Heh. My floor is doing a talent show this week, which is a little bit of a misnomer since it's less talent than how much you can make our floor laugh. My apartment decided we were going to imitate Meg from 'Hercules' in her love angst (which is ironic since at one time half of our apartment was dating other guys on our same floor and were all in denial). It's complete with the muses, bad singing, ugly hairstyles, even worse makeup and horrendous togas.
I love making fun of ourselves... we're going to have my roomie's boyfriend come on stage randomly, in regular street clothes and flirt with the muses. That doesn't sound too funny in and of itself, but I think we'll get a good response because he's notorious for shamelessly flirting with girls with his girlfriend standing right there (most commonly with the other roommates...) We're basically going to make it as random and obnoxious as possible. Should be amusing.
Sunday, December 9, 2007
Tuesday, December 4, 2007
Technical Analysis
Race and Culture: I'm hoping my professor remembered that she said I could write on Deaf culture... I'm not terribly interested in racial profiling or affirmative action, (to be honest, I hate politics with a passion) but I am interested in deaf culture. So.
Culture and oppression: Ooh, I'd like to do a paper on Oralist oppression on Sign language and deaf culture. That, apart from anything, bugs me to no end that hearing people think they know best when the deaf keep trying to tell them it's not working.
Components of oppression:
* Attack on language itself:
France outlawed it until very recently-- like the mid 1900's
Teachers slapping their student's hands
Teachers physically tying student's hands so they can't move them
AGB influencing councils to ban sign language
British making the alphabet 2-handed to slow it down
SEE sign: Hearing invention based on a language of puns
Oralists refusing to teach kids sign because it's the "easy way out"
* Attack on culture:
More subtle:
Stigma of signing being "dirty" or "low" (both U.S. and France)
Phrase "deaf and dumb" widely used, though actual deafness does not affect brain function
Oralists insisting that the deaf should be treated like everyone else, and should blend in, despite the biological difference: deafness a social disease
* Political attacks:
Deaf man jailed until he could find his own interpreter
Judge yelling at the deaf man (see D-PAN video... actually, look up their slideshow.)
Account of police shooting a deaf man standing in his front yard with a shovel
DPN: school board passed up (3?) very qualified deaf candidates in favor of a hearing one.
Businesses and organizations' refusal to pay for interpreters
--probably can't use the experiments people used to do on deaf kids... something they were trying to cure, but not usually outright oppression. (Still, they ended up killing a bunch of little deaf kids or making them worse.)
Culture and oppression: Ooh, I'd like to do a paper on Oralist oppression on Sign language and deaf culture. That, apart from anything, bugs me to no end that hearing people think they know best when the deaf keep trying to tell them it's not working.
Components of oppression:
* Attack on language itself:
France outlawed it until very recently-- like the mid 1900's
Teachers slapping their student's hands
Teachers physically tying student's hands so they can't move them
AGB influencing councils to ban sign language
British making the alphabet 2-handed to slow it down
SEE sign: Hearing invention based on a language of puns
Oralists refusing to teach kids sign because it's the "easy way out"
* Attack on culture:
More subtle:
Stigma of signing being "dirty" or "low" (both U.S. and France)
Phrase "deaf and dumb" widely used, though actual deafness does not affect brain function
Oralists insisting that the deaf should be treated like everyone else, and should blend in, despite the biological difference: deafness a social disease
* Political attacks:
Deaf man jailed until he could find his own interpreter
Judge yelling at the deaf man (see D-PAN video... actually, look up their slideshow.)
Account of police shooting a deaf man standing in his front yard with a shovel
DPN: school board passed up (3?) very qualified deaf candidates in favor of a hearing one.
Businesses and organizations' refusal to pay for interpreters
--probably can't use the experiments people used to do on deaf kids... something they were trying to cure, but not usually outright oppression. (Still, they ended up killing a bunch of little deaf kids or making them worse.)
Sunday, December 2, 2007
FW: The Crazy Gene
So, I've officially decided my family is crazy. In a good, highly amusing way, but I think it's genetic. I just spent much of the night with my family at my aunt and uncle's house with my grandpa... we're so funny. We spent dinner making wisecracks and puns, joking about French and American culture (my uncle is full-blooded French, so it's totally legal), and scarfing mints and brownies in weird ways, after making faces out of the food.
We then proceeded to playing a card game called "Crazy Louie", where you make bets about how many tricks you can trump that round. The game was replete with sounds of "ohh-ing" and "doh-ing", and making loud obnoxious noises when someone got too cocky and bid a lot more than they actually got. The end round of Crazy Louis consists of passing just one card to each player, then betting whether or not you have the highest trump card... the catch is that you can't look at your card, but have to hold it on your forehead while the other players look at you and gauge if your card would possibly be higher than theirs. It looks absolutely ridiculous; therefore, perfect for my family. We polished off the night with a slideshow of my family's trip to St. George, and couldn't stop laughing as every single picture had something bizarre about it. We've decided that we should make a calendar, with the full 365 days, of the weird faces my little sister makes, because she probably has at least that many different goof faces, if not more. We have pictures of how contorted we can make our hands look, how long our tongues are (it seems to be genetic) and how wide my mom's side of the family can spread our toes.
We're so weird. I love it.
We then proceeded to playing a card game called "Crazy Louie", where you make bets about how many tricks you can trump that round. The game was replete with sounds of "ohh-ing" and "doh-ing", and making loud obnoxious noises when someone got too cocky and bid a lot more than they actually got. The end round of Crazy Louis consists of passing just one card to each player, then betting whether or not you have the highest trump card... the catch is that you can't look at your card, but have to hold it on your forehead while the other players look at you and gauge if your card would possibly be higher than theirs. It looks absolutely ridiculous; therefore, perfect for my family. We polished off the night with a slideshow of my family's trip to St. George, and couldn't stop laughing as every single picture had something bizarre about it. We've decided that we should make a calendar, with the full 365 days, of the weird faces my little sister makes, because she probably has at least that many different goof faces, if not more. We have pictures of how contorted we can make our hands look, how long our tongues are (it seems to be genetic) and how wide my mom's side of the family can spread our toes.
We're so weird. I love it.
Thursday, November 29, 2007
Rhet Analysis of Race
I was thinking about the different arguments that go along with rhetoric, primarily ethos-- and how it connects to the concept of race. I gave a presentation yesterday to my class on race itself, and came across a thought or two:
*Ethos and race: Race can either give you instant credibility or instant rejection. Ie. if a professor who teaches the German language gets up in front of class and was actually born and raised in Germany, that right there will give a certain amount of credibility to their name, even if their parents only spoke English and they went to an all-English school. If a hearing teacher gets up in front of a sign language class, they've already lost credibility with the Deaf community because they are not Deaf. Granted, they may have been a CODA or have a deaf spouse, but until those details are discovered, people will act based on their assumptions. (I know the Deaf are not usually recognized as a "race", but culturally, it has the same implications, and they're their own minority.)
*People will give more credibility to a news broadcast saying it's searching for "an islamic militant" with a picture of a guy with a black beard and native dress than a picture of a very white american in a button-up shirt with scholarly-looking glasses.
*People will give more credibility to leaders who are like them, or at least fit in the group; ie. a black leader would hold more sway in a black-rights movement gathering than a Chinese man.
It's funny how we put so much stock in appearances, and ignore the finer details... People are very funny creatures.
*Ethos and race: Race can either give you instant credibility or instant rejection. Ie. if a professor who teaches the German language gets up in front of class and was actually born and raised in Germany, that right there will give a certain amount of credibility to their name, even if their parents only spoke English and they went to an all-English school. If a hearing teacher gets up in front of a sign language class, they've already lost credibility with the Deaf community because they are not Deaf. Granted, they may have been a CODA or have a deaf spouse, but until those details are discovered, people will act based on their assumptions. (I know the Deaf are not usually recognized as a "race", but culturally, it has the same implications, and they're their own minority.)
*People will give more credibility to a news broadcast saying it's searching for "an islamic militant" with a picture of a guy with a black beard and native dress than a picture of a very white american in a button-up shirt with scholarly-looking glasses.
*People will give more credibility to leaders who are like them, or at least fit in the group; ie. a black leader would hold more sway in a black-rights movement gathering than a Chinese man.
It's funny how we put so much stock in appearances, and ignore the finer details... People are very funny creatures.
Monday, November 26, 2007
Fwee Wite
...Oy. My 2nd english paper. After my teacher explained to us that low grades are really not a bad thing, (sounds weird, I know, but you had to hear her entire spiel. Makes sense through speech,) I feel better about it, but I was at least hoping to have improved, if at least slightly, with my second paper. What's buggy is that I arranged my paper, took my time with it, sorted out all my arguments, wrote for my audience, and felt so good about it, and then I find out it's just as "bad" as the first paper I wrote that I had hurriedly put together because I still didn't know what I was doing. Add to that the fact that I got my paper back on one of the worst mornings of the week where I was already spazzing and stressed, and I was not a happy camper.
I admit, seeing a big blue C+ on my paper was not terribly encouraging, and I still have that perfectionist's complex that I grew up with. (The one I learned from coming home with a report card with all A's, and one A-, and getting asked, "Why wasn't this an A?") I worry doubly about it because I'm trying to keep this scholarship I worked so freakishly hard to get, and waited for for so long, and an overall low grade in my classes would kill me. I'm putting myself through school, and though I don't mind working, it's way stressful. I went broke one semester, and it scared me. ('course, that was paying for two schools' tuition and books, traveling between them and cost of living and all that jazz...) I'm also taking a rather uninteresting theory class that I'm not particularly fond of that I hope won't turn out badly, because it would do the same sort of damage.
/end vent.
Okay. I write that not for any "oh, you poor thing" sympathy, but kinda to get it out of my head, and to tell myself that it's not the end of the world if I get a C+ on one paper (well, two now, but, spppt.) I know why it makes me nervous, and that means I can address it and not send myself into a conniption. [Because conniptions are bad.]
I admit, seeing a big blue C+ on my paper was not terribly encouraging, and I still have that perfectionist's complex that I grew up with. (The one I learned from coming home with a report card with all A's, and one A-, and getting asked, "Why wasn't this an A?") I worry doubly about it because I'm trying to keep this scholarship I worked so freakishly hard to get, and waited for for so long, and an overall low grade in my classes would kill me. I'm putting myself through school, and though I don't mind working, it's way stressful. I went broke one semester, and it scared me. ('course, that was paying for two schools' tuition and books, traveling between them and cost of living and all that jazz...) I'm also taking a rather uninteresting theory class that I'm not particularly fond of that I hope won't turn out badly, because it would do the same sort of damage.
