Michael Brigando – Day 28

The basis of my paper is quite complex, as it includes the analysis of multiple topics. The main purpose of the piece is to convey the fact if if one looks at the concept of stereotypes with an open mind, they may realize that they, like the majority of all things, can be used to benefit society. This is done in 4 primary parts, the first being that positive stereotypes do exist, the second being that the overall negativity towards stereotyping has to do with the way people process things in general (negatively), the third being that the most common way people identify themselves is through groups (and how this can be related to stereotyping), and lastly a conclusion explaining how the acknowledgement of these 3 topics can help us use stereotypes to society’s benefit. The most exigent reason for going into depth on this concept is the fact that society as a whole doesn’t view stereotypes as a good thing, or perhaps that society cannot find anything beneficial about stereotypes.

Responding to my project, it can be quite hard to understand the first time one reads it, but if one reads carefully and fully comprehends its overall message, it can be concluded that such a topic proposes a solution that might be plausible not only to views on stereotyping, but perhaps anything viewed in an excessively negative fashion as a whole. Do I think that everyone reading this will change their minds on stereotyping? Not at all. And if it could happen to have an effect on it’s audience, nothing would be drastically changed overnight. What this paper does at face value is provide a very interesting topic of discussion, which even though is very unconventional, could be interesting, especially if delved into.

Michael Brigando: Day 21

The article “Using Sources” by Andrea Lunsford and John Ruskiewicz explains the various ways one may incorporate another piece of work into a paper, paying close attention to the relationship between research papers and sources that may support the paper’s argument. What really caught my eye was the difference between paraphrasing and a quotation. Writers should paraphrase when they are able to explain a part of a source in their own words. In addition, this also shows that the writer has synthesized the information gathered. Quotations should be used when the weight of what a source says will be lessened if paraphrased. By quoting some phrases and interpreting others, the writer can develop a way of speaking to his or her audience that is charismatic, and perhaps meaningful.
In the introduction to “Refining Your Writing Style”, Lisa Blankenship brings up the fact that like code switching between discourse communities, we can sort of code switch with our writing, depending on who the intended audience is, which I find quite relatable. For example, an academic paper I wrote would sound different than something I’d write in a journal entry, and both of those would be different from the way I write on this blog. She then explains what I think is an important point, which is the fact that your writing style must fit your intended audience. It’s safe to assume that your audience isn’t everybody, as it would be hard to reach a majority of the world through one style of writing. A writer should be able to connect with his or her audience, as well as being open and truthful. Not only will the writer be able to reach his audience easier by doing this, but the paper will also not sound so generic.

(Michael Brigando) Day 18

In the reading “Manifesto”, writer George Saunders explains how, and then declares that the use of force, as well as other radical practices, will not prevail over love and peace. He uses many examples of people who seem to be on opposite sides of present conflicts, mostly those rooting from intersectionality, performing acts of kindness towards people who are seemingly on the other side of said conflicts. Saunders makes sure to point out that these people have sets of beliefs that may not coincide today’s standards of morality. For example, he gives a scenario where an anti-gay elderly man gives a gay man one of his loaves of bread in exchange for helping him pick up his groceries, as his grocery bag had broke.
His purpose seems to come from exigence. As the globalization of today’s society becomes more apparent in our lives, hatred for certain groups has become globalized as well. Saunders has created a manifesto in response to this new type of hatred, and perhaps conflict due to intersectionality as a whole, stating that no matter how much force is used by the groups that spread hatred, the overall peace that humanity has with itself will not be compromised.

(Michael Brigando) Day 17

Seth Graves’ introduction to “Researching and Making Claims” portrays research as a very broad concept. Just about any paper has capacity to be a piece of research, mostly because we are able to learn more about ourselves and our surrounding through writing papers. Graves emphasizes that a good research paper is one that’s credible, and without it, there could be no reason hold one’s findings as true. This is the main concept of ethos.

A sentence that really caught my attention is in the fourth paragraph on page 49: “[Research] provides us with a check and balance system for claims.” I took this as a summary of the prior two paragraphs: researching a topic offers us more information with a topic, as well as different perspectives on said topic (which could potentially change our perspective) . This will make us more adept at said topic, and therefore, able to argue our perspective if needed to.

