Class Log
Tuesday, October 13th
To start class, Mat had us draw our self-portrait per usual, and then read us Emily Dickinson’s poem “I Heard a Fly Buzz.” We then sent him our portraits and a word that stood out to us from the poem to Mat for attendance.
Emily Dickinson’s poem is about going under anesthesia. Makes perfect sense as the speaker “loses magic,” which actually means going unconscious .
Mat noted that he is a little behind on Project 1 grading, but it’s okay! He emphasized that if you really want a grade now, to come to his office hours.
Our homework was to read BBG Chapter 3 and go over Project 2 on the assignment sheet. The goal of this class was to go over Project 2 in-depth, which Mat dove into right away.
Jason read the first paragraph of the p2 description.
Mat noted that there are a lot of ways you can approach this paper and people have some pitfalls, as things seem so plain.
A lot of people don’t realize that the main goal is to analyze their content, rhetorical strategies, and how they affect the reader and the meaning of the text. It’s not focused on your issue such as climate change.
The first artifact is supposed to be text-based. This doesn’t need to be a scholarly article because there is not a lot to say about its genre, it’s obvious.
The second is supposed to be non-text based. For example, a podcast (can be hard to explain what rhetorical strategies are working towards the meaning).
Want to pick something UNIQUE and unusual (ex. Podcast with a poem in the middle of it). Something people aren’t really writing about. Pick something to stand out so you have something to say.
Bryce read the 2nd paragraph
Mat: artifacts are the texts/videos/paintings that we’re analyzing
Both artifacts are supposed to be around some pressing issue in your field of study. Something unique and close to your actual interest as possible. Something people are talking about (it may be difficult in a global pandemic and election but something relatively important that you care about. Something pressing to you).
Some people try to find pro/con artifacts, Mat thinks it’s better to pick 2 things that talk about the same thing and analyze it in different ways.
Artifacts should be focused on and not very broad.
There are some examples of how this paper was done well on the link Mat provided that has past students’ projects on it : (https://matwenzel.wixsite.com/2135/past-classes)
Pablo picked movie scenes and a book. These things are broad but he was able to zoom in on particular rhetorical strategies at play
Introduce evidence. Cite it. Explain it. Analyze it. Apply it to your argument. Pablo does this well (traditional way of writing).
Sofia chose an article which has lots of videos (not that great, charts and figures in the article made the paper okay) and then a news video (not the best to help you).
Cassandra then asked if we can use “I” in this paper. Mat highlighted that our personal opinions are less important in this paper. Laws don’t say “I” (ex. “crime is a problem”). You can give some introduction of how you got interested in your project, but you are not that center of this project like P1. Perfectly fine to use “I.” You can’t write an analysis in the passive voice which is what you would be doing if not use “I.”
So, a little bit of “I” is fine!
Mat also noted that we shouldn’t talk much about the effectiveness of the texts. Presenting the artifacts proves a point in themselves because you chose them. The Project is not an evaluation, but some evaluation may sneak in your essay when comparing and contrasting the two artifacts.
Compare/contrast essay
Evidence is so important--quote texts with specific examples
“For example” is your best friend--basic but makes it very clear
For our Project, we should pick genres (artifacts) particularly designed for your field of study. You may or may not use rhetorical terms described in the syllabus (ex. may not be using metaphors). Examples of basic rhetorical devices are not going to be in every artifact, so analyze those that are in them.
Just analyze rhetorical strategies
Mat then defined some rhetorical strategies that we could use in our paper, specifically the ones he felt we would need some clarification on:
Genre convention: similarities between things in a certain genre, expectation, shared things between genres
Context: the surrounding information of the artifact, can help things make sense and be more effective (ex. Made in 1990--why was it a unique strategy in the time period)
Author (who actually wrote the artifact) & Speaker (ex. Narrator talking over a video who was not the author)
Rhetorical appeals (ethos (tik-tok ex. Famous), pathos (sympathy/empathy, nowadays videos make people feel different things like anger), logos (not just statistics, there is a logic to everything)--speaks to the expertise of the author)
Exigence-- Mat feels like we don’t really know (why people made things). May not be the best rhetorical device to analyze in your paper
Medium--the way it’s conveyed to the receiver (audio or visual ex. Snapchat and disappearing). Hard to say a lot without being basic
Constraints--any limitations of the artifact (all professors looking if you are aware of this, always want to explore this)
Active and passive voice (I did this (more direct--more active role) vs. this was done by me)
- The windows of the car were smashed out (helping verb of “were” is a key sign of passive voice)
- Mat smashed the windows of my car (active voice--subject acting on an object)
Organization ((order present things) & structure (format)--not bad to be a little basic (ex. Video intros and outros. How do they make meaning? (like and subscribe will undermine))
Tone (author’s attitude toward the subject--great to talk about but a pitfall, give EXAMPLES! Be specific, really related to word choice, that conveys the tone, sometimes spoken language as well)--hard to prove, need to analyze well
Formality (informal/formal--mat doesn’t feel like this is very effective)
Mat then went over the rubric and made a point that we must make sure to follow it directly because that is how he grades, even though he has his own interpretation of it
Close examination & sustained focus--one entire paragraph about the tone, don’t jump around all over the place in one paragraph.
The writer offers a new perspective--be unique and fresh to get a good grade
How things are complicated and center on the significance of rhetoric features. Don’t make it more on the idea.
For work outside of the class itself, Mat reminded us that the first draft for Project 2 won’t actually be due until our conference with him, and he will post the survey so we can set up our meetings as soon as possible!
Комментарии