/end vent.
Okay. I write that not for any "oh, you poor thing" sympathy, but kinda to get it out of my head, and to tell myself that it's not the end of the world if I get a C+ on one paper (well, two now, but, spppt.) I know why it makes me nervous, and that means I can address it and not send myself into a conniption. [Because conniptions are bad.]
Saturday, November 10, 2007
TA: Technical analysis of Technical Stuff
Analysis of eng paper for technology writings... mine is on how overuse of texting (or using that as your only form of communication) is harmful to college student's relationships. Just got my paper back... and oy.
I'll say this before I go further: I'm glad for the chance to make my writing better. I'm always up for not sounding like a moron, and criticism is a good way to not sound like one. But... meh, I guess I'm frustrated because I felt it had gone so well. Murphy's law... doesn't that just bite it. I'm worried now too because I just turned in my revised draft of the first paper, and though my arguments were better and more focused than the first paper, the actual writing was just not coming to me. I feel like I mangled it and it wasn't coming out the way I wanted. Meh.
Things I need to do with my writing in the future:
*Condense. I'm too much of a wordy creative writer and I need to learn how to be succinct. (I should know this after reading tomes and tomes of college junk... people like you to get to the point, because they don't want to spend all day on you.)
*Don't be repetitive. I think at this point she'd forgive me if I wrote a shorter paper. (Maybe that's what it is... teachers have always been grouchy about page length, so maybe I've gotten into the habit of adding fluff everywhere...)
*Apparently I'm trying to address too many things. This still confuses me, because I thought I had narrowed it down quite a bit, and down to a very specific audience.
*Make sure arguments don't wander. I have trouble with this too, because where do you draw the line between addressing your opponents' arguments, not analyzing enough, and yakking too much? I had thought all my arguments were okay too.
I'll say this before I go further: I'm glad for the chance to make my writing better. I'm always up for not sounding like a moron, and criticism is a good way to not sound like one. But... meh, I guess I'm frustrated because I felt it had gone so well. Murphy's law... doesn't that just bite it. I'm worried now too because I just turned in my revised draft of the first paper, and though my arguments were better and more focused than the first paper, the actual writing was just not coming to me. I feel like I mangled it and it wasn't coming out the way I wanted. Meh.
Things I need to do with my writing in the future:
*Condense. I'm too much of a wordy creative writer and I need to learn how to be succinct. (I should know this after reading tomes and tomes of college junk... people like you to get to the point, because they don't want to spend all day on you.)
*Don't be repetitive. I think at this point she'd forgive me if I wrote a shorter paper. (Maybe that's what it is... teachers have always been grouchy about page length, so maybe I've gotten into the habit of adding fluff everywhere...)
*Apparently I'm trying to address too many things. This still confuses me, because I thought I had narrowed it down quite a bit, and down to a very specific audience.
*Make sure arguments don't wander. I have trouble with this too, because where do you draw the line between addressing your opponents' arguments, not analyzing enough, and yakking too much? I had thought all my arguments were okay too.
Thursday, November 8, 2007
RA: Technology
A rhetorical analysis of technology itself... Might be interesting.
What does technology "say"? A broad question, maybe, but here are some of the things I've noticed: (especially working with it, as I do on a regular basis...)
*"You have to keep buying me if you want to be savvy." You can be the most advanced user in the world, but if you're the most advanced user in the world with Windows 98, you're still behind the 7-year-old who can use just the basics of Office 2007. And, since technology is changing all the time, it means that you have to be constantly buying it... and if you don't want to waste a lot of money, it means you have to know WHAT you're buying. Therefore, you need to be knowledgable about not only technologies themselves, but new technologies... and a step beyond that, what people are CONSIDERING making into new technologies.
*Technology carries a lot of authority, it seems. When you have two people walk into a room, and one of them is toying with a very sophisticated piece of technology and they look like they know what they're doing with it, people tend to automatically assume they're smart, and give more deference to them.
*People who resist change can similarly be close-minded about other things. It's very funny. The people I work with who resisted just changing a simple program to a newer version were the same ones who were cranky, afraid of anything new or doing anything without the explicit permission of their supervisor (to the extent that one wanted to call a meeting just for that, good grief...) People who resist technological change usually have personality traits that coincide with that resistance. (Heh, my coworkers and I were joking that they probably still use floppy disks... a form of technology SO outdated, they've stopped making computers with places to put floppy disks. Heck, they've even stopped making places for zip drives, which came after floppies. Funny old-timers... We love the non-cranky ones, but when they break down and can't function without a specific icon placed right in view in their icon tray, you get a little worried...)
Sunday, November 4, 2007
FW: Curses
No, I wish I was talking about the card game where everyone does random and silly stuff and you can all laugh at each other's expense. I'm referring to the blasted cold I have and how it's making me feel wiped out. Grr.
||Waringing: Tome to follow. ||
I also wish I knew how to... well, fix things. It's so hard. There's this guy I like who I care for, and we are extraordinarily good friends and are very much alike, but we've run into a snag with our relationship and I don't know what to do about it. I have this feeling that something isn't settling quite right, but I don't know what the devil to do about it. Unfortunately, I really don't know what it is, and thus don't know how to fix it. He's a really good guy, and he deserves the best... and I hate seeing him hurt and confused. He's pulled back a lot and, as far as I can tell, isn't associating with people on our floor or doing anything social, which makes me sad. He used to be so outgoing and easygoing, and every time I pass by, he just seems depressed. He doesn't come to a lot of the gatherings or activities that we have any more, and I know it's because of me. The ones he does come to, he sits in the back corner and doesn't talk to people any more, and jumps ship as soon as the meeting is over. I know that I told him I don't want to put him on a back burner while I figure things out, but he's doing that himself. I realize that's his choice, but I know it's because of me and I don't want to take away some of the best opportunites of his life while I sit back and figure things out. I did something like that for two years, and it sucked. I went through a lot of pain that I feel I didn't need to, and I don't want him to feel so down that he doesn't feel like having those carefree experiences. This kind of setup is never going to come again, and I miss his old self. When I mentioned it to my roommate, she said, "You know it's so hard for him because he was so utterly devoted to you, right?" I think I did know that, subconsciously, but it's still sad to see him so withdrawn and so changed, and it almost makes my heart cry when I see him. I don't know what I can do to fix it.
Then, too, I feel like I'm responsible for his pain, and if I talk to him or see him, I'll just bring up those painful feelings again. I'm almost afraid to go near him lest I cause those hurt or confused feelings to come back. I want him to be happy, but I also can't just give in to that feeling of responsibility before I know what I'M feeling. That won't make either of us happy in the long run, and I'd probably have to break up again so I could really figure things out.
This sucks... so bad. I care for him, and I don't want him to hurt, but I also can't give in just because of pity. I grew up knowing that that was very, very bad. I honestly care for him, and loved my time with him, but I don't know if it's the right time or thing to do, and I can't chance it with this. Other situations may be more forgiving. I only have one shot with this one.
Then, too, I'm leaving next year. I don't mind at all the prospect of seeing him again when I get back, but I have seen SO many other people's literal anguish when they try to wait for their significant other and keep a relationship alive through the distance. It just doesn't work. I experienced it, he experienced it, and lately I've been watching my roommate struggle with feelings of rejection when her guy got back and flat out turned away from her. Andrew spazzed while Jamie was gone, and it was terrible for him. Yes, they ended up getting married, but he was in such literal torment. I can't wish that upon my guy, or even myself. Jamie said the absolute lowest point for her at that time was when she got Andrew's letter that said he was going to date other girls. Not the weather, not the rejection or the hardships of the work. It was his letter.
I can't go through that... not again, and I'm not going to put him through that for the 4th or 5th time or however many he's been through. If he's around when I get back, great! I will be more than happy. But it is so heart-wrenching, I won't put either of us through it. I care for him too much to do that. Just like I cared for him too much to date him before Todd got back. I knew I'd end up dumping him, and that wouldn't be fair, so I forced myself to leave. I won't do that to him.
I also worry that he's reading too much into a friendship I have with another guy. Yes, I know that he likes me, but I also know for a fact that he only wants to keep it at a friendship. My friend respects me and my relationship with him too much to interfere. He's had plenty of opportunities to "make a move", or take our friendship to a higher level, but he's never done it. He wants to just stay friends. To be honest, I've needed him, but just in the role of friend. I had a lot to deal with, and I needed someone to vent to, to help when I was down, to make me laugh on a crappy day. I needed that support, not another boyfriend.
Man, I hope this works out. I want us all to be happy, but I can't control everything. I can only do so much, and right now the answer I'm getting is "Wait. You wouldn't understand everything if I told you. But I'll be beside you, and I do know what's going on. You will understand in due time."
So, I sit and wait, and move on the best that I can with what I have. In the meantime, I wish he wasn't hurting so.
||Waringing: Tome to follow. ||
I also wish I knew how to... well, fix things. It's so hard. There's this guy I like who I care for, and we are extraordinarily good friends and are very much alike, but we've run into a snag with our relationship and I don't know what to do about it. I have this feeling that something isn't settling quite right, but I don't know what the devil to do about it. Unfortunately, I really don't know what it is, and thus don't know how to fix it. He's a really good guy, and he deserves the best... and I hate seeing him hurt and confused. He's pulled back a lot and, as far as I can tell, isn't associating with people on our floor or doing anything social, which makes me sad. He used to be so outgoing and easygoing, and every time I pass by, he just seems depressed. He doesn't come to a lot of the gatherings or activities that we have any more, and I know it's because of me. The ones he does come to, he sits in the back corner and doesn't talk to people any more, and jumps ship as soon as the meeting is over. I know that I told him I don't want to put him on a back burner while I figure things out, but he's doing that himself. I realize that's his choice, but I know it's because of me and I don't want to take away some of the best opportunites of his life while I sit back and figure things out. I did something like that for two years, and it sucked. I went through a lot of pain that I feel I didn't need to, and I don't want him to feel so down that he doesn't feel like having those carefree experiences. This kind of setup is never going to come again, and I miss his old self. When I mentioned it to my roommate, she said, "You know it's so hard for him because he was so utterly devoted to you, right?" I think I did know that, subconsciously, but it's still sad to see him so withdrawn and so changed, and it almost makes my heart cry when I see him. I don't know what I can do to fix it.