“The Research Process” by Graves, Corcoran, and Belmihoub delves into the topic of research as a broad term. Like Rhetoric, research is used in the vast majority of people’s lives on a daily basis, whether one realizes it or not. Whenever one conducts some sort of inquiry, we participate in a form of research.

A sentence that sparked my interest in this article is the last one in the first paragraph on page 52: “A problem from everyday life can produce a line of inquiry that leads you toward all sorts of other questions, in this case perhaps regarding government, infrastructure, and politics.” We might not be necessarily thinking about it when we do it, but usually the questions that get us thinking usually spans back to the bigger picture. For example, in order to fix a local bridge, you would probably have to a government representative (perhaps local or state), the same person you would go to in order to ask for some money for set up a huge fundraiser perhaps.

(Michael Brigando) Day 15

1).On page 117 of “Revising Attitudes”, Brock Dethier responds to a caveat towards revision, which stated the revision is a sign of failure with the statement “… For most of us, revision is the only road to success”. Dethier is trying to say that not only is revision not a reference to failure, but revision is done by most (if not all) writers. If writers need to revise their papers in order to create their work, why would such an activity be seen so negative? As an important part of the process of writing to most writers, revising should be seen as a sign of success and improvement.
2). Revising a piece of writing can be like learning to prepare a new meal. Before you can really master the process of preparation and cooking, you have to do it first without much help or experience. This creates a sort of benchmark. It might not be the best it could be, and many can become discouraged at this point. But if one takes this as a foundation for improvement, they could think of ways on how to make it better, apply those changes, and create a better version of the dish next time. Not to mention, just like writing, there is usually always a way to mek a dish better, meaning the revision process never really ends.
3). In his essay “Revising Your Own Manuscripts”, Donald Murray writes, ” Good writing is essentially rewriting”. Murray pretty much sums up what Dethier was trying to say in his piece. A good piece of writing requires revision, and a good writing process requires a piece of work to undergo a few sessions of revision. Murray also goes beyond the statement to imply that this statement is almost like a rule writers should follow.

(Michael Brigando) Alexie and Tan

Today’s readings have quite a lot in common with each other. Both “Superman and Me” by Sherman Alexie and “Mother Tongue” by Amy Tan are both narratives of the authors’ learning english, whether it’s from a simpler form of English, or from a different language altogether. It’s fairly easy to assume that both authors, by having formal English as their second language, come from minority groups, and the audience learns that Alexie is a Native American, and Tan is Chinese by the end of each narrative.
I think one of the most important things to point out about both of these narratives is in the structure of the narratives themselves. They might both be about the struggles minority groups can face when taking on the American system, but they aren’t sob stories in any way. Both stories start out on a fairly positive note, and even though the struggles are mentioned, they aren’t emphasized in a way that says “feel bad for me”.
I think this point can really help us with writing our narratives in a fashion that doesn’t seem cliché. When one thinks of the structure of a narrative, they think that it usually surrounds the writer’s struggles, and how they overcome them to create the person the writer is today, and this can be true to an extent. But if you focus on said “negatives” too much, it becomes uninteresting, and could even show signs that you might not be fully over the fact that these struggles were present (in a psychological sense).

(Michael Brigando) Thesis and Review

This week’s readings were quite different to each other, while both still pertaining to the writing process. The first one, “What’s the Point?” By Daniel Hengel, touched up on what exactly a thesis is, including debunking popular myths about theses made throughout high school, such as the suggestion that the thesis is about one or two sentences long. Actually, the thesis might as well be the entire introductory paragraph, and it doesn’t have to be as clear many think. Hengel also reminds us that we should always double check out thesis statement after we’ve completed our writing, just in case the essay kind of drifted away from the thesis itself.
The next section, “Responding- Really Reasponding- To Other Students’ Writing” by Richatd Straub explains how peer review works, and how to correctly peer review. He even provides examples on what to say, and an example of an exemplary peer review of an essay. Some things he emphasizes in this section is that we should be down to earth with our peers when reviewing, give as much praise as we do criticism, and to go over our peers’ papers like a peer, and not a teacher. It really makes me start to think if Straub has a problem with the way teachers review their students’ papers, but then again, he’s prabably saying that in order to ensure that we review papers in a way that’s doesn’t seem aloof, which is totally understandable. I remember in high school, when I would get my essays back from teachers, and critisicms would be short and concise (something Straub warns us not to do), but also written in a way that make it awkward if I went to ask my teacher about it, and I think that that is what Straub is trying to prevent here.

