Assignment 11

Question 1:
About the audience.
- "Whom is the composer including in the audience? Who is excluded from the audience-and why?" (108).

       Stein wrote an academic article for a reason, for other professors. Now I understand that everyone can read the article so technically she doesn't exclude anyone, but if she really wanted people to read it the article should be a little easier to read. The way Stein went about her article was to argue that the 1984 ad was really an important thing and should be analyzed in detail. She decided to take that into her own hands and analyze the ad herself. In my eyes, Stein did a great job making the ad more understandable. Although the beginning of her text was a little confusing to read; toward the end she works in a few paragraphs about the Wizard of Oz which more people can relate to. By doing this, Stein really helped the ad come to life for me.

Question 2:
About ethos.
- "Does the composer have the appropriate background or experience for pursuing this purpose?" (109).

     There's no doubt in any of our minds that Stein is more than qualified to write a piece like this. She is trying to build her ethos further by writing a piece such as this. Academic articles aren't for everyone but Stein does a good job sounding professional while allowing normal individuals to read her essays and understand them. 

Question 3:
About context. 
- "Where does the audience encounter the text? How might this shape their responses?" (109).

      I can't imagine anyone reading this article for pure pleasure. However someone who might be inquiring about the 1984 ad would read an article such as this for more knowledge on the subject. Otherwise people may read this simply because it's a class assignment. Either way most likely, the readers are reading this for educational purposes. This shapes the way they look at it just because they probably aren't too thrilled to be reading it. However, it might have the opposite effect. Maybe someone is really into technology or Macintosh and they are just really excited to read this. Either way, most people are reading this just to be informed. 

-All of these choices work together for Steins purpose: education. The article is written as an academic article and she wants people to learn more about the subject; in particular she wants them to see her view or analysis of it. Stein has her ethos already built but this article is just another tally on her board, she is still working to build up her ethos and see where it gets her. People will read her work more often if she is well recognized and well liked. These all tie in together because academic articles are important for building your ethos. The people judging her work are doing it for a particular reason and are all generally the same group of audience. I think that Stein picked and chose her choices well and knew exactly what she wanted of this article and the people reading it.

Group Work, Reflection.

Well, I worked with Crystal. I think we worked well together, we pretty much had the same ideas and it was pretty easy to come up with our poster. I like working in groups because we get to bounce ideas off one another, and it also helps me get more of an insight on what I read, especially because this article was a lot more difficult than the rest of them. As far as the essay goes, I prefer to do my own thing, but the group work in class helps me a great deal because I understand the text better and also it gets other peoples point of views out there so it helps me have an open mind.

Theoretical Framework:
      This one pager stood out to me in particular because of the question they asked. "Does Stein portray the ad as a movement towards a revolution or does it go back to the idea of consumers being subject to brainwashing?" That question alone made me think, that was a really good question. Because she says the ad was going for "liberation" and to get people out of brainwashing. However, the fact that they questioned that the ad might be a new form of brainwash but they are trying to tell people it breaks that. So weird, because in a sense, people wanted this liberation and that ultimately got their attention, another brainwash, different company? I think their ad was really well done.

The Rhetorical History of the Mac:
       What stood out to me on this one was the pictures. After I got past the pictures I noticed their question. They asked if this helped their revolution. I think it did, because it got the attention of everyone. The ad was the talk of the year and even longer. They also put on their one pager how this ad changed the face of advertisements. Which is true. I like how they portrayed the Macintosh company in their page by putting the two men in one small building because they were such a small company to start with.

CP: Stein referenced the 1984 Macintosh ad to the Wizard of Oz which helped me understand what she was trying to say.

Assignment 10

Questions I still have about this article:

How does Stein feel about the ad?
Why did she choose to write about it?
What are key things in the essay that point out Steins feelings about it?

For some reason I'm having a difficult time seeing her emotions or seeing how she views the topic.


Steins article started by explaining the Macintosh 1984 ad in depth. She pointed out every detail of the ad and described it fully. As she goes more into depth she starts explaining what each part of the ad means or what represents these key things. She directly related the ad to the Wizard of Oz which was really interesting, she explained how the woman is the one liberating everyone, she described the hammer being thrown and linked that to the dog uncovering the "wizard", and also she related the revolution of the Mac to when Dorothy says "I have a feeling we're not in Kansas anymore". I think that the fact that she used the Wizard of Oz in her comparison was extremely beneficial to the article, because not all of us are scholars or professors and even if we were, most people have seen this movie and know what it's about, so relating things back to that helps us have a better understanding of the ad. Or we at least have a better understanding of her interpretation of the ad.

#4 is really difficult for me because I honestly still don't know what Stein wants her readers to feel. I think like we talked about, Stein just wanted to inform everyone, hence the academic article. The main reason she probably wrote about this was because as she mentioned, people have talked about it but no one really analyzed it.