Then, too, I feel like I'm responsible for his pain, and if I talk to him or see him, I'll just bring up those painful feelings again. I'm almost afraid to go near him lest I cause those hurt or confused feelings to come back. I want him to be happy, but I also can't just give in to that feeling of responsibility before I know what I'M feeling. That won't make either of us happy in the long run, and I'd probably have to break up again so I could really figure things out.
This sucks... so bad. I care for him, and I don't want him to hurt, but I also can't give in just because of pity. I grew up knowing that that was very, very bad. I honestly care for him, and loved my time with him, but I don't know if it's the right time or thing to do, and I can't chance it with this. Other situations may be more forgiving. I only have one shot with this one.
Then, too, I'm leaving next year. I don't mind at all the prospect of seeing him again when I get back, but I have seen SO many other people's literal anguish when they try to wait for their significant other and keep a relationship alive through the distance. It just doesn't work. I experienced it, he experienced it, and lately I've been watching my roommate struggle with feelings of rejection when her guy got back and flat out turned away from her. Andrew spazzed while Jamie was gone, and it was terrible for him. Yes, they ended up getting married, but he was in such literal torment. I can't wish that upon my guy, or even myself. Jamie said the absolute lowest point for her at that time was when she got Andrew's letter that said he was going to date other girls. Not the weather, not the rejection or the hardships of the work. It was his letter.
I can't go through that... not again, and I'm not going to put him through that for the 4th or 5th time or however many he's been through. If he's around when I get back, great! I will be more than happy. But it is so heart-wrenching, I won't put either of us through it. I care for him too much to do that. Just like I cared for him too much to date him before Todd got back. I knew I'd end up dumping him, and that wouldn't be fair, so I forced myself to leave. I won't do that to him.
I also worry that he's reading too much into a friendship I have with another guy. Yes, I know that he likes me, but I also know for a fact that he only wants to keep it at a friendship. My friend respects me and my relationship with him too much to interfere. He's had plenty of opportunities to "make a move", or take our friendship to a higher level, but he's never done it. He wants to just stay friends. To be honest, I've needed him, but just in the role of friend. I had a lot to deal with, and I needed someone to vent to, to help when I was down, to make me laugh on a crappy day. I needed that support, not another boyfriend.
Man, I hope this works out. I want us all to be happy, but I can't control everything. I can only do so much, and right now the answer I'm getting is "Wait. You wouldn't understand everything if I told you. But I'll be beside you, and I do know what's going on. You will understand in due time."
So, I sit and wait, and move on the best that I can with what I have. In the meantime, I wish he wasn't hurting so.
Thursday, November 1, 2007
TA: Wow...
Talk about one of the coolest realizations... I wish I had known this before. So, during English class one day, my professor showed us what the difference was between writing with passive voice and active voice, and what targeting "to be" verbs does for your writing. Holy freaking amazing. It makes sense... in one of those "oh, duh," ways that you have to be told in order to realize. I've been in creative writing and advanced english classes ever since I can remember (I mean, I signed myself up for a reading class without my parents knowing during preschool. I've been an english troublemaker from the beginning :D ) but I have never, even once, had a teacher who talked about nixing "to be" verbs and replacing them with active ones. Oh, they talk about active and passive voice, but I looked at my writing and it made such an incredible difference. I had heard, from one professor during a summer camp, to avoid "ly" adjectives and the like, but my professor explained why and how to do it effectively. SO much better. But, now I have a problem because anything I wrote previously to finding this out (which is a lot...) I'm going to want to completely revamp every verb (well, many.) Talk about cool.
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
Freewrite: The day in the life of a flower
So... I have roses sitting in front of me, and my brain is in its mushy stage where I don't have to think about anything, so I won't until I have to do my soc homework. So, the mush sits there, and thus my inspiration will be whatever happens to be in my immediate attention; hence the roses.
So. There are two vases. One, with a concoction I made myself (woo, my first ever flower arrangement), and the other a simple design I helped pick out and make for my roommate. She was having a rather crummy day, so I grabbed 3 long-stem roses from the plethora available to me and found a beautiful gold ribbon to go with them. It made her morning, which made me happy.
We also ended up making an arrangement for my ickle sister, who happened to be very sick. (Not that I'm surprised, I think she keeps herself busier than I do, which is saying something. 'Cept she still manages to do it all :) .) It was pretty-- lots of fall colors in the flowers, of oranges and crimson reds with some sunflowers. *sigh*. I love flowers. They make any dreary jail-esque cinderblock apartment happier...
So. There are two vases. One, with a concoction I made myself (woo, my first ever flower arrangement), and the other a simple design I helped pick out and make for my roommate. She was having a rather crummy day, so I grabbed 3 long-stem roses from the plethora available to me and found a beautiful gold ribbon to go with them. It made her morning, which made me happy.
We also ended up making an arrangement for my ickle sister, who happened to be very sick. (Not that I'm surprised, I think she keeps herself busier than I do, which is saying something. 'Cept she still manages to do it all :) .) It was pretty-- lots of fall colors in the flowers, of oranges and crimson reds with some sunflowers. *sigh*. I love flowers. They make any dreary jail-esque cinderblock apartment happier...
Sunday, October 28, 2007
RA, because I felt like it.
Rhetorically Analyzing...
A thought on technology
We've been having presenters for our upcoming paper on technology, so here are some thoughts on their presentations:
* This last group was extremely well-organized. I very much liked how they gave their presentations and split up the time and topics. I admit I had to laughingly gripe a little bit at the "Mac vs. PC" presentation, because I hate Macs, but that's just a personal quirk. I thought the presenters brought up a lot of good points and discussion material.... ie. talking about how new forms of technology (texting, internet, email, social groups) are affecting the way we live and interact with each other (and write english papers, according to N :) ).
*The discussion on intellectual property was interesting too. The group talked about who should have what rights, and whether it's right for companies to endorse certain technologies.
*One guy talked about whether we should "simplify" our technological world and only allow one kind of format (ie. Blu vs. HD DVDs), or whether that promotes monopolies and unfair business/ethical practices. Personally, I'm more of the opinion that I love standardization, but I dislike the idea of technology monopolies (mostly because I work with tech, and so often things don't work in one format that prove more useful in another format in certain situations. I'm all for options.)
*I also liked the way they presented their slides... yes, it had a lot of technical information, but it was done for comparative reasons and you weren't expected to read the whole thing.
A thought on technology
We've been having presenters for our upcoming paper on technology, so here are some thoughts on their presentations:
* This last group was extremely well-organized. I very much liked how they gave their presentations and split up the time and topics. I admit I had to laughingly gripe a little bit at the "Mac vs. PC" presentation, because I hate Macs, but that's just a personal quirk. I thought the presenters brought up a lot of good points and discussion material.... ie. talking about how new forms of technology (texting, internet, email, social groups) are affecting the way we live and interact with each other (and write english papers, according to N :) ).
*The discussion on intellectual property was interesting too. The group talked about who should have what rights, and whether it's right for companies to endorse certain technologies.
*One guy talked about whether we should "simplify" our technological world and only allow one kind of format (ie. Blu vs. HD DVDs), or whether that promotes monopolies and unfair business/ethical practices. Personally, I'm more of the opinion that I love standardization, but I dislike the idea of technology monopolies (mostly because I work with tech, and so often things don't work in one format that prove more useful in another format in certain situations. I'm all for options.)
*I also liked the way they presented their slides... yes, it had a lot of technical information, but it was done for comparative reasons and you weren't expected to read the whole thing.
Thursday, October 25, 2007
RA: Oh So Stylish
So. We had an assignment to analyze a song. Keeping with the tradition of saving bullets or arrows (or whatever your preferred medium of attack is) and time, I'm going to kill two birds with one stone (/bullet/arrow) and analyze "I'm Not That Girl", from Wicked, which I am also translating for my sign class. Brilliant.
I'm Not That Girl
Speaker: Elphaba, aka Elfie [total side note, this is where I get one of my nicknames from. Long story, and I'm not totally obsessed with Wicked, but I will say it is probably the greatest Broadway show I have ever seen, for it's creativity, plot, lighting, and some fun characterization. I thought it was absolutely brilliant how it made itself into a prequel for the beloved, "Wizard of Oz", but absolutely changed the meaning of everything. Brilliant! /end side note...]
Audience: Herself, which is interesting. (So Brannon wasn't completely crazy talking to himself about the gray speck on the carpet :D). She's musing out loud, and trying to convince herself. What makes this incredibly interesting is that it's not your normal argument-- she already knows all of her points and arguments for both sides. She knows her strong points and her plan of attack, so her main argument has to be very strong indeed.
Argument: 'Ignore your feelings and let him go.' She's resigning herself to giving up the only boy who has ever sparked her interest,
because she doesn't feel like she's on his level. She feels completely overshadowed by Galinda, and doesn't think she'll amount to much in the ways of romance or social popularity.
Style: Morose. One argument is dejected, fatal, while the other is giddy because of the precious, rare feeling she experienced. The hopeful side is being pulled down by the fatalistic side, and in the end, she crushes her hope. She gives in to the notion that she will never have a chance with Fiyero because the competition is far too high above her.
I'm Not That Girl
Speaker: Elphaba, aka Elfie [total side note, this is where I get one of my nicknames from. Long story, and I'm not totally obsessed with Wicked, but I will say it is probably the greatest Broadway show I have ever seen, for it's creativity, plot, lighting, and some fun characterization. I thought it was absolutely brilliant how it made itself into a prequel for the beloved, "Wizard of Oz", but absolutely changed the meaning of everything. Brilliant! /end side note...]
Audience: Herself, which is interesting. (So Brannon wasn't completely crazy talking to himself about the gray speck on the carpet :D). She's musing out loud, and trying to convince herself. What makes this incredibly interesting is that it's not your normal argument-- she already knows all of her points and arguments for both sides. She knows her strong points and her plan of attack, so her main argument has to be very strong indeed.
Argument: 'Ignore your feelings and let him go.' She's resigning herself to giving up the only boy who has ever sparked her interest,
because she doesn't feel like she's on his level. She feels completely overshadowed by Galinda, and doesn't think she'll amount to much in the ways of romance or social popularity.
Style: Morose. One argument is dejected, fatal, while the other is giddy because of the precious, rare feeling she experienced. The hopeful side is being pulled down by the fatalistic side, and in the end, she crushes her hope. She gives in to the notion that she will never have a chance with Fiyero because the competition is far too high above her.
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
Technical Analysis: Style, stance, tone, and all sorts of good fodder
Stance: Different opinions of what you think about your topic.
