Fashionably late, as always.

Honestly, I am usually good with computers and technology and figuring things out, but tonight, I’ve had no such luck. Especially with the fact that you showed us how to post a blog IN CLASS last Tuesday, I should be more than aware of how to post a to our class blog. But nope, it is five minutes to twelve on the day that the assignment is due, and I am scrambling to try to find out where to post. I completely understand if you take points off for my being late in turning in the assignment, but I assure you, once I get acquainted with how to actually post, it will never happen again. I think I need to, as Theodore Roethke stated, “…find my way by going where I have to go”. I, Brittanie DiMura, a junior Secondary Education major, find that most of my life is developed on the trial and error approach, which unfortunately, most circumstances lay in the error category.

I would just like to say, that I love Ramage. He is awesome. He discusses the topics the way I often think about them: sometimes backwards, sometimes forwards, sometimes round about, sometimes inside out; I really enjoyed his writing style and technique. I was almost intimidated by his introduction and the way he described that he was going to explain rhetoric (I will not tell you what it is, but what it is not, and what it is like…) but as he went along, I understood his approach and appreciated it. The way he introduced rhetoric was pretty unconventional—usually the initial topic of a book is not the ideas opposing the main idea (and the title) of the work, but with this, Ramage demonstrates his bold and daring approach from the get-go.

The description of the opposing viewpoints thoroughly laid out the idea of rhetoric, and the explanation of what rhetoric isn’t, as was Ramage’s aim most likely, proceeded to give me more insight into what rhetoric actually is. By considering how rhetoric opposes so-called “real disciplines” or Socratic viewpoints, Ramage evoked my consideration of what category I actually fell into. And, consequently, I’d have to say that my vote is now cast in the rhetoric direction. I never realized the capacity I had for rhetoric until I read this chapter. When Ramage discussed the idea that rhetoric can stand for multiple stances at once, I immediately could relate because I am so gray on so many areas of conflict that face the lives of young adults today. While many can proclaim their stance as liberal or conservative, I find that I can argue in either direction on any debatable topic, just as though I personally stood for either position myself, which many times I can’t say that I do. My way of thinking is not unlike that of rhetoricians, and thus, they have enabled me to feel as though I may finally have a place in this world besides an insane asylum.

^^^The above was written a little less than a week ago, and I have finally found out how to post to this blog as opposed to some random one that I found that I created by accident. So, maybe I will actually maybe be able to do things on time from now on. I realized that I didn't thoroughly introduce myself, so I'll proceed to do that now.
Like I said, I'm Brittanie DiMura, and I'm a junior Secondary Ed. English major. I live on campus and have for the past two years. I also played rugby for the past two years, which I loved, but this semester, due to scheduling conflicts, I unfortunately won't be able to play. I never played before college, but after randomly joining the team freshman year, I realized that I have a bunch of pent up aggression--most likely from being bullied by my older brother all my life.
Speaking of which, I am the youngest of my three siblings, who are significantly older than me, which results in my having six amazing nieces and nephews. I have two wonderful, ridiculously conservative, traditional Christian parents, and my upbringing has contributed to my strong devotion to my faith today. I am involved in Kutztown Christian Fellowship and I've lead a women's Bible study for the past three semesters. If anyone is interested in coming, this semester I'm leading one with a wonderful girl named Amy in the SUB coffee shop Monday nights at 9:30PM. I also work at the bookstore, so I'll probably be seeing all you English majors more than once this semester there. Last semester I needed twenty-seven books! Another passion of mine is music, and this semester I joined AfterHours, which is an AMAZING jazz vocal group on campus (if you've ever been to one of their concerts, you'd concur...).
My favorite author is Dostoevsky, although Tolstoy is a close second; Russian lit is definitely my top literary indulgence. I'm really drawn to thorough, analytical writing, which is why C.S. Lewis, although not Russian, peaks my interest as well.
I think that pretty much covers it...anything else you're wondering about you'll just have to ask me about.

Isn't he kind?

Assignment Part II:
Persuasion is one of those things that is used constantly but is hardly studied or even cared about. No one decides what type of persuasion they are going to use before they attempt to affect another person. Honestly, I had never even realized that a whole spectrum of persuasion existed! I understand that coercion (on the far right side of the continuum) is not necessarily bad; however, with the example of propaganda attached to it, I find believing in coercion to be very difficult. Persuading with no real conclusion is not at all honest, but is a clever and tempting way to sway minds. How do you think society gets us to buy certain products? Coercion, baby! The middle ground of the continuum displays a healthy balance between pure persuasion and coercion -- legal reasoning. Since this purer version of persuasion has a little good and evil mixed into it.. it makes itself more "user friendly." Though this was also discussed in the beginning of the book I still find my understanding of it a little fuzzy. On the other end of the continuum lie literary texts, "where persuasion approaches purity" (75). This side of the spectrum seems hardest to work with. It is so pure that only the truth is used; there are no loopholes or vague conclusions. No one text books seem so life threatening to read. =).

Is it important to analyze the rhetorical situation because that is what will give the reader a better understanding of the argument that exists ahead. It also shows the argument's strengths and weaknesses so we can determine how believable the material is. The only way one can persuade another is to understand the full message, or rhetorical act. Without that understanding, the material would useless.

Persuasion differs from coercion in many ways, and yes, this distinction matters greatly! Coercion "relies primarily on the suppression of alternatives (73)." In other words, it keeps breaking down one point until there is nothing left but some sort of conclusion. The audience breaks down, so to speak, with it and, eventually, gives in.. believing whatever there is to believe. It turns something that may or may not happen into a reality without any real promise of a solid outcome. Persuasion, on the other hand, takes more truth into consideration. It gives the audience a solid answer and conclusion, and then backs the conclusion up with solid reasoning and facts. In turn, the audience believes that the given conclusion is good. Coercion makes us believe what we think we need, and persuasion helps up believe what we should.

Ramage makes the claims he does because he wants us to understand that even though persuasion and coercion are very different, they are being used as one in the same more and more. He wants us to realize that most people start to use pure persuasion in their works but become discouraged and turn to coercion as their alternative. I don't think Ramage wants us to fall into that pattern.. so he warns us ahead of time . Isn't he kind?

Again, as with the first, I was a little confused by this chapter. I'm hoping my thoughts are significant. See you all on Tuesday!

Self introduction and a look at rhetoric

Hello again everybody,
My names Drew Ickes. This will be my second year hear at Kutztown, and my second class taught by Prof. Mahoney. Yep, that rhetorical style open-mindedness of a lecture must have apparently left a lasting impression. Currently I'm undeclared, but I have a good idea my major will involve English.
After reading the first 32 pages of Rhetoric: A User's Guide by John Ramage, I soon found out that the author's definition of rhetoric is never openly declared. So I decided to go with Aristotle's "legendary" definition instead; "the capacity to find the available means of persuasion in a given circumstance"-page 7. Simple, but surprisingly on point with what Ramage has expressed in his writing. Though cynical at times, Ramage does a great job explaining the historical and social implications of rhetoric throughout mankind. He speaks of rhetoric as if it always coincides with personal agenda and in all circumstances is used for selfish purpose. Believing the world is a place of interpretation, and this persuasive concept is used as a philosophical device, to gain support by others through intelligent argument.

For those who doubt their existence..

I'm going to post two blogs for these assignments, simply for easier reading.

Assignment Part I:
Rhetoric and Identity -- the most interesting and understandable section of this book so far. Ramage’s ideas of the human identity are fascinating, but, to me, they are not much different from other theorist’s opinions (such as Freud’s id, ego and superego). My question is.. what is so great about the number three? Why do all of these people use that number to divide our identities? I'm sure this question has no solid answer, so I'll move on and give you my insight on this chapter.

Ramage cleverly divides our identity into three dimensions: the "given," the "readymade," and the "constructed." In there own way, all of these dimensions are related and interchangeable; they are also completely opposite. I find the "given" identity the most real. It is the part of us that we cannot necessarily change. The time and place we were born, who we were conceived from, how we grew up - we can't control any of these. We can, however, take parts of what we are given and alter them to fit our desires. For example, one cannot help that he or she was given a large nose, but that person can decide to get plastic surgery to reshape it.. if it is desired. There seems to be two sides to this identity: that which we can alter, and that which we are forced to deal with. Not all things can be changed so we adapt to them and make them suitable. As Ramage mentioned, this is the most boring part of our identity.

