wasn’t initiated? Or, even worse, that someone else did it and we are trespassing into their domain? To properly apply our computer identity we have to be in a comfortable place—our own domain.

The computer is an integral connection to developing a digital identity. A cell phone can accomplish this identity, but the computer is more intricately intertwined in the process. Specifically I would like to point out such entities as Facebook and Twitter. These sites further draw my identity connection with a computer. My life can be displayed in the past, present, and (a possible) future linear timeline; It also allows me to view other people’s lives in the same manner. The intimate connection with my life and others is only attained through a machine to display it. Thus I make the machine part of myself (giving it purpose/identity) and it displays my digital identity (and others identities) for me—completing the symbiotic circle.

Jakobs is a joke

As I waded through Jakobs “The Evolution of Web-Site Genres,” I couldn’t help but think that she needs writing lessons and counseling on her racist tones. I will propose two quick sentences of her writing for review. The first seems blatantly confusing and ungrammatical. This is how Jakobs puts it, “These modifications can here be only briefly examined using the example of an online insurance site” (Jakobs 363). Ironically, this terrible sounding sentence is also a segway into her racial undertones.


Now I may be completely off-base here but I would like to also offer as evidence sentence two. “An example may suffice. Germans are said to avoid risks; in contrast to Americans, they seek to counter risk-filled situations in life by taking insurance policies” (364). Jakobs’ “example” only sufficed in discrediting her point to me. I will not pull this card very often, but, as you noticed, this blog’s title also includes ridicule; although the main theme of the blog is to analyze and study theory, sometimes it is important to criticize texts. After all, we can’t go around believing everything we hear. I would like to investigate how a few ill constructed sentences and questionably slanted views can discredit a source. I will admit that I didn’t find anything particularly interesting in the beginning of this text. Eventually I started to pick up on the subtle sentence faults. Here is another sentence that stood out to me, “web-site users expect typically solutions and orient their behavior and value judgments to familiar patterns” (366). I believe the word she wished to use was typical. Either this person’s work was translated from a different language or Jakobs has a terrible editor. I submit this example of ridicule to the discourse community of writers. How can we possible take this theory text seriously, when it distracts and makes condescending remarks? I believe it is fair to say that Americans also have insurance. Do Germans take less risk than Americans? Not in the late 1930s to the early 1940s.


The real problem with Jakobs’ claims is that they are not cited. In fact another passage appears that seems to be pure conjecture, “this would explain why Chinese portals seem to be designed according to the maxim ‘as much as possible all at once’ and hence appear to Western eyes as cluttered and confused” (365). Jakobs did get one thing right, I am confused; however, it is not from the “Chinese portal” but from her rash generalization of “Westerners” without any research or cited material to back up her argument. I hope at this point everyone else is as turned off to her style as I am. The question that keeps reoccurring is: if Jakobs is willing to make unsubstantiated claims in parts of her text, how are we supposed to take her argument seriously? Since Jakobs graciously offered the Germans as an example, I will do the same by offering a video that represents my frustrations with her grammar using Hitler. I would also like to show how painful it was to read Jakobs’ text by showing an equally painful event—an ungrammatical break-up.

All Mind!!!

In Walter R. Fisher’s “Narration as a Human Communication Paradigm: The Case of Public Moral Argument” an interesting question is raised about the use of argument and its interaction with humans. Fisher introduces the idea of the Communication Paradigm. This first takes Aristotle’s Organon that builds the “Rational World Paradigm” (The basic idea that Argument is what makes us human) and begins to deconstruct the RWP and construct his Communication Paradigm around it (Fisher 378). The idea was that humans used a personal narrative (not an argumentative base) to conduct their daily lives— including arguments—whether they be scientific, political, or social exchanges. But, where Fisher’s argument was to lead next blindsided (and enlightened) me.

Fisher shatters the oppressive walls of hierarchy using this paradigm to state, “In theme, if not in every detail, narrative, then, is meaningful to for persons in particular and in general, across communities as well as cultures, across time and space” (Fisher 384). A stunning statement that leads me to my definition of what writing is (writing being all forms of communication whether implicit or explicit). A stream of human consciousness that has been removed from the linear time table. The collective conscious is happening at all times in all space. A pretty bold statement to claim. However, if we analyze Dell Hymes who says, “the narrative use of language is not a property of subordinate cultures, whether folk, or working class, or the like, but universal function” (Fisher 384). And include what Gregory Bateson who says, “then thinking in terms of stories must be shared by all mind or minds” (Fisher 384). We can see that the human consciousness is in fact a collection of narratives (stories) that have been passed or are inherent to the human mind by an extensive and exhausting research of mythology: its similarities, its subconscious travel through humans (attachments such as daily rituals), its existence in symbol form (writing, which stands outside of time to tell the story through millennias), and spirituals implications.