Changing stance without changing tone or audience:
Young audience (elementary/jr. high)
1) Annie moved closer to Billy. She looked at him, and he looked back, wide-eyed. She scooted closer on the lunch bench. Her eyes were big and brown with long lashes. Billy gulped. Her hand touched his, very softly, and all of a sudden she was holding his hand. Billy smiled. He held her hand tighter, and they spent the rest of lunch sitting close together.
2) Annie moved closer to Billy. She looked at him, and he stared back, wide-eyed. She scooted cloer on the lunch bench. Her eyes were huge, with long freaky lashes. Billy gulped. Her hand touched his, just barely, and all of a sudden she had grabbed his hand. Billy grimaced. She held his hand tighter, and he spent the rest of lunch trying not to sit so close together.
Changing tone without changing stance:
Older audience (college/adult)
1) Anna sidled closer to William. She gazed through him, nearly piercing his soul, and he ogled back, one eyebrow raised. She slithered even closer on the bar stool. Her eyes were enormous, with sweeping, sultry lashes framing delicate eyelids. William choked slightly on his martini. Her hand brushed his, ever so slightly, and suddenly the warmth of her hand spread across his as she interlocked fingers. William choked harder. With one too many drinks, he could not pull himself from her spell, and he spent the rest of the night trying to dislodge her surprisingly persistant grip.
2) Anna sidled closer to William. She looked at him intensely and longingly, as if she was interested, and he stared back in shock and nervousness, one eyebrow raised. She cunningly moved closer on the bar stool. Her unblinking eyes were enormous, and she gazed flirtatiously at him with her long eyelashes. William coughed in embarrassment. She reached out and her hand brushed his to get his attention, and suddenly she had interlocked her fingers with his. William became more embarrassed and felt all the more awkward. With one too many drinks, he couldn't bring himself to tell her off, and he spent the rest of the night trying to pull his hand from her stubborn hold.
Changing stance without changing tone or audience:
Young audience (elementary/jr. high)
1) Annie moved closer to Billy. She looked at him, and he looked back, wide-eyed. She scooted closer on the lunch bench. Her eyes were big and brown with long lashes. Billy gulped. Her hand touched his, very softly, and all of a sudden she was holding his hand. Billy smiled. He held her hand tighter, and they spent the rest of lunch sitting close together.
2) Annie moved closer to Billy. She looked at him, and he stared back, wide-eyed. She scooted cloer on the lunch bench. Her eyes were huge, with long freaky lashes. Billy gulped. Her hand touched his, just barely, and all of a sudden she had grabbed his hand. Billy grimaced. She held his hand tighter, and he spent the rest of lunch trying not to sit so close together.
Changing tone without changing stance:
Older audience (college/adult)
1) Anna sidled closer to William. She gazed through him, nearly piercing his soul, and he ogled back, one eyebrow raised. She slithered even closer on the bar stool. Her eyes were enormous, with sweeping, sultry lashes framing delicate eyelids. William choked slightly on his martini. Her hand brushed his, ever so slightly, and suddenly the warmth of her hand spread across his as she interlocked fingers. William choked harder. With one too many drinks, he could not pull himself from her spell, and he spent the rest of the night trying to dislodge her surprisingly persistant grip.
2) Anna sidled closer to William. She looked at him intensely and longingly, as if she was interested, and he stared back in shock and nervousness, one eyebrow raised. She cunningly moved closer on the bar stool. Her unblinking eyes were enormous, and she gazed flirtatiously at him with her long eyelashes. William coughed in embarrassment. She reached out and her hand brushed his to get his attention, and suddenly she had interlocked her fingers with his. William became more embarrassed and felt all the more awkward. With one too many drinks, he couldn't bring himself to tell her off, and he spent the rest of the night trying to pull his hand from her stubborn hold.
Sunday, October 21, 2007
Fw: Totally glad I have these for when I'm out of town and it's more difficult to concentrate when relatives are gabbing with full mouths
Okay, my relatives really aren't that bad, but they are talkative, so I'm glad I don't have to write a full-blown paper or anything that needs a lot of concentration. Can't say as much for my sociology homework, but they at least understand that I'm not totally being antisocial if I skip out of the room for a while. (Well, either that or I'm avoiding the very distant relative that was hitting on my sister last year, and trying to avoid the same fate).
So, driving down here was intersting, and frankly, almost terrifying. I drove with my parents and my sister, and although my dad has his little baby Acura, which is a very nice car and should have good traction and all that jazz, we hit a BEASTLY snowstorm, and I could feel the tires sliding every few minutes. A bit unnerving, especially when you couple it with the fact that we couldn't see farther than the taillights of the 4th car in front of us, and you can usually see the whole valley. Then we hit fog. Joy. And then it stopped snowing, and then it started again, and then we had semis blowing past us (which was rather stupid, in my opinion... lugging a huge cargo load on a slippery road, almost no visibility, and going 85 miles an hour.)
Well, food's on, and I'm starving, so I'm outta here :)
So, driving down here was intersting, and frankly, almost terrifying. I drove with my parents and my sister, and although my dad has his little baby Acura, which is a very nice car and should have good traction and all that jazz, we hit a BEASTLY snowstorm, and I could feel the tires sliding every few minutes. A bit unnerving, especially when you couple it with the fact that we couldn't see farther than the taillights of the 4th car in front of us, and you can usually see the whole valley. Then we hit fog. Joy. And then it stopped snowing, and then it started again, and then we had semis blowing past us (which was rather stupid, in my opinion... lugging a huge cargo load on a slippery road, almost no visibility, and going 85 miles an hour.)
Well, food's on, and I'm starving, so I'm outta here :)
Thursday, October 18, 2007
TA: Post Analayzizizizizizing
Okay. Got my paper back, [After the stupid CP internet wouldn't work, *rabble rabble*, and stressed me out like no other], and this is what lovely Brannon said: (very helpful, although you basically do need a magnifying glass to read his handwriting...)
-Asked if every child really dreaded "the talk", and mentioned that some studies might have found that kids preferred getting the talk. I should change it to refer to the oft-poked at media version, versus an actual "reality" talk.
Mentioned that the ideas from India could be pushed further, and then commented that he was curious if I was just talking about the U.S. or the whole world, because I have sources about India and Sweden. I agree... what the studies say support my claim very well, but my paper would have to be a lot bigger and a lot more comprehensive if I were to do it for the world over. So, need to nix those in the future. (Plus I realized too late that the Sweden study was about 15 years old, so I should change that anyway.) I'll focus it more definitely on the U.S.
He did compliment my examples of misinformation that teenagers have believed. So, if it's good, I'll keep it in, and say no more about that.
I'm pushing for parents to step up and take more responsibility for teaching their own kids, and doing it early, but it's coming off as preferring to take sex ed out of schools as well. I actually didn't mean to take it out of schools, because I believe parent's teachings can be supplemented. I guess I need to alter my criticisms and add that. I'm also curious if my teacher is going to read this far down my blog. I imagine not, because I would be bored to tears if I had to read this many, but on the other hand, this could be kinda fun because I can talk about purple cows and pygmy bananas, and nobody will be any less the wiser, and frankly, probably not care. I think it's genetic, to tell the truth... my sister started writing in German in one of her papers, and her teacher never said anything about it, although he gave the impression that he read through all of the studen'ts papers. Oh well. I think if my teacher does read this she'll post some snarky comment about it, and probably laugh. She's good natured like that. But, I really won't blame her if she doesn't read it, because.... heck, these are boring. Okay, back to sex ed. Brannon also mentioned that he likes the shift to emotional reasoning near the end, and points out that if I've sufficiently swayed my audience to my thinking, it'll drive the point home. If I haven't, however, I've probably lost them for good.
I don't know if I want to change the ending, necessarily. I may take out a sentence or two that is too much "bash you over the head with my pathos and hope the imprint stays". I need to make the rest of the paper more "when" oriented instead of as much "how". I think I kinda knew that as I was writing it, but I didn't really know how to change that, so, it stayed. At least I have some changing points I can work with and mold it a bit better.
So much like art. I'm such a nut.
-Asked if every child really dreaded "the talk", and mentioned that some studies might have found that kids preferred getting the talk. I should change it to refer to the oft-poked at media version, versus an actual "reality" talk.
Mentioned that the ideas from India could be pushed further, and then commented that he was curious if I was just talking about the U.S. or the whole world, because I have sources about India and Sweden. I agree... what the studies say support my claim very well, but my paper would have to be a lot bigger and a lot more comprehensive if I were to do it for the world over. So, need to nix those in the future. (Plus I realized too late that the Sweden study was about 15 years old, so I should change that anyway.) I'll focus it more definitely on the U.S.
He did compliment my examples of misinformation that teenagers have believed. So, if it's good, I'll keep it in, and say no more about that.
I'm pushing for parents to step up and take more responsibility for teaching their own kids, and doing it early, but it's coming off as preferring to take sex ed out of schools as well. I actually didn't mean to take it out of schools, because I believe parent's teachings can be supplemented. I guess I need to alter my criticisms and add that. I'm also curious if my teacher is going to read this far down my blog. I imagine not, because I would be bored to tears if I had to read this many, but on the other hand, this could be kinda fun because I can talk about purple cows and pygmy bananas, and nobody will be any less the wiser, and frankly, probably not care. I think it's genetic, to tell the truth... my sister started writing in German in one of her papers, and her teacher never said anything about it, although he gave the impression that he read through all of the studen'ts papers. Oh well. I think if my teacher does read this she'll post some snarky comment about it, and probably laugh. She's good natured like that. But, I really won't blame her if she doesn't read it, because.... heck, these are boring. Okay, back to sex ed. Brannon also mentioned that he likes the shift to emotional reasoning near the end, and points out that if I've sufficiently swayed my audience to my thinking, it'll drive the point home. If I haven't, however, I've probably lost them for good.
I don't know if I want to change the ending, necessarily. I may take out a sentence or two that is too much "bash you over the head with my pathos and hope the imprint stays". I need to make the rest of the paper more "when" oriented instead of as much "how". I think I kinda knew that as I was writing it, but I didn't really know how to change that, so, it stayed. At least I have some changing points I can work with and mold it a bit better.
So much like art. I'm such a nut.
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
RA: Analyzizizizing my own Rhetoricalness
So, seeing as this paper is due and we don't technically have a topic for our RA, I'm going to think out loud and do it for my own paper.
