I feel like it's cheating to not use my own voice, but this is something directly out of Orwell's "1984," in which the main character, Winston, puts up a front when around monitors or party supporters. However, once alone, most notably in his sexual relationship with Julia, he is a completely different person, one in complete rebellion against the false self forced upon him.

This sounds like something out of a George Orwell or Ayn Rand novel.... Living outside the thumb of Big Brother's management or existing as an "I" instead of an "us" (an individual instead of an airline employee).

I had never really made a distinction between these two before.

So as people begin to take more control over their emotions, the more value people put into a loss of control of emotions. An interesting scale

Because authenticity has become an ideal to pursue, it has become incredibly difficult to be truly authentic, which is an issue that has been present in many of the issues we have discussed this semester. One glaring example was the discussion of authenticity in politics, which has a very strong connection to this text. Both politicians and flight attendants have strong motivations to seem "authentic."

In this paragraph, acting is set up as a cure for burnout, but throughout the paragraph it is seen both as a necessary evil, and a completely legitimate and morally sound part of the job.

This is important because if people decide not to put on the act then people being served by these workers will honestly view them as bad employees without considering the external factors that may have occurred through burnout or otherwise.

Our interactions with corporations are often via low-level workers (Stewardesses, Fast-food workers, etc), but these actions have been controlled by the businesses. This creates a different expectation, and has shifted a focus from, "oh, she was really nice," to, "The service here has really gone down hill," decreasing the personal element of customer service in many fields.

It seems like there are healthier ways to do this

This standardization of human encounter really creates an issue of authenticity. This sentence reminds me of Chic-fil-a's required "my pleasure" every time someone says thank you. Because a vast majority of people know that it is required of employees, and it is often said without sincerity, the standardization decreases the meaning of the interaction.

This is intriguing.... it seems to say that this emotional labor lulls us into a mundane feeling of everyday-ness that we rely on in an unconscious sense today, and that without it we have been trained not to function as well

This can also lead to it seeming to be "okay" to be rude because the person has to be nice.

So this sincerity is an act, a facade that the workers are required to put up in order to appeal to their customers, and once again a situation where in attempting to be sincere and authentic the actual authenticity is lost.

She embodies the role, to use acting terms.

This attitude translates into other workers in other areas, such as customer service agents, retail workers, and waitresses. Society has essentially normalized being rude to these people because they are the face associated with the problem.

This I can get on board with. Our society definitely does seek authenticity, but there's a strong juxtaposition wherein we also seek utopia, and we see that through much of social media.

This is wild. To claim that people working in the service industry and intentionally being friendly has changed our entire societal belief system on natural emotions, and that it has a major effect on our society is crazy. Wow.

Why? I know a lot of people who are just naturally, excessively cheerful. Only when you're having a bad day would you really be forced to act at all.

This is excessive! This is not the end all, be all, the dooming fate that awaits flight attendants. The very simple solution to this problem is to hire people who are naturally very friendly and welcoming, and who therefore really aren't acting so much as having an outlet to express their friendliness in a setting where it's usually very well-received.

This is really unhealthy, and I think our author is right here, but I also think that those kind of people are really not suited to be working in service industries. If you do not have the emotional capacity to make a distinction between the business environment of a workplace and normal everyday life, that becomes an issue, and you are definitely not the best person for that type of job.

Having flown Delta on about 6 flights in the last 6 months, I can definitely verify that this is true. The flight attendants and even the pilots are almost always smiling, and they're very likeable and friendly. I'm sure they do receive some training in that area.

I think the author's tone here is getting to the point where he is really saying that this use of emotional capital in business is a bad thing. He's not saying it outright, but given his tone and what he implies, I can feel it. I don''t really necessarily think it is a bad thing. In service industries, I think it's really an expectation in society that you should be treated well, especially when you're spending significant quantities of money. This isn't a new idea. In service industries "emotional capital" or quality of service is highly valued.

The selection I’ve provided is from the concluding chapter of Hochschild’s classic book The Managed Heart: Commercialization of Human Feeling

(I decided not to provide the chapter that discusses the details of flight attendant selection, training and labor, since some of those details now seem dated—but the world she describes, a world in which the service industry is steadily increasing in importance, is still very much our world.)

This reading serves to summarize the perspective of our class: the range of time Hochschild addresses is, roughly, the range between William Wordsworth's birth and today.

Once again, you have free rein for annotations (just as in my Frankfurt guidelines). I will discuss mini-research paper possibilities for this text in class with you on Tuesday!