Assignment 9

          My essay on "Standing By" wasn't very personal at all. I don't think I personally thought about who my audience would be besides the people grading my final portfolio. I'm hoping after I reread it another time I can think of a good way to rewrite the essay. At first I didn't think it was so bad, but after we were clear on the assignment I realized just how bad it was. I didn't make it personal, I didn't bring the readers in, etc. Maybe after I rewrite my essay for "Standing By" I will be able to make the connection with my readers a little better.
          Although my essay for "Standing By" wasn't personal, my second essay was a little bit better. I wrote it like I was writing a letter to Susan Orlean. I included why her article wasn't effective for me and what things I would have liked to see in her article. I also am working on picking out a couple things she did well while writing. I think because I wrote it like a letter it was a lot easier for me to make it personal. I didn't feel guilty about using "I" or "you" like I would in a more formal type of essay.
          I don't think I am going to rewrite my essay for "Lifelike", because I actually really like how it is now. However, I'm hoping that I can think of a creative way to write my essay for "Standing By" so it sounds more like an interpretive essay as apposed to being so formal and just summarizing the story basically. My essay as of right now is one of the essays that would put the portfolio readers to sleep, and I want mine to truly stand out.

Assignment 8

   The main thing I noticed in my classmates' writing was how they viewed the article. I may have been too wrapped up in my own ideas of taxidermy to be open minded about Susan Orleans purpose. I don't like the images that were put in my head while reading, I love animals and it was shocking to me how weirdly obsessed these people were with stuffing dead animals.. After talking to my classmates and reading what they had to say about it, I realized maybe I was a little to caught up in the negative parts. Now I can see a little more of the things they are saying, but I still have my personal opinions on the side. I'm glad this is an interpretive essay so I won't have to hold back my true feelings, but for now I will put them off to the side. One thing I noticed about my writing was that I was trying to explain Orleans purpose the whole time while we are supposed to be giving our own personal interpretation of it. I had some of my own feelings in there but they were lost while trying to explain what Orlean wanted her readers to feel. Now I realize that for me, the choices Orlean used in her writing, did not work for me at all.
   As far as my essay goes, I think this essay will be a little bit better than my last. I have more personal emotion attached with this topic than I did with "Standing By". "Lifelike" evoked more emotion out of me and made me feel disgusted yet really angry at the same time. I believe my overall tone is very negative. I don't understand why someone would take up taxidermy as a hobby or profession, as I told my classmates, Taxidermy reminds me of something a serial killer would do in his spare time, it's twisted and extremely weird that someone would want to kill something, yet rebuild it to look as if it was alive and never died in the first place. It's too weird for me to wrap my head around this but I have at least tried for discussion purposes. I think the main thing that makes my essay stand out is my purpose, a lot of my classmates were focusing more on Orleans purpose of trying to persuade everyone to love taxidermy that they forgot how they felt the first time reading it. For me, I can't forget that feeling and I believe that is what really will set my essay apart from my classmates.

Assignment 7

          Why does Orlean present her information in such a formal way?
                     Would it be more effective in more of an informal article?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

      After reading "Standing By" by David Sedaris, this story seemed to bore most of us as a class. Is this because we didn't really understand the topic, or is it because of the formal way it was presented to us?

      I think we are so used to reading these boring, formal writings that we see it as very plain. The fact that they are boring and there isn't much to differentiate them, we lose the purpose of the story itself. I know the first time reading, I zoned out and had to re read often. As did a few of my classmates. I think if Orlean would have presented her information in a different way, she may have been more successful in persuading her readers to reconsider their opinions on taxidermy. Orlean may have presented in this way because it's what she's used to or maybe that's how the newspaper wanted it to be. But maybe if she did something that was a little more risky and different, more people would have been on her side at the end.
     If Orlean would have been a little more informal, played with her words a little more and cut out unnecessary things. The story would have been more effective for me. The story dragged on and seemed as though it would never end because she put so many things in it. I zoned out multiple times and didn't understand what I just read because it bored me. However, I think that if she made it shorter and more to the point, she might have actually gotten my attention. Needless to say, I think that if the article was more informal, her overall purpose would have been more effective.

                                                                    What do you think??

Assignment 6: Choices

                      CHOICES

   As an author, Orlean used many writerly choices to get her purpose across to her readers. Were they all effective? We will leave that up to the individual to decide... 

(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-aMkLOa5nCZo/UJKmoetv4TI/AAAAAA

AAEJc/zQizDghKmpY/s1600/choices-sign.jpg)

1. Orlean used many quotes in her story. Effective or no?

    -Not so much. There were too many quotes in the article and most of which undermined what    

she said right before it. The quotes contradicted what she said and therefore made the article 

less effective. The last reason the quotes didn't work out is because a lot of them were so perfect that it left a lot of us thinking, "Did she make this up?".

2. Orlean really put herself in the life of a taxidermist? Did this work for her?

             -I think so. She did the perfect amount of research to make her readers feel as though she was a 

              trustworthy source to take information from. She built her ethos up by doing so.

3. Orlean presented her information in a long article. Effective or no?

             -Not for me. The article seemed to drag on. She could have shortened it a bit to make it shorter

              and to the point. Most of my classmates thought the same thing as I did. Booooring! Orlean 

              could have done a better job at making the article more interesting. Instead it was just another 

              boring informational article about something most of us don't care about.