Many people who read my enthymeme said my audience was too broad, and I think I agree. Someone said it best when they pointed out that parents would be more swayed by pathos, and lawmakers and teachers by logos and some ethos, so your arguments will be different. That made quite a lot of sense to me, so I'm wanting to narrow the field to parents of pre-pubescent children. I say pre-pubescent, because my argument is that you need to at least consider, if not actually do so, teaching your children about sex ed yourself before they get too old, otherwise they'll get it from elsewhere.... meaning peers and the media and the like.
I also say parents, because ultimately I think it is their job to teach their own children how they think is best, in age, approach, detail, etc. The school can teach the kids, yes, but that will be some other adult's idea of what morals (or lack thereof) they should be hearing, and what your kid needs. It's also problematic to say that one approach should work for every kid in the classroom, because the kids (all 42 of them, if you're in a typical Utah classroom) are all going to be at different maturity and understanding levels.
I think I took particular interest in the topic of teaching kids early because I never had it-- "the talk". I'm sure I had snippets here and there, but I never actually knew what sex WAS until I went and looked it up myself.... when I was in college. Sure, I knew the biological names of anatomy, and I knew that it created children and was pleasurable, and a general idea, but I did not know the first thing about what it all entailed. In fact, I probably still know less than I should, but everything I knew about sex I learned from the media and other kids, and assumptions I made. That can't be healthy, or wise. I think the only reason I didn't get duped into anything was my religious upbringing, which stressed VERY strongly that sex was reserved strictly for the expression of love within marriage, and to bring children into the world. Thus, anything to do with sex or pornography or dirty jokes was pointedly shunned and ignored. Otherwise, I probably would have been a LOT more involved. So. That's my spiel. Parents need to be more responsible about making their children responsible.
Many people who read my enthymeme said my audience was too broad, and I think I agree. Someone said it best when they pointed out that parents would be more swayed by pathos, and lawmakers and teachers by logos and some ethos, so your arguments will be different. That made quite a lot of sense to me, so I'm wanting to narrow the field to parents of pre-pubescent children. I say pre-pubescent, because my argument is that you need to at least consider, if not actually do so, teaching your children about sex ed yourself before they get too old, otherwise they'll get it from elsewhere.... meaning peers and the media and the like.
I also say parents, because ultimately I think it is their job to teach their own children how they think is best, in age, approach, detail, etc. The school can teach the kids, yes, but that will be some other adult's idea of what morals (or lack thereof) they should be hearing, and what your kid needs. It's also problematic to say that one approach should work for every kid in the classroom, because the kids (all 42 of them, if you're in a typical Utah classroom) are all going to be at different maturity and understanding levels.
I think I took particular interest in the topic of teaching kids early because I never had it-- "the talk". I'm sure I had snippets here and there, but I never actually knew what sex WAS until I went and looked it up myself.... when I was in college. Sure, I knew the biological names of anatomy, and I knew that it created children and was pleasurable, and a general idea, but I did not know the first thing about what it all entailed. In fact, I probably still know less than I should, but everything I knew about sex I learned from the media and other kids, and assumptions I made. That can't be healthy, or wise. I think the only reason I didn't get duped into anything was my religious upbringing, which stressed VERY strongly that sex was reserved strictly for the expression of love within marriage, and to bring children into the world. Thus, anything to do with sex or pornography or dirty jokes was pointedly shunned and ignored. Otherwise, I probably would have been a LOT more involved. So. That's my spiel. Parents need to be more responsible about making their children responsible.
Sunday, October 14, 2007
TA: Group 3
Analysis: Group Three
So. Splitting the class into geographic groups was interesting, since it made the discussions more specific to personal experience across landscape, instead of a huge range of opinions and experiences. Granted, we still had a lot of variation within our groups (ie. we west coast people had one that taught absolutely zilch about sex ed, while another kid was taught absolutely everything.)
The discussion didn't seem to move very fast... I was losing attention. Perhaps it was just the kid's voice who was presenting, but I was quickly tempted to start daydreaming. I know that not all topics are going to be entirely intriguing, but the presentation at least can be. Anyway. Note to self: Keep it moving. Keep the pace up for all the mentally tired college students.
Also, note to self to be prepared with an actual written outline, and know what's coming next. (Goes along with keeping things moving.) I also noticed that Group 3's slides had WAY too much information packed onto them. Your audience doesn't want to read that much, and the presenters didn't even talk about most of what was on there. [Heh, come to think of it, maybe they did, but my brain was gone.] A third thing was that the other 2 guys in the group hardly said a word for half of the class period. By the time I'd scribbled that note in my notebook, they really hadn't said anything, but afterward one finally switched in. Another note to self: Also keep the presenters moving. That helps keep the pace changed up too, and switches intonation and voices.
And, finally, keep some humor. I laughed when someone said, "Why don't we have Short People History Day?"
So. Splitting the class into geographic groups was interesting, since it made the discussions more specific to personal experience across landscape, instead of a huge range of opinions and experiences. Granted, we still had a lot of variation within our groups (ie. we west coast people had one that taught absolutely zilch about sex ed, while another kid was taught absolutely everything.)
The discussion didn't seem to move very fast... I was losing attention. Perhaps it was just the kid's voice who was presenting, but I was quickly tempted to start daydreaming. I know that not all topics are going to be entirely intriguing, but the presentation at least can be. Anyway. Note to self: Keep it moving. Keep the pace up for all the mentally tired college students.
Also, note to self to be prepared with an actual written outline, and know what's coming next. (Goes along with keeping things moving.) I also noticed that Group 3's slides had WAY too much information packed onto them. Your audience doesn't want to read that much, and the presenters didn't even talk about most of what was on there. [Heh, come to think of it, maybe they did, but my brain was gone.] A third thing was that the other 2 guys in the group hardly said a word for half of the class period. By the time I'd scribbled that note in my notebook, they really hadn't said anything, but afterward one finally switched in. Another note to self: Also keep the presenters moving. That helps keep the pace changed up too, and switches intonation and voices.
And, finally, keep some humor. I laughed when someone said, "Why don't we have Short People History Day?"
Tuesday, October 9, 2007
FW... That's what makes the world go round!
Loverly. FREEEEEEWRIIIITE! I like these.... obviously....
My ASL class has a project to do a personal interpretation of a concept through a song, story, poetry, whatever, and to translate it into sign and present it. The topic I'd previously had was on a theater production, so my related topics are broad and wonderful... and, as possibly overused and cop-outish as it sounds, I'm really digging the idea of translating "Not That Girl" from Wicked. *Happy sigh*. I got to see the musical this past summer, through several miracles, and it was hands down the absolute best play I have ever seen, and the music is touching with a geniously-written plot. Sooo cool how they adapted it from the movie version and put in so many ties and twists... and it still fits together as a prequel. It's probably even better than if it really had been written first. --Anyway, my instructor said she wanted the songs to really display a sense of emotion, power... so that the audience could really feel it. I remember the feeling of being in junior high or high school, and not being 'That Girl'... as a kid, you feel invisible, and I'd see the happy, seemingly-carefree girls flirting away and looking like they were having the time of their life. I found out later that they weren't actually happy all the time, and they were wishing for things too... which is exactly what Glinda reveals. We're all insecure, at one point and to some degree or another, and I can sympathize, and thus it would be easier to express the song through sign. Ah... these are the kinds of assignments I can sink my teeth into-- so very easily :)
My ASL class has a project to do a personal interpretation of a concept through a song, story, poetry, whatever, and to translate it into sign and present it. The topic I'd previously had was on a theater production, so my related topics are broad and wonderful... and, as possibly overused and cop-outish as it sounds, I'm really digging the idea of translating "Not That Girl" from Wicked. *Happy sigh*. I got to see the musical this past summer, through several miracles, and it was hands down the absolute best play I have ever seen, and the music is touching with a geniously-written plot. Sooo cool how they adapted it from the movie version and put in so many ties and twists... and it still fits together as a prequel. It's probably even better than if it really had been written first. --Anyway, my instructor said she wanted the songs to really display a sense of emotion, power... so that the audience could really feel it. I remember the feeling of being in junior high or high school, and not being 'That Girl'... as a kid, you feel invisible, and I'd see the happy, seemingly-carefree girls flirting away and looking like they were having the time of their life. I found out later that they weren't actually happy all the time, and they were wishing for things too... which is exactly what Glinda reveals. We're all insecure, at one point and to some degree or another, and I can sympathize, and thus it would be easier to express the song through sign. Ah... these are the kinds of assignments I can sink my teeth into-- so very easily :)
Sunday, October 7, 2007
RA: More on our favorite subject
Yay, now we'll talk about the second group's presentation. I liked this one more, for some reason. Perhaps it was because the discussion was just as involved, but calmer. I also think it helps when the people leading the discussion don't have as strong of an agenda... I think I remember the one girl saying that sex ed was her platform for her beauty pageant, and that naturally makes people vie for one side or the other. [Aaand, add to the fact that I was having a really, really crummy day, so I liked the second one better.]
Anyway... I thought it was ingenious how they split up the class into several different groups. It can be more intimidating to propose comments to the entire class cold turkey, rather than presenting them to a smaller group first and feeling comfortable with how it was received, or having more arguments to back up your thought or claim. That, and you can bounce ideas off of each other, and come up with more things to talk about. So. Kudos for that one.
It was unfortunate that the filters on the internet prevented group 2 from showing what they wanted to show. I hate when you prepare something, put the time into it, and have things set up in just the way you want it presented, and then find out that the technology is blocking you. (Happens rather often, unfortunately.) It's another reminder that you usually should have backup plans or alternate ways of accessing things... I guess just another facet of being prepared.
I felt a bit bad for the vocal performance major kid who put out his opinion and then had everyboy jump on him for it. That's why we talk about things openly, to realize that there are more opinions out there, but that's also why it can be scary. You don't want anyone to be upset with you or jump down your throat, so often when people have "deviant" opinions, they'll simply shut their mouths. [That's actually one reason why I hate political discussions... people have a tendency to jump all over you and scream at you that you're wrong, and then talk over you and not listen at all to your POV. Seriously annoying, and usually it accomplishes nada except promoting bad feelings and people leaving frustrated.] I'm glad our class was decent about it, though, and hope it doesn't discourage future "deviant" comments.
Anyway... I thought it was ingenious how they split up the class into several different groups. It can be more intimidating to propose comments to the entire class cold turkey, rather than presenting them to a smaller group first and feeling comfortable with how it was received, or having more arguments to back up your thought or claim. That, and you can bounce ideas off of each other, and come up with more things to talk about. So. Kudos for that one.