I don't know if this makes sense, but to me this is a very post-War mindset. In other words, after great tragedies, people try to be true to themselves to escape the horror and lies of what happened. For example, following Hitler's forceful placement of Wagner on a pedestal as the Third Reich's symbol, many German musicians worked to reinvent their sound in direct contrast to the propaganda-famed Wagner. They were true to their own nature instead of what was forced to be known as the "natural" sound of Germany.

I haven't thought enough about it, but I think there is a really interesting opportunity here to look at Gulliver's Travels and the lack of lying (or bullshit) in the language of the houyhnhnms. If you aren't familiar with the story, Gulliver, in order to explain his situation and the outside world, had to roughly translate lying into "the thing which is not" as the houyhnhnms had no concept of such wrongs in their society. Perhaps there are some correlations between the two pieces?

Picking up on Joshua's closing question in our 11/21 meeting, let me ask, would it be accurate to substitute authenticity for "sincerity" in Frankfurt's phrase--or would you want to argue that there is a fundamental difference?

Nobody annotated this word! ...and consider our course topic! (Maybe I should have shortened the essay via excerpting...)

Consider the various dates when this essay was published (1986/2005); consider your date of reading (2017). At what point would a paragraph like this one not have seemed so plausible? Can we imagine a world without BS?

You may have thought to yourself: "Wow, you get to do this in a REAL essay!?" Think of Frankfurt's procedure in terms of the idea of "keyterm" or a key word: he needs the record of historical uses to build upon and develop his own sense of a concept. See, e.g., the Pittsburgh/Cambridge "Keywords Project".

I will quote their definition:

A ‘keyword’, in the sense in which we investigate keywords on this website, is a socially prominent word (e.g. art, industry, media or society) that is capable of bearing interlocking, yet sometimes contradictory and commonly contested contemporary meanings.

A nice little piece of "meta-commentary": Frankfurt lets us know that this (presumed) perception of Wittgenstein's will be important to his own developing definition of BS

She makes a claim that is not authentic and does not even try to be.

Precisely the kind of work you see in admissions or academic essays. What is written may be bs, but the author is often careful to make it the kind of bs that is exactly what the reader wants to see.

I find this argument interesting- how does one conclude that because a lie is told for gain it is not a real lie? I understand the importance of the distinction between a lie that is viewed as indispensable and a lie that is told for the sake of pleasure in dishonesty, but wholeheartedly disagree with the conclusion that the former is not a "real lie."

This paragraph structure is an effective way to approach the terms used in this essay. It allows the author to simultaneously make the meanings clear and analyze their meaning in the context of his argument. It allows for a greater ease of understanding, as well as a flow that easily connects the paragraphs.

I think this is the most important distinguishing factor between bullshit and lying: a connection or concern with truth

This sentence made me laugh whoops

I have mixed feelings on whether or not this is completely relevant or helpful to his argument

Although I feel like this is kind of understood regardless, this is actually a fancy linguistics term for any statement or sentence of clause when in the context of the study of pragmatics, something that the investigation of lying v. humbug v. bullshit would certainly apply to (and actually, my linguistics class did look at this essay a few weeks ago)

The combination of common vernacular (bullshit, sketchily) and what I would consider to be Academic English (amorphous, Procrustean) is confusing to me; I would almost rather Frankfurt wrote with almost exclusively casual language to better conform to the subject matter in its everyday, common nature.

See my "page note" for your annotation instructions...

Frankfurt's essay, written in 1986, "went viral" and was ultimately issued in expanded form twenty years later as a small book by Princeton University Press.

You'll notice that the argument depends primarily on two techniques:

1) Clarity of "close reading"--textual analysis is critical to Frankfurt's methods of argument

2) Use of the OED: Frankfurt is attempting to clarify a concept, and to disentangle that concept from a thicket of related language

These techniques will not be unfamiliar to you! "Analytic philosophy," Frankfurt's scholarly field, can be highly technical: but it also is potentially available to the common reader. I will cite the professor of philosophy William Blattner, defining the "standards of argumentative clarity and precision" that he takes to be fundamental to good philosophy:

It would be a large and difficult topic to try to specify what counts as argumentative clarity and precision. We can say something about it, though: defining technical terminology when it's introduced; writing in language that is more likely to be accessible to an educated outsider; clearly identifying assumptions; considering challenges to one's argumentative moves.

