Reading for Reflection: The Writer's Audience Is Always a Fiction by Walter J. Ong, S.J.
"Masks are inevitable in all human communication..." (Ong 74). I think that is such a great line. And it sums up a great deal of what Walter J. Ong is saying in this piece. Put simply, a writer's audience must step in to the role (or mask) that the writer has imagined them in.
I was mostly lost as to this point until I go to page 61 where Ong quotes Hemingway's A Farewell to Arms. Hemingway, he points out, uses one simple word that directs the reader: "that." Instead of saying, for example, what year it is or what town they are in ect. Hemingway says that or the indicating that the reader knows these details. Is there or has been their with the writer. It's so simple, and as a reader I've been doing it all my life. Just look at first person narratives; we step into the character's life, imagining ourselves as them. It never occurred to me to think of that as a connection to this idea of who is the "audience."
I'd have to agree with Ong in his opinions. I have always hated having to analyze my audience, because I don't know half the time who might wind up reading something, if anyone. The time that this is different is in email writing, and I think it's interesting that Ong brings up the fact that we have to assume the reader's mood upon receipt of the letter/email, and the reader then has to "put on the mood that you have fictionalized for him" (73).
With technology and blogs and all that is writing on the web, this issue is even further complicated. Because we really don't have any clue as to who our audience will be. We can only write to our imagined audience, or the people we'd hope to see reading. Or, for example, with facebook statuses we write with the fictionalized reader in mind of someone who cares about whatever it is we are saying.
Half the time, I think we just write to "hear ourselves talk." And we fictionalize an audience in the hope that someone out there actually does care.
Monday, October 24, 2011
Sunday, October 16, 2011
Gathering Notes
Admittedly, I haven't done the best job of updating my reflections on here. I have however been taking (somewhat illegible at times) notes in class and in my books on what we've been discussing that relate to my reflections. I shall hopefully be updating the missing posts within the next week or two. :)
Tuesday, September 6, 2011
Rhetorical Situations
Reading for Reflection: Rhetorical Situations and Their Constituents by Keith Grant-Davie
I read this article from Rhetoric Review in the book Writing about Writing: A College Reader. In the introduction to the reading the authors Elizabeth Wardle and Doug Downs make the point that "language does things" (101). It motivates and convinces and affects. Grant-Davie believes that there are four constituents to a rhetorical situation and they are exigence, rhetors, audiences, and constraints.
I was especially interested in the issue of there being multiple rhetors and audiences in certain rhetorical situations. For rhetors, Grant-Davie says they "need to consider who they are in a particular situation and be aware that their identity may vary from situation to situation." He also makes the point that rhetors can play several roles at once. The example he gives is a little league empire who is also the police chief. This isn't something I had considered, but it's more than true. In certain rhetorical situations where I am the rhetor I am both an expert and a student - I have more knowledge on certain subjects than my peers but I am still learning and that must be taken into context as well.
Though the author doesn't look at it specifically, he brings up an issue that is prominent because of new technology in communication/writing. Instead of a speech where the rhetor knows the majority of his audience and their characteristics, when writing there is no way to really know who is reading what you, as the rhetorician, have written. Audiences can not be yet formed, can vary, and can even only exist in the rhetor's mind (109-110). To deal with the issue of not knowing precisely who the audience is, Grant-Davie mentions a suggestion from Douglas Park which is "instead of asking "Who is the audience", Park recommends we ask how discourse "defines and creates contexts for readers'" (110). I think this is a great solution to writing online, as we have no way of knowing who is going to come across what we have written on the Internet.
The last thing that really caught my attention was whether we define a rhetorical situation as something with boundaries, as in a singular event or whether discussions and correspondence count. In my opinion, I would consider discussions and correspondence as singular rhetorical situations instead of looking at each discussion participant as one rhetoric with one rhetorical situation.
Rhetorical situations have varying definitions and understandings, that much is clear. But what is important is to understand it as far as your own rhetorical situation as the rhetorician.
I read this article from Rhetoric Review in the book Writing about Writing: A College Reader. In the introduction to the reading the authors Elizabeth Wardle and Doug Downs make the point that "language does things" (101). It motivates and convinces and affects. Grant-Davie believes that there are four constituents to a rhetorical situation and they are exigence, rhetors, audiences, and constraints.