It was unfortunate that the filters on the internet prevented group 2 from showing what they wanted to show. I hate when you prepare something, put the time into it, and have things set up in just the way you want it presented, and then find out that the technology is blocking you. (Happens rather often, unfortunately.) It's another reminder that you usually should have backup plans or alternate ways of accessing things... I guess just another facet of being prepared.
I felt a bit bad for the vocal performance major kid who put out his opinion and then had everyboy jump on him for it. That's why we talk about things openly, to realize that there are more opinions out there, but that's also why it can be scary. You don't want anyone to be upset with you or jump down your throat, so often when people have "deviant" opinions, they'll simply shut their mouths. [That's actually one reason why I hate political discussions... people have a tendency to jump all over you and scream at you that you're wrong, and then talk over you and not listen at all to your POV. Seriously annoying, and usually it accomplishes nada except promoting bad feelings and people leaving frustrated.] I'm glad our class was decent about it, though, and hope it doesn't discourage future "deviant" comments.
Thursday, October 4, 2007
TA: Our favorite subject...
All right: Applying what we learned in class, specifically in the context of a Technical Analysis. I guess basically that means rehashing the presentation from Wednesday, but I also like critiquing the delivery itself.
Arguments: I think the best way to get conversation and dialogue started is to present a controversial topic (I guess you don't have to, but that's easier), give a few points arguing for each side, and then ask what people think. If it's a topic that people are particularly passionate about, it's almost harder to get them to shut up than get them talking :).
The group on Wednesday was talking, of course, about sex ed, which is not particularly my favorite topic, but what the hey. I'm not sure how exactly factual the whole thing has to be-- as in their statistic that 1/6 condoms fail was debatable. I guess the presentation is mostly just to get discussion started, not necessarily to be a specific educating spiel. If we wanted to do that, we'd actually pull out the articles and study those, rather than getting it 3rd or 4th or 20th hand. I actually found it interesting that people didn't understand what, exactly, was failing... it seemed pretty clear to me, but I guess that that's why you have to review your presentations and make sure that what you're trying to communicate is clear. I guess just something good to keep in mind.
Arguments: I think the best way to get conversation and dialogue started is to present a controversial topic (I guess you don't have to, but that's easier), give a few points arguing for each side, and then ask what people think. If it's a topic that people are particularly passionate about, it's almost harder to get them to shut up than get them talking :).
The group on Wednesday was talking, of course, about sex ed, which is not particularly my favorite topic, but what the hey. I'm not sure how exactly factual the whole thing has to be-- as in their statistic that 1/6 condoms fail was debatable. I guess the presentation is mostly just to get discussion started, not necessarily to be a specific educating spiel. If we wanted to do that, we'd actually pull out the articles and study those, rather than getting it 3rd or 4th or 20th hand. I actually found it interesting that people didn't understand what, exactly, was failing... it seemed pretty clear to me, but I guess that that's why you have to review your presentations and make sure that what you're trying to communicate is clear. I guess just something good to keep in mind.
Tuesday, October 2, 2007
Freewrite: My Life Is a Soap Opera
Good heavens. It's been a soap opera since high school, and I don't even like tv. It comes complete with all the intrigue, the surprises, the cat fights and love triangles... it's almost ridiculous. That's not to say that I don't care for the people who have been involved in all my little episodes, because I very much do, but if I wrote a true story of my life, I wouldn't have to change a single detail of it to make it dramatic and ironic. It's incredible. I really should sell my life story and get the rights off of it, because I'd have all the teenage drama queens squealing and crying over my stories.
I feel like spilling everything in my soapy little insides here, but there's a reason it's called "personal life"... aaand, why I have a journal. I think it's interesting when people spill their entire personal life and all their details over the web to everyone with no reservations. Meh, I'm a little more reserved than that. Anyway. I'm going to bed :).
I feel like spilling everything in my soapy little insides here, but there's a reason it's called "personal life"... aaand, why I have a journal. I think it's interesting when people spill their entire personal life and all their details over the web to everyone with no reservations. Meh, I'm a little more reserved than that. Anyway. I'm going to bed :).
Sunday, September 30, 2007
TA: ..... dun dun dun.....
Technical Analysis: Analyzing the process of thinking through art.
I've had several classes about analyzing art, film, theatre, etc, and I have to say I rather enjoy it. It usually ends up boiling down to looking at the different technical issues, ie: Intent, emotion, form, style, time period, influences, expectations, method, color/scheme, design, etc. Obviously, the different forms of expression will have different means... paintings will have color, and so will theatre and film, but the eras will change the means available... ie. the old black and white films had only depth and contrast and lighting-type mediums to work with instead of color. They didn't have the means to use that kind of symbolism or influence, so they had to be creative and find other ways to express what they wanted to put across.
Ironically, in live theater, we can't use that alternate method. I'm thinking specifically of the BYU production of Hamlet where they basically made their entire set and costume design solely out of shades of black, grey, white, and red as their symbolic color (bit of trivia, it was symbolic of people who betrayed Hamlet, or were about to. Ingenious, if I do say so myself.) But, if they had wanted to stage a production imitating the black and white film, their natural state would interfere with it... by that I mean skin color, eye color, and hair color. In that regard, film has an advantage that we would not be able to use in live theater. We could go to some very big extremes to create that (ie. black/grey/white makeup and highlights, contacts, hair dye), but it wouldn't be natural. [...actually, that would make a really interesting experimental theater piece. Doing the whole thing in black and white... ooh. Ponderances.]
I find it interesting that we could analyze art even from an English standpoint. I hadn't really thought that was possible. I usually thought of it in the context of using English as a vehicle to write about theater/art through... but that's a cool new medium in and of itself.
I've had several classes about analyzing art, film, theatre, etc, and I have to say I rather enjoy it. It usually ends up boiling down to looking at the different technical issues, ie: Intent, emotion, form, style, time period, influences, expectations, method, color/scheme, design, etc. Obviously, the different forms of expression will have different means... paintings will have color, and so will theatre and film, but the eras will change the means available... ie. the old black and white films had only depth and contrast and lighting-type mediums to work with instead of color. They didn't have the means to use that kind of symbolism or influence, so they had to be creative and find other ways to express what they wanted to put across.
Ironically, in live theater, we can't use that alternate method. I'm thinking specifically of the BYU production of Hamlet where they basically made their entire set and costume design solely out of shades of black, grey, white, and red as their symbolic color (bit of trivia, it was symbolic of people who betrayed Hamlet, or were about to. Ingenious, if I do say so myself.) But, if they had wanted to stage a production imitating the black and white film, their natural state would interfere with it... by that I mean skin color, eye color, and hair color. In that regard, film has an advantage that we would not be able to use in live theater. We could go to some very big extremes to create that (ie. black/grey/white makeup and highlights, contacts, hair dye), but it wouldn't be natural. [...actually, that would make a really interesting experimental theater piece. Doing the whole thing in black and white... ooh. Ponderances.]
I find it interesting that we could analyze art even from an English standpoint. I hadn't really thought that was possible. I usually thought of it in the context of using English as a vehicle to write about theater/art through... but that's a cool new medium in and of itself.
RA: And not the person that babysits the Freshmen
Assignment to analyze a painting/picture, pull out an argument.
What strikes me when I look at this painting most is the absolute serenity of the Listener. The quote next to it, which I quite like, said,
"There are two types of people; those who wait to talk and those who listen."
All of the characters in the painting are loud, obnoxious, and incredibly detailed. The Listener is simple, quiet, and doesn't have the dynamic body positioning that the other characters do. He is the only one who is positioned squarely to the viewer point of view, and there is a tranquility about him.
The argument that strikes me from this painting is that those who listen possess that tranquility that those who are constantly chattering lack. He has a meditative understanding, whilst the others seem to be merely throwing words at each other. I suppose my WATCO would then be thus: WATCO talking too much on acquiring wisdom?
Audience: People who want to gain wisdom, people who like to talk, any conversationalist, counselors, people who have a lot of personal interaction.
Talking too much will decrease the opportunity to gain wisdom, because talking too much quashes the expression of the other conversationalist.
Thusly. And, speaking of people who talk too much, I have a headache and I'm going to bed, because my roommates are.
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
Freewrite! Yay!
Kazaa, I like freewrites. I don't have to think as much, which means I can free up brain power for other things, like my ridiculous amounts of sociology theory. (Bleh.) [It's okay, it's an English blog, I can bash on sociology here.] I am actually fairly tempted to quit sociology altogether because of this theory class. Ew. I'm trying to remind myself how interesting the higher-level classes were, though, and compare it to the basics of sketching-- because in order to be any kind of good artist you have to learn all the basics, which usually involve lots of incredibly boring still-lifes of pretty little fruit bowls and glass bottles that have been sitting on the teacher's shelves for several decades. I was severely tempted to draw a rotting still life many, many times... with flies... and mold...
It probably really did not help that I was in an animation class at the same time that emphasized energy and movement and life. Rather contradictory combination.
Anyway. At least I have my signing, and that makes me happy. I'm still having dreams in sign, which makes me uberhappy, and I always wake up in a good mood after having those. I used to have those in German, but seeing as I haven't really used that for years... Heh, I had a friend once who told me that his roommates had told him that he spoke in three different languages while he slept-- English, German, and Tagolog. Then he said he had a roommate who was Samoan (or something) and one night it sounded like he was chanting some wicked-sounding war curse... totally freaked him out :).
It probably really did not help that I was in an animation class at the same time that emphasized energy and movement and life. Rather contradictory combination.
Anyway. At least I have my signing, and that makes me happy. I'm still having dreams in sign, which makes me uberhappy, and I always wake up in a good mood after having those. I used to have those in German, but seeing as I haven't really used that for years... Heh, I had a friend once who told me that his roommates had told him that he spoke in three different languages while he slept-- English, German, and Tagolog. Then he said he had a roommate who was Samoan (or something) and one night it sounded like he was chanting some wicked-sounding war curse... totally freaked him out :).
Sunday, September 23, 2007
TA: Which is not FA, but TA, and the "T" at least means "Technical"...
So, I rather like the intros we've been writing lately. We were discussing how to write more creative intros rather than just, "The discussion of the dissection of social properties is important to our society because blah blah blah..." I suppose the reason is because I was a writer in high school, (oy, and even junior high and clear back to elementary...) so it's right down my alley, and I admit, I do enjoy creative introductions a lot more. A heckuvalot better than the dry, boring, smart-sounding ones.
So. Here we go with another.
