Intros. (15 min)
Name
Major and/or interests
Answer either:
- What do you know way too much about? (what do you geek out on?)
- What was the last meal you had? Rate it on a 1-5 scale.
What is writing publicly? Writing privately? (10-15 min)
How do you write privately? Write something about your question answer from above only for you–perhaps about why you geek out so hard on INSERT TOPIC, about the flavor profile of the meal you had. As you write, note your own feelings.
Now write something to a close friend or relative about it. As you write, note your own feelings. Also note the sorts of choices you are making that are different from the previous iteration.
Now to the person next to you. As you write, note your own feelings. Also note the sorts of choices you are making that are different from the previous iteration.
Now to all of Pittsburgh (will go on a billboard and in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette). As you write, note your own feelings. Also note the sorts of choices you are making that are different from the previous iteration.
What is the difference among these different levels of “private” and “public”? What was the experience of writing it like? What did you have to consider as you wrote?
Writing with the world to see it is an important constraint to consider when writing. But what does that even mean anyway?
How does one write to the or a “public”? What “publics” are out there to write to?
How do you write to them? Is there such a thing as a “general” audience? What does it mean to write to such an audience? Can there be more specialized audiences? What’s that look like?
In this class, these are important considerations, but what is also important is the “public interest”. Not only who you write to, but what you write about. Government agencies, non-profits, and activists all have to consider the what just as much as the how.
Public Writing Examples (30-45 min)
One big “what” is climate change, so to get a sense of looking at some concrete, actual public writing, I want us to look at some writing by some government agencies, non-profits, and activists and play around with the “what” and “how” of public writing.
Activity: Read and skim through each of the below documents (7 in total, all linked below). Read these documents comparatively.
Why do these documents look different? What might be some possibilities?
To begin, you’ll have to note characteristics of design (use of images? layout? color?), of sentence style (longer sentences? Shorter ones? Vocabulary more or less technical?), digital vs print (is this something that can only be read online? Both? Where would it be better?), does the reader need any special knowledge of any kind (e.g., a degree of quantitative literacy, knowledge of more or less advanced science). Another thing to do: if you had to name each document as a “type” of a document, what might you call it? Why?
Next, compare your notes. What is similar across these documents? What is different? Why? Hard to answer such a question definitively, but quantity over quality here: what are some reasons that these choices were made in one document vs another? What do you think?
“General” Public and Public(s) (10-15 min)
Which document would you say was written for a “general” public? Which one was maybe some version of a more specific audience? What is a general public? How do you write for them? Which document is the best example of that? Why?
Break (15 min)
Syllabus (20 min)
Let’s do that first day thang and go over the syllabus. I’ll hit some key points. Below is a rubric on how I think about your writing holistically.
The below rubric (also on CourseWeb) is to just give you a sense of what a writer would do in this class to earn a corresponding grade. Obviously, things like not turning in work, missing a lot of class, and other administrative issues also impact your grade.
Here’s what an A looks like…
(Objective 1) This student has an excellent grasp of their public issue and have researched it extensively in order to turn out well-informed campaign documents. The documents themselves show a great command of the sorts of genres they are working with (e.g., know the conventions, choosing genres that make sense for their rhetorical situation) but also do not slavishly adhere to genre conventions–that is, they let the goal of the campaign inform the writing above all. (Objective 2) This student also has excellent awareness of how to make their work accessible for their target audience while also meeting the standards for professional writing in the context of the sort of ethos their campaign possesses. (Objective 3) The student is persuasive, using the tools of rhetoric to make a very convincing case why their audience should take action recommended by the student’s writing they have done. They have sought outside sources, like their interview, to inform their work and/or integrate into their work to demonstrate the usefulness of leveraging the expertise of others to communicate something in the public interest. (Objective 4) The student has demonstrated advanced knowledge of how to use multiple modes of expression beyond and integrated with alphabetic writing: images, numbers, sound recording, video, and/or design elements like layout, spacing, and color. These moves are never without purpose, and provide benefit in terms of persuasion, making meaning, accessibility, and being attention-grabbing. (Objective 5) The student is always keenly aware of how to craft their sentences with regard to their audience and the meanings they want to make. Careful attention is paid to stylistic elements like sentence type, sentence length, syntax, word choice, etc.