Since it's the last unit, I'm giving you free rein for annotations (my only stricture is that you make at least two of your own, and reply at least once to a colleague. Imagine that you might want to write an essay that in some way responds to Frankfurt's own; imagine that you want to impress your Expo 1113 professor with the careful reading strategies you've developed over the course of the semester; imagine....

Need clarification-- is characterization of the "audibly distinct segments" marked by pitch, syllables, tone, some combination of the above?

My original thought was that it was just pitch. I listened to Led Zeppelin's "Whole Lotta Love" earlier today and in the chorus the singer stretches the "uh" sound in love across two different pitches. Zeppelin definitively does not possess a twang to his voice-- clarification?

I think commercial is an interesting word. Are these artists writing to sell copies/make money or are they trying to make a political/social statement? I lean towards the latter choice and so I wonder why Grant uses this word unless she means to address how the impact of the music is changed by it being released into a profit-based environment.

This is something of a disconnect for me... Usually, when an author puts a block quote at the beginning of a paper, they intend to address it in some way, or at least provide evidence as to why it is relevant. Grant just leaves it up there providing no real insight into her point.

Just as it was in slavery, Jim Crow, and beyond, the economic power disproportionately given to whites over blacks results in a sort of "ownership" of black artists

Grant seamlessly integrates Rose's opinions in order to give her own more credibility, which is a very effective way to support her claims.

Again, Grant is very straight-forward in the way she outlines her essay, which I feel she does effectively- she isn't trying to be deliberately high-brow in her outline, and that allows her subject matter to pull focus.

Grant utilizes a very straight-forward technique to lay put her essay, and I feel that it is a very efficient way to introduce her topic.

This last section leaves me feeling unsatisfied... I wish there was a more concrete connection to the gansta rap brought up earlier

After another layer of background information, the author arrives at her "objective". Like before, this method helps the reader to understand and increases credibility.

It appears as if the author is organizing this essay in a chronological-ish format, while simultaneously allowing each section as the paper progressed to build on the last one. This makes it easier for readers who have little knowledge of the subject before hand to be able to comprehend and get more out of this essay.

Immediately I am struck with all the sources that the author supplies to supplement her own words; she seems to want to present this essay not as a stand alone end all be all type source, but rather one that will lead you elsewhere and give you an entire base of research in which to pull from

Grant very specifically and intentionally outlines exactly what they set out to do in this introduction, indeed reflecting a rather less stylized approach than other authors of similar papers take, but still presents a very organized and constructed paper

After a lot of background information, the author now shifts into her argument about gangsta rap. She realized that many of her readers would need the extensive background information to even understand her argument, and her use of many sources provides more of a legitimacy to her arguments because of her extensive knowledge and research.

Grant's article is very carefully written and organized; it is more concerned with clarity than with stylistic individuality, and it depends extensively on sources. In these respects, it models one style of writing about the humanities.

When reading Grant's essay, I want you to make primarily what I've called rhetorically focused notations:

focusing on what the author is doing and why they are doing it: annotating to enhance our understanding and build a foundation for engaging with the authors’ argument.

When you get to Grant's own claims, of course, feel free to engage with their substance!

Nostalgia: a.k.a. missing the good old days... This makes me think of Faulkner's "A Rose for Emily," which was back-lit by a decaying Southern Gentile society in which the people were holding on to the "glory" of the "courtly plantations" with all their might.

This chicken and the egg presumption seems far-fetched to me. If people weren't living the culture that country music reflects, if they didn't find the music relatable, it would never have grown to be popular. I think it's a very dangerous game to play to begin to claim that people's culture was artificially produced by musicians, that their culture isn't authentic. I can't say that I agree.

This seems like evidence that is not in any way credible. They're claiming that all of the Charley Pride fans out there were ignorant to the fact that he was black, else they would not have listened to his music? I think that's quite a claim to make with a complete and total lack of evidence.

This is the heart of country music. I think Bush captures it well.

This is a point I hadn't thought about much but one that is very valid; non-white people are not likely to feel a nostalgia for this same time where they wouldn't have been able to experience the world in the same manner as a white man could have

Evidently, "white" is going to act as a key term of sorts, and I'm kinda hoping its defined expressly at some point because I feel as if it could be interpreted differently depending on the reader.

I'm not sure I buy into this. I think while certain techniques or instrumentation COULD potentially be recognized as something old and traditional thus making it nostalgic, I think the twang is still used enough today to not give it an instant nostalgic feeling in form. May just be me but the content argument is much more real to me than the form one.