*Note: for anyone who is involved with Deaf culture, this is a composite of stories I've heard and what I understand some Deaf experience to be like. I have not actually experienced this myself, so forgive me if you feel some of the details are wrong or have a completely different personal experience. If so, send me a friendly note, but don't bite my head off, please.
"The girl's hands fluttered a quick sign and snapped it off to her brother, who was seated across the room. He watched her out of the corner of his eye, trying discreetly not to change positions too much, lest the teacher discover his inattention when she turned around. He shook a closed fist back at his sister, signaling a yes, then quickly signed a reply. It was too quick and signed too low, though, and he realized that she had not understood when her eyebrows knitted together and her mouth frowned slightly. He resigned it. Her face lifted in comprehension, then abruptly switched to shock as the shadow of their oralist teacher fell over her. She mouthed something, loud and angry, thrusting her face into the girl's, so she was sure to see her mouth, and then slapped her hands. 'NO-SIGNS', she over-enunciated. She swept across the room and likewise slapped her brother's hands, repeating her mantra. 'THAT-IS-FOR-BID-DEN. NO-SIGN.' The brother ducked his head, hoping she would leave it at that. He had only understood half of what her silent lips had thrown at him, although he knew what she intended to say. He could, however, understand perfectly what his sister would sign; but not when they had to do it illegally, furtively. That was what "talking" meant. It meant looking like everyone else, lipreading, blending in, not letting them realize you were deaf. It meant no signs. Ever. "
WATCO teaching strict oralism on sign language production?
Heh, if it's not readily apparent, Deaf culture and Oralism is a hot topic for me. It is one of the few things that I'm that passionate about and really gets me going. I'm glad I finally found something to be passionate about, because before I found sign, nothing really struck me quite in the same way. I love sign...
So. Here we go with another.
*Note: for anyone who is involved with Deaf culture, this is a composite of stories I've heard and what I understand some Deaf experience to be like. I have not actually experienced this myself, so forgive me if you feel some of the details are wrong or have a completely different personal experience. If so, send me a friendly note, but don't bite my head off, please.
"The girl's hands fluttered a quick sign and snapped it off to her brother, who was seated across the room. He watched her out of the corner of his eye, trying discreetly not to change positions too much, lest the teacher discover his inattention when she turned around. He shook a closed fist back at his sister, signaling a yes, then quickly signed a reply. It was too quick and signed too low, though, and he realized that she had not understood when her eyebrows knitted together and her mouth frowned slightly. He resigned it. Her face lifted in comprehension, then abruptly switched to shock as the shadow of their oralist teacher fell over her. She mouthed something, loud and angry, thrusting her face into the girl's, so she was sure to see her mouth, and then slapped her hands. 'NO-SIGNS', she over-enunciated. She swept across the room and likewise slapped her brother's hands, repeating her mantra. 'THAT-IS-FOR-BID-DEN. NO-SIGN.' The brother ducked his head, hoping she would leave it at that. He had only understood half of what her silent lips had thrown at him, although he knew what she intended to say. He could, however, understand perfectly what his sister would sign; but not when they had to do it illegally, furtively. That was what "talking" meant. It meant looking like everyone else, lipreading, blending in, not letting them realize you were deaf. It meant no signs. Ever. "
WATCO teaching strict oralism on sign language production?
Heh, if it's not readily apparent, Deaf culture and Oralism is a hot topic for me. It is one of the few things that I'm that passionate about and really gets me going. I'm glad I finally found something to be passionate about, because before I found sign, nothing really struck me quite in the same way. I love sign...
Thursday, September 20, 2007
FW... the thing you do on those days when your brain is fried...
So... I've been sick all weekend. Dreadfully sick. As in, I never get this sick. And, to boot, not only do I get sick, but my body decides to layer different illnesses on me. Bargh. The woes of being mortal. But, on a much brighter side, when you get wiped out like that, you find out that people are really nice and super caring... I guess you find out how good people really are.
My friends and roommates have been absolutely wonderful to me. On Sunday when most people found out that I was feeling icky, within the next couple of hours I had a pot of herbal tea and a jug of orange juice brought over, roommates offering to cook dinner for me, and people almost literally throwing drugs at me. (Wohoo!) "Oh, here! Take this, it works wonders!" "Hey, do you have Airborne? Take some of mine!" "What? You're living on cough drops? Dude, here's two packs of cold medicine." People are wonderful.
Man, the funny thing about being sick and being on drugs (oh yeah, and sleep deprived :) ) is that you are totally not coherent. I was trying to talk to my roommates last night and I was giving them WordHurl. Rather pathetic... I'd go to say something and I would completely get the wrong word, or pronounce it like I was drunk. I think I gave up after a while. Meh. That's why everybody needs to learn sign language. Probably wouldn't help much when my brain was broken, but at least it looks more artistic :D.
My friends and roommates have been absolutely wonderful to me. On Sunday when most people found out that I was feeling icky, within the next couple of hours I had a pot of herbal tea and a jug of orange juice brought over, roommates offering to cook dinner for me, and people almost literally throwing drugs at me. (Wohoo!) "Oh, here! Take this, it works wonders!" "Hey, do you have Airborne? Take some of mine!" "What? You're living on cough drops? Dude, here's two packs of cold medicine." People are wonderful.
Man, the funny thing about being sick and being on drugs (oh yeah, and sleep deprived :) ) is that you are totally not coherent. I was trying to talk to my roommates last night and I was giving them WordHurl. Rather pathetic... I'd go to say something and I would completely get the wrong word, or pronounce it like I was drunk. I think I gave up after a while. Meh. That's why everybody needs to learn sign language. Probably wouldn't help much when my brain was broken, but at least it looks more artistic :D.
Tuesday, September 18, 2007
RA: More Rhetorical Analysis... dun dun dun...
So, ironically, we were supposed to go actually put ourselves into a situation where people's livelihoods depended on commission. Normally, you avoid those people like the plague. I usually do too. But, lucky me, I didn't have to go far, because yesterday one of them called me up, and I couldn't help grinning because she thought she was doing her job but she was really doing my homework. The one and only time I like telemarketers. (Well, actually, there were the pranks that my sister would always play on them, but that's another story.)
Dearest Brynn calls me up from some company that sounds like "World Market" (which was funny, because at first I thought she said "Wal-Mart"). She informs me that I've been referred to their company to receive a free cruise by a "friend of mine" (a creepy guy from the single's ward back home) who has just joined the company. I would receive a free cruise for 2 adults from Cali to Mexico, all food and entertainment paid for, if I would simply go to a 90-minute presentation. That was all. I was not obligated to sign up for anything, commit to anything, just listen to a presentation, and the cruise was promised regardless.
So. What was she trying to do?
1. Promises me a free cruise. Why in the heck not?? I'm a poor student...
2.She tells me that it'll help out a friend. Appeal to my pathos. (Heh, she doesn't know he's creepy. I didn't even give him my number, he got it from a ward list.)
3. Said that it would only take 90 minutes... not "an hour and a half". Just a small, very tiny bit of my time that would guarantee a whole cruise: Logos. Such a small investment to make for such a large return.
4. Assured me that there were no strings attatched. Problem is, my parents have gone to timeshare presentations before, and were definitely not there for only "90 minutes." My dad left furious, because he definitely didn't want to sign anything, but every step they tried to take to go out the door was countered by someone offering a better deal if my parents would just sign up. The goal is to suck you in and make you buy something more.
5. As soon as she asked me their "mandatory procedure questions", which included my age, my marital/dating status (or lack thereof), and my income, and she found out that I make diddley-squat as a student, she admitted that I "didn't qualify" financially for the offer. "But", she said, "can we keep you on our list for some of our other promotions that don't have that requirement?" What a good little saleswoman.
Dearest Brynn calls me up from some company that sounds like "World Market" (which was funny, because at first I thought she said "Wal-Mart"). She informs me that I've been referred to their company to receive a free cruise by a "friend of mine" (a creepy guy from the single's ward back home) who has just joined the company. I would receive a free cruise for 2 adults from Cali to Mexico, all food and entertainment paid for, if I would simply go to a 90-minute presentation. That was all. I was not obligated to sign up for anything, commit to anything, just listen to a presentation, and the cruise was promised regardless.
So. What was she trying to do?
1. Promises me a free cruise. Why in the heck not?? I'm a poor student...
2.She tells me that it'll help out a friend. Appeal to my pathos. (Heh, she doesn't know he's creepy. I didn't even give him my number, he got it from a ward list.)
3. Said that it would only take 90 minutes... not "an hour and a half". Just a small, very tiny bit of my time that would guarantee a whole cruise: Logos. Such a small investment to make for such a large return.
4. Assured me that there were no strings attatched. Problem is, my parents have gone to timeshare presentations before, and were definitely not there for only "90 minutes." My dad left furious, because he definitely didn't want to sign anything, but every step they tried to take to go out the door was countered by someone offering a better deal if my parents would just sign up. The goal is to suck you in and make you buy something more.
5. As soon as she asked me their "mandatory procedure questions", which included my age, my marital/dating status (or lack thereof), and my income, and she found out that I make diddley-squat as a student, she admitted that I "didn't qualify" financially for the offer. "But", she said, "can we keep you on our list for some of our other promotions that don't have that requirement?" What a good little saleswoman.
Sunday, September 16, 2007
FA: I wish I could remember what FA stands for
Whatever it does stand for, it's not the Rhetorical Analysis and it's not Freewrite, so... the last one :)
We're supposed to give a response or try to experiment with something we talked about this week, which lately has been about rhetoric, effectiveness with your audience, wording on your arguments, etc. I basically decided to apply my knowledge of how people use rhetoric to a more everyday situation.... the dreaded Dating Scene. I've actually told a small lie, because this particular instance wasn't your every day occurance, but it's definitely interesting.
Short summary of what happened: There was a guy in my ward sophomore year that apparently liked me. I didn't like him. He was a bit strange, had odd social habits, and frankly just wasn't my type. He asked me on a few dates, I went on the first two, and then afterward told him I wasn't interested. A year later, I get an email from him saying several things, including the following: He had been impressed to tell me he loved me (something he hadn't told any other girl in his life), hadn't stopped thinking about me even though he'd been dating other girls, listed off several qualities he liked, admitted that he didn't feel the most qualified, and asked if I would consider going out with him again but would respect my wishes if I didn't want to. It was a very gutsy thing to do, and somewhat of a sweet email, but it was less than convincing and even had the opposite effect by weirding me out a little.
So. Why not? Why wasn't it convincing?
