Shiv Kohli

Summary and Response:

My research paper is about the stereotypes between generations and the generational divide that appears to be growing in today’s climate. My research questions are why is there a divide between current generations and how have stereotypes caused this? I basically explain the different generations and define them by the years they are assigned to. The differences between the young and old are the first examples that use to explain this divide. I define the term “juvenoia,” which basically means an exaggerated fear of things that influence kids these days. I then follow up by referring to the sensationalism in modern media and its effects on each generation. Using my sources and the data from them, I conclude that in the end, the kids these days are just like the kids back then. Sure technology has changed the way we work in and view the world, but that is just a byproduct of being human in this current climate. To assume and judge a generation while they are still living in society puts risks the creation of stereotypes that stem from juvenoia. For me, the most difficult thing about this paper was reaching four pages. Although I eventually did, it required me to look back on my paper and find places to expand on that I wasn’t initially planning on doing. Interestingly though, I found myself being more interested in my topic the with the more research I did.

Memes:

Image result for millennial meme

Shiv Kohli Style imitation

Don’t take the cookie from the cookie jar.

Up on the top shelf, I see the ceramic bowl towering over me, mocking my minute height. It didn’t belong in the kitchen, a place full of creation, love, and bliss. Its stationary position was anything but permanent. I looked over to the other side of the hardwood floor. It’s time. The chair, noble and sturdy, listened to my command. Risky, yes, but planned like those Tom Cruise movies were I will achieve the impossible. Entering phase three, I attempted “the reach”. Thump. Cookies everywhere, the chair disembodied, and the blame on me. If only I was patent and waited this wouldn’t be. No need. It was over. Don’t take the cookie from the cookie jar.

_______________________________________________________________________

Cormac McCarthy Impression:

It was sunny outside and warm and windy. In the distance a dog barked. She stood with her hands on her hips. Just what do you think you’re doing, she said. Outside the house there were sounds coming from the far left where the barn was. He went back in and shut the door.

Using Sources/ Writing Style (Shiv Kohli)

Using Sources:

Using Sources, by Andrea A. Lunsford and John J. Ruszkiewicz, brings up the questions of how do you identify useful and credible sources among the millions available to you, and how do you use them well once you’ve found them. The simple answer is practicing “Infotention”. This is basically described as one’s attention skills to sort various information and use critical thinking to find the best most reliable sources. The authors also mention how multitasking doesn’t cut it. Along with this, the authors bring up strategies to achieve this along with the guidelines to paraphrasing, summarizing, and using quotations for sources. The second half of this piece focuses on the technicalities of writing a paper with sources. Lunsford and Ruszkiewicz mention the importance of signal words and signal verbs, highlighting how they can be used to clarify and support an argument if used properly. The biggest take away from this writing for me is the importance of focusing all your attention one source at a time and that multitasking, although it seems efficient, can lead to weaker source development.

Intro to Refining Your Writing Skills:

Before writing any piece one must understand that there are different requirements for different rhetorical situations. Sociologists, biologists, and humanities scholars all have different ways of viewing and perceiving certain information. For instance, the different ways of citing sources like APA and MLA formats. For academic writings, the audience is often more focused and is really more important than a popular writing precisely because of discourse communities. Once you know your audience and the type of style to best inform them with, you now have cultural capital. This is kind of like the gateway to refining your work. In conclusion, the audience is essential to writing an overall better paper as well as finding your own voice that fits with your targeted audience.

Day 19: Research Process (Shiv Kohli)

Finding Evidence:

This article makes the claim that finding good evidence for a research project isn’t as simple as one would think. It asks the reader to consider the rhetorical situation and states how the best evidence will usually match the time and place of which you make your argument. The authors also state the importance of what evidence is best for what rhetorical situation. The article then goes into detail about how to use data and evidence from research sources and how the type of research a writer requires can change the credibility of a source. In the end, this article informs the reader about the various ways that they can collect their own data, whether it be performing experiments, conducting interviews, or more.