The "readymade" identity is a little more complicated. These are the parts of identity are installed in us by others. We have no say in constructing this part of our identity, others do it for us. What makes this so complicated? Well, there are three parts of this dimension: workplace, consumer, and cultural. Most humans come in contact with all three of these parts at least once in their lives. The workplace readymade deals with our jobs and our employers. They construct our identities through work ethic and responsibility. The consumer readymade consists of merchants or anyone who sells us something. This readymade constructs the part of our identity that deals with people and other similar situations. Lastly, there is the cultural readymade, or those who want to sort our priorities in life. These readymades want to construct our identity for better or for worse, with morals, bad habits, or other sorts of things. I found this part of our identity to be most confusing.. but I think I get the main "gist" of it. We cannot control this identity.. we can only live with it and hope it controls us in a positive way. The last part of our identity, according to Ramage, is the "constructed." This identity was hardest for me to grasp. Basically, from what I understand, we take what we can and leave what we must. This is the part of our identity that we ourselves construct. We cannot, however, construct our identity out of nothing so we take anything available that is in the preset limits and boundaries. As always, we can reject whatever we choose and accept the rest.. whatever we want! It's our identity, lets go with the flow and construct a better identity!

As with all of these, they are not noticeable; they exist only in theory. We do not walk around and say, "Hmm.. what part of my given identity can I alter today?" We do all of these things subconsciously. I believe that, with Freud's theory as well, this is just an easier way for humans to understand themselves and what role they play in life. It is no more than a learning tool for those who doubt their own existence in the world – which is most of the human population.

Hoorah for rhetoric! Thank you for making life easier to deal with.

well, this will hopefully work this time.

Ramage

I think that Ramage's use of the "Anti-Rhetorical spokesperson" is an effective tool. Ramage utilizes this "person" as a vehicle to make the point that one must employ rhetoric in his/her attempt to express the uselessness of rhetoric. So the anti-rhetorical spokesperson is essentially talking themselves into a paradoxical corner. I assume the reason for Ramage's use of this person prior to his retort is to "frame the debate." I personally find it more effective to have someone respond to accusations, etc. than to make thier point sans a frame of reference. Therefore I think that this move by Ramage is good strategy-wise.
So far I am enjoying Ramage, but at times I get a little lost in his extended metaphors and examples, that to me, seem to border on tangents that get slightly off topic. I also struggle with the lack of a concrete definition for rhetoric. I understand that such a thing does not technically exist, but it still makes me a little uneasy. When there is not a concrete definition I find it hard to tell whether or not I am fully grasping the concept.

I'm Finally Writing a Post?!

So it has only taken me a week to get around to writing an intro! But I figured I can just add my thoughts on Ramage into this blog, in turn saving myself the trouble of writing a whole new entry. Anyway here is my intro. . .

My name is Mary Ellen Koning, and I'm a Secondary Education English major. I know my major is so unique compared to everyone else in our class. Haha. I am a junior, and I live in Golden Bear South. I come from a little town in northern New Jersey named Vernon, you've probably never heard of it, but that's okay. Back in Vernon, my parents and my sister, Lisa live. My sister is going into her senior year, and hopefully ends up at Kutztown next year. Here at Kutztown I am a sister of the Delta Zeta sorority, and I work in the English Department (because I really love spending 90% of my day in Lytle haha). When I'm older I want to join the Peace Corps and help out people in this world who are as fortunate as some of us are. I am obsessed with every kind of music, and it is a small victory for me when I find bands that no one else knows about. I am trying to learn how to cook, because my past attempts have proven I need more practice, so I religiously watch the Food Network Channel. If you have a slight obsession with this channel like me, then we should be friends, because most of mine make fun of me for this. Haha. Oh by the way I do that alot. As in the "haha", because in person and apparently on the computer I generally laugh alot. I probably should add that I always have an embarassing smile on my face too, I think I love life too much. Someone else wrote in their blog how they love the simple things in life, and I had to put this as well, because this is true for me. I despise people who waste their lives away worrying about petty things, and don't appreciate the days they do have. I make sure I make the most out of life, and usually can be caught with a camera in hand trying to capture every memory being made. I am easy going and friendly, so if you ever want someone to talk to I clearly can be that person because as you can see...I LOVE TO TALK! (well in this case write...but it amounts to the same idea).

So...I'm gonna start talking about Ramage, and stop talking about myself...haha...
At the begginning of my journey into the first 32 pages and towards the end, I found the Ramge text to be a bit dull. I think I felt this way because he made it clear that he was not going to just give us a clear definition of what rhetoric is. I was hoping for this, so this was a big dissapointment. However, Ramage did keep my attention during the Anti- Rhetoric Spokesperson section. I found his writing to be enjoyable and quite funny at times. Don't tell anyone but I would snicker to myself every once and a while (midly embarrassing). What I did take from this book thus far is my ability to see that rhetoric applies to everything in life, not just literature. This is something I hadn't thought of yet, but Ramage opened my eyes to this fact. I feel this post is somewhat incomplete because I don't feel I read enough to understand much about rhetoric. Part of Ramge's text was a little hard to understand, leaving me currently confused about some of it. I hope with the next reading my confusion clears up and I have a better understanding of rhetoric.

"He must be a poor creature who cannot advance a good reason for everything ,even for what is worst and depraved."-Hegel

When I began to read Rhetoric, I had no prior knowledge of the topic or what rhetoric even meant. After reading the first chapter, I think I got a pretty good idea of what it means. My interpretation of rhetoric is that it is not a single definition rather it is a way of life. As Ramage states, there can be "Serious People", and "Rhetoric People". While "Serious People" base life off of reasoning and fact, "Rhetoric People" will live on intuition, experience and the understanding that each situation and its outcome will differ as no situation is ever the same, nor is your thinking from day to day. Being a rhetoric individual is one who recognizes every situation creates a different conclusion. "You will never step in the same river twice," said Heraclitus. I believe that someone who considers themselves a "Rhetoric Person" will believe in the previous quote as opposed to Parmenides quote, "You step in one river, you've stepped in 'em all." Although I am not completely confident in my understanding of the term rhetoric, that is my understanding of the term.


I think it was interesting how the anti-rhetoric view seemed to believe that rhetoric holds no truth and it is simply a way to justify decisions. However as Ramage goes on, I feel he did prove that rhetoric holds truth. If rhetoric is the idea that no two situations are the same, then he proves that theory with the example of how Americans use to view "cruel and unusual punishment" and how they view it presently . If the correct way of life is to think, one-dimensionally and always stay true to your attitudes to something no matter what, then those people should agree that cruel and unusual punishment is okay, because that's what they did in the 1800's. If fact is fact and we should always stick to what has been done before and never question anything, then the ones who thinks that way should agree with capital punishment, 14 year old children getting pregnant, and women without rights. I mean, that's what they did earlier in this world. A "Serious person",as Ramage calls them, should agree with all the above. Rhetoric is asking questions and challenging the meanings of words, without rhetoric people's thoughts would be the same as they were to those who lived in the 18th century. I especially liked that portion of the chapter. I felt that Ramage was proving his point with me, that rhetoric is a real thing and it should have its own value in the world.

Overall when I walked away from Rhetoric, I left with a good feeling in my body. I, for the most part, enjoyed it. With any reading, I got restless at parts, however I felt like this book picked itself up quickly. I liked Ramage's use of metaphors, because it helped me understand some of the word jargon that he would occasionally use. I look forward to being able to fully indulge myself in a topic that I have no prior knowledge on.

Introduction/Thoughts on Ramage

Hi! My name is Jamie Himmelreich and I'm a Secondary Education English major. I am currently partaking in the dreaded professional semester and will be student teaching in the spring. As sick and f-ed up as it is I am not exactly sure wtf rhetoric is and hopefully will exit this class with more of an understanding. I read the first chapter of the Ramage book and already feel like things are becoming clear. I must say that for a textbookish situation Ramage is quite reader friendly. Kudos on that. I shall return to post my thoughts on chapter 1. I am a bit pressed for time at the present. Awayyyyyyyyyy.

My name is Rachel L. Werner

Sorry, it took so long for me to introduce myself. I've been trying to figure out how to get to the site but I think I've got it now. My name is Rachel L. Werner, I'm a junior Secondary Education English major. I'm a commuter from Easton and I live with my parents. I have a dream of one day really inspiring those that I will eventually teach, but enough of that. I have a sister who is in the Army National guard and is going through boot camp as we speak, which really intimidates and scares me. I work a full time job as a Credit Coordinator at Lowe's. The job is alright but it gets crazy every now and then. I have a boyfriend of two years who works three jobs. He is a CNA at my local hospital, he works part time at Lowe's, and at a Video Game store. He has a lot of determination and a lot of will power. He is 26 years old and wants to buy a house before he is 28. I admire him for that and the fact that he loves me.
Anyways, I love live in general and over the last few years I have really come to appreciate it. I lost my cousin last May who was my age and one of my best friends. He committed suicide. It really made me mad at the world, and my beliefs because he totally contradicted them in dieing. It made me want more for myself and for my family. It has brought me closer to his sister, and my family. My appreciation of life, I think also grows from the fact that well I've grown up and I always want more out of life. I love helping others, although I hate asking for help hence why this blog took forever for me to post. I couldn't figure it out and it made me feel really stupid. Oh well.
I spend most of my time between school, work, and my family. I enjoy simple things like playing with my two German shepherds Jamine (12), and Belle (8 months). I also love spending my Sunday mornings at church with my family. I love going to the beach which i haven't done in over three years, and I love doing things that most think are not practical. When i was sixteen i went bungee jumping, and for my 21st this year I'm going Sky diving. I love the adventure life has to offer. I'm a person who enjoys the little things i guess, as well as the big things life has to offer.

