RR #11 Brandt

Reading Response #11: Brandt

Summary

            With “Sponsors of Literacy” Deborah Brandt insists that literacy isn’t something one achieves on their own; rather that literacy is sponsored by a variety of entities–be it people, schools or a specific set of circumstances. However, while these sponsors enable people to become literate, Brandt insists that this does NOT mean these sponsors are selfless or altruistic. In fact, Brandt notes, sponsors usually are entirely self-interested.

Pre-Reading

            You see promotional material for reading everywhere. Teachers encourage it, to the point where they’re practically shoving it down your throat. Parents encourage it, even if they’ve discontinued leisure reading entirely. The value of being literate is immeasurable. That’s why it’s so heavily emphasized. There are posters hanging in the hallways of every school. The library has all sorts of promotional contests to encourage the youth to read. Being literate is crucially important in today’s society. You’re affected vocationally, socially, economically.

Synthesis

            “Sponsors of Literacy” reminded me once again of Greene’s parlor metaphor, though it was Stuart Greene who created it. You sit for a while and absorb. You take in as much knowledge as you can. Then you begin to formulate independent (as independent as it can be) thought and from there you go on and contribute to the conversation. Eventually, someone else will enter the parlor and the process will repeat itself. It’s very cyclical. I think sponsors are cyclical too. Millions and millions of children go to school or watch TV and gain an understanding of the English language. Eventually they go on to stand in front of those same chalkboards and cameras, and another couple million children absorb what’s being thrown at them.

Questions for Discussion and Journaling

1) Brandt describes literary sponsors as “any agents, local or distant, concrete or abstract, who enable, support, teach, model, as well as recruit, regulate, suppress, or withhold literacy–and gain advantage by it in some way.” Literary sponsors are the organizations, people, websites, entities you interact with that shape your literacy in ways similar to other establishments, and in ways different to other establishments.

Applying and Exploring Ideas

2) I’ve definitely encountered both the withholding of literacies and the overbearing encouragement (forcing) of literacies while I was in high school. We weren’t offered books like The Catcher in The Rye and In Cold Blood. I recognized that these were both very important and beneficial literary works and I regarded them as necessary. Eventually I did end up reading ICB, though not for any academic endeavor. Other novels, such as To Kill A Mockingbird, were required reading for every high school sophomore. A really beneficial class I took while in high school was a course called Best Sellers. In that class, we’d read books that interested us and write about them. That was it. I found it greatly satisfying.

Personal Opinion

            I really liked the idea that all literacy is sponsored, and not for entirely selfless reasons. I’m not sure if I like it as much as I’m interested by it. It’s very cynical, this idea that literacy is given to the youth for economic reasons, for capitalism, for the prosperity of a nation. But at the same time it makes sense, and is very necessary. It really does hammer down the idea that nothing is independent–that true intellectual independence is simply mythical in today’s society.

Project 1 First Draft. Lacks Conclusion. Difficulties With Safe Assign.

Cover Letter

            Dear audience,

            This article I’ve created aims to shed light on the delicate nature of grammar and its ability to distract the reader when used “improperly.” I chose this topic for my research because it is one that plagues me every time I sit down in front of my monitor and create a new document. I’m always questioning my grammar. Is this the right place for a semi-colon? Would an exclamation mark add more emphasis? Does anyone really care that this comma is in the wrong place? Even when I make a conscious effort to disregard everything else and simply pour out my thoughts onto the page, involuntarily I wind up second-guessing my punctuation. I think that this acknowledgement of distraction caused by grammar is one all writers can identify with. It’s relatable and interesting. However, as I’ve conducted my research, I’ve begun to question this topic’s ability to hold as much water as it’s intended to. I guess I’d like you guys to determine whether I do or don’t drone on and on about the placement of the comma and the crucial importance it plays when relaying researched thought onto paper. As I’ve researched this idea, I’ve learned that good grammar is much more important in some circles than others. In the creative community, it’s not as greatly emphasized. In the academic community, it can be the difference between respect and ridicule. To me, grammar isn’t really that important. My basic understanding of it will suffice. However, that is for me personally. I realize I will have to bend to the whim of some of my more, perhaps fastidious, professors when writing for their classes. All with a grain of salt I suppose.