Here’s what a B+/A- looks like (wiggle room either way)…
(Objective 1) This student has a good grasp of their public issue and have researched it well but maybe not as extensively as they could have. The documents themselves show a solid command of the sorts of genres they are working with (e.g., know the conventions, choosing genres that make sense for their rhetorical situation), but at times miss the mark on conventional moves, or they sacrifice their goal for the campaign to adhere as closely as possible to genre conventions. (Objective 2) This student also has shown a good awareness, for the most part, of how to make their work accessible for their target audience while also mostly meeting the standards for professional writing in the context of the sort of ethos their campaign possesses. (Objective 3) The student is usually persuasive, using the tools of rhetoric to make a convincing case why their audience should take action recommended by the student’s writing they have done. They have sought outside sources, like their interview, to inform their work and/or integrate into their work to demonstrate the usefulness of leveraging the expertise of others to communicate something in the public interest, but at times this isn’t always evident or integrated smoothly. (Objective 4) The student has demonstrated good knowledge of how to use multiple modes of expression beyond and integrated with alphabetic writing: images, numbers, sound recording, video, and/or design elements like layout, spacing, and color. These moves are mostly used with purpose, and usually provide benefit in terms of persuasion, making meaning, accessibility, and being attention-grabbing. (Objective 5) The student usually demonstrates good awareness of how to craft their sentences with regard to their audience and the meanings they want to make. Careful attention is usually paid to stylistic elements like sentence type, sentence length, syntax, word choice, etc.
Here’s what a B/B- looks like (wiggle room either way)…
(Objective 1) This student has a decent grasp of their public issue and have researched it adequately but maybe not as extensively as they could have. The documents themselves show a solid command of the sorts of genres they are working with (e.g., know the conventions, choosing genres that make sense for their rhetorical situation), but at times (or more frequently) miss the mark on conventional moves, or they (possibly frequently) sacrifice their goal for the campaign to adhere as closely as possible to genre conventions. (Objective 2) This student also has shown some awareness of how to make their work accessible for their target audience while also adequately meeting the standards for professional writing in the context of the sort of ethos their campaign possesses. (Objective 3) The student is mostly persuasive, using the tools of rhetoric to make a convincing case why their audience should take action recommended by the student’s writing they have done–however, sometimes they fall far short, undermining their argument or alienating their audience. They have sought outside sources, like their interview, to inform their work and/or integrate into their work to demonstrate the usefulness of leveraging the expertise of others to communicate something in the public interest, but at times this isn’t evident or integrated smoothly. They may have even really missed the mark on including expert knowledge where it was warranted. (Objective 4) The student has unevenly demonstrated knowledge of how to use multiple modes of expression beyond and integrated with alphabetic writing: images, numbers, sound recording, video, and/or design elements like layout, spacing, and color. These moves are sometimes used with purpose, and sometimes provide benefit in terms of persuasion, making meaning, accessibility, and being attention-grabbing. (Objective 5) The student sometimes demonstrates good awareness of how to craft their sentences with regard to their audience and the meanings they want to make. Some attention is usually paid to stylistic elements like sentence type, sentence length, syntax, word choice, etc.
Here’s what a C/C+ looks like (wiggle room either way)…
(Objective 1) This student has a decent (and sometimes poor) grasp of their public issue and have researched it adequately but not nearly as extensively as they could have. The documents themselves show some command of the sorts of genres they are working with (e.g., know the conventions, choosing genres that make sense for their rhetorical situation), but often miss the mark on conventional moves, or they often sacrifice their goal for the campaign to adhere as closely as possible to genre conventions. (Objective 2) This student also has shown some awareness of how to make their work accessible for their target audience or have adequately met the standards for professional writing in the context of the sort of ethos their campaign possesses–has done one poorly compared to the other. (Objective 3) The student shows some persuasive promise, sometimes using the tools of rhetoric to make a case why their audience should take action recommended by the student’s writing they have done–however, they often fall far short, undermining their argument or alienating their audience. They have sought some outside sources, like their interview, to inform their work and/or integrate into their work to demonstrate the usefulness of leveraging the expertise of others to communicate something in the public interest, but this often isn’t evident or integrated smoothly. (Objective 4) The student has demonstrated little knowledge of how to use multiple modes of expression beyond and integrated with alphabetic writing: images, numbers, sound recording, video, and/or design elements like layout, spacing, and color. These moves show promise perhaps, but often aren’t used with purpose or provide much benefit in terms of persuasion, making meaning, accessibility, and being attention-grabbing. (Objective 5) The student demonstrates adequate-to-poor awareness of how to craft their sentences with regard to their audience and the meanings they want to make. Some attention is usually paid to stylistic elements like sentence type, sentence length, syntax, word choice, etc.