Why couldn't it have been Rhetoric in fifty words or less?

Ahhhh!!! First of all, I'd like to say that this completely frustrated me. I had no idea that rhetoric was such a complex concept. Although the first page warned me that this chapter was not meant to tell "flat out what rhetoric is in fifty words or less," I was expecting a little better understanding than I am walking away with (Ramage 1). Don't get me wrong, I understand that rhetoric is used to persuade people in one way or another. People use it every day, but this is the only understanding I truly got out of the introduction, and I already new this about rhetoric. I truly felt like I was reading the same thing over and over again.

The Anti-Rhetoric Spokesperson, on the other hand, I enjoyed reading about. Although Ramage goes through great feats to try and explain anti-rhetoric, it seemed to me that it was just another attempt at explaining what rhetoric is. Ramage was just simply using rhetoric to convince us that there is an "Anti-Rhetoric Spokesperson." All that the Anti-Rhetoric Spokesperson was doing was trying to convince the reader that the people who practice rhetoric on a daily basis are wrong in doing so, when in fact he is doing just that. Trying to convince people that rhetoric is "immoral" is rhetoric in itself. It holds no truth, yet that does not matter as long as it has an "effect on an audience" which it obviously does, or this particular section of this book would have no purpose (Ramage 5). I believe this is why Ramage explains the Anti-Rhetoric Spokesperon before actually going into any detail about rhetoric itself. The section is meant to provoke thought.

Although I was not completely engaged in my reading throughout the entire introduction, I am hoping that the rest of the book, as well as class discussions, will help me to understand rhetoric more. Before I read this section, I looked up rhetoric in the Webster's Dictionary and this is what it said:

Main Entry: rhet·o·ricPronunciation:
're-t&-rikFunction: nounEtymology: Middle English rethorik, from
Anglo-French rethorique, from Latin rhetorica, from Greek rhEtorikE, literally,
art of oratory, from feminine of rhEtorikos of an orator, from rhEtOr orator,
rhetorician, from eirein to say, speak -- more at WORDDate:
14th century1 : the art of speaking or writing effectively: as a : the study of
principles and rules of composition formulated by critics of ancient times b :
the study of writing or speaking as a means of communication or persuasion2 a :
skill in the effective use of speech b : a type or mode of language or speech;
also : insincere or grandiloquent language3 : verbal communication : DISCOURSE

By reading this entry, I was a little more open to the fact of reading a book on rhetoric and understood its purpose in an advanced compostion class. I hope that by studying this book, I can learn to speak and write more effectively.

Method, Hodos, Slow - Food, wha?

So, I just finished reading the introduction to the Ramage text, and I must admit it was an interesting experience, to say the least. I have mixed feelings about the reading, although some things seemed to be way over my head.

First of all, I really thought that beginning through the voice of someone who was Anti - Rhetoric was pretty interesting. Rhetoric, at least to me, has a somewhat vague and hazy definition. Ramage allowed us to form our own opinions on what exactly Rhetoric was and what we thought of it as a way of thinking. Although these opinions may change in the following chapters, I still find that it was a really great way to start the book. It engaged us from the get go.

Apart from the engaging first few sections, I oftentimes found myself just jumping from line to line with my eyes waiting for him to finally get his point across. Metaphors are a big thing with Ramage, as far as I can discern, but sometimes it feels as though he can't tie things together neatly at the end. Perhaps I am more a "Serious Person". Despite the somewhat wordy paragraphs, I really loved his use of different philosophical ideas (particularly about free-will) and how Rhetoric related to it, as a means of expressing your ideas and opinions freely. It made me even more curious about how I can utilize rhetoric in my writing.

I hope the discussions in class will help clear up the areas of the text that seemed a bit foggy. Overall though, it wasn't too bad, and I'm interested to see what the next chapter holds.

Oh, Rhetoric..

After reading Ramage's thoughts on Rhetoric, I must admit my mind is spinning. Though I have dealt with Rhetoric before I have never actually studied it in this much detail. I have come to the conclusion that Rhetoric can either be a wonderful or dreadful thing. It has no boundaries, but yet contains so much detail. How can one subject possibly pose so many questions, metaphors and confrontations? It is one of those love/hate relationships. Ramage seems to be very passionate about rhetoric; he doesn't merely explain it.. he tells its story. He really want us, as readers, to understand the positives of the subject and not just push up our noses and walk away. I like that.

Now, about the Anti-Rhetoric Spokesperson? Well, as Ramage said himself, "our Anti-Rhetoric Spokesperson is actually Anti-Rhetoric Spokepersona" (pg. 8). It is a tool. Or, even better, a way of our own thinking. This "person" is used to challenge our own minds into understanding Rhetoric. I think Ramage uses this way of introduction to catch our attention. Why use the same dull way of text book writing? Mix it up a little! He wants us to understand BOTH sides of the argument, that way we have no biases and can start the course with an open mind. Sure, our biases will probably lean more for Rhetoric, but it's good to give the other side a fair chance before completely jumping to conclusions.

I'm hoping this first blog on the subject makes sense and at least kind of displays my thoughts on Ramages explanations. Making complete sense of the material will have to wait until our discussions in class and online, however. Looking forward to everyone else’s thoughts!

Rambling Ramage

Ramage did a good job of both keeping my attention and confusing me. I'll start out with the sections I enjoyed and understood. I loved how he used a conversational tone and he never once gave out an answer point blank. These two techniques combined, held my interest and forced me to think. I also thought that his use use of the "Anti-Rhetorical Spokesperson" was extremely clever. Ramage started out by introducing this persona to show how rhetoric is an essential part of life and that one must even use rhetoric to denounce it. His use of metaphor was also helpful in most cases. The images of fast food versus slow cooking especially stuck out in my mind and they really helped to drive the concepts of action versus motion home
As much as I enjoyed Ramage's writing style, especially compared to that of a normal text book, I felt like there were times when he was just rambling away. For example take a look at the section "Before There was Method, There was Hodos." Ramage first breaks down the history and meaning behind the word method but then he goes on to discuss the concepts of "tao" and "dharma." I understand that they all have a similar meaning which is "way" but I had a difficult time understanding what all this has to do with Rhetoric.
Overall I think that Ramage has a lot of interesting ideas so far, but I'm worried that I'll get more confused as he introduces more meat in the text to come.

Ramage and Rhetoric, and what I think I thought of them

After 32 pages of reading, one would think that I should have wrapped my head around the idea of rhetoric. However, one should never assume anything, because I have about ten definitions running through my head of what rhetoric is, or at least what I think it is. But, then again, I guess that is my first problem. Ramage makes a pretty big deal out of pointing out that rhetoric exists as a means of doing many things, but that it doesn't definitively label anything. If I understood anything that I read, rhetoric is 1) unavoidable-we all use it in some way, even when we are trying to NOT use it, 2) practical-much of today's world is circumstantial, so sticking, or trying to stick, to one set of concrete rules/practices is nonsensical, and, 3) confusing-you think you know, but you have no idea.

The Anti-Rhetorical Spokespersona was I think the clearest section of this reading, simply because Ramage took a statement, and explained the opposite, which worked to help me gain an understanding of what rhetoric is and how it functions, however, instead of putting the book down for a while, I figured I'd just get the rest of the assignment done and finish the section--WHAT A MISTAKE!!! After the section that I am intelligent enough to comprehend, he moves on to a bunch of different analogies and metaphors which seemed really creative and fitting to his goal of introducing rhetoric, or at least I think they did.

The hardest part of the metaphors for me was that there was just so much going on. I would get one idea figured out, and then he would move on to his next point, which I would then figure out, but by the time he made the connection between the two ideas, I had already completely forgotten the first one. Plus, he brought up so many amazingly thought provoking concepts, that I would read pages, but not actually pay attention to it because I was so caught up in the concept of a river-does one never step into the same river twice, or is every river you step into the same? Is time constantly moving, or is it consistently still? It's just crazy, I can't figure it out.

Overall, I think I kinda have a slight idea of what is going on, and hopefully another reading will clarify some of the fogginess. I like this book though-I thought it would be just another boring textbook, but Ramage is actually pretty funny, and easy to read. Not conceptually of course, but it feels kinda like he is talking to the reader, not teaching them something, which is a cool writing technique. He's also a smartass, and I like that, too-it's pretty entertaining.

