"Tuning, Tying, and Training Texts"

In “Tuning, Tying and Training Texts” Barbara Tomlinson discusses eight different authors ways of revising their works.  I could relate to various revision stories because depending on what I’m writing, depends on how I’m going to revise it. The three stories that I think I use the most when revising are casting and recasting, sewing and tailoring, and lastly fixing things. I think these metaphors seem very true to me because I can relate to using them. Writing is a process, not just an action, so there are many steps involved in finishing a piece, and revision I would say is one of the most important.

            When it came to the Wikipedia article I think the story I used to revise the most was fixing things. In fixing things it is suggested that the writers who “fix things” don’t solve all of their problems at one time. I feel like this was the way I revised my page because I would handle each problem one at a time as they arose. The view history and discussion pages on Wikipedia can enrich our understanding of creating an article because these pages are designed to help us create the best article possible. Advice is being given to us on the discussion page. This advice is meant to help us know what we should add, or maybe take out of our article. It can help in the revision of a draft. The View History page can help us see what people have done to our original work, or what you should add to an original work. Both of these pages give us insight in different ways on how to better a Wikipedia page.

"Toward A Composing Model of Reading"

Looking back at the writing process used for project one, the word that comes to my mind is organized. From day one my writing process was done in an extremely organized fashion. From the day we were introduced to the project I began to plan out ideas for my Wikipedia page. This is one of the five steps to effective writing discussed in “Toward a Composing Model of Reading” by Tierney and Pearson. I planned by brainstorming topic ideas. Some of them didn’t work because they were not notable, or there already was an article on Wikipedia about the subject. Finally I planned out a notable topic that didn’t have an article on Wikipedia and I was ready to start drafting.

The second step I used during my writing process for this project was drafting. I began to draft my ideas on notebook paper. I looked at similar pages on Wikipedia and looked at the things they discussed and began to research and draft up my own page. After my first draft, we had a peer review session in class and I revised my first draft. This leads into my next process of writing, revision. After peer review, I fixed my article. During the peer review we also used the writing process known as aligning discussed by Tierney and Pearson. As I realigned I spent time rethinking my article and how I could improve it in various ways. This is different then revision because aligning is a step that can be done in one sitting, while looking at the text.

The final step is monitoring. I monitored and have continued to monitor my page every time I get on Wikipedia. I monitored the article as I was writing to expand and grow and develop more on the topic. Now I monitor the article every time I get on Wikipedia to make sure my article has not been deleted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Platte_Lake

"Intertextuality and the Discourse Community"

I do not believe that Porter is right in the article “Intertextuality and the Discourse Community.” I find it almost insulting to the brilliant writers and authors to claim that “books speak of books”. I think that to say that all text is unoriginal is a strong opinion that to me doesn’t seem at all valid. I believe that all types of writers are autonomous individuals. Autonomous meaning that they are responsible for what is in their text and they are free to do whatever they want with their texts. Obviously plagiarism is a serious issue in the writing world and Porter uses that as evidence, which I think is a weak and unreliable argument. Plagiarism is simply lazy writing when done purposely.  Saying that Thomas Jefferson “plagiarized” the Declaration of Independence may be true, but to use an issue that was unresolved in our country’s history as backup seems irrational.

Porter’s view challenges Murray’s view in almost every way possible. While Murray says every piece of writing comes from the author, Porter is completely saying the opposite, that every piece of writing is referring to another piece of writing and that all text is unoriginal. I agree more with Murray because as a college student, it is very obvious to see the differences in different authors writing, which would make them original. Obviously there are only so many words in the English language so similar words may be used when talking about the same topic but, sometimes its about how the content is organized and worded that makes for originality and good pure writing.

"All Writing is Autobiography"

In “All Writing is Autobiography” Donald M. Murray is asking us as the audience to consider the notion that our personal experiences, beliefs, and attitudes are reflected in our writing. He claims that all writing is autobiographical. This article greatly relates to our Wikipedia assignment because Wikipedia is supposed to be an objective source. Many times personal opinion can get in the way of the true facts of the matter. A personal bias can form and the objectivity of the writing can be lost. Looking on Wikipedia, people do not want to read about how great Ohio Univeristy is. That is a matter of opinion. They want to read the facts about Ohio University. Murray does make an excellent point, when he says that no matter the genre of writing, there is always something from your life put into it. I think this is true to a degree. I can’t help but read articles on Wikipedia and think they all sound like they have been written by the same author.