I appreciate them acknowledging this

I wonder which out of these the author sees as more important to being authentic in country music

This is pronounced like "Tambor" for non musicy people's reference haha

Interesting how in addition to content in lyrics or otherwise, the pronunciation alone is a factor in country music's authenticity

As a linguistics student I love this word

I didn't know what this was at first but it seems to be like a type of countryish music that originated in Texas with Latin American influence but that kind of has a pop-ish or rock vibe to it as well.

I appreciate that this line makes a distinction between raced and racist sound, utilizing the reactions of others to make that distinction.

According to Merriam-Webster 'hegemony' refers to the dominant influence in a field (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hegemony). This hegemony of vision seems to refer to the way appearance dominates our perception of race. This point is nearly buried in the vocabulary of the author.

I am somewhat confused by the addition of this sentence. it seems unnecessary and detached from the rest of the paragraph, and I don't really understand how it furthers the author's argument.

This claim is what marked my official interest and "buying in" to this article. This statement made me curious into how the author would go about answering it, and also presented the idea in my head that sometimes culture doesn't create its components but at times a subculture of sorts can stem from a component, of course in this case country music.

There is a now widely discredited sociological theory that claimed that increased play of country music lead to increased suicides. This was taught to us as an example of a spurious correlation.

Is this true? Did they make it true by pointing it out?

I am guessing this means that the nostalgic "whiteness" of country music makes it seem like current racial feelings are justified, encouraging people to act "white" because that is how it was and should be.

Mann wants instead to to look at country not as expressing or reflecting social class (though notice he doesn't disagree with this perspective), but as a "pose" or "style", a "performance." (Notice that this language harmonizes with the language of "producing" that he uses earlier in the section...)

Here Mann writes a whole paragraph setting up an analysis based on social class, only to then tell us in the next paragraph that he lacks space to say more about it! Why does he do this?

....And Gramsci (another Marxist) turns out to be the most important theoretician for Mann's argument!

So many names! Did we need Althusser as well? "Yes and no", would be my answer. Mann needs both to demonstrate his knowledge of the field and to establish the distinctness of his own perspective. He's not necessarily as reader-friendly as he could be here. But remember, Mann has just told us he wants to keep an Althuserian idea and apply it from a Gramscian perspective. And his readers--you!--can draw some things from his article without necessarily taking on Mann's entire perspective....

In this paragraph, Mann goes on to distinguish his approach from that of M & R (in whose footsteps he is following)

"Hear", Mann means, in the sense that you might think "wow, that music really speaks to me"--and, also, in the sense of French philosopher Louis Althusser's influential understanding of ideology, which the next section of the article introduces. I'll cite from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy--I'm drawing from section 4.2

the background ideas that we possess about the way in which the world must function and of how we function within it is, in this account, understood to be always present. Specific socio-economic structures, however, require particular ideologies. These ideologies are instantiated by institutions or “Ideological State Apparatuses” like family, schools, church, etc., which provide the developing subject with categories in which she can recognize herself. Inasmuch as a person does so and embraces the practices associated with those institutions, she has been successfully “hailed” or “interpellated” and recognized herself as that subject who does those kinds of things.

Here Mann cites a particular source for his idea, while at the same time paraphrasing that idea again.

Step back, if you're reading here, and think about: what are the ways in which we "normally" (everyday ways) think about music as cause, rather than as "reflection" / effect / whatev

A BIG CLAIM--yes? An ambitious claim. Paraphrase:

Country music, in the form a capitalist society gives it, produces a certain kind of "white subject"--a way of feeling and knowing oneself as white.

And I've left out one piece: the "contradictions"--since that requires a further detour into Althusser's development of Marxist theory. (General clue: if you see "contradictions" and "over-determination", you are reading work that draws upon this particular Marxist tradition.)

Key sentence indicating shift to Mann's own perspective: he will offer a verb that contrasts with EXPRESSES or REFLECTS -- his verb will be PRODUCES. And the last sentence of this paragraph states his own claim!

This paragraph shows Mann's command of the material. He defines a particular kind of scholarship on the "ideological work" of music. (Notice that examples of "meaning" go far beyond lyrical messages....)

So, this is the really tough section! (Remember, you guys are HONORS students....) [insert honors emojis here]

I provide a definition of "interpellation" on the next page. I'll comment once more on each paragraph to create a roadmap for y'all...

Mann's article is divided into six sections.

• intro
• Country music as race music
• Country music in the US: sound and story
• Nostalgia and 'musical interpellation'
• The sound of whiteness: a shared 'used to'
• Why does country music sound white?

