August 30, 2007 at 1:43 pm (course info)
Hello all. I received a question as to what format I want your written work to follow.
I use MLA and would appreciate that you all use it for numbering, headings, citations, etc– in your final papers. All page length requirements are for double-spaced pages.
For informal assignments, like your proposals, I am more flexible. You may single- or double-space–whichever you prefer. I don’t want to hamper your style during these initial brainstorming–or, inventional–moments. 
–Michelle
August 29, 2007 at 1:59 pm (course info)
You have reading and writing due Friday.
Reading: Ch 2 of ER. You also need to read an article, by Carole Blair, that I’m placing on electronic reserve. The article is called “Contemporary US Memorial Sites as Exemplars of Rhetoric’s Materiality.” (The article is a little bit long, but there are pictures! Read carefully through page 30, and then skim from there on, trying to get the main ideas of each section.)
To get the article, go to the library website, click on course reserves, and search by my name (“Smith, Michelle”). The article IS NOW AVAILABLE ONLINE! Hooray! Please bring a copy to class Friday so that I can play my “gloss this sentence” game.
Writing: Your proposal for your first paper is due Friday. (This should be one page, single-space, tops- I’m not interested in length here, just do what I ask.) READ the assignment sheet carefully–posted here under the tab “Assignment Sheets,” and POST as comments here any initial questions so that I can respond where the whole class can see.
In your proposal for Friday, include:
1. the “text” you plan to study (be creative- article, picture, ad, commercial–if you can show me a copy, website, floorplan, menu, or any other text–defined very broadly, that is rhetorical, that you think makes an argument or attempts to have an effect on an audience). tell me when and where this text was created/published/etc. tell me a little about the history of the text. PLEASE include a COPY of your text with your proposal.
2. describe the ideal audience of the text under study (who’s reading- seeing- walking through- the text you chose). what is that audience like (passions, interests, age, gender, values, etc.) what do they have in common? what is challenging about addressing this audience?
3. what is the purpose or aim of the text- what argument is it trying to make- what is its desired effect
4. what are some of the rhetorical strategies you see at work here? what concepts from the readings might play into your analysis?
5. what might be a potential thesis for this analysis?
–Michelle
August 28, 2007 at 2:07 am (Uncategorized)
Throughout this first chapter, there is a lot of talk about internal and external reasoning. These two concepts are fairly straight forward, internal reasoning is essentially someone answering questions that they ask themselves in order to reach some sort of conclusion, where as external reasoning involves other persons. This is more commonly referred to as “arguing.”
My question is this; why is it that we feel compelled to use external reasoning so much of the time, when we are fully capable of using our own minds, internal reasoning, to answer our own questions? Is it a lack of confidence, or does it seem as though the conclusions we reach cannot be considered valid unless they have been confirmed by others?
–Eric
August 28, 2007 at 1:13 am (Uncategorized)
While reading The Utopia Reader, I started thinking about how the concept of utopias affects individual people and society as a whole. I have found that many view the creation of utopias as a motivation. In other words, utopias give people a dream toward which to strive, thus causing them to always make changes and improvements such as “not…depending on the whims of nature or gods…and taking control of our dreams”. In this sense, the creation of a perfect world seems like a positive addition to our society. Similarly, many see dystopias as the worst case scenario that motivates people to work toward a common goal: the very opposite of the flaws that have been presented in the imaginary defective society. Read the rest of this entry »
August 28, 2007 at 12:41 am (Uncategorized)
The Utopia Reader describes the many types of utopianism and how the idea developed. Religious radicalism, the Age of Discovery, technological advancement, and aspirations for greater social equality all promoted the idea of a utopian society as man constantly looks to better its condition and way of life. Mankind will always look to better itself, so as new medical advancement promised a longer life, people looked and fantasized of perfect societies free from sin and persecution.
The introduction defines a utopia as “a nonexistent society described in detail and normally located in time and space.” If these utopian communities are nonexistent, then how can their acclaim be justified? Eutopias, or positive utopia, describe a perfect society always better than the authors. Are they written down as hope for the future? Or could they be showing a pessimistic view of current conditions? On the other hand, dystopias show a much worse situation that could encourage gratitude for present conditions. Do these pieces of fiction have a deeper message about society and the future?
Nick
August 27, 2007 at 10:36 pm (Uncategorized)
According to The Elements of Reasoning, reasoning is “a uniquely human activity.” Only people argue through problems and issues and discuss certain topics. Reasoning occurs in every activity, in the lives of people of all ages, from the playground at school, to the office at work. It happens all the time.
Many wonder if certain things are ever facts, or simply things that were reasoned through with the best available knowledge at the time. The topic of Pluto being a planet is still a hot topic today, though it has been concluded that it is not a planet. Many feel that Pluto should be considered a planet, and others feel it should not. In The Elements of Reasoning, they discuss this issue. It then comes down to, who says what makes a planet? What makes Mercury a planet? It is all a matter of reasoning.
After reading this, many come to wonder – can anything be truly proven? Are there any cold-hard facts that can absolutely not be reasoned? Or is everything reasoned?
–Molly
August 27, 2007 at 10:00 pm (Uncategorized)
Sorry guys. It looks like I need to add you as authors before you will have the “New Post” option. I’ll go ahead and do that for those of you who volunteered- this will only work if you signed up for wordpress using your PSU email address, so if you signed up using another email address, then email me (mcs288@psu.edu) and let me know. Thanks, and sorry,
Michelle
August 27, 2007 at 7:01 pm (course info)
Hello class,
I see there was a little initial confusion on the posts. Let me clarify.
Step One: Four people (Molly, Nicholas, Eric, and Elizabeth) will post four threads with their responses (raising issues, questions, etc- in several well-developed paragraphs) to the reading by midnight tonight. (They will start new threads by clicking “New Post”–located on the blue bar that appears at the top of this page once you’ve logged in with wordpress–and then composing in the box that appears.)
Step Two: AFTER those initial four posts are up, the rest of the class will choose one of those threads to respond to, by clicking “Comment”–located under the appropriate post. You will read the comments other people have made and then write your own response- try to keep a sort of “conversation” going, as much as possible. Aim for a few paragraphs. Even though you are responding to someone else’s ideas, I expect you to refer to the text under discussion directly.
(Because of the confusion, why don’t people respond to Emily’s-eat151’s- post, which is placed as a “comment” under my “Welcome” msg, as a 5th thread for this week.)
A few mechanics- for clarity’s sake, please “sign” your posts, as I have here. First names are fine, unless you are one of our two Steves (sorry guys). Also, you can “edit” your posts after you “publish” them–just FYI.
–Michelle