Regards,

Jack Cranfield

           

Article

            Grammar, as defined by Webster, is the characteristic system of inflections and syntax of a language. It signifies many things: the end of a complete thought; a pause for the necessary regaining of one’s grounding; the difference between wonder and certainty. With complete and total regulation of the written language, many, if not all, writers may operate under the belief that improper use of grammar means two things: a serious lack of intelligence and skill. And when writers hold this particular belief in high regard, the content of a writer’s argument usually falls to the wayside, and incessant grammatical nitpicking ensues. Negligence of content and well-founded thought promotes a different style of both research and writing.

            The heart of this article is to gain an understanding, to secure an answer to two questions: is improper grammar detrimentally distractive? So distractive that it renders the article incomprehensible, nonsensical or incredible? Have I employed a comma when I should’ve used a semi-colon? Would a dash have worked better than the period I used in the first paragraph? Are you able to understand what I’m saying? Is the larger message I’m trying to convey getting through to you? Or should these questions be separated by a series of commas or semi-colons so you can understand my point more clearly? The intricacies of grammar are vast and strangely subjective. I aim to get a better understanding of them by the end of this article.

            Joseph M. Williams dissects the concept of error and why some mistakes spark instant ire while others are able to generate only modest irritation. His article “The Phenomenology of Error” attempts to understand the scale in which grammatical errors are measured. He admits he’s “puzzled why some of us can regard any particular item as a more or less serious error, while others, equally perceptive, and acknowledging that the same item may in some sense be an “error,” seem to invest in their observation with no emotion at all.” Williams, and myself, are equally perplexed by these diverse subjectivities and opinions of error.

            To garner a better understanding of error, or more specifically, its perception, Williams compares grammatical error to social error. Williams details various social errors that one can make, errors he finds much more reprehensible than any grammatical wrong-doing, from “break[ing] wind at a dinner party and then vomit[ing] on the person next to us” to “mention[ing] our painful hemorrhoids” and “tell[ing] a racist joke.” Because these actions invade the personal space of others, “we are justified in calling them oafish.”” These offenses require an apology or an acceptable excuse, and by that logic they transcend from irrelevant happenings to tarnished transactions. Williams reasons that this way of viewing social error transforms it into something society deems important and attention-worthy: “this way of thinking about social error turns our attention from error as a discrete entity, frozen at the moment of its commission, to error as part of a flawed transaction, originating in ignorance or incompetence or accident, manifesting itself as an invasion of another’s personal space, eliciting a judgment ranging from silent disapproval to “atrocious” and “horrible,” and requiring either an explicit “I’m sorry” and correction, or a simple acknowledgment and a tacit agreement not to do it again.”

            This heightened sense of importance when encountering error is still an occurrence unique to each reader. The error is subjected to an audience that is, in ways, similar to other audiences, but also wildly different. It is subjective. It is circumstantial. While one reader may give no second thought about an improper dash in the middle of a sentence in the article he’s reading, another may be involuntarily drawn in by that article’s subject matter, only to be ripped back into the stillness of reality upon recognizing that there’s a dash in a place a dash shouldn’t be. Maybe, in the previous sentence, I should’ve the word “might” instead of “may.” The point I’m trying to make still comes across, but it isn’t as well-crafted simply do to my word choice–word choice you might (or may!) label incorrect. It’s ALL subjective. Error is in the eye of the beholder, Williams suggests, deducing that “to address errors of grammar and usage in this way, it is also necessary to shift our attention from error treated strictly as an isolated item on a page, to error perceived as a flawed verbal transaction between a writer and a reader.” Different strokes for different folks, if you will.