This is an essay in which the argumentative structure is quite clear (see the summary at the end of section 1.) However, the thinking behind the argument is more difficult! The way Ward analyzes cause-and-effect logic may seem counter-intuitive.

Annotation instructions: this time around, you can stick to "informational/contextual" and "interpretive" footnotes. Let me know where the essay is difficult; do what you can to be specific* about the source of that difficulty!

I will annotate section 4, as it's the toughest part of the article. (The keyterm in Mann's title is a signal of this difficulty...) If it thwarts you the first time through, skip it over and keep going: you can still grasp much of Mann's analysis without an understanding of that section.

Very important to note-- influence upon American popular music for decades to come, potential turning of the culture from expecting singer to have no personal connection to the music, to expecting the singer to have a personal connection

At this point, I have spent an obscene amount of time trying to find a song that follows an autobiographical style but, while my musical preferences are pretty eclectic, I have yet to find anything. Thus, I am somewhat at a loss to stay fully within the realm of autobiographical song... However, what I did find, while not explicitly autobiographical, is filled with social commentary, realism, and most definitely originality. The song "King Rat" by Modest Mouse is largely a commentary on the senseless need for having possessions. The song's lyrics make a mockery of society, comparing humans to carrion birds swarming around worthless things. Brock and the rest of the band bluntly represent an image of society, relying on realism (or perhaps just an authentically pessimistic tone) to bring their music down to Earth. If nothing else, the song, as with most of their music, is strikingly original, but I don't think this is because society was pressuring them; rather, I feel as though the group is working to be authentic despite societal pressures and preexisting musical standards. From an autobiographical sense, some things have to be read between the lines so to speak... Much of Brock's early life consisted of being a "city rat" and existing as somewhat of an outsider to society. Meaning he had little to no income and didn't worry about "important things" like a nice car or paying rent because "county jails they're free." Among all these different interpretations, the song, especially when alongside the video, is heavily against illegal whaling, another commentary on society.

Warning: The video is pretty graphic, involving whales and other marine animals catching, flaying, and eating humans.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qi7KDOAj4Xo

Country Music! Dolly Parton\ This song is written by Dolly Parton for her former partner Porter Wagoner as she leaves him professionally after working with him for 7 years in order to pursue her own career alone. This song has originality and realness to a very high level and is certainly a confession, in this case of a amicable "breakup" between two people who respect and love each other alot. There is not as much boastfullness in this, but it kind of serves as a press release because it was announcing the separation of Porter and Dolly from their professional relationship.This song doesn't strike me as overly bluesy although it does talk about the problems of a person but I feel like it is perceived more as a love song. So while it is similar to TB Blues by Jimmie Rodgers in terms of its realness and maintaining personal authenticity, while TB Blues speaks of his issues and real experiences much more directly and specifically, while Parton's song is more vague and 'relatable' rather than completely autobiographical. TB Blues is defeinitely autobiographical in a way that I will always love you is not, though the question of whether or not that makes either one less authentic is an interesting and debatable question. I would say that both stand as authentic even though one is less specific and explicit to the other, as Parton references real events and emotions directed at a specific external source in her life.

The article describes Blues as being characterized not so much by its musical style, but by revealing the gritty first-person narrative experience of a dispossessed people, their struggles, their poverty and their disillusion with society. This, combined with the description of Jimmie Rodgers singing about a "disease slowly killing him by degrees" (page 2), caused me to immediately think of the Grunge movement in the nineties, specifically as viewed through the lens of the band Nirvana. The similarities are striking--Blues explored the experience of social outcasts as defined by socioeconomic categorization, Nirvana explored the experience social outcasts as defined by those struggling with mental health, drug addiction, or alienation from their peers socially. Jimmie Rodgers' "TB Blues" explored how a common disease, Tuberculosis, affected him physically, socially, and mentally-- Nirvana's song "Come As You Are" demonstrates how the disease of depression changes how one perceives themselves, how others perceive them, and how one perceives the values of their own life. The contradictory lines in the verses seem to demonstrate a sort of confusion over what the person should be, what social norms push them to be, whether they should listen to their own desires or the social rules of the time, and the chorus in which the narrator repeatedly states-- or even pleads-- that they "don't have a gun" seems to suggest a concern for the narrator having suicidal thoughts or inclinations. Thusly, one can conclude that the social disillusion shared by Blues and Grunge reveals that Grunge is a sort of cultural and ideological heir to the Blues movement, due to the similar expression of a narrative of the oppressed, outcast, and marginalized.