Under My Thumb:

Opening up with dialogue describing when the narrator lied in eighth grade to fit in, this writing tells the author’s personal experiences in her life and its effect on her. She focuses on the hardships that she faced being in the music industry and describes how for most women like her it was the same. She goes into detail about a time when she was sexually harassed during one of her concerts and how she felt shocked and disgusted. She even put in bold text “I didn’t care if he liked me; I just wanted to be treated as an equal” which was essentially her main point in that paragraph. She then followed this by using various evidence to build up her case that women harassment in the workplace was a common thing that occurred and she wasn’t the only one. In her conclusion, she even goes on to say that even she feels is part of this problem because she never used to speak against it and urges others to not be like that.

Day 18: Manifesto (Shiv Kohli)

George Saunders has written a manifesto about his organization, People Reluctant to Kill for an Abstraction (PRKA). He declares that this organization has become a powerful force around the globe and breaks down what occurs daily for the organization. Starting at nine am in the morning, he explains what transpires in the organization for each hour following that. Along with this, Saunders also breaks down his organization’s goals into phases and at what time each phase is in effect. Each phase is based on the amounts of heinous crimes that PRKA commits. It becomes very clear that no vulgar acts are committed and that is what the organization stands for. Saunders expands on the idea of being a member in his organization by listing off things that “part-time members” do that also help his platform. He goes into further detail by describing certain actions that have occurred all over the world to show how far-spreading PRKA is. He then concludes his manifesto by describing who his members are. He writes “Many of us have trouble sleeping and lie awake at night, worrying about something catastrophic befalling someone we love. We rise in the morning with no plans to convert anyone via beating, humiliation, or invasion. To tell the truth, we are tired. We work. We would just like some peace and quiet…” Saunders is basically saying that those who are apart of his organization are simply good people who don’t want to all the chaos that he describes in his “phases”. Saunders wrote this manifesto as a call out to those who are also in the same position as him and reassures them that they are not alone.

Day 17: Researching Stereotypes and “Fake News” (Shiv Kohli)

“Introduction to Research and Making Claims” summary and response:

Seth Graves talks about the importance of research and the effects it can have on us. He essentially states that the foundation for how good someone’s research is, is based on one’s credibility. He references a Stanford Universities study about how uninformed the average student is on what sources are actually credible. Graves states that “credibility contributes to the ethos of the person making a claim,” hence how understanding credibility in research is a key component in believing a claim to begin with. I personally think the most interesting sentence in this introduction is how “Learning more about a topic expands your capacity for emotion.” I really like this because it brings up the idea of how the more informed you are on a certain topic, the more invested you become in said topic. This sentence ties most of this introduction together as it explains why we would want credible research in the first place.

“The Research Process” summary and response:

Like the title implies this piece is written to inform the reader about the process of conducting research for a paper. The authors define research as the “process of wanting to know more.” They use a person’s interested in finding out why their friend likes a certain movie as an example of conducting research. The authors call this process of wanting to learn more as the process of inquiry. They claim that by asking questions about a topic the reader is trying to find the exigence in the first place. Not only do the authors want to inform it’s audience about the research process but they also want their audience to see that research “isn’t so much a collection of facts the prove your case but rather a type of exploration.” I agree with that statement to an extent. In a way, just by simply exploring a topic, the reader has already conducted some form of research.

Research-Based Argument:

Genetic Cloning
The Pharmaceutical Industry
Immigration in the United States

Day 15: Revisions (Shiv Kohli)

I believe that “…For most of us, revision is the only road to success” is Brock Dethier’s way of saying that, for almost everyone, revising is the only way to make a writing better and that, as writers, in order for our drafts to become better (a success) we must revise. I agree with Dethier on this. I think revision is truly the only way to improve our writing and can help in any situation.
Revision is like the manure on a farm. It’s dirty and stinky but if you work with it and use it properly it can help your crops grow. The “farm” and “crops” represent the writing.
I don’t agree with “Good writing is essentially rewriting” (pg.101). I believe that anyone can have a well-written paper from the start without having rewrite it. Instead, I think “rewriting done right is essentially better writing” is a more accurate truth.