~Amber~

Heyy my name's Renee

Hello everyone, my name is Renee. I've changed my major 4 times and luckily on the 4th try I decided to write. So, I just recently entered the English/prof. writing department and I'm really enjoying the courses I take and the people I interact with. After school, I want to be a journalist. I need to decide on a minor so I'm thinking political science might be good if I want to become a journalist. I enjoy reading the newspaper and have always been interested in current events and politics.
I live on campus, but my hometown is Nazareth, PA. If you don't know where that is, it is close to Bethlehem. I have 2 brothers, Jason and Matthew. Jason just got done serving the U.S. Navy and is currently going to school at Westchester University. My younger brother, Matthew, is 13 and obsessed with football. My dad's an engineer and my mom works for Hartford insurance, my parents are pretty cool.
Okay, its getting harder and harder to think of things to say about me. Anyway, I work at Sicily's pizza and I waitress there. Everyday at work I think about how much I hate being a waitress. However, I get really happy when I remember that I go to college, because hopefully, after I have a college degree, I won't have to wait on people anymore.
Well that's pretty much all you need to know about me, my name's Renee and I'm looking forward to this class and getting to know everyone.

I'm kind of a big deal.

So to begin this blogger I'd like to mention the fact that although I've never done anything like this, I'm going to try to entertain the masses with the exciting facts of my life (cough,cough) in today's blogger and do my best on the future blog postings. Well, to start off, my name is Megan Campbell and I'm a sophmore at Kutztown. My major is English Literature- straight up. haha. So far the first week of classes have gone pretty smoothly, considering the immense amount of work and the fact that I just moved in with 9 other roomates- I know you're jealous.

I live about five minutes outside of Philadelphia and I'm one of seven kids, six girls and one boy; and yes he was tortured, everyone seems to ask that question. My hobbies include coloring and reading about Rhetoric... like the average 19-year-old; ). My summer was spent waitressing at a public restaurant in a country club and enjoying the hell out of what time I had to myself. Either way, it definitly feels good to be out of a restauraunt and to be living somewhere where I can see stars. An occasional walk through the campus fountain feels quite good too (even if it is 1:00 in the morning after an oh-so enjoyable thursday night).

Hopefully I haven't bored you or scared you away from reading my blog completely, and if I have, I'll try and improve my blog writing skills throughout the next couple of weeks. Have a good weekend everyone!! I'm gonna go watch anchorman.

-Meg Campbell

I hate these intros....

I am really bad at trying to introduce myself to people, simply because everyone wants to hear something interesting or unique , and I can never really think of anything that makes me either of those things. My name is Amber Nikole Benson (and yes, that's how Nikole should be spelled--even though i spelled it the normal way till i was like 15--i guess my mom thought that it would be cool to spell it like that?) and I am a junior majoring in Sec. Ed./English. When I am not in class, I will most likely be found at the SUB working at the Cub Cafe...by the way, we need help, so if anyone wants a job, come and apply so I dont have to work so much!!!! Otherwise, just drop by sometime, I'll make you a cheesesteak or something.

I was born and raised in Philadelphia, but my family moved to West Chester at about the same time I finally learned to spell my middle name. I have 3 brothers (2 younger, one older), and 3 kind-of sisters. My parents have been married for 25 years in October, and I am coming up on my 3 year anniversary in September--my boyfriend and I are not married, but sometimes it seems like it.

When I was younger, I played a lot of sports, but, as anyone who has ever met me can attest, I am probably the most unathletic and lazy person EVER. I hate exercising, though I desperately need to, and I would much rather go out to eat than do anything that requires physical effort. In fact, the only reason I am even doing this right now is to occupy myself while my boyfriend gets dressed so we can go to IHOP for corncake pancakes (they are delicious!!!).

I ramble a lot too...in case you havent noticed by now. Usually, if you only read 25% of what I write on these things, you've probably read all the important stuff that was in it. Okay, that's all for now....he is finally ready to go....

~Amber~

Insert clever and insightful title here.

Hello everyone! My name's Jess. Unfortunately, to be fair and warn you ahead of time, I have no interesting anecdotes in which to give you a clearer glimpse into my ever so fascinating personality/life.

I'm a sophomore English Lit major here at KU. I'll probably end up adding on a Pro Writing minor somewhere along the way, as soon as I stop procrastinating. I'm not really into too many clubs right now, but this year I'm considering sending some things into Shoofly, Keystone, annnd who knows what else?

So what is there to say? I'm generally very quiet, so this class should be an interesting experience. I love writing, reading, and merely thinking about stuff. I hail from somewhere in between the "Sweetest Place on Earth" and Harrisburg. I wake up in the summers to the smell of cow manure wafting in the humid air, although sometimes a hint of chocolate finds it way in there, creating somewhat of an odd mixture. But I digress. This entry has somehow turned to cow crap.

Anyways, I'm excited for this semester and all that. Hope to learn a lot from this class!

I'M BACK and FOCUSED

Hello class, Hello world.

My Name is Yolanda. ( quick fact : Yolanda is a form of Spanish violet or can be interpreted as pretty as a violet.)

I am a senior Professional Writing major with a minor in Public Relations. Following graduaion I hope to work in the field of public relations with the desiree of one day becoming a publisit to the stars. Preferably a basketball player or rapper so they can introduce me to some of their handsome team mates and friends.

I am from the Philadelphia area originally but I currently reside in Upper Darby with mi familia.
(I had to take 4 years of spanish for my major as you can see it payed off...yeah right)

Anyway I will not bore you any longer.
I just wanted to introduce my self and say that i hope this semester will be more productive then previous ones. I feel that my head is one straight and I am just looking foward to walking down the aile and finishing up this part of my journy through LIFE..

Miracles and Blessings
Yo MC

And so it goes..

I will start this entry off by saying that I am terrible at writing about myself; so please, do not expect much. My name is Jamie Hicks and I am, as many are, a Secondary Education major concentrating in English. I transferred to Kutztown from Harrisburg Area Community College - Gettysburg. I am living on campus, NOT commuting from Gettysburg, and have found a very comfortable home in the Education House. As much as I love it here so far, being a transfer student has not made my entry into the college easy. I'm not sure if I am a Freshman or a Sophomore and am still trying to figure out how many credits I need to make up to be ahead of, or at least only slightly behind, what is required.

I have not joined any clubs so far but I plan to audition for the University Choir, the Sunshine Players and Newsbreak. Like many new students I am learning that home sickness is a real disease; I am hoping that it will be at least partially cured when I go home to visit my family for Labor Day.

Last semester, at HACC, I took an argumentative writing course. We covered many sections and spent about one quarter of the course on Visual Rhetoric. Though I did receive a fairly high score on my Rhetoric paper, I found the subject to be uninteresting and tedious. The fact that my teacher was a complete idiot, however, might have something to do with that. I look forward to taking another stab at the subject and surviving my very first 3 hour class this semester.

Hello All!

Hello! My name is Erin. I am a junior in the Secondary Education English program. I am almost 25 years old and feel like I have been on a very long road to get to where I am now. I started Kutztown right out of highschool in 2001 and quit almost immediately after I began. I proceded to venture into beauty school, worked for a while, went to community college, changed my major quite a few times and finally transferred back to KU into the same major I started out in! This whole thing is kind of frustrating because I feel like I missed out on some pretty important "college life" experiences and stayed in school alot longer than need be. Oh well! I guess there's nothing to do about it now except to work hard and enjoy myself along the way. I live with my boyfriend about 20 minutes from campus. I take care of a 6 year old little girl who has cerebral palsy and is in a wheel chair. She has the best personality and outlook in the world though and I love spending time with her. That's about all I guess! Good luck to everyone this semester!

Cat Stevens Please!

So I've already done one of these for Mahoney and I was really tempted to just copy and paste it but you guys deserve better than that, so here goes:
I'm a sophomore secondary education English major. This is my first year as the Secondary Education Chairperson for SPSEA and I'm excited about that. I expect all of you education majors to come to our picnic September 18th at the Kutztown Park because the more secondary education majors that come, the higher my self esteem will be. Plus it's extremely beneficial and looks good on a resume :)
This is also my first year as a DR at University Place. The dorms have only been open a week and I've already accumulated a lot of intersting stories. I work the late night shifts so the only people that come by are usually either under the influence of something or creepy insomniacs like myself. For example, a couple of nights ago a boy walked in after midnight with a guitar in hand and I asked him if he could play well. He smiled and started strumming away. He asked if I had any requests and I responded with "Cat Stevens, please!" He look ashamed and told me that he didn't know anything by him so I jokingly told him he would not be allowed back in the building until he could play "Moonshadow." The next day around 2 in the morning I was doing some homework when I heard someone come in. I raised my head and to my disbelieve it was the same boy, once again guitar in hand. Before I could even say anything he started playing "Moonshadow." I'm pretty sure he terrified the few freshman that were in the lobby at the time but it made my night and distracted me from my Lit homework.
On a side note I also enjoy candlelight dinners, romantic walks on the beach and obscure Post-Soviet Union Ukranian literature.

As you can see I'm semi-invloved in school, very passionate about my major and I'm often surrounded by weirdos. Thus, I should fit right in Dr. Mahoney's course.