Lyrics: https://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/nirvana/comeasyouare.html

Song: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vabnZ9-ex7o

Though the group is far from the blues genre, twenty one pilots has songs that fit many of the characteristics for the autobiographical blues song. Tyler Joseph writes his own music and lyrics, and he is incredibly raw and real with admitting what he has experienced with his struggles with mental health and insecurities. Some of his music is also a direct social comment on the problems of suicide and related issues. The song "Migraine" is a prime example of how raw the songs of twenty one pilots. It shows the characteristics I described, except with less of an emphasis on the social comment. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bs92ejAGLdw

“Human Sadness” by Julian Casablancas+The Voidz might be a bit unsuited for play at house party, and it is notably longer than the average song length at 11 minutes, but somehow I never grow tired of it. The broad title fits the song well, as it seems to be a narrative of both Julian Casablancas’ own sadness in his life as a result of estrangement from his father, as well as the sorrows that haunt all humans as a result of greed and too much dependence on emotion rather than reason. Casablancas writes lyrics that are quite personal and specific, such as “hits you on the head when nobody’s there / then he says ‘come here, could you fix my tie?’” regarding the way his father, the well-dressed founder of a modeling agency, treated him coldly when they weren’t in the public view. Between glimpses of Casablancas’ relationship with his father he writes about the human condition; “vanity overriding wisdom” being a way that social interaction can be corrupted. “Human Sadness”, by addressing both general woes of the human population and intimate details from Casablancas’ own life, is both relatable and personal. This seems to be the kind of alluring authenticity Barker and Taylor see in the blues songs they examine in their article.

Song: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8k3qB61lhk

As it focuses on songs that tell a personal narrative, the article discusses authenticity as it pertains to the stories singers put into their songs. It points out that many songs simply generalize experiences, without ever truly discussing personal details or utilizing their own experience. The authors hold up Jimmie Rodgers as an example of this type of personal narrative, specifically citing his songs "TB Blues" and "Jimmie the Kid". Both of which share very specific details about his life. In the same way, the song "Fifteen" by Taylor Swift shares a very specific experience from Swift's life. She discusses her relationship with her friend Abigail, and the way Abigail's experiences affected their friendship. In addition to sharing specific personal details, the many can easily relate to the song, in the same way that the writers say is very important. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pb-K2tXWK4w

On a personal note, this is one of my favorite songs by Led Zeppelin and one of my favorite songs ever. With that being said, I cannot relate to this personally, as the subject matter of moving across the nation due to my hometown flooding has never happened to me, and more than likely never will happen to me. Does this make my enjoyment of the song inauthentic? Since I am not a dispossessed people as the song's Blues origins appeal to, is the song "not for me"-- that is to say, is my enjoyment of the sound a sort of cultural appropriation of the dispossessed proletariat the Blues genre appeals to? To extend the question even further-- given that Led Zeppelin is a group of 70's rock stars with unfathomable fame and wealth, as compared to Minnie's experience of poverty during the Great Depression, is Led Zeppelin's cover itself culturally appropriating the lyrics of Minnie's song?

Lyrics link: https://genius.com/Led-zeppelin-when-the-levee-breaks-lyrics

Song link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uwiTs60VoTM

Serious academic commentary: incredibly interesting how a genre focused explicitly on firsthand experience/narrative can have a signature piece about something the author was incapable of experiencing. Is the article being self-contradictory here, or does this indicate that Blues by is inherently authentic regardless of all else?

Unprofessional commentary: I laughed out loud at this in a silent study room lol

Authenticity comes through connection between audience and performer. If one cannot relate to the experiences put out by the other, inauthenticity arises. Sort of a mutual relationship, rather than one determining for the other what is important

Perhaps a change-- previously had others write his songs, but now this is a personal experience? Would it be correct to infer that he wrote this song, or at least had personal influence in its composition? Regardless, intriguing to note that this sort of taboo-breaking song came to be known as one of the most authentic of its genre/time precisely because it was about the singer's own disease

Even though, as the author previously noted, he enlisted considerable help with writing his songs; it may have been his own passion put into his voice, and perhaps he really did identify with the words/ideas of his songwriters, they were not per se his own words

Very important. Duality between freedom to do as one likes vs settling down, monogamy, family etc-- inauthentic due to conflict, or authentic due to accurately representing this duality that exists within mindsets of rural Americans?

Jan-Werner Müller's essay was published in the Boston Review last fall. The essay is drawn from a book published by the U of Pennsylvania Press; that site blurbs it and provides a brief bio of Müller.

