https://youtu.be/Q9Wd8FL0PMA

Dear Dr. Blankenship,

At first, I had difficulty writing this paper as I was not sure exactly how to approach it. In our last class, you explained to us that this is more of an elongated writer’s letter. As such, I approached the paper that way.

In this elongated writer’s letter, I attempted to explain my reasoning behind the decisions I made in the remediation and why I chose follow through with the decisions. My hope is that, upon reading this letter, you, or anyone else who intends on watching the remediation, are able to go inside my head understand the thought process behind the video.

The actual remediation is going very well. I am having very little trouble with iMovie and my plans are following through to fruition. I did make the corrections that you pointed out in the email you sent.

This has been an incredibly fun project. My creativity was able to run wild, and I hope that it shows in the video.

Regards,

Zouhare

 Reflective Essay

How we read arguments on paper can sometimes different from how the author intended us to read it. On paper, the author is limited to the creativity of his vocabulary; it is up to the author to wisely pick the correct words that portray his or her argument in the intended manner. The author must also carefully select words that trigger certain emotions, depending on the argument at hand. Although text has been the most common medium of expressing an argument, exploring other semiotic modes can help enhance the argument being presented and tailor it to a specific audience. In doing so, you are able to control the rhetorical effects of the argument via a chosen media and modalities, e.g. aural, visual, textual, and kinesthetic. We will be exploring these effects in the remediation of my paper “The ‘Excesses’ of Capitalism”, in which I explore and analyze the stereotype of Wall Street.

In deciding which medium to pursue, I modeled my remediation after Lawrence Lessig’s TEDTalk on Creative Commons and CopyLeft, titled Laws That Choke Creativity. While exploring different mediums, I was in search of one that touched upon aural, visual, textual, and kinesthetic senses. Lessig’s talk does just that. During his TEDTalk, Lessig verbally communicated his argument. Meanwhile, on the screen behind him, key words from his argument were being projected as he spoke. When there were no words being shown on the screen, images were portrayed that related back to his argument. And, throughout the entire talk, Lessig gave examples or real events as support for the argument being made.

Upon choosing how I want to remediate the paper, the decision came as to what medium to use (e.g. PowerPoint, Prezi, iMovie). I narrowed down the choices to either PowerPoint or iMovie. The prevailing medium ended up being iMovie because, unlike PowerPoint, the texts and images would flow smoothly as I was narrating. Also, PowerPoints are most commonly used in business applications. Given the subject of my paper (Wall Street), I wanted to take a route that would disconnect the business aspect and allow the audience to focus on the core argument.

One of the biggest struggles I faced was how I would translate the argument of the paper to a greater audience. After re-reading the paper, I decided to narrate the paper, reading right from it. The decision boiled down to audience choice. The remediation is intended for those interested in the topic of stereotypes, but not specifically Wall Street (or with any in depth knowledge of the subject). As such, I saw that I had written the paper with that audience in mind; the argument is straightforward and an explanation of the subject exists. Therefore, I felt it is appropriate to narrate the paper (omitting certain parts due to time restrictions) as opposed to creating a script for the remediation.

Narrating the paper would touch upon the aural senses of the audience. It allows me, the author, to control how the audience feels and emphasize specific aspects of the paper. In this way, it prevents the audience from generating unwarranted feelings that could potentially distract and/or deter from the actual argument being presented. Furthermore, in any argument, there are specific aspects that are meant to be focused on and emphasized. This could be challenging to do in text. However, in narrating the text, the author is able to change his or her tone of voice when talking about a specific aspect of the argument. Doing so controls exactly what is being emphasized, which could further enhance the argument.

In addition to emphasizing certain points through narration, key words to these points will be displayed on the screen as I am speaking. Within the points that will be emphasized, there will be further emphasis on specific words that I feel will not only capture the audience’s attention, but will also assist the audience in following my argument, as the words being displayed will be directly related to the argument.

One of the drawbacks of a strictly text-based medium is the ability of the audience to visualize the argument in their heads. It is up to the author create a vivid enough description that would allow the reader to picture the argument. More often than not, such descriptive technique takes away from the actual argument. Reason being is that the author focuses on describing rather than explaining; it is very difficult to balance the two. This was a large focus of mine during the remediation process. I want the audience to visually see the points of my argument, without straying away from its core elements. In essence, I have placed images in the presentation where text is not shown. For example, one part of the presentation will switch between solely text and solely image. In this way, the audience is able to visually see certain parts of the argument without losing the context of it. By portraying the images, the audience need not attempt to create an image in their heads, but rather focus on the argument at hand.

As previously mentioned, I modeled the remediation off of a TEDTalk that we watched in class. As such, my intended audience is those who watch TEDTalks. To be more specific, I am targeting an audience that has a general interest in the subject of stereotypes, but no in depth knowledge of the specific stereotypes of Wall Street. In the remediation, I have greatly simplified the original research paper to the point where someone with no prior knowledge would be able to following along and understand the argument. Thinking about a realistic setting, what comes to my mind is a TEDTalk, but on a much, much smaller scale. In keeping the location in New York, I can visualize the setting being TEDxGramercy. It is a local, self-organized event that brings people together to share TED-like experiences. I feel that this would be not only an idealistic setting, but also a realistic setting.

Publication Rationale

To publish anything on the internet is to make yourself prone to the critiques of others. Having published a few articles on a popular business site, I have seen first hand how users of the internet will point out even the smallest flaw in someone’s work. As such, I do not believe that my remediation is ready, nor am I confident enough in it, to be published on the internet. Although it is currently on YouTube, I had set the video as “unlisted”, meaning anyone can see it, but only if they have the link to the video.

In order for me to be confident enough to have my video published on the internet, it would need to go through different audiences first and have their feedback on my work. As it stands, I feel the video is perfect for the confines of our classroom. It simple and easy to follow along with. Also, based on the feedback I received from my classmates, they seemed to really enjoy the video (although it did not have sound at the time). Nonetheless, I would like to have others view the video as well. This is because they will not have any context as to why I made the video in the first place, unlike my classmates. To add, it would be best if students and professor of different disciplinary studies watch the video. My reasoning behind this is because, although I may publish it on a website that targets a specific audience, once it is posted on the internet, the video is out there for anyone to see. Hence, having the opinion of a wide range of people would be best to adjust my rhetorical choices to better suit a broader audience.