(Michael Brigando) Writing as a Process

In The Intoduction to Composing as a Process, Seth Graves e plains how writing is as much a skill as any other talent that can be learned. Such a skill must be honed and maintained with frequent practice in order to get the most out of it. It also explains how writing from the very first word in the first draft to the very final word in the final draft is all part of the process of writing, which brings us the the next section, Shitty First Drafts, by Anne Lamott. Lamott pretty much explains the first part of the writing process, which is the first draft, and how it doesnt have to be coherent whatsoever. The first draft serves as way to get all of your ideas out onto paper, with no filter. The filtering process happens after, when you’re reading over the draft, looking for ideas and pitches that are capable of composing an acceptable piece. Lamott then explains how this process helped her with her writings some years back. One thing she emphasizes is that the first draft is usually going to be really bad and incoherent in some areas. One has to get used to writing everything with no filter in order to get the most out of the first draft, which brings us into the next section, Freewriting, by Peter Elbow. Elbow shows the audience just how to hone a skill such as writing with no filter whatsoever, and that is to just take some time out of the day to write nonstop. In fact, that’s the only rule- never stop writing, no matter what. Elbow then goes on to explain why such a process is useful, which ties back to the fact that the biggest difference between writing and speech is that we edit a bit without really noticing it as we write. As we multitask between editing and writing, we can’t properly focus alone on our thoughts, which can create a writer’s block.
I don’t think I’ve ever realized just how much can go into creating a piece of writing. For me, a first draft was like a “write it as if it were the final draft, as best as you can,” type of deal, and then I’d review it, and make a few changes where it was needed, but that’s it. My drafts and final works would be very similar to each other. Learning about other processes such as this one can really open one’s mind about just how some people do it. And with Freewriting, I’ve always knew about freewriting. My teacher in 8th grade even had the class practice freewriting, but I dont ever think i fully got it down until realizing that I can’t have any filter on whatsoever. It was pretty hard to do, until I realized that no one’s ever going to read this, and that it’s supposed to be incoherent.

(Michael Brigando) Dancing Arounf Objectification

Victoria Merlino’s “Dancing Around Objectification” is an essay describing how the main character in “The Harlem Dancer” by Claude McKay and a party entertainer from Ralph Ellison’s “The Invisible Man” both depict woman in a matter that to some might be taken as not a person whatsoever, but instead an object of lust and desire. Merlino really goes into depth with just how much freedom each woman seems to have, while none seems to be expressed as a woman at all. “The Harlem Dancer” describes its main character as someone everyone can admire, but the entertainer in Ellison’s novel has a bit of an advantage, as she can choose who she may fend off the men who try to touch and admire her. With this comes another argument, which is one of racial contrast. It almost seems like Merlino is Joe trying to argue that in the objectification of women back in the early 20th century, white women were given more freedom to choose than the black women. Albeit plausible, this may not be as practical, since first of all, these are two different novels, and could be completely unrelated when it comes to setting, and timeline. Second of all, both Claude Mckay and Ralph Ellison are black, which limits the amount of perspective that is given for these situations. If Merlino gave an example of a white author who wrote about the objectification of a woman, there would be more evidence to point to race playing a part in objectified women.

And with that, I ask if there are such examples of white authors objectifying women of all races. I’m sure there are, but to what extent, what is the perspective given, how does the narrator react to it ( or what does he think of it), and how much freedom is the woman given to choose?

(Michael Brigando) Bechdel Test

The Bechdel Test is a set of criteria for movies that emphasizes the fact that all lives are very complex, and have a lot of things going on in them. The test appeared as a sort of joke in Allison Bechdel’s comic strip “Dykes to Watch Out for”, where it also lists the requirements, which are that there must be a conservation between 2 or more women that isn’t about or related to men. The set of criteria soon gained popularity on a global scale by the feminist community, due to the fact that many feminists saw that many female characters in movies weren’t as complexly made as their male counterparts. Some have even done as far as to make addition to the Bechdel Test, with examples including that the conversation between the 2 or more women must go on for a certain amount of time.

Going back to Bechdel’s comic, is there a specific audience for “Dykes to Watch Out for”? How popular was the the comic strip when this specific one was made? I’m interested in finding out just how much the audience helped in the popularization of the Bechdel Test.