An interesting choice of final word.....what do you think Muller was up to here? Any takers?

Notice how assumptions about audience come to the surface here...

Question (based on my memories of the Democratic primary): what is the DIFFERENCE between this kind of advocacy and populism?

The title phrase, appearing as part of a definition: to understand populism we need to understand fantasy AND reality, Muller argues...

more definition by negation: this section of the essay gets tricky as Muller piles up such phrasings--but he wants to emphasize that populism's "essence" cannot be reduced to single policy tendencies or manifestations

A concept to keep in mind...

This is helpful: here Muller is saying "hey: some advanced Academic English coming up!" (Combining this with the terms Muller DIDN'T define in the same way can help you think about his desired audience..)

Here we could connect Muller with Taylor's essay.

Note how the rhetorical figure of "chiasmus" works to phrase Muller's distinction clearly and memorably!

I've highlighted Müller's distinction between demagoguery and populism.

Question: which of these two terms is more closely linked to the idea of authenticity, as we've been thinking about it?

A very clearly phrased and strong (=ambitious) claim: there's been a lot of discussion of X...& it still needs to be clarified.

This might actually be one of the most relevant key terms (not necessarily his key term) around populism as America was all but founded on the disagreement between the "elite" class and the common man. I can't exactly say that this is an example of "Academic English."

Key Term - This is very much an example of Academic English. It is prevalent in works like Steinbeck's "Grapes of Wrath" and the common man's identity in the context of the elite's power.

A keyterm

A citation for identity in the context of populism. It supports his claim about Trump's supposed populism as an extension of his elite power.

Key term - integral component of the populist perspective

Key term, I feel as if this is relatively universally understood thus not that Academically englishy

A keyterm

Citation for demagoguery

Academic language - no clear definition provided

Key term, I think it's pretty Academic English-ish though the author does attempt to define it to some degree. (though it still did not become completely clear to me by the time I had finished the article)

The first citation for what populism is rather than what it isn't

I think the author is saying here that a populist leader squashes the notion of individuality and combines all people into one same category, destroying that uniqueness (at least they imply it, in their speech, whether or not it has a real effect on people's actual personalities is probably a different story). I think this notion of squashing individuality could be combined with concepts from the prior essay about political philosophy about authenticity to write a good essay haha.

Claims for both sides. Is the general culture becoming more populist?

An official political definition of populism is "political program or movement that champions the common person, usually by favourable contrast with an elite"

Official definition of demagoguery is demagoguery is "an appeal to people that plays on their emotions and prejudices rather than on their rational side"

Citation of political strategies surrounding populism and a recent example.

Reminds me a bit of fundamental attribution error. If politicians are unable to see opponents as individuals of character apart from the mistakes they've made in the past, they are making what psychology and also many voters call an error.

Citation of examples of populists

Source that gives an example of Populism (with no context)

Key Term

Key Term

One of Trump's primary vote-getting methods.

We will annotate Müller in the period before class; we will then use the "Academic English" handout to do a workshop with the article in class.

Any of the three categories of annotations are "in play" for this reading; please make public at least two different annotations.

I find it interesting that it is a new concept that our identity is focused on who we are as people instead of who we know. Ultimately, it has become more important to be unique (read: authentic to oneself) than to hold a specific title.

I really like the way Taylor utilizes strong, emotionally-charged language to drive his point home. By evoking strong emotion, Taylor is able to direct it.

Getting a bit too philosophical for my engineering brain...

If this is true, and we create our identity out of a series of decisions to either satisfy or contradict the wishes of our "significant others," then of course our identity would be largely based on others' recognition. If others place some stereotype upon us, we only have the choice to comply with it or to reject it, without the option to act as if the stereotype doesn't exist and act freely in some middle ground. Thus recognition plays a large and somewhat irritating part in controlling who we are.

One very noticeable thing about Taylor's writing is that he constantly references other authors and philosophers. He does this to back up his argument and to make him appear more reputable.

With these very direct statements of fact the author conveys his own ideas to the reader as concrete; this is one of the most effective way of doing this outside of asserting using first person.

This concept of authenticity and identity being so closely linked is also interesting. I believe the author is just citing the ideas of Herder here but I'm wondering if he believes in them as well.