            The circumstantial nature of error mixed with the delicacy of its affect on the reader leads us to ask what is likely the most important question the subject of grammar can produce: who made these rules? Yes, rules and regulations exist. Grammar is entirely comprised of rules and regulations. But exactly who implemented these rules, and why were they selected? By this, I don’t mean who birthed English grammar, but who is determining what is right and what is wrong? John Dawkins argues that some of the best readers pay no attention to grammar. This suggests that the “best” writers are those who focus on content and research, not the pristine aura their flawless grammar gives off. “It takes only a little study of the selections in our college readers to realize that the punctuation rules in handbooks and style manuals are not sacred text for a great many good writers.” [. . .] “these and other failures to follow the rules are frequent enough to raise questions about the rules themselves.” This idea of reevaluating the way written thought has always been conducted makes an argument for the abolishment of rigid grammatical correctness. If that concept were to be destroyed, I believe the writing process would open up to many people who originally went out of their way to avoid it.

           

Still incomplete. My apologies.

Bryson Response

Bryson Discussion

Summary

            Bill Bryson’s article “Good English and Bad” attempts to shed light on the fact that the rules of English Grammar are always circumstantial and intricately confusing. Bryson argues that many restrictions placed on the English language exist simply because scholars much before our time said they should. These restrictions make for a slower, more drawn out writing process, Bryson argues, one that dampens the joy of creative and researched thought.

Synthesis

            This article is similar to a decent amount of readings we’ve been assigned. It tackles the idea of independent movement within a language restriction. It also recognizes the inherent ridiculousness of certain writing constraints.

Pre-Reading

           

            Usually, I think of “good” English as well-written thought. It contains a strong vocabulary and an understanding of the essentials of grammar. “Bad” English usually doesn’t possess these pieces of criteria. I think I judge English by these two characteristics because they’re what makes a piece of writing smooth and cohesive. Undoubtedly bad grammar does possess the ability to distract the reader, and a dry, basic vocabulary isn’t entertaining.

Questions for Discussion and Journaling

2)        Bryson claims that the English grammar structure’s complexity stems from it originating from Latin. The Latin language states that splitting an infinitive is impossible. So when the creators of the English language turned to Latin for guidance, they too decided that the splitting of an infinitive is impossible. However, Bryson argues that this is ridiculous logic. Grammarians in the past decided to not argue against this idea, and continued to shape English grammar around this concept, increasing its intricacy and lack of logic.

Applying and Exploring Ideas

2)        What Bryson is trying to say when he describes the English language as fluid and democratic is that the language is always changing. It is spoken and written differently in different settings. It has the ability to change whenever placed in a new context. The language is democratic in the sense that it doesn’t conform to the language dictations placed on it.

Meta Moment

            I consciously consider my sentence structure while writing. Usually I don’t pay much attention to my grammar. If I do, it’s likely about comma placement. I’ve learned most of these writing components in either school or while reading in my own time. They’ve been practiced enough that they usually linger in my peripheral now, if at all. I do think that knowing the parts of speech and writing can help you. Help you in a sense that your work will be taken more seriously by an audience. In terms of crafting thought, maybe; maybe not.

Personal Opinion

            I enjoyed this article, and not just for its comparative shortness. It was good to see an academic criticizing the ridiculous grammatical restrictions of the written language. I’ve spent far too much time wondering if my comma placement is incorrect or distracting. The acknowledgement of the monotonous, exhaustive qualities of English grammar is refreshing and much needed.

Project 1. Intro and Conversation.

Grammar, as defined by Webster, is the characteristic system of inflections and syntax of a language. It signifies many things: the end of a complete thought; a pause for the necessary regaining of one’s grounding; the difference between wonder and certainty. With complete and total regulation of the written language, many, if not all, writers may operate under the belief that improper use of grammar means two things: a serious lack of intelligence and skill. And when writers hold this particular belief in high regard, the content of a writer’s argument usually falls to the wayside, and incessant grammatical nitpicking ensues. Negligence of content and well-founded thought promotes a different style of both research and writing.