Interability is the concept that traces of writing continue to reappear through time, according to James Porter’s “Intertextuality and the Discourse Community.” However, considering our last statement, we can see that interability might exist in more than writing by bland definition. It may be found in a narrative that stretches through all of humans’ existence. In Karen Armstrong’s “A Short History of Myth” she traces (through hypothesis) the inherent need for humans to look to the sky when praying or speaking to the ethereal. She believes that it begun with the first humans realizing the physical separation of us from the sky. It quickly led to mean a celestial (or holy) place which we cannot attain. Even though, in our current time, we have proven through exploration that this is not the case, we still look to the skies when praying or asking something of the world we do not understand. It can thus be concluded that through our stream of human consciousness, interability, exists in more than writing (the bland version) but also in our subconscious discourse  and all forms of the narrative paradigm that make up the “all mind” human consciousness.    

In an after thought I am unhappy with my definition of writing (human consciousness)  existing in all time in all space. I realized that I didn't explain or even consider the future from our perceived place in time; and how the future could possible be included in the current human consciousness (including primal humans) if that narrative hasn't been said yet. However, I had an epiphany this morning involving intertextuality. On the same lines of looking toward the sky, narratives that we include into the stream of human consciousness (of here and now) will ultimately influence, through intertextuality, the future human narrative. Thus, I would consider the future human narrative existing in our present as well as the beginning of humans through intertextuality of consciousness.    

Hello me! It's me again!

 

An intro into insanity 

Theory Query...

The rhetorical situation exists in everything. Or does it? Fish speaks in "Rhetoric" of the foundationalist who believed that rhetoric’s were the devil; in that, to approach anything with a skewed and molded sense of it was an act of deception and power mongering. Fish, of course, assumes the very essence of Beelzebub by writing on the issue as a rhetorician. He establishes his position by slyly showing the holes in the opposition’s viewpoints through rhetoric. To say the least: Fish is an asshole. However, he does establish a good point: it is the rhetor who has the power.

            Indeed, it is the rhetorician who can persuade people to what the “truth” is. It is, however, not without great effort. Grant-Davie’s “Rhetorical Situations and Their Constituents” discuss in detail how the “rhetorical situation” occurs; how the rhetors and the audience interact; how it is restricted (or expounded) by constraints; and how to identify and use the exigency, as well as everything else, to our advantage. They go on to say, “[R]hetors who can define the fundamental issues represented by a superficial subject matter—and persuade audiences to engage those issues—is in a position to maintain decisive control over the field of debate” (Grant-Davie 267). Thanks! World domination will be so much easier now.

            The wrench in the gears develops when observing a rhetorical situation as a rhetorician. Grant-Davie only slightly touch on this subject, using the metaphor of reading a charity pamphlet asking for donations as a rhetorician. I see this as the ultimate obstacle for any rhetor. How do you persuade a fellow rhetor into thinking he is not being persuaded but in fact do just that? We can notice this in Fish as he considers the serious man’s (foundationalist) side of the argument only to absolute decimate it. He does this by making a serious man inadvertently discover that he is in fact a rhetorician (just a shitty one) and converts him to the dark side. Fish would have made a much better Darth Vader.

            It is, however, very important to realize the sequence upon which rhetoricians attempts to persuade his or her audience. For example, I first read Fish’s view on the rhetorical man versus the serious man and was lead to the conclusion (by Fish) that the rhetors hold the power. With this new found knowledge, I read Grant-Davie’s piece and discovered that I too can harness this power and even read as a rhetorician! This ultimately brought me to the longest read: Giesler’s “IText.”  It was to my utter joy that I discovered in only the second paragraph this sentence: “This article is a call to those who share our sense of urgency and opportunity” (Geisler 3). Excellent! I have identified, as a rhetorician, Geisler’s audience and am not one of her constituents. So I stopped reading.

            In conclusion, thank you Grant-Davie. Fish: you’re still an asshole.