Anzaldua and Naylor (Shiv Kohli)

“How to tame a wild tongue” summary and response:

Gloria Anzaldua writes about the taming of her “tongue” throughout her life and the constraints that are put upon an individual’s form of language in society. She introduces this idea with a story about being at the dentist and a Ray Gwyn Smith quote, “Who is to say that robbing a people of its language is less violent than war?” Anzaldua describes her experience at Pan American University and how even having an accent while speaking English was looked at as a bad thing. She even brings up the gender discourse between in language and how the Spanish language has many plural nouns described under masculine vowels. She breaks down the complexities of the different languages into seven “tongues”, from standard English to English slang, standard Spanish, etc. In the section about Chicano Spanish, Anzaldua talks about the different forms of speech in one language, how Chicano is considered the “poor Spanish”, and coins the idea behind this term as linguistic terrorism. I find it interesting how this writing was written in 1987 and is still very relatable in the present.

“The meaning of a word” summary and response:

Gloria Naylor focuses on the meaning of the n-word and what it meant to her when she first heard it. She begins this writing by claiming that writing is inferior to spoken words and that at the end of the day, a language is just a bunch of nonsensical sounds that we give meaning. With this in mind, Naylor tells her point of view of how she first came to understand the n-word, describing the gender associations that come along with the n-word and how it’s used. In her conclusion, Naylor states that perhaps she was present when the n-word was said before but she only truly heard it in third grade when it was used to humiliate her. Both Naylor and Anzaldua mention the plurals of certain words and their assignment to gender. They both bring up the idea of language being “a male discourse” (pg.143) in a sense.

Day 12: Alexie and Tan (Shiv Kohli)

Superman and Me:

Sherman Alexie tells the story of how he learned to read through his interests in comics, explaining how he combined the pictures, narrative, and dialogue, to make a “three-dimensional paragraph” in his head. He explains he could never read words but by looking at the pictures he could understand what was being said. Alexie then talks about how although he was a better reader than most of his peers because he grew up in a struggling Indian reservation where there was a looming stigma of how being dumb was normal. In the end, Alexie explains how because of his situation he is surprised that he still became a writer and not a pediatrician but he continues to go back and convince the next generation to be like him and fight this stigma. When I read Alexie explain how looking at the pictures helped him learn to read, I immediately thought of the phrase “a picture is worth a thousand words.” Alexie’s life experiences also shaped him into becoming who he is and how he writes. Because he felt like an outcast growing up, he writes himself as the hero for his people, just like Superman in the comics he read.

Mother Tongue:

Amy Tan explains the different ways she speaks English with she is with her family compared to when she is working. She explains that when she is with her mother, her English becomes more broken because that was the way she learned to communicate with her and how she can completely understand what her mother is saying. Tan talks about how some of her friends can understand some of what her mom says while others cannot at all. She then goes on to explain the dangers of saying someone has “broken” or “limited” English and how it personally affected how she perceived her own mother. I agree with Tan in this writing. I also think she brings up an interesting dilemma. It’s easy to say someone’s English is broken, but it could just as easily be on the listener and their own experience with understanding the different ways of speaking.

Thesis and Review (Shiv Kohli)

What’s the point?

When writing a text the most important question to ask yourself is what’s the point? The answer to this question will always be the thesis of the text. David Hengel expands more on this by pretty much stating that this question doesn’t really have one answer, but has multiple parts to it. In fact, it may be easier to view the thesis as this question instead. Hengel breaks down the foundation for a good thesis by having you ask yourself three questions. What do you see, what do you make of it, and why does it matter? If your claim answers these three questions you are well on your way to having a good thesis. Hengel also mentions that making sure your thesis isn’t too simple, broad, or even speculative is just as important for your paper as a whole. David Hengel makes a good point when it comes to writing a well-constructed thesis. It may seem hard to explain the point of your writing in just one to three sentences, but using these techniques really do help outline the rest of your paper. The better your thesis is and the better you understand it, the easier it is to write your paper.

Responding -Really Responding- to Other Student’s Writing

When giving a peer edit there is more to it than just being a supportive person. The best way to go about responding to a writer is to understand you are the reader and not the writer. Instead of changing a piece to sound more like you, focus on parts where you were confused at, or liked, etc, as a reader. Don’t sound like a critic when giving feedback. Your man goal is to be helpful and collegial. On the other hand, when you praise a writing it’s important to be sincere and specific when you describe what you liked. This makes it easier for the writer to trust you and understand what you saw in their writing. In the end, I think that the most important thing to remember is, to be honest, supportive, and informative on what you as a reader thought of the writing. Even when you are a little hard on the piece you can still be supportive.