I've only read this far so I have no idea what this is actually discussing.... but I felt rather emphatically supportive of this word choice. (Perhaps too emphatically....) For me, much of politics, the news, modern literature, and music as well are all generated with the mindset of "what will make me noticed by others?" Or "what will give me recognition?" In fact, I am somewhat disillusioned by today's pop music as few of the hits seem to do anything other than repeat the same sounds/styles that worked for previous best sellers. This is all but ubiquitous in the news media setting, too. All across newspapers and channels are flashy words or phrases like "latest glimpse," "beggar makes millions over night." or some other click bait. Many politicians also do things to gain more attention rather than to actually affect their country as it gives them more "power" over people. In the end, the media, music, and ultimately our "American" culture is just one big regurgitation of itself, forming a mountain of bullshit on which we stand declaring that we are somehow the best.

My writing took over....

This paper has officially reached the point where I would typically write it off as overly philosophical crap that contributes nothing to society. But for the purpose of studenting, I'm going to finish reading.

The idea that there are people out there who only want to exist and be recognized, but yet are denied that is something that is very prominent within our world today.

Makes me think of the Arcade Fire song "We Exist"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hRXc_-c_9Xc

Yes we should avoid being defined by the thoughts of others, but is it terrible to gain some identity from others? I could not be identified as a daughter, friend, or girlfriend without other people. These things are a part of me no matter how hard I would try to be independent. To what extent is being independent good?

Hey, look, our course's focus!

According to Wikipedia he "was a German philosopher, theologian, poet, and literary critic. He is associated with the periods of Enlightenment, Sturm und Drang, and Weimar Classicism."

French lawyer and political philosopher of the 1700s

A french political philosopher from the Age of Enlightenment who discussed social classes of France, dividing the population into monarchy, aristocracy and the commons.

Wikipedia

Questions such as this allow for Taylor to reach out to the mind of the reader and connect to them. Readers can read these questions and ponder the answer as they read, causing them to become more involved in Taylor's thought processes. This tactic is useful in public speaking, but also in written works such as this.

Excellent. Precisely as I said before, this self-depreciation becomes a force in their own oppression, because it creates a mindset of helplessness.

The structure of Taylor's argument flows notably well; I like that he presents the necessary examples for understanding an argument in a separate paragraph before continuing on to make his point.

This form of self-victimization is where a distinct difference appears. A lack of personal initiative and self-confidence should not be blamed on society. Claiming that society as a whole induces women to adopt a lesser image of themselves as a whole may or may not be true, but using this as an excuse for a lack of self-responsibility and initiative is just sad. This form of self-victimization implies an inherent helplessness that's entirely untrue, and it's a mindset that helps nobody to be productive.

This premise is very intriguing to me; the idea of personal, private identity is shaped by public, evident recognition is perhaps not obvious. This statement also causes me to ask the question: if recognition defines part of one's identity, what defines the other parts? (Perhaps he answers this I have not yet finished reading the text, haha)

Taylor here strengthens his argument by providing clarification. He points out something he is not arguing to avoid confusion.

I agree, this paragraph is very true. Whether that demand stems from true lack of recognition or more from personal insecurity is a different matter, but these movements do present themselves in a need for attention and recognition.

Mead is a sociologist. He is strongly associated with the symbolic interactionist paradigm, a view of sociology that is based off of the belief that our interactions with people and the symbols and language we use are what defines culture. This view goes against other paradigms in which society is formed by either conflict or the way social institutions are connected.

Taylor gives us an analysis of recognition that is at the same time a discussion of authenticity. You will see a number of resonances with what we've read thus far.

When annotating Taylor, please make both rhetorically focused notations and interpretive/analytical notations: I want you to consider both the overall substance of Taylor's argument and the way in which he addresses his reader.

The text will be open for annotation until the end of the week (week 5).

At the end of this week, I will give everyone a preliminary grade for "annotations so far", with a brief breakdown of how well you're doing what I'm looking for and how you can do (even) better!

There are many Charles Taylors! I will let Wikipedia handle the disambiguation: we are reading the Canadian philosopher.)

For a recent piece on Taylor, see this essay from the New Yorker magazine entitled "How to Restore Your Faith in Democracy.". The profile was published on the occasion of Taylor's winning a major new prize in philosophy, awarded to a thinker “whose ideas are intellectually profound but also able to inform practical and public life.”

phrases like "cross section" and "collect material" make Hurston's endeavor seem scientific, and thus probably more authentic from the public perspective at the time that desired to study "American Negro life".

I find it interesting that she got her authentic information by being deceitful.

This seems slightly antisemitic. I can't tell if the reason the "Jew" was the one to grab the soul due to the belief that Jewish people were always highly spiritual and