Here’s what a C- and below looks like…
(Objective 1) This student has a poor grasp of their public issue and/or have researched it poorly. The documents themselves show some or little command of the sorts of genres they are working with (e.g., know the conventions, choosing genres that make sense for their rhetorical situation). When they miss the mark on conventional moves, they do so without a clear reason as to why (i.e., no service to goal of campaign), making the piece less familiar and therefore less accessible. Sometimes when successfully meeting genre conventions, they greatly diminish the goal of the campaign (i.e., a genre convention undermines information communicated or the persuasive possibilities of the piece). (Objective 2) This student also has shown adequate or little awareness of how to make their work accessible for their target audience or have adequately or poorly met the standards for professional writing in the context of the sort of ethos their campaign possesses–or has done one poorly compared to the other. (Objective 3) The student shows little to no persuasive promise, rarely using the tools of rhetoric to make a case why their audience should take action recommended by the student’s writing they have done–they often fall far short, undermining their argument or alienating their audience. They have sought few or no outside sources, like their interview, to inform their work and/or integrate into their work to show demonstrate the usefulness of leveraging the expertise of others to communicate something in the public interest–this is never or rarely evident or integrated smoothly. (Objective 4) The student has demonstrated very little knowledge of how to use multiple modes of expression beyond and integrated with alphabetic writing: images, numbers, sound recording, video, and/or design elements like layout, spacing, and color. These moves often aren’t used with purpose or provide much benefit in terms of persuasion, making meaning, accessibility, and being attention-grabbing. (Objective 5) The student demonstrates poor awareness of how to craft their sentences with regard to their audience and the meanings they want to make. Some attention is usually paid to stylistic elements like sentence type, sentence length, syntax, word choice, etc.
Where to start? (5-10 min)
What motivates you? What interests you? Writing is a way to make knowledge, to see your thinking in front of you and reflect on it. The first blog post due for next week (see course schedule) is a way to get at these questions.
What’s worth writing about and why? What are the stakes?
Blog Post, 500-750 words (Due M, January 15 by 10am). This semester, you will spend a great deal of time researching and creating compositions in service of an issue that is in the public interest–that is, what John Dewey might see as a problem or topic of some kind that helps loosely bind a collection of citizens together to share a common interest.
You should pick something that is meaningful to you, and to help you start thinking about what you might pick, spend some time writing about your interests in things that concern the larger public and/or smaller segments of that public. Writing is not just about communication. Writing can aid thinking and it can create knowledge, because writing allows us to bring our thoughts into articulation in order to reflect back on this visible articulation. In this blog post, I want you to write a brief history of what sorts of topics that have grabbed your attention in the past and into your current moment. What do you care about? Why? What are some moments in your life where you thought, “Knowing more about this topic would help me do something about it.” As you get closer to the end of the post, start to focus in on one issue above others, and start an attempt to work through these questions in relation to that topic: What exists? How do you know? What is good? How do you know? What is possible? How do you know?
**Don’t forget: comments due by 4pm on 1/16**
Logistics and In-Class Work (10-15 min)
Register for website
Sign up for blog posts
While doing the above, work on your first blog post.
Next week (5-15 min)
Let’s go over next week real quick:
Have your blog posts up by Monday (1/15) at 10am. Have comments posted by Tuesday (1/16) at 4pm.
Read Booth (1963). It is a short reading–just 8 pages. Your blog post does not have to relate to this reading, but I want you to think about the following questions to get ready for a discussion of public writing and ideology next week:
-Consider what a “rhetorical balance” means (see page 145 where he uses this phrase over and over). From his perspective, how might he define rhetoric, especially when considering the three aspects of his rhetorical stance?
-Booth is primarily talking about writing in freshman composition and not public writing in the wider world (though he certainly is drawing connections between both). Think back to your own experiences in Seminar in Composition or other similar courses in your past: how might public writing be similar to and/or different from the kind of writing Booth is drawing from? Look to the anecdotes and examples and compare them with some of the things we looked at during our first class meeting.
-Which of the three “perversions” of the rhetorical stance might be most worrisome when writing for the public? Why?
PS, Booth is writing from an English department in the 1960s, so sorry about sentences like this one: “What makes the rhetoric of [John] Milton and [Edmund] Burke and Churchill great is that each presents us with the spectacle of a man passionately involved in thinking an important question through, in the company of an audience” (p. 145). Men, dead, white, “man,” etc.