Welcome to Advanced Comp, Blog Roll 2007

Hey all,

Well, another academic year is upon us and here we go with ENG 230 Advanced Composition...Mahoney-style.

The title of this course, "Public Pedagogy: Managed Discourse and Available Means," signifies that this course has a rhetorical bent and is interested in how discourse is "managed," controlled, and manipulated in our current world. The rhetorical approach of this class means that we will be looking at the social and political contexts of discourse and will inquire into how we can intervene in this context.

This blog will be part of the little experiment we have going. As you can see, you have entered a "conversation" that has continued over the course of several semesters. We will be talking about writing as an on-going conversation all throughout this class. In his book The Philosophy of Literary Form: Studies in Symbolic Action, Kenneth Burke, a literary and rhetorical scholar, gave us the following metaphor of a “parlor” to highlight the conversational nature of knowledge making and, I would argue, writing:

Imagine that you enter a parlor. You come late. When you arrive, others have long preceded you, and they are engaged in a heated discussion, a discussion too heated for them to pause and tell you exactly what it is about. In fact, the discussion had already begun long before any of them got there, so that no one present is qualified to retrace for you all the steps that had gone before. You listen for a while, until you decide that you have caught the tenor of the argument, then you put in your oar. Someone answers; you answer him [or her]; another comes to your defense; another aligns himself [or herself] against you, to either the embarrassment of gratification of your opponent, depending upon the quality of your ally’s assistance. However, the discussion is interminable. The hour grows late, you must depart. And you do depart, with the discussion still vigorously in progress (110-111, brackets mine).

So, let the conversation begin...I'm looking forward to our little late-night rhetorical salon...Welcome!!!

This is a Space Between Semesters

[




















]

the last hurrah: or, dispatches from the first week off

I suppose it's unlikely most of you will ever check this blog again, now that Advaced Comp is over. But here goes anyway.

First of all, I want to offer an imaginary pat on the back to everyone who posted and actually used this blog as a legitimate tool for learning. Those of you who didn't, well, I'm not worried about you reading this and getting offended. The thing is, the New York Times, the Washington Post, the LA Times, and virtually ever other major (and often minor) publication out there has full time bloggers on the payroll. Their job is to blog. Why? Because the New York Times knows a thing or two about trends. They can see the future coming a mile off, in a sense. So when they catch a whiff of change in the air, they jump on it. They embrace it. And they devour it and assymilate. It's what the Romans did, and that was enough to make them the greatest empire in history despite rampant hedonism, disease, war, and imbreeding. So why not the NYT, eh?

The point is, bravo to Mahoney for using this not-so-cutting-edge technology properly as a pedagogical lever. If those of you who felt it's effects are out there, I think we owe Mahoney some very real gratitude. He didn't drag his feet and resist. He didn't drag the sluggish memory of "how things used to be" in "the good old days" around, trying to beat one more run out of a broken horse. Instead he saw that change was upon us, and reacted. He said, shit, we can't just stand here...we'll be bulldozed! And lo, he began walking forward. And English composition class using communal postings as a means of workshopping? Brilliant! Fucking unadulterated trendspotting. If you're around next semester, and if you bothered to post and read the blog, stop by Lytle and shake Mahoney's hand. He made you smarter.

Totaly intrigued

It all began with being a college student right now.
It happened when Virginia Tech happened.
It was inspired by our conversations about murder not being "common sense" and why?

I began my paper.

I'm discussing VT using many of the Advanced Composition topics. I am reading a lot about the incident and making connections between it and identity, rhetoric, apology, common sense, and I'll somehow work in persuasion. I'm content. I feel like I have something to say about my topic and want to look at VT this way-- Firstly, I have a yearning to learn everything I can about what happened at VT because of personal interest and I think that's important in any research paper (wanting to do the research).

I haven't yet looked through my Advanced Comp. texts to make the direct connections, but this week is dedicated to this paper. I'm not sure if my topic will narrow. At one point I was thinking about the identity of a murderer, but we'll see. I will bring something new to the table and have a lot of knowledge about something that will be a huge part of history, which is important to me.

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/5923915/columbine_whose_fault_is_it
http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/marilynmanson/thenobodies.html

ruminate, gloominate

As far as the normal blog postings go I don't have much to update. The Language War readings are going well, mostly, I think, because it's written by someone who understands what kind of language is effective and what kind is masturbatory (that's right, Ramage, I'm talking to you). I also have a solid bead on my final paper. Something about credibility filtered through the text of Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, a book I'm in the middle of rereading anyway. It's gonna be two birds, or, some rocks and a stone...I mean...I'm gonna kill a bunch of birds and get stoned.

But what's really important today is the revelations about the Virginia Tech tragedy. We learned that Cho Seung-Hui planned the whole thing. He bought the guns from a pawn shop across from campus weeks ago, took several dozen pictures of himself holding them, wrote an 1800 word "manifesto" and filmed himself delivering a deranged monologue where he equates himself to Jesus and blames this impending tragedy on everyone he's about to kill. But the coup de grace was that after the first spree—in the two hour interval between—Cho mailed the manifesto, video and pictures to NBC news. He did it for fame. Why? Well, he may have been deranged, but even a crazy person in this country today can't help but want to be famous. Paula Abdul ought to be relieved that Cho didn't mail her a demo tape.

What was Cho thinking, anyway? It's better to be feared than loved? They must be punished? Fuck it, I'm taking a few with me? No. Maybe we'll never know how much of his ranting was an act, but one thing's for sure, he lost sight of the green light. He gave up on Horatio Alger.

Sweet Jesus! The bad vibes coming off this one are truly awful and far reaching. They'll be felt generations from now. Maybe not in any literal sense, but what will happen on campuses across the country is a very subtle mood shift. Suspicion will be the prevailing reaction for the next few weeks, hanging just behind our conscious thoughts until it fades to a sour memory that only makes us wince when it comes up in conversation. Months from now the only residue that'll remain in our everyday lives will be the new half-assed gun regulations and maybe a few donation boxes next to cash registers that somebody forgot to pick up. But our children's grandchildren will walk onto KU's campus or U Penn's campus or any campus other than VT (that's a whole different story) and be in a different world. No college will ever be like it was before Monday, just like no high school was the same after 4/20/1999.

VT will be like Kent State—a freak to be gawked at. Not like Ground Zero or the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building where memorials now stand. There won't be a museum on the grassy quad in Virginia like there is on the field in Shanksville, though there will be—must be—some kind of memorial built. Classes will eventually start again, just like they did at Kent State. Tests will be taken. Kids will drink and screw and do all the college kid things. But we'll find out soon enough that no amount of history rolling into the pages will dissolve this heavy phantom. The Great Spirit keeps all things in order. It may let a defining moment in history fade practically into obscurity, but will never let it totally dissipate from the ether. Indeed, Monday is now scarred onto history's side, just below the collective subconscious.

A place like the VT campus will always have a different feel to it. It's something that seeps from the human soul when it knows it's about to die. You feel it at battlefields. That sombre sensation that makes jokes unfunny. I felt it when I visited Ford's Theatre in DC on my tenth birthday. As I walked down the aisle on that day, through the the orchestra level, my parents flanking me, I could tell immediately that the building itself was affected. There was the stage, practically breathing in the dusty light. Above stage left was the balcony where John Wilkes Boothe shot Lincoln. A very old looking painting of George Washington hung with an American flag draped behind it on the front of the balcony. That's it? I thought. That's where the President was shot, right there. A loud bang came from backstage that jerked me out of awe. We were there early and when we took our seats in the third row, a historian in a gray tweed coat started recounting those famous events of April 14, 1865. I stood up and walked to the end of the aisle as he spoke. A few steps and I was bellied up to the corner of the orchestra pit and only two or three feet from the stage. I looked up. Right under the balcony. There was a chip in the picture frame, and I imagined, as Boothe leapt through the pistol smoke that night, his spur catching the corner. In mid-air his arms windmilled wildly because he was thrown off balance. Then THUD! He landed in front of me and shouted either "The South is avenged!" or "Sic semper tyrannis!" I couldn't tell because the wooden pop of his boots hitting the stage still resonated in my chest cavity. My heart felt it. I smelled gun smoke and looked up. Blood red curtains on both sides of the balcony rustled as Mrs. Lincoln scurried on the floor around the body of her dying husband. I breathed deep. There was the stage again. So close. I leaned out over the orchestra pit to touch it. Close to my fingers. Closer. Inches. "Nathan!" my mother yells. She's walking up the aisle with my father and a few other early arrivers following the gray coat. I catch up. "We're going up to the balcony," she says. Soon we're following the historian up a gently curving staircase that's got well-worn carpet tacked down into the corner of every step with rope lights. The walls are adorned with oil paintings that feel...warm. At the top is a Plexiglas panel that covers the whole doorway to the booth where it all happened. It's smudged with fingerprints. On the other side are plush looking high back chairs and I can see the red white and blue edge of the flag peeking over the railing. This was the crux. The axis. This is where the bullet went into Old Abe's brain. I could still feel the boots hitting the stage somewhere deep in my gut. Yes, I thought, the world changed when a man stood here and pulled a trigger. BANG! I heard the shot. My hand formed a pistol and my index finger touched the glass. Bang. That's it. Feel it now, two hundred years on. In this musty old theatre, where Lincoln knew he would die, on the floor right there. Bang. Those boots thud again. And again. And again. They thud and that shot rings out there every minute of every day. Something so tragic and jarring a place—a location—never forgets. And if you visit there, you can't avoid feeling it yourself.

