Possible, Plausible, Cause, Effect ... Style?!

Hi, everyone.

Here are preparation notes for Thursday. We are reading Williams' lesson 10 on ethics of style along with chapter 1 of Harris's Rewriting. Between now and Thursday, I think there is more we can do to test our theory about the essence of scientific and technical discourse, at least as it is represented in publicly circulating genres. Moreover, I'm hoping we can think more deeply about how these texts argue in the stasis of cause in order to increase our certainty about possible and temporal solutions. (And of course, we need to determine whether we think this same theory illuminates Mann's essay on life expectancy and Joy's essay on 21st-century technologies -- i.e., what does the stasis of cause allow us to see about how they construct their arguments, if anything?)

So, let's look to language. We don't do this in order to read meaning into random pieces of evidence or to imply values or assumptions in language that is neutral, but rather we do this so that we can see how deeply and consistently our theory is supported by the text. Please do the following as you read:

--locate 2 examples of Harris's first move in one of the genre samples
--locate 2 examples of either ethical or unethical style (according to any of Williams' examples in lesson 10) in one of the genre samples
--be prepared to hand these in to me on Thursday so that I can use them during our workshop activity.

Have a great week until then. Happy reading,

-Professor Graban

In-Class Work on Sci/Tech Discourse

Hi, everyone.

In pairs during today’s discussion of our three genre samples, please spend some time writing a brief but coherent post on the question that corresponds with the genre you analyzed:

Wald’s “Is Ethanol for the Long Haul?”: How does Wald push the limits of current research on ethanol use and production to increase the certainty of his position on the topic? To help you develop your response, use 2-3 passages from each of the following, but please only use what is relevant to your demonstration:

• Gross or Fahnestock/Secor (depending upon which critical perspective you use)
• Ong, Kinneavy, Killingsworth, or Selzer (depending upon which critical terms you need)
• Style pp. 1-25

Mann’s “The Coming Death Shortage”: What role do metaphors, lore, speculation, and prediction play in conveying how Mann thinks we should feel about the impending “death shortage”? To help you develop your response, use 2-3 passages from each of the following, but please only use what is relevant to your demonstration:

• Gross or Fahnestock/Secor (depending upon which critical perspective you use)
• Ong, Kinneavy, Killingsworth, or Selzer (depending upon which critical terms you need)
• Style pp. 1-25

Joy’s “Why the Future Doesn’t Need Us”: What role do literature, contemporary science, historical science, and current events play in conveying how Joy thinks we should feel about genetic engineering technology? To help you develop your response, use 2-3 passages from each of the following, but please only use what is relevant to your demonstration:

• Gross or Fahnestock/Secor (depending upon which critical perspective you use)
• Ong, Kinneavy, Killingsworth, or Selzer (depending upon which critical terms you need)
• Style pp. 1-25

Please post by commenting here.

-Professor Graban

In-class Work on Audience and Genre

Group One

Based on her study of the communications strategies of the Great Smoky Mountain Association, Elizabeth Giddens has developed a theory of the GSMA’s four rhetorical strategies for biodiversity receptiveness and awareness that she sees reflected in all of their publications:

1. providing tools to ensure a good visit/read
2. interpreting biodiversity
3. balancing negative and positive messages
4. linking cultural and natural history.

Study the following websites and see how far her theory applies, especially in terms of blurred genres, discursive aims, and audience construction. You are not necessarily examining these sites for their common (or different) design principles, but rather you are studying them for how they function as discourse. Please browse deeply and selectively.

• http://www.thegreatsmokymountains.org/about_us
• http://www.nrdc.org
• http://www.nps.gov/index.htm
• http://www.wwf.org
• http://www.bp.com

Work Cited: Giddens, Elizabeth. “Creating a Rhetorical Space for Biodiversity: The Great Smoky Mountains Association.” Ed. Peter N. Goggin. Rhetorics, Literacies, and Narratives of Sustainability. New York: Routledge, 2009. 55-77.

-----------------------------

Groups Two and Three

Let’s put Kinneavy or Ong into deeper conversation with film trailers. By their theories, how do these trailers persuade? Pick one trailer set to view and re-view.

Mary Poppins, Scary Mary, Titanic, Scary Titanic
Windfall, Crude
11th Hour, Food Inc.

1. Try mapping for encoder, decoder, signal, reality, i.e., discursive aim.
2. Differences between intended and implied audiences?
3. What role(s) are we being called on to play in the original? In the recut?
4. How can we determine the writer/creator's "voice" in the original? Recut?
5. How are we being set up (or empowered) to respond?
6. Are we a sympathetic audience, distant, intimate, something else? Does that change over the course of the trailer?
7. Are the trailers artistic or realistic? Aesthetic or functional? Both at once? Is it possible to make these distinctions?

-----------------------------

Group Four

Examine the BP cleanup advertisements that ran as the full back page of the Wall Street Journal in 2010. These occurred in a series. Examine them together and apart, looking especially for signs of a progression of ideas.