1. He started off his email with "I went to the temple today..." Baaad move. It is an extremely overused phrase in my little culture and usually means that the guy has little else to convince you with. I suppose the best way to say it would be that he picked the wrong angle for the wrong audience.
2. He was very complimentary, but bashed on himself: "I know I am not the smartest, most romantic or the funniest person out there. I'm not rich, and I probably never will be. I am certainly not the best at talking to girls." He threw away his own credibility very quickly.
3. He did make a lot of appeal to my pathos side: "But, if you gave me the chance, I would give you my heart. I would do my best to make you happy, I would be there for you when you are sad, to listen to what you have to say, to hold you when you cry, and I would be a gentilmen always." That part was actually more effective. Being an appeal to the emotional side of people when dealing with romance is usually a much better way than, say, the logistics that Mr. Darcy tries to use with Elizabeth in Pride and Prejudice.
4. His grammar and spelling were less than perfect. My family grew up as grammar nazis and it's something that's important to us, so that lost him some credibility there too.
5. The lack of confidence was a big one. He needed to know that his audience was looking for someone more bold and self-assured, but he played a more tentative card.
Lest I ramble on for too much longer, I'll stop there, but all in all, I mean to say that I'm realizing how important it is to know what you're talking about and to whom. In the very least, if you don't care about writing papers, at least you should know that it'll affect your dating life :).
(By the by, N, in the future I won't make these so long. I finally counted up how many words I had and I won't burden you with infinite tomes in coming posts.)
We're supposed to give a response or try to experiment with something we talked about this week, which lately has been about rhetoric, effectiveness with your audience, wording on your arguments, etc. I basically decided to apply my knowledge of how people use rhetoric to a more everyday situation.... the dreaded Dating Scene. I've actually told a small lie, because this particular instance wasn't your every day occurance, but it's definitely interesting.
Short summary of what happened: There was a guy in my ward sophomore year that apparently liked me. I didn't like him. He was a bit strange, had odd social habits, and frankly just wasn't my type. He asked me on a few dates, I went on the first two, and then afterward told him I wasn't interested. A year later, I get an email from him saying several things, including the following: He had been impressed to tell me he loved me (something he hadn't told any other girl in his life), hadn't stopped thinking about me even though he'd been dating other girls, listed off several qualities he liked, admitted that he didn't feel the most qualified, and asked if I would consider going out with him again but would respect my wishes if I didn't want to. It was a very gutsy thing to do, and somewhat of a sweet email, but it was less than convincing and even had the opposite effect by weirding me out a little.
So. Why not? Why wasn't it convincing?
1. He started off his email with "I went to the temple today..." Baaad move. It is an extremely overused phrase in my little culture and usually means that the guy has little else to convince you with. I suppose the best way to say it would be that he picked the wrong angle for the wrong audience.
2. He was very complimentary, but bashed on himself: "I know I am not the smartest, most romantic or the funniest person out there. I'm not rich, and I probably never will be. I am certainly not the best at talking to girls." He threw away his own credibility very quickly.
3. He did make a lot of appeal to my pathos side: "But, if you gave me the chance, I would give you my heart. I would do my best to make you happy, I would be there for you when you are sad, to listen to what you have to say, to hold you when you cry, and I would be a gentilmen always." That part was actually more effective. Being an appeal to the emotional side of people when dealing with romance is usually a much better way than, say, the logistics that Mr. Darcy tries to use with Elizabeth in Pride and Prejudice.
4. His grammar and spelling were less than perfect. My family grew up as grammar nazis and it's something that's important to us, so that lost him some credibility there too.
5. The lack of confidence was a big one. He needed to know that his audience was looking for someone more bold and self-assured, but he played a more tentative card.
Lest I ramble on for too much longer, I'll stop there, but all in all, I mean to say that I'm realizing how important it is to know what you're talking about and to whom. In the very least, if you don't care about writing papers, at least you should know that it'll affect your dating life :).
(By the by, N, in the future I won't make these so long. I finally counted up how many words I had and I won't burden you with infinite tomes in coming posts.)
Thursday, September 13, 2007
Rhetorical Analysis: Golf GTI Singing in the Rain
Okay. First school assignment: analyze an ad in regards to its rhetoric... audience, intent, methods, etc. I happen to like this particular ad, so that's why I decided to do it. I've been having trouble with the internet, and I wasn't able to get the internal video to work, but at the very least you can Google or YouTube "Golf GTI" and find it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jLOuDbsJNaE
At first glance (or glances, as it is a video :) ) you can't even tell it's an ad. The target audience initially seems to be a younger generation, those interested in breakdance or computer-manipulated images, but cultured enough to be familiar with Gene Kelly's Classic "Singing in the Rain".
This initial attraction relies on the novelty of seeing something and expecting one outcome (the rest of the original clip of "Singing in the Rain"), but being presented with another (the manipulated movements). Presumably, the newness is enjoyable (I know it was for me, so it was at least highly effective there.)
The overt advertising doesn't come until the last five seconds or so of the clip. All of a sudden, Gene comes up abruptly, stopped in his moves by something that's even novel for him. By the slightest tip of his hat, he approves. This is relaying to the audience that a guy who is so cool that he can be a classic movie star, as well as bust a few new moves, should have good taste in cars, and if you want to have good taste, you should buy the same car. (It is here that the ad reveals that it's also targeting people interested in buying cars.) His celebrity status appeals to the sense of Ethos, that you can trust such a nice famous guy who can dance with your choice of wheels.
The novelty is the connection to pathos; it is the feeling of excitement, eagerness. There is basically no appeal to logic, as everything is based on two things: 1) The surprise of his dance moves and new persona, and 2) the catch phrase at the end. The ad cites no smart, economic reasons as to why you should buy the car... not the price, or the gas mileage, or even the different colors you can buy. It relies solely on the tagline: "The original, updated."
The whole gist of the ad is that yes, the old things we knew in our culture were good, but if you update them, they're even cooler. I am assuming that the Golf GTI has been around for a while and they simply tweaked some things, but the message is that you need to be updating along with culture. If you don't, you're good, but not cool.
At the moment, it circulates more as an internet novelty rather than a straightforward advertisement, which to me is actually a decent sign that you made something worth watching. I first saw the clip as a "fun email" my dad sent to me, and to be honest, the personal enjoyment was the novelty and the new technology. Most car commercials try to grab you with "Buy now or you'll never get a car for a deal like this! Sign away your soul AND I'LL ECHO WHAT I JUST SAID SIX TIMES!", but this one was clever. As a member of their target audience, I am impressed and I have to say that it was indeed effective, for me. Heck, I'm writing about it in an English assignment. How much more convincing do you need to be?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jLOuDbsJNaE
At first glance (or glances, as it is a video :) ) you can't even tell it's an ad. The target audience initially seems to be a younger generation, those interested in breakdance or computer-manipulated images, but cultured enough to be familiar with Gene Kelly's Classic "Singing in the Rain".
This initial attraction relies on the novelty of seeing something and expecting one outcome (the rest of the original clip of "Singing in the Rain"), but being presented with another (the manipulated movements). Presumably, the newness is enjoyable (I know it was for me, so it was at least highly effective there.)
The overt advertising doesn't come until the last five seconds or so of the clip. All of a sudden, Gene comes up abruptly, stopped in his moves by something that's even novel for him. By the slightest tip of his hat, he approves. This is relaying to the audience that a guy who is so cool that he can be a classic movie star, as well as bust a few new moves, should have good taste in cars, and if you want to have good taste, you should buy the same car. (It is here that the ad reveals that it's also targeting people interested in buying cars.) His celebrity status appeals to the sense of Ethos, that you can trust such a nice famous guy who can dance with your choice of wheels.
The novelty is the connection to pathos; it is the feeling of excitement, eagerness. There is basically no appeal to logic, as everything is based on two things: 1) The surprise of his dance moves and new persona, and 2) the catch phrase at the end. The ad cites no smart, economic reasons as to why you should buy the car... not the price, or the gas mileage, or even the different colors you can buy. It relies solely on the tagline: "The original, updated."
The whole gist of the ad is that yes, the old things we knew in our culture were good, but if you update them, they're even cooler. I am assuming that the Golf GTI has been around for a while and they simply tweaked some things, but the message is that you need to be updating along with culture. If you don't, you're good, but not cool.
At the moment, it circulates more as an internet novelty rather than a straightforward advertisement, which to me is actually a decent sign that you made something worth watching. I first saw the clip as a "fun email" my dad sent to me, and to be honest, the personal enjoyment was the novelty and the new technology. Most car commercials try to grab you with "Buy now or you'll never get a car for a deal like this! Sign away your soul AND I'LL ECHO WHAT I JUST SAID SIX TIMES!", but this one was clever. As a member of their target audience, I am impressed and I have to say that it was indeed effective, for me. Heck, I'm writing about it in an English assignment. How much more convincing do you need to be?
Thursday, September 6, 2007
The Rundown
Okay, so, as technologically savvy as I like to consider myself, I admit the reason I started this blog was because it was an assignment for an English class. Therefore, many of my initial posts 
will be geared toward said class.
But, I hope to keep my blog going afterward, while even throwing in a variety of other things so you, dear readers, don't feel like you're only reading my homework notebook.
will be geared toward said class.But, I hope to keep my blog going afterward, while even throwing in a variety of other things so you, dear readers, don't feel like you're only reading my homework notebook.
I suppose until I figure out security issues I'll have to go with creative, but non-personal stuff. Maybe later I'll make it a private blog and invite family/friends to be viewers, but, until then.... I guess for the moment I'll apologize if it seems very random, but, well, if you read my "About Me" spiel, you'll know why.
(By the by, the pic of the adorable puppy was just a tester to put in something of picture format, but since it is so adorable, I just decided to leave it there. Just in case you were pondering.)
So, since I can't put directly what I'm thinking here, I'm going to leave you (rather devilishly, I actually hate when people do this to me) with only an abstract trace of what I'm thinking. I suppose it suffices me to say that I have a few major decisions and situations on my mind that I'm not quite sure what to do about, and want answers to, that I've been mulling over, but the answers haven't been coming very easily.
_______________________
----------------------------------------
Silent thoughts twist severally,
Winding through themselves,
Shove and elbow, shriek for room,
Clamoring for Notice.
But, upon conceding One, It laughs,
Skitting away again,
Tempting you to entertain and discover
Its nonexistant motives.
Curses. The vile Jokester... promising such grand rewards
of Enlightenment, Illumination, Freedom from
that nagging itch
to Know.
Curses. Back to Brooding...
----------------------------------------
_______________________
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)