            The heart of this article is to gain an understanding, to secure an answer to two questions: is improper grammar detrimentally distractive? So distractive that it renders the article incomprehensible, nonsensical or incredible? Have I employed a comma when I should’ve used a semi-colon? Would a dash have worked better than the period I used in the first paragraph? Are you able to understand what I’m saying? Is the larger message I’m trying to convey getting through to you? Or should these questions be separated by a series of commas or semi-colons so you can understand my point more clearly? The intricacies of grammar are vast and strangely subjective. I aim to get a better understanding of them by the end of this article.

            Joseph M. Williams dissects the concept of error and why some mistakes spark instant ire while others are able to generate only modest irritation. His article “The Phenomenology of Error” attempts to understand the scale in which grammatical errors are measured.      He admits he’s “puzzled why some of us can regard any particular item as a more or less serious error, while others, equally perceptive, and acknowledging that the same item may in some sense be an “error,” seem to invest in their observation with no emotion at all.” Williams, and myself, are equally perplexed by these diverse subjectivities and opinions of error.

            I realize that this intro lacks five sources. I’m still searching for suitable reinforcements of my research.

Response: Bernhardt

Bernhardt Digestion

Summary

            In his article “Seeing the Text” Stephen Bernhardt discusses the benefits of student experimentation with the visual elements of the written word. He argues that this experimentation will enhance “their ability to understand and use hierarchical and classificatory arrangements.” This visual component of any piece of writing, Bernhardt suggests, possesses the capability of altering the way a reader perceives what he’s just consumed. (a gender-neutral word to take the place of “he” is?)

Synthesis

            This article reminds me of Scott McCloud’s comic-strip/analysis of visual images clashing with the written word. Clashing in a good sense. Not that they’re vehemently opposed to each other. The way they harmonize. But it’s almost like we should’ve read McCloud’s article after this one. Bernhardt’s piece could’ve been the preamble for what he was trying to explain. His reinforcement would’ve been McCloud’s piece.

Before I Read

Option 3        

            Right now I’m taking a scriptwriting course. So a lot of the work I’m assigned requires me to write through my eye–meaning that I have to describe the way the audience would see what’s transpiring on the screen. It’s a much different way of doing things. I prefer it. Maybe because I prefer film to written text. Well usually. I do like books very much though.

Questions for Discussion and Journaling

4)        I think instructors task their students with essays that contain specific composition requirements because they want to test how well the students can perform when placed under definitive restrictions. It’s not a matter of how well a student can synthesize the themes he/she’s talking about, but how well a student can adapt to a foreign playing field, if you will. Why this skill of adaptation is so heavily practiced I’m not sure. But that’s the way I see it.

Applying and Exploring Ideas

Option 4

            Quite frequently, actually every day, I visit a blog dedicated to director Paul Thomas Anderson and the films he’s made. It’s called Cigarettes and Red Vines. I quite like the way it presents its information: most recent news at the top; scroll down to read older articles or news clippings. It’s simple and makes sense. Of course there are tabs you can click on that take you to other parts of the blog, but the most crucial info is all on the front page, dealt out chronologically.

After I Read

            I think the most obvious answer to this question would be that McCloud would’ve presented Bernhardt’s information in a comic strip format. I don’t think all of Bernhardt’s article would’ve been transformed into comic form though. There would’ve been some exposition explaining his concept, perhaps verbatim, with some McCloud interpretation included.

Meta Moment

            Project #2 seems to provoke the most consideration for the visual organization and presentation of text. We’re offered the opportunity to incorporate many different mediums and synthesize them into one coherent piece of research and experimentation.

Personal Opinion

            Once again, very dry. Interesting concept, the idea of visual organization and its impact on the audience. The article was obviously written for the academics, so it certainly does feel a little alienating. This doesn’t mean I was unable to comprehend what Bernhardt was getting at, but it just took a little more time to digest his vocabulary.