1. Deliberative, epideictic, forensic?
2. Discursive aim on Kinneavy’s scheme?
3. How do the key elements work together, within ads and between ads?
4. Implied and intended audiences?
5. Possible claims or assumptions we may take for granted that another reader (or culture or group of readers) may not?
6. Possible interpretations or misinterpretations of these claims? Terms or assumptions that need to be unpacked?

-----------------------------

Groups Five and Six

Examine more closely “The Plan That Saved the Planet” article distributed in Tuesday’s class. Compare it to Adrienne Rich’s commencement speech introduction (Example One) in Killingsworth’s chapter on “Rhetorical Situation.”

1. Deliberative, epideictic, forensic?
2. Discursive aim on Kinneavy’s scheme?
3. Implied and intended audiences?
4. Distanced audience or intimate? Expert or nonexpert?
5. Role of time?
6. Possible claims or assumptions we may take for granted that another reader (or culture or group of readers) may not?
7. Possible interpretations or misinterpretations of these claims? Terms or assumptions that need to be unpacked?

Extra Credit Blogging - Themester Public Lecture Series

Dear ENG W350 Class:

Given the growing number of public lectures in this year's Themester series, I would like to offer you an extra-credit opportunity for your class blog this semester. Select and attend in full one of the lectures listed below, then blog about the experience.

Your blog post can be reflective, but it must be substantive and it should make a significant critical offering to the rest of the class. In this case, “critical” means you are applying the terms, concepts, and theories of what we study in class to the public lecture, or vice versa. In other words, we'll be looking for you to make meaning from the experience, to describe its relevance, and to discuss how it provoked new areas of thinking for you (or should provoke new areas of thinking for us). As much as possible, you should strive to get beyond simply agreeing or disagreeing, being willing or being skeptical. For me--and I hope for you, too--"critical" describes a kind of empowered interpretation and use of someone else's text (whether that is print, digital, or visual) to do something new or interesting with it.

Please follow our "Blogging Guidelines" as you post, and be sure to reference the full title of the lecture and full name of the speaker, as well as other important context details. Submit your post and proof of attendance (in the form of an attendance slip, a program, or a handout that was distributed during the lecture) within 5 days of when you attend.

Themester Lectures

• Any lecture in the COLL-T 200 “Living a Sustainable Life” Lecture Series (Tuesdays and Thursdays, WH 100, 4:00-5:15 p.m.)
• Any lecture in the “Mercy, Mercy Me! : Black Environmental Thought Series” (held at variable times/locations)
• Robert Costanza’s lecture entitled “Ecological Economics of Sustainability: Moving Beyond Debate to Dialogue” (Monday, 10/4, IMU, 12:00-1:30 p.m.)
• Subhankar Banerjee’s lecture entitled “Resource Wars in the American Arctic” (Friday, 10/22, FA 015, 5:30 p.m.)
• Thomas Friedman's lecture (New York Times columnist and author of Hot, Flat and Crowded) (Thursday, 11/4, IU Auditorium, 7:00 p.m.)
• Panel Discussion between writer Wendell Berry and Wes Jackson of The Land Institute (Wednesday, 11/10, Maurer Law School, 7:30 p.m.)

You can find out more about events and locations by visiting http://themester.indiana.edu/calendar.shtml. As always, feel free to send your questions my way.

-Professor Graban

Titling the Blog

Happy Wednesday evening, everyone.

I enjoy watching the list of member blogs grow, and I beseech you to set up your blog sooner rather than later, given that your first Short Assignment (and, consequently, blog post) has a deadline of 5:00 p.m. this Friday. I enjoy, also, watching your blog personae develop and change, reflected in how you title the blog, what description you provide, and what backgrounds you choose. There are several schools of thought on what and how to title a blog. Should titles serve as factual, literal depictions of the purpose or the task? Can they serve as representations of the rhetorical exigencies therein? Should they be creative for creativity's sake? My advice will always be this: in a live act of discourse such as this one, remember that the act of critically engaging your audience(s) begins here -- at the title. Engage us. Critically.

-Professor Graban

Reading Leading Groups

Hello, everyone.

At long last, I have Reading Leading group assignments to report, according to the preferences you have given me. In most cases, I was able to assign first choice. However, if you requested RL #5 (Language and Form) as either your first or second choice, I probably assigned you to that group because very few people requested it to begin with. A few of you indicated no preference, so I took a chance and matched you with a topic or set of readings that I thought would resonate with you or with the disciplinary perspective you are bringing to the class. If I have made gross errors in these assignments, please bring them to my attention soon. Otherwise, I encourage you to make contact with your group members early, and it might be wise for each group to self-select a coordinator.

RL #1 Audience and Genre
Benyam Bizuneh
Kimberly Cheung
Kellin Miller
Dipti Patel

RL #2 Invention and Arrangement
Kreigh Carlton
Kae Grossman
Aaron Taslitz
Kyla Tosti

RL #3 Conflict and Perspective
Lily Homstad
Jeff LaFave
Elizabeth Masih
Rebekah Sims
Zayin

RL #4 Claims and Tropes
Megan Brehm
Shelli Goldzband
John Lindgren
Takuro Sakamoto

RL #5 Language and Form
Ieshia Hill
Lacey (Perry) Hooie
Cindy Martin
Tim Mattingly



-Professor Graban