I was especially interested in the issue of there being multiple rhetors and audiences in certain rhetorical situations. For rhetors, Grant-Davie says they "need to consider who they are in a particular situation and be aware that their identity may vary from situation to situation." He also makes the point that rhetors can play several roles at once. The example he gives is a little league empire who is also the police chief. This isn't something I had considered, but it's more than true. In certain rhetorical situations where I am the rhetor I am both an expert and a student - I have more knowledge on certain subjects than my peers but I am still learning and that must be taken into context as well.
Though the author doesn't look at it specifically, he brings up an issue that is prominent because of new technology in communication/writing. Instead of a speech where the rhetor knows the majority of his audience and their characteristics, when writing there is no way to really know who is reading what you, as the rhetorician, have written. Audiences can not be yet formed, can vary, and can even only exist in the rhetor's mind (109-110). To deal with the issue of not knowing precisely who the audience is, Grant-Davie mentions a suggestion from Douglas Park which is "instead of asking "Who is the audience", Park recommends we ask how discourse "defines and creates contexts for readers'" (110). I think this is a great solution to writing online, as we have no way of knowing who is going to come across what we have written on the Internet.
The last thing that really caught my attention was whether we define a rhetorical situation as something with boundaries, as in a singular event or whether discussions and correspondence count. In my opinion, I would consider discussions and correspondence as singular rhetorical situations instead of looking at each discussion participant as one rhetoric with one rhetorical situation.
Rhetorical situations have varying definitions and understandings, that much is clear. But what is important is to understand it as far as your own rhetorical situation as the rhetorician.
Monday, August 29, 2011
What Counts as Writing?
Reading for Reflection: Introduction: Writing and Recording Knowledge by Elizabeth Hill Boone
Looking at Pre-Colombian America and what they used as forms of communication raises the question of boundary lines between writing and art and between pre-literate and literate. Boone presents the idea that pictographs, hieroglyphic and other non-alphabetic Pre-Colombian fit into the definition of writing. This is a highly debated issue crossing fields between anthropologists, linguists and more.
I would agree that these markings are communication. I think that DeFrancis is completely off track in saying that "The forthwrite answer to how pictographs work as a system is they don't...It is at best exceedingly limited in what it can express and who is able to understand it." (7) My argument would be that they understood it. The civilization of the time new that those pictures had meaning outside of art. It can be paralleled to our society today using "Txting Tlk." That wouldn't be understood by the many other generations of people who didn't have texting. Even some older people still alive today can't understand it.
I also disagree that notation systems should be included in the definition of writing. (9) It is just that, a notation, not writing. It does having meaning, but it is my opinion, much opposed to Boone, that to be writing it must have whatever passes as "words" in that society. (The social influence is another topic that could be discussed, though it may take another post at another time.) At the most, notations would be considered a form of writing, or non-traditional writing.
The real issue I see when reading through is introduction is "What is Communication." This is related but not the same as "What is Writing." For example both notations and traditional writing are communication, but not necessarily writing.
This post has barely scratched the surface of this issue and of my thoughts on the matter, but there is a whole semester yet to work on this all some more.
Looking at Pre-Colombian America and what they used as forms of communication raises the question of boundary lines between writing and art and between pre-literate and literate. Boone presents the idea that pictographs, hieroglyphic and other non-alphabetic Pre-Colombian fit into the definition of writing. This is a highly debated issue crossing fields between anthropologists, linguists and more.
I would agree that these markings are communication. I think that DeFrancis is completely off track in saying that "The forthwrite answer to how pictographs work as a system is they don't...It is at best exceedingly limited in what it can express and who is able to understand it." (7) My argument would be that they understood it. The civilization of the time new that those pictures had meaning outside of art. It can be paralleled to our society today using "Txting Tlk." That wouldn't be understood by the many other generations of people who didn't have texting. Even some older people still alive today can't understand it.
I also disagree that notation systems should be included in the definition of writing. (9) It is just that, a notation, not writing. It does having meaning, but it is my opinion, much opposed to Boone, that to be writing it must have whatever passes as "words" in that society. (The social influence is another topic that could be discussed, though it may take another post at another time.) At the most, notations would be considered a form of writing, or non-traditional writing.
