8/23/12 Journal Entry
My definition of good writing would be a piece of work that
is easy to read, detailed, has few grammar errors (unless done intentionally),
and is clear. You can distinguish it from bad writing by reading it and being familiar
with different grammar rules and styles of writing. Some rules I know to be
true are: do not start a sentence with because, use the word “was” when related
to the past, and capitalize the first letter of every sentence. One good writer
would be Maya Angelo.
Response to Hall and Morrow
After discussing what makes good writing in class and
reading these two essays on my own, I have a different viewpoint on what
classifies a piece of work as “good writing”. I no longer believe that grammar
plays a major role in good writing. I have realized that, that is an idea that
has been embedded in me to believe. I mean think about it, the first thing that
usually comes to mind when a teacher asks “what is good writing”, is grammar.
As stated in the article “7 Bad Habits”, since elementary school we have been
brain washed to believe that uniform writing (sounding like dead people) was
the only key to good writing. However, I have read various forms of writing
that did not have the best grammar but it was still considered “good writing”.
Writing has changed a lot since the days of Shakespeare and other famous
writers during that time.
Overall I agree with both essays that you must be aware of your audience. When you do this it tends to make your writing a lot more interesting. For instance, do not make your writing more professional and up tight than it has to be. If the audience you have allows you to say “he took a shit” instead of a long obnoxious sentence describing that he moved his bowels, go for it. I defiantly agree with Morrow on that one. I also agree with Hall when he states that you should not try to be someone you are not just to seem intelligent. Being yourself makes your writing a lot better than trying to be a show off.
Overall I agree with both essays that you must be aware of your audience. When you do this it tends to make your writing a lot more interesting. For instance, do not make your writing more professional and up tight than it has to be. If the audience you have allows you to say “he took a shit” instead of a long obnoxious sentence describing that he moved his bowels, go for it. I defiantly agree with Morrow on that one. I also agree with Hall when he states that you should not try to be someone you are not just to seem intelligent. Being yourself makes your writing a lot better than trying to be a show off.
9/25/12 Journal Entry
His perspective on peer response is a lot different than
what I am used to. Majority of the time when people are editing your paper,
they focus on grammar more than anything else. I like the fact that he takes
the time to figure out what the writer may be trying to get across or their
style of writing in general. I also agree with the idea of not sounding like a
teacher when giving your peer response. Sometimes a writer needs a friendly
correction and not just red markings everywhere. However, I am used to his idea
of making comments on the actual paper and writing a letter to the writer
after. I did this in my English class last year. This process made me more
comfortable with other people reading my writing. I really like his idea of
balancing criticism and compliments. It keeps the writer from being
discouraged.
9/27/12 Journal Entry
So far I feel like it will not be hard to condense my essay
to meet the 500 word requirement. The peer revision process helped me figure
out what ideas I could reword, condense, or completely omit. However, I feel
that I have done a great job making my belief known and explaining why I have
that belief. I also think that I reached my goal of making my story clear and
understandable. I plan on condensing my paragraphs and improving my conclusion
for my revised draft. Far as any extra help, I believe that the peer revision process
pretty much covered my errors.
Fox News and the Muppets Rhetorical Analysis
Eric Bolling begins the show by informing his audience that
“the Muppets are back and being terrorized by an evil oil executive in their
new movie”. He also states that Liberal Hollywood choosing to make a successful
business man evil is nothing new. From this statement you already get the idea
that Bolling is not a fan of a successful business man being viewed as evil.
Next, Boilling introduces Dan Gainor, who works at the media research center. Since Dan Gainor works at the research center, it shows that he is qualified to speak on the subject. Once Gainor appears on the screen the caption at the bottom introduces the question “Are liberals trying to brainwash your kids against capitalism?” Such a caption will grab majority of the audience’s attention because children are viewed as innocent and most people want to protect them as much as possible. To make his audience worry more he says things like “it’s amazing how far the left will go to manipulate your kids”, and “this is what we’re teaching our kids”. He also gives examples of other medias that portray the successful business man as evil such as: Cars 2, Captian Planet and etcetera. Then to make his audience feel bad he basically says that the media nerve shows how oil helps society.
After awhile Bolling interrupts Gainor and begins to make his self seem easy to relate to. He does this by informing his audience that he was poor growing up. Then he introduces his co-host, Andrea Tantoros. She starts off by saying that “It is brainwashing in the most obvious form and she wish that liberals would just leave little kids alone.” She also discusses the fact that they show a starving Muppet on Seasame Street and how little kids should not have to see such things. Andrea feels as if kids should only be aware of things like sharing and should not have to worry about any politic issues.
Last but not least, Caroline Heldaman, who is a political professor, begins to speak. Caroline believes that it is not brainwashing, it is a form of education. She has great view points but Bolling and Andrea continually interrupt her while she is speaking. They even go as far as raising their voices. I believe that this was their attempt to make Caroline look like she did not know what she was talking about, thus making their viewpoint seem stronger.
By the end of the discussion Bolling and Andrea make it seem as if the liberals are making it a bad thing to be rich and successful. This makes the audience view things differently because every parent wants their children to become successful in life.
Overall I feel as if Bolling did a horrible job at riding the fence during this discussion. It was very clear what his viewpoint was and it should not have been that way.
Next, Boilling introduces Dan Gainor, who works at the media research center. Since Dan Gainor works at the research center, it shows that he is qualified to speak on the subject. Once Gainor appears on the screen the caption at the bottom introduces the question “Are liberals trying to brainwash your kids against capitalism?” Such a caption will grab majority of the audience’s attention because children are viewed as innocent and most people want to protect them as much as possible. To make his audience worry more he says things like “it’s amazing how far the left will go to manipulate your kids”, and “this is what we’re teaching our kids”. He also gives examples of other medias that portray the successful business man as evil such as: Cars 2, Captian Planet and etcetera. Then to make his audience feel bad he basically says that the media nerve shows how oil helps society.
After awhile Bolling interrupts Gainor and begins to make his self seem easy to relate to. He does this by informing his audience that he was poor growing up. Then he introduces his co-host, Andrea Tantoros. She starts off by saying that “It is brainwashing in the most obvious form and she wish that liberals would just leave little kids alone.” She also discusses the fact that they show a starving Muppet on Seasame Street and how little kids should not have to see such things. Andrea feels as if kids should only be aware of things like sharing and should not have to worry about any politic issues.
Last but not least, Caroline Heldaman, who is a political professor, begins to speak. Caroline believes that it is not brainwashing, it is a form of education. She has great view points but Bolling and Andrea continually interrupt her while she is speaking. They even go as far as raising their voices. I believe that this was their attempt to make Caroline look like she did not know what she was talking about, thus making their viewpoint seem stronger.
By the end of the discussion Bolling and Andrea make it seem as if the liberals are making it a bad thing to be rich and successful. This makes the audience view things differently because every parent wants their children to become successful in life.
Overall I feel as if Bolling did a horrible job at riding the fence during this discussion. It was very clear what his viewpoint was and it should not have been that way.
Reflection:
I chose these five journal and moodle entries because I believe
that it shows that I have learned something during this class, and participated
like I was supposed. It also shows the progress of my thoughts of writing. I
went from thinking that good writing was mostly about grammar to realizing that
it takes more than that. I also learned how to take constructive criticism and
not automatically think that I am a bad writer because I have made a view
mistakes because of this I now look forward to receiving peer responses. I
personally feel like I have grown as a writer in this class.
No comments:
Post a Comment