OPENING ACTIVITY:
Get in your families and straighten out the piece you were to write for Adrienne last week (5 min)
Then get with the family that shared your claim, read one another's papers and have a quick discussion about why and how you decided to utilize the evidence in the way you did. (10 min)
Be prepared to share out with the DQ you chose and how you handled incorporating evidence. I am interested specifically in the comparison/contrast between the two families. Also, this would be the time to ask additional questions about evidence and its incorporation into rhetoric.
CLASS DISCUSSION/ASSIGNMENT
Last week in class, you learned a method for discerning the quality of a particular piece of writing. By "quality," we mean to define how well a text would perform as a cited source, not whether or not we simply like the piece. Preference is not dictated by the same standards as quality. I like the NY Jets (since I was six)...But I'd be hard-pressed to say they are "of a high quality."
The difference is important for rhetorical or merely academic writing (the type you will be doing over the next few years).
We live in an interesting time. Print media is dead, or so they have been reporting for years now. But one could make an argument that the written word has never been more alive. We are surrounded by excellent writing like children wrapped in warm blankets. Every subject, every device, every way it can possibly be delivered. Never in the history of language, has more information been available more quickly and easily. YouTube an interview with a writer. Throw on a podcast of your favorite personality ranting about something. Opinion is everywhere. But is it credible? Is it good? It's ok to like things that are not necessarily "quality." Yes, I'm talking about all the cooking shows or Real Housewives or whatever. It is ok to watch crap because we want to decompress or relax, but it is not ok to be unable to discern the difference.
It's an exciting time for content. In some ways, it has never been easier to be a writer because dozens of platforms to reach readers are readily available. Yet. it has never been harder to rise above the din of available information, text and opinion. News, weather, and niche information is plentiful. There are 24 hour news networks aplenty. Over 500 blogs, pod-casts and fan sites are devoted to the Walt Disney World Resort in Florida alone.
Let's consider this conundrum: It has never been easier to be heard. It has never been harder to be heard.
This week...you are going to do some reading. But I, for once, will not choose it or force it upon you. I want you to spend some time searching for an opinion writer, blog or other type of writing collective (like a group of bloggers working under a common name). I want you to chose and then read your writer/blog heavily (at least five to ten pieces depending on length). Choose something of at least basic credibility. Someone affiliated with an organization, magazine or newspaper, or an independent blog written by someone with some kind of writing cred. The pieces you choose must be:
A. Ongoing and sustained
1. non-fiction, opinion pieces that advance an overall claim or argument.
2. from the same writer or collective of writers.
3. MOST IMPORTANTLY...well-fit to most (if not all) of the standards of quality established by the criteria we have been using.
A relatively quick Google search revealed this list of "power fashion writers." The same thing exists in almost any subject or area of interest.You should choose to read about what interests you. Since there are thousands of blogs about everything from nutrition to ammunition, this should not be hard to do. But if you get overwhelmed or underwhelmed...fear not. Your friendly neighborhood professor is a huge culture nerd. Attached are some of the more popular, insightful writers/columnists/bloggers/blogger groups/opinion writers on my radar. Each one has a plethora of writing available online. It's all here from gaming to politics, arts to history to gossip:
The Blogess, Frank Bruni, Bill Bryson, The Carpetbagger, The Cinephiliacs, Richard Cohen, Adam Corrolla, The Daily Beast, The DIS, Do You Like Prince Movies?, Maureen Dowd, Roger Ebert, Brett Easton Ellis, James Fallows, Filmspotting, Gameological Society, Neil Gaiman, Malcolm Gladwell, Geek Dad, Grantland, Chris Hardwick & The Nerdist, Neil Heinen, High Functioning Momism, Huffington Post, The Inky Fool, Garrison Keilor, Chuck Klosterman, Jason Kottke, Jezebel, Stephen King, News from Me, Emily Nussbaum, Rick Reiley, Andrew Revkin, Jesse Rosin, Sophie Sarin, Tavis Smiley, Tynan, WDW News Today, Erik Wemple, Cornel West, World War II Today, Sex with Emily, Shayan Zadeh, 20-Nothings, 9to5Mac...even Chuck Norris (yes, THAT Chuck Norris).
If you go out looking on your own...a good place to start would be with reputable news sources. Here are two fine examples: here or here.
Once you commit to a writer, you will do the following for Wednesday:
1. Come to class with five copies of your favorite piece by her (him or them)
2. Have at least three more examples of their writing that you believe exhibits both HIGH QUALITY by virtue of the criteria, and HIGH QUALITY by virtue of your interests and enjoyment.
Then write IW #11 in which you explore one or more of the following questions about the writing you chose.
1. What attracted you to this particular writer or group? Why did you stay interested in it (them)?
2. What makes the writing so good? Use explicit examples from the text.
3. Choose one of the writer's theses or main arguments...how does the writer provide evidence for his/her claim that also kept you entertained and interested? In other words, do a Level 3 read of one or two of the writers' pieces.
4. Apply the criteria for quality to one or several of the pieces you read.
***Please also bring your IW to class on Wednesday.
Email or tweet at me with questions!
No comments:
Post a Comment