The real issue I see when reading through is introduction is "What is Communication." This is related but not the same as "What is Writing." For example both notations and traditional writing are communication, but not necessarily writing.
This post has barely scratched the surface of this issue and of my thoughts on the matter, but there is a whole semester yet to work on this all some more.
Tuesday, August 23, 2011
How We Write and Learn to Write
Article for Reflection: What's Right with Writing by Linda Rief
I was lucky. I had the absolute best English teacher in high school. I actually still keep in touch with her and she is currently completing her masters at UNI while continuing to teach high school english. She followed a lot of the rules that Reif mentions in this article, so it is easy for me to forget that not everyone had that while they were learning to write.
My Conception of Writing
Writing is a way of understanding. Whether it is understanding ourselves, a historical figure, a topic, or the world in general. Reif has a couple great quotes along these lines:
1. Writing let's us communicate what we know and helps us think of things we didn't know until we began writing. Writing is one way of communicating our understandings and misunderstandings of ourselves and the world. (33)
2. [Writing] helps us pay attention to the world. Good writing lets writer and reader learn or think or feel something. Putting words on paper gives us a voice -- allows us to be heard. (35)
Those who write, creatively or otherwise, have an instinctual understanding of this. However Reif puts it into words as it has value for teaching writing. Reading it, as we learn to write through reading, also helps us as writers understand why we are compelled to write and how we we write. The importance of reading mentioned in the article is also noteworthy. Reif says that "a person can read with out writing, but can not write with out reading" (34). However I think that writing is just as essential to reading, for, as previously stated, writing is a way of understanding. I know that I personally have learned more about any and every piece of literature by writing about it than by purely reading about it. Writing helps you access those understandings that you can't quite verbalize in conversation without writing it out first. And on a final note regarding writing to understand our world, Reif mentions that the only way to become "thoughtful citizens of the world" (35) is by writing. "They must commit their thinking to paper."
I was lucky. I had the absolute best English teacher in high school. I actually still keep in touch with her and she is currently completing her masters at UNI while continuing to teach high school english. She followed a lot of the rules that Reif mentions in this article, so it is easy for me to forget that not everyone had that while they were learning to write.
My Conception of Writing
Writing is a way of understanding. Whether it is understanding ourselves, a historical figure, a topic, or the world in general. Reif has a couple great quotes along these lines:
1. Writing let's us communicate what we know and helps us think of things we didn't know until we began writing. Writing is one way of communicating our understandings and misunderstandings of ourselves and the world. (33)
2. [Writing] helps us pay attention to the world. Good writing lets writer and reader learn or think or feel something. Putting words on paper gives us a voice -- allows us to be heard. (35)
Those who write, creatively or otherwise, have an instinctual understanding of this. However Reif puts it into words as it has value for teaching writing. Reading it, as we learn to write through reading, also helps us as writers understand why we are compelled to write and how we we write. The importance of reading mentioned in the article is also noteworthy. Reif says that "a person can read with out writing, but can not write with out reading" (34). However I think that writing is just as essential to reading, for, as previously stated, writing is a way of understanding. I know that I personally have learned more about any and every piece of literature by writing about it than by purely reading about it. Writing helps you access those understandings that you can't quite verbalize in conversation without writing it out first. And on a final note regarding writing to understand our world, Reif mentions that the only way to become "thoughtful citizens of the world" (35) is by writing. "They must commit their thinking to paper."
This thing called Writing
Defining writing has often been the topic of debate in my classes. Is it strictly putting words down whether digitally or physically writing them, or is it more than that? While I wouldn't go so far as to say that what we choose to wear or facial expressions and the like count as writing, I do think they count as communicating, which I think is how they get thrown into the mix of what is writing. Writing to me has to be in word form whether digitally or otherwise. However I do stand in opposition to those who say that the little things we write, such as status updates on Facebook or twitter, do not count as "real writing." They are every bit as much writing as anything else as they are still communicating something in word format. Another blurred line is design. I do think that this is invaluable in regards to communication (the psychology of colors and other design aspects just can't be ignored in terms of communicating) however whether they could be considered "writing" is still something I have to decide upon.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)