"Rhetorical Situations and Their Constituents"

In the article by Keith Grant-Davie entitled “Rhetorical Situations and Their Constituents” he discusses what makes up rhetorical situations and he challenges you to have an improved grasp on what rhetoric actually is. Grant-Davie defines rhetorical situations as “a set of related factors whose interaction creates and controls discourse.” (105) Rhetorical situations have many building blocks to them. These building blocks are called constituents. Constituents are things that limit the range of a speaker or writer. The following are the four constituents Grant-Davie discusses. First of all there must be a exigence, which is “what the discourse is about, what it is needed, and what it should accomplish.” (pg. 106) There should also be a rhetor, which is the author of the rhetorical situation. Next there should be an audience present. “….transcended idea of a homogenous body of people.” (109) Lastly, constraints are necessary for a rhetorical situation.  In his article Grant-Davie points out it is hardest to define constraints because, “The challenge for the rhetor is to decide which parts of the context bear on the situation enough to be considered constraints, and what to do about them..”(112) A compound rhetorical situation is “made up of closely related individual situations.” (113)

            It is defiantly important for us as college students to be aware of rhetorical situations and the constraints it creates because we need to be able to look at a piece of literary work and look at it on different levels. Not only reading the substance of the piece, but really digging deep and looking at the rhetorical factors. If we understand rhetoric when can become better readers and writers.

           

"The Phenomenology of Error"

In “The Phenomenology of Error” Joseph Williams defines the word construct:  “as a set of ideas woven together over time until they seem inevitable.” He also says that writing errors should be seen as social constructs. By this I think Williams means that writing errors are a problematic exchange between the reader and the writer. Williams says that a social error is a violation of personal space, but what defines personal space? Personal space is a matter of opinion. What offends one person, may not offend another. So, one person may recognize one thing as a grammar error and another person may not. It is all a matter of opinion and it depends if you’re looking for error or not. If you are looking for errors in writing or social situations, you will be likely to find them. When you are not looking you may overlook something.

This relates to the uncertainty of Wikipedia because anyone can make mistakes. Like anyone can create a Wikipedia article. Knowing that an average Joe with no background could put up information about something they may or may not know much about scares people and makes them question the credibility of the content. The proof the Wikipedia doesn’t have many more mistakes then the encyclopedia just reinforces Williams’ point that anyone can make an error. I think he was trying to say people trust the scholars and teachers and English books too much. Just because “the teacher says so” doesn’t always necessarily mean it is always correct. I think people still do not trust Wikipedia because it is not a concrete published (on paper) source. It can change at any given time and anyone has the power to do so. But in this article Williams proves, just because it is published, and by a credible author, doesn’t always mean it is error free.

Welcome to 308J

I am beginning this blog for my junior composition English course, but plan on keeping up with it after. But before I get into that, let me introduce myself to you all. My name is Emily Souders. I am a twenty-year-old junior at Ohio University from Cincinnati Ohio. I am a middle childhood education major, specializing in Social Studies and English.  I love writing and it has always been something that I have excelled in. My previous experience with English 151 was a pretty good one. I got an A in the class and did very well on all my assignments, and even got a letter to the editor published in the Athens Post. Just because I did well doesn’t mean it wasn’t a bit challenging. It was definitely a little difficult. The most rewarding thing I got from taking that course was the homework assignments. They were small fun prompts that we got to write daily. The least rewarding thing about English 151 would be the group Cion project we did. I didn’t enjoy working with a group regarding a novel because there were to many different opinions involved. The class could have been more effective if the teacher would have explained rhetoric and what he expected a bit more. Many of the students were confused because it was a class of all freshmen during our fall quarter.

I am excited to begin another English class. I think the course design looks like it will be challenging but also interesting. It differs from English 151 because it seems as though we will be integrating a lot of technology into the course then we did in English 151. I am apprehensive about the understanding of rhetoric just because it’s been two years since I’ve discussed it. I am excited because I love writing and English. I hope to enhance my abilities and skills as a writer.