Now the VT campus will be the same way.

Bad vibrations on this Wednesday night. It's approaching 3 a.m. and the coffee at the bottom of my mug is cold. CNN is cold. It's spring. Why is it so damn cold? Because no creature should have to receive a day like Monday on a beautiful spring morning. It's a way of keeping things in balance. Lowering the mood to accept this tragedy. But we don't see it right now, not the way we ought to. The loss of human life each day in Iraq is at least this bad, usually worse. On Monday, five U.S. soldiers died over there. Today, a bomb in a marketplace killed 150 Iraqis. Each of those dead—on both sides—had two parents, maybe brothers and sisters, maybe kids. Maybe they even were kids. We're in a climate of war and to cope we either dehumanize to create distance or hyper-humanize because we know we should feel some grief but all that dehumanizing has left us pretty fucking numb. We didn't know those kids in Virginia, but we're shaken. 3000 U.S. soldiers have died in Iraq, and we're only now starting to get upset. We went to school with them. They were our neighbors. We did know them.

But Iraq is far away. Virginia is just down there, below Maryland, and Monday's tragedy feels suspiciously like an attack on our own soil. It's impossible to draw conclusions now, so close to the event, or even predict where we'll go from here. Outside of tomorrow, nobody knows what will come next. And maybe that's for the best. In this age of global terrorism, pawn-shop terrorism, and the iLife empire, we ought to live our lives with the confidence that tomorrow is definitely coming, but at the same time, never worry about what it might bring.

War in Iraq, Media Coverage, Celebrity Gossip, etc.

I'm all over the place with this paper. I want to do it on how there is more coverage on Celebrity bull than there is on the War in Iraq. I was thinking of how whats on the news jumps from one thing to the next. Always looking for the next big thing. The war was huge for a while and was on every tv station. The next thing I knew I was hearing about a marine's wife who killed her husband for the insurance money and went and got plastic surgery. Following that was Anna Nicole and her death, everyone wanted to know how she died. Once that got old, Danny-Lynne came in and now everyone wanted to know who the kid's daddy was. Okay that kept things going for a while. But wait the war came back because Bush won't give a specific time to pull them out of Iraq. Why? I'm going to be a good girl and not say but that was pretty big. And now we have the Virgina Tech incident. That was horrible and it made national news and all that stuff. (Not trying to be insensitive, I'm very sorry about everything, but kinda trying to make to make a point). But to bring it to another step, is it the people's fault everything switches like that. How about the fact that VT happened Monday and everyone here at KU were saddened. Today, we had people on our campus causing riots. Is this the next big thing. Today all i heard people talk about was those individuals causing trouble on campus. There was no talk of VT and there was definately no talk of the war. Danny-Lynne who? And this is whats going through my mind.

Broad is not better

Is it possible to get over-inspired? Probably not, this is most likely simple overstimulation. There are so many awesome things we've been talking about in class and learning about but to narrow them down into cohesive forms to explore, that's slightly difficult, or perhaps a step beyond slightly. Frames in their culturally driven contexts sounds like a great topic, it gets my mind rolling alright, just up until I think about how I would create the frame of the paper and then *poof* the idea has evaporated into an ambiguous cloud quickly disapearing before my eyes and I'm back where I started. So this is my plan, me an google are having a hot date tonight to see what we can learn from one another (well, I'll be the one learning but its more comforting to view the situation as a two-way exchange) and maybe, just maybe, I'll have a clearer vision tomarrow.

good luck kids(meant in the best way possible, I call everyone kid)

I hate everything.

I hate my topic because I have ideas and no information to back them up. This week I am focusing on my research paper for another class, but I did print some things for this class. I just looked over my stuff and it's more bullcrap. I thought I had something, but I don't. Ebsco gave me articles from authors who wrote about common sense within a certain subject and nothing focuses on just common sense-- or the differences in common sense around the world-- The only thing I have to go on right now for this paper is my common sense of the topic--- oh ha ha. (that laughing is total sarcasm).

Your topics all sound great, but I haven't had that freakin light bulb moment and right now I feel like there is no hope for an interesting topic and I'm totally aggravated.

For now I'm going back to my other research paper, which sucks because all the information I find for my topic says the same thing. Once that agony is over, I'll continue this one.

This is not a good semester for me when it comes to topics-- summer will be welcomed with a huge smile. . . and some ice cream. . . and probably a trip to the beach *I can't wait!!!!!*

EUREKA, I'VE GOT IT!!!!!!!!! :0)

All of this talk about language had me pondering the perfect topic for our final paper. Finally I"ve got it. My topic will be...ahem drum roll please ...........................THE 'N' WORD. My inspiration came partially form Lakoff's quote "A great many focus on the respective roles of women and men: who can do and say what and what it means. Others ask the same questions about white and black persons. " she also states that these issues are about language. "who has the ability and the right to make meaning for everyone.

There are many debates about this one word that must remain nameless; shit it's language, I'm talking about the word Nigger. Some feel as if it should be ommitted from everyone's language, the word should be buried, its tombstone reading "The unspeakable: never to be ressurected again" I am in somewhat agreement of this, however we cannot bury language. And truth be told this ugly word is not dead, it is alive and well.

There is a minority of people who use the word niggah as a form of love,they've said things like " I can use it , but any non-black doesn't have the right". I can see where these people come from too, however, language isn't segregated and if these people feel that they can say it, then they should be aware that they give permission (whether they want to or not) for others to say the word as well.

The problem here isn't the word, but what the word represents. It represents racism, hatred, discrimination. But to some it represents love, I've heard ""that's ma niggah so many times" The issue is when do you determine if this word is hatred or not. Some may even argue that the racism is so engrained in our society that when blacks say the word, it is out of self hatred. I say it is a language struggle, my conclusion is none right now...sorry. I do know however that the word was taken from the spanish word negro- which means black(the spanish being very active in the slave trade)....it then morphed to the word nigger, probably by some racist bastard in Mississippi who can't read (don't worry Prof. Mahoney, I will do my research) and here we are in the year 2007, and we are battling this ugly word, which was a big mispronunciation and you wouldn't believe the pain it causes. I was called nigger by a passing driver, my freshmen year and it hurted. I started to cry and then I stopped myself realizing this was probably the response he wanted. Then I said "FUCK YOU, YOU ARE THE NIGGER!!" It made me feel better and I'm sure the driver wasn't expecting that one at all!

I couldn't think of a fitting title for an imcomplete thought.

So rather than discuss anything specific about Lakoff, I would much rather take this moment to discuss my own feelings about this entire semantics thing.

It fascinates me. The more I learn about the English language (or simply language in general), the more I love/hate it. People can be torn apart--psychoanalyzed to their bare bones--simply by isolating the words they use.

Eggshell mines line every square inch of this battlefield, and if you don't watch your step, you might lose some limbs. Analysis of language is such a powerful device, it seems that by arguing the use of language, one can shut down another almost too easily.

I know I said I wasn't planning to discuss anything specifically Lakoff, but look at the entire thing about the apology.

Nine-million ways to apologize for something, and each letter of each word offers a window into a person's subconscious. Ugh... it's stressful to think about it.

The worst part, I feel as though I am slowly beginning to abuse the use of this tool as well. The more I learn, the more aware I become of its power. It is control and it is manipulation. It offers insight, and sometimes too much of it. It is the flux capacitor of the defense mechanism. It is a cloud.

And the irony of it? Without understanding it, one cannot protect himself from it. Yet, once one understands it, he is fully capable of succumbing to it. He now has the potential to use it against those still unaware, and seemingly--more often than not--will . Sounds like that symbiote thing from Spiderman. It grants one power, but almost too much. People lose control too easily. We're quite the glutton.

So rant I shall. I can go on forever and ever and an even longer time than that. But what good would it do? All that will come of it is a lot of stress. I can see from all sides. I can understand them. Hell, make me a good enough point, and I'll surely agree with you, only to find an even more convincing point sometime later on some opposite shore of the argument.

I guess what I'm saying is "I get this." I don't fully understand all of it--I'm just a sophomore in college, far from being an expert anything. Well, I'm an expert at being me. I guess I have that.

Final Paper= Agony

PLEASE- I am having trouble thinking of a final paper. I thought about it for a while now and I may have a few ideas but not enough for 10 pages...............

Is anyone else feeling like this???

Mahoney we need major talking about this paper tom!!!!!
hahahah

See you all tom:0)

Final paper topic anyone?

I hope I'm not the only one floundering for a topic...I should be used to this annoying "process" of last minute brilliant ideas, but the moments before that last minute is always so painful.
In class the other day I noticed some of us have a pretty solid idea for a final paper topic, and yet I barely have a focus. *tear* I do know, however, that I would like to focus on time- how things exist in our world in a very final manner- to be very cliche- they exist only in a moment in time. Such as a conversation, a communal feeling (like in a crowd at a concert), music, etc...I have no idea where to go with this or if this will even work in this assignment. But there it is...

ps- I really like to use ellipses...

Oh, Lakoff

So, I tried to post this last Wednesday and for some reason it didn't show up. Let's hope it works this time...

I have come to the conclusion that getting anything done once the weather is nice is nearly impossible. I have been so far behind in reading Lakoff it’s ridiculous. I finally got caught up over break while working from 5:15 am until 12:30 pm. The worst shift in the world, but the best time to get things done. When I finally had seven hours of free time (and yes where I work it is free time) I got to know Lakoff.
I found most everything she had to say interesting and though provoking. I understood what she was trying to say. The section on apologies which we talked about in class, I completely understood what she meant. Putting yourself out there and admitting you did something wrong, making yourself vulnerable to the person you wronged-dead on. What also interested me was how she incorporated news stories into her book. The latest story that received Undue Attention was the Anna Nicole’s death and “baby daddy” scandal. It’s funny to see in a scholarly text book all the stories that have fascinated the world and for reasons that seem somewhat unnecessary.
As I read this book I realized how useful this would have been for me while writing our last paper. I focused on word choice and how people in power use them, Lakoff explores just that. She says that language is constantly changing and evolving along with the times. “If we can stop language from changing, and if language both reflects and creates our reality, we could…just maybe…stop real-world change,” (75). I loved this point. She says that language really does have an impact on the world, which was just the point I was trying to prove in my paper. Wow, this Lakoff sure makes a lot of sense.


Side note: When I wrote this is was sooo sunny and nice out, what happened? I hate the rain. That's all, see you in class on Tuesday.

If I Only Had a Brain

Unfortunately, I was not as enlightened as you Kristi. Yesterday, I found myself driven by our class discussion of apologies, but it has since yielded no fruit for a final paper. It is however interesting that we crave attention to our wounds by means of receiving an apology. In this sense, we do not seek the apology at all, rather the simple words "I'm sorry" as meaning "I recognize that I hurt you. Are you OK?"
I also think it strange that as Americans we have adapted our language to become lazy. Words generally have several meanings, and without context clues or extensive knowledge of our culture, our American words can trip you up. We have condensed our language to say what we mean in the least possible syllables, leaving much to interpretation. When did this happen? Why did this happen? And are we only going to continue in this word cutting, or will one day will we wake up to find that we no longer understand what the other is saying?

Today's Discussion on Lakoff

Today's discussion on Lakoff really left me a bit inspired. As I thought about it on my drive home from class, I thought of a few ideas I should have bought up in class, but unfortunately didn't think of them at the time. Therefore, my post for this week will include my "afterthoughts" of today's discussion.
My first epiphany, I guess you could say, has to do with our talk about apologies. Someone mentioned that sometimes an apology is unwanted or unneeded. For example, if someone rear-ends you in traffic and they get out of their car and say "I'm sorry" it doesn't matter, it won't fix my broken rear fender that now has to ride shotgun until I can get it replaced. HOWEVER, if you were in that situation, and the person that rear-ended you just got out of their car and stared at their handiwork, wouldn't you get a bit angry that they didn't apologize for their mistake? It may make you think that they don't care, or even meant to do it. In a situation like this, sometimes an apology is better than no apology at all, whether or not it is accepted.
Secondly, our discussion about common sense and the norm. It is difficult anymore to say what exactly is common sense or the norm. Is common sense simply knowing that a green light means "go" and red "stop"? Or is it more geared toward how one should live their life totally? What kind of car we should drive, what type of house we should live in, how big our salaries are. Common sense/norm is such a broad subject now, it is hard to define exactly what it is.
Well anyway, I'm thinking of exploring both these topics in next week's post about my final paper idea.
Until then...

It's not what you know, but who you know

Much like the wars of our fathers of yesterday and our brothers of today, the outcome of Robin Lakoff’s “Language War” depends on who is wielding the sword. In the hands of a skilled and feared soldier, a sword can level a battlefield of opponents; but in the trembling grip of a boy quickly turned killer, a sword is nothing more than a clumsy, heavy burden to the one who holds it.
Throughout the Language War, Lakoff emphasizes it is not just what is said, but who says it. In one example, Lakoff describes the politics involved in hiring university staff. One candidate may be more qualified, but the other is a woman, and to satisfy the quota, the university hires the woman. In this case, it didn’t matter what each candidate said, it only mattered that one was a woman.
While on the surface Lakoff describes to her readers scenarios which individuals fight for his or her words to be heard. Underlying all her examples Lakoff, however unknowingly, feeds to her readers the importance of who said over what is said. Take for example her introduction. Throughout she searches for a definitive characteristic of the “linguistics,” but she leaves the reader with a brief overview of her liberal viewpoints rather than lead them into the first discussion with several possible definitions. She laid the groundwork for her readers who are potentially susceptible to her “liberal” views to accept her arguments by stating that she is a “liberal.” By defining what she is, rather than letting her arguments define her, Lakoff has successfully won the attention of a certain demographic of readers, and more hopefully the attention of those who will take her arguments to heart.

Ok so...it's almost 12:30 and I really wish I could write a better response but I don't have the energy right now. So..here's my response:

Who is to say, really, what is “correct” grammar and what isn’t? I feel like this correct grammar is shoved down our throat, but what happens if we are taught something differently due to the way things are spoken at home? Perhaps in certain urban schools, the teachers speak in ebonics? Does that mean the students in that classroom are taught to speak incorrectly? Or just differently from the norm.
Now, I am an English major and I fully believe in every way, shape, and form, that there should be a certain ruling when it comes to what’s proper for the workplace, and what slang should remain at home. I just feel like sometimes we jump to conclusions too quickly when it comes to grammar.
For example, my mother is a very educated woman. She is a registered nurse and on her way to becoming Director of Nursing at the hospital, but when we are in our kitchen her grammar is so completely wrong that someone who doesn’t know her could claim her as unintelligent. She is anything but.
Therefore, I feel like we shouldn’t be so quick to jump to conclusions about people when it comes to grammar. It almost hurts me to say this, because of my major, and because anyone who knows me knows that I am such a stickler for grammar it’s ridiculous, but we need to be a little more lenient when it comes to grammar nowadays. I think there could be a good system if we actually thought about it in regards to grammar levels and systems of acceptance in this country.

PCed out...But digging the frames

Reading through Lakoff's war of language has proved to be a dynamic experience thus far. There are moments when I'm rolling right along with her, linking the concepts she discusses with my own life and the society I'm surrounded by. Then, without a bit of warning, I'm sliding to a stop as Lakoff goes so deeply into the ins and outs of particular topics that I find my thoughts wandering, my eyes sneaking to the window and my entire focus shifing out of the book completely.

But lets look at the good first. Frames and their connection with the human perception and expectation of reality is one of the most facinating concepts I've come across in college. So much of how people think is based on what they've been taught to expect from certain situations, to the extent that we base our realities off of those perceptions. When I first came to college I had this frame in mind that had been formed through college brochures full of studious twenty-somethings and rolling, green campuses with historical buildings. I associated college with learning, meeting people, taking out loans to pay for it and then scoring a job afterward to cover the debts. It was at first difficult to see things any other way when I began my freshman year, but eventually it hit me that the reason I wasn't crazy about college was simply because it wasn't in sync with the idealistic reality I'd created it to be in my head. This is a powerful thing, the concept of framing ideas and concepts.

Also enjoyable was the discussion of language and control. Some say language is changing, losing its propriety and this is a bad thing because language should be within our control when the rest of the rapidly changing world is not.

Lakoff began to lose me, however, when she introduced the topic of PC. At first it was all well and great, yes! so what exactly does PC mean anyway? But then she went on for pages, and pages, and then I lost track of the pages because I honestly stopped caring.

So it hasn't all been a pleasant journey, but wholly informative regardless, what else was I expecting anyway?

Lakoff

When considering Lakoff, the most profound area that caught my attention focused on Apology.
This as a whole got me thinking that about our society and the society norm. When people apologize, do they really mean it or is it just something that we say when we technically want to end the issue or just say "I'm sorry" so no feelings are hurt. On the contrary, sometimes I apologize for things that I actually really meant at that time but just throw in the over used phrase just as a defense tactic.
Until this reading, I have never really thought about apologies or how they are used all the time, and probably not 100% sincere. But why do we say I'm sorry? Do we mean it? Do we just say it because it is what we are used too? I think it has become such a habit that we do not care what comes out of our mouths or think before we say something because we can always say "I'm sorry" for something that was not taken lightly.
When considering the situation with the cat, all phrases in some way or another, place blame on the owner of the cat, the cat itself, or the person who stepped on the cat. Just a slight shift in words can change the apology from a personal offense to putting blame on the other. With this in mind on such a trivial situation, we can see the larger picture as people changing a few words just to fit a right response, Thinking of the 'right response,' it brings me back to the word labs ( hahah I know I know) that we studied for our last paper. I drew connects between apology and word labs. If we consider apologies giving another person what they want to hear, are we or are we not using what Luntz demonstrated.
For me it is strange to think that the apology is in a sense giving another person what they want to hear, but how many times do we do it? How many times do we do something and apologize for it later, whether we really and honestly mean it?
This is just one notion that I find extremely interesting.
This is how we work and how words and phrases become a"language war."

Reading Response

Reading through "The Language War" by Robin Tolmach Lakoff there were a couple of issues that caught my attention. The first point that I chose to focus on was the section titled, "The Uncommonness of Common Sense" (48). This idea was brought up in the bok by Ramage as well. It brings up the question of what exactly is common sense and is it even a real thing? Lakoff says, "What seems common sense at one moment, or in one society, is anything but in another"(49). So what we have always thought of as the definition of common sense really doesn't hold true. Things are only common sense when grouped into a frame of people with the same views. Therefore, someone from another culture would have a different set of common sense ideas because they are grouped in a different frame. Expanding further on this idea, Lakoff discusses the struggle to not only stay within that frame of "commonsense" but also to stay "mainstream". People seem to be content with staying in the middle and avoid being labled an "extremist", which seems to label anyone thinking outside of the box. Isn't it ironic how when we are young, we are told to be individuals and make a unique life for ourselves, yet, as we grow we realize that as much as we are told that, we are still bombarded with the ideas of society that require us to be "moderate" to "fit in".

Christine M Henry

Advance Composition

April 9, 2007

1 page

“I’m sorry I stepped on your cat.

I’m sorry the cat got stepped on.

The cat looks upset.

Why was the cat under my foot?

Can’t the damn animal watch where it’s going?

You shouldn’t have let the cat in the room.” (The Language War, p. 24)

This quote presents several interesting scenarios. The point of these series of statements is to demonstrate the forms that an apology can take.

The first line may be genuine. It acknowledges the action/wrongdoing, “stepping on”. It sort of acknowledges the hurt party, “the cat” (although the apology is directed at the owner). And it might be assumed that the person making the apology needs to be forgiven, but you really cannot be sure.

The second line isn’t as genuine, or at least isn’t as clear. It does everything the first line does, except, acknowledge that the speaker is the wrongdoer.

The third line isn’t an apology at all. All it does is state a fact. The emotional state of the cat.

The forth line starts to place the blame on the cat. By trying to make it seem like the cat placed itself under the foot.
The fifth line places all the blame on the cat, and don’t mention the action at all.

And the sixth line places all of the blame onto the owner of the cat.

Oh My...

Response to Lakoff
One of the many sections in Language War that I really liked was on “The Stories That Make The News.” I was able to understand how we, as people, put entertainment before importance and urgency. We would rather hear about Anna Nicole and her baby drama, then to hear about our soldiers who are over there dying for this country. Yes it is true that many people don’t agree with the war and yes the war has been going on for a long time now. However, the bottom line is that anytime people are dying daily and anytime there is a severe debate like the war or anything else on that level that should be number one. But instead of that being number one we are watching Judge Judy and then at the bottom of the screen there is a line talking about the war or decisions made by Congress.
Another section I liked was “Apologies As Language Politics.” According to Lakoff, “In making an apology, the maker (1) acknowledges wrongdoing; (2) acknowledges that the addressee is the wronged party; (3) admits needing something (forgiveness) from the addressee to make things right again.” If one were to go by this definition of an apology it would be safe to say that it is very rare for people to apologize and actually mean it. An apology today is some one saying, “I’m sorry” or “I apologize”. There is no meaning in this! Why is the person apologizing? In my opinion, apologies today have become routine and therefore no longer mean anything. It’s just become a standard way especially for women. A lot of the time women apologize for things that don’t even really need an apology but it’s a learned behavior.
Next we have “Linguistic Prescriptivism”. This section was all about language and I definitely agree that language is constantly changing. I also believe that it is a good thing. In class we talked about ebonics being accepted in schools. I have to say that I think that’s okay to a certain extent. I am okay with ebonics being used in elementary school. At that point I feel that trying to hear the students is more important than how they are saying whatever it is that they are saying. I do believe that ebonics should not be accepted in high school or college at all. I feel that at this point people should be speaking proper English.
These are just my opinions about Lakoff and the text and how I took them.

"How do you know that?" . . . "It's common sense!"

I wrote a list of topics we covered in class. It was difficult to pick one that interested me so much, I would want to write a 10 page paper about it. I am still thinking of ideas, but for now, what most interests me is common sense. Luckily, this topic is covered by Lakoff and so I will use this post as a starting point for exploring my ideas.

I have always used common sense to make my decisions and to decide right from wrong. Lakoff writes that “We think of ‘common sense’ itself as based on reality and our own down-to-earth, theory-free, hardheaded observations of that reality.” I completely agree, but what makes it common sense is that many other people think the same way.

What intrigues me is who decides what common sense is. How do so many people decide to believe in the same thing? What makes that idea right and why should people follow? How is common sense changing and why are things that were not acceptable before, acceptable now?

Lakoff also writes that people who have views other than the ones of common sense, must justify their positions, while those who use common sense don’t need any validation. I can see how this is true. While I don’t need any explanation for having manners (“Please can I have that?”), I expect those who don’t to have some excuse or at least to say ‘sorry’ (“Give that to me.” --- “What?”).

It is easy to see the change in common sense when using scientific examples. One thing Lakoff writes is “That a woman played an active role in determining her child’s genetic characteristics would have seemed equally absurd: it was ‘obvious’ that she was only the vessel that contained the homunculus donated by the father, which came complete with all heritable traits.” We now commonly know that it is both the mother and father who contribute to the traits of their offspring, thanks to science.

In social situations, there is usually no tangible proof for change. It used to be common sense for a man to be chivalrous. To open a door for a woman, or simply act like a gentleman was just done, but now it is common sense that a woman is independent and is perfectly capable of opening a door herself. Also, men tend to act more like burping/farting men, rather then well-behaved men.

The above example is something that is still in the changing phase because many women still want to be swept of their feet, yet want to be seen as independent, which put men in a difficult situation; however, that’s another topic. It is also an example of how we hold on to old common sense. Lakoff writes “Change always entails struggle, often as now taking the form of a ‘language war,’ because we defend old frames, and create new ones, through language.”

Yeah… the more I explore common sense, the more I want to use it for my final research paper.

Wow...

So my first thoughts reading Lakoff was I'd rather be reading Ramage. However, I have to say that there are a lot of god points in The Language War. One part I liked was The Stories that make the news. We talked about that in class, specifically about Anna Nicole and how everyone is always looking for the next best thing. Starting off with this definately grabbed my attention, especially after that dry introduction. As I was reading I began to think more and more about the paper we just wrote and how if I had read that introduction beforehand, maybe my paper would look better. J/k, my paper is...my paper. I also liked when Lakoff talks about apologies and it made me think about how much people really mean it when they apologies. I thought about whether or not I really mean it when I apologize. To be honest, a lot of the time I apologize because I'm supposed to so whether or not I feel sorry doesn't matter because apologizing is what's suppose to be done.
"Neutrality is advantageous only if it can be exploited and extended into an effective means of persuasion." Thankyou Lakoff for making me regret, already, having to read this book. I'm going to leave it at that.

Yeah...

So I've kind of come to a conclusion about the topics of this course and it has helped me understand that I will only ever slightly understand anything we talk about and that it's Okay.

Everything we've read is air. Not concrete or solid-- nothing easy to grasp. Just floating thoughts that can cause a frustrated break down unless we somehow make sense of it- even if the sense is a bit off-center.

Not every concept of every reading results in the above, but I think you'll agree that a lot of it does.

That is what ties this course together-- the theme is confusion based on the question 'how' and the number of possible opinions on each topic.

I came to this conclusion while reading Lakoff's ideas about the words we use to define male and female. This whole language thing is another mix of who and why and how, but never exact-- just like persuasion and rhetoric and opinion. It's all a bunch of ideas because these are topics that allow for many ideas, which isn't a bad thing, but a thing that I have to accept. You cannot tell me 1 + 2 = 3 because guess what... in this class there are a million different ways to get to three and while were on the topic, who decided to create these numbers and what makes three the answer?

I'm not complaining, though it may sound that way. It's just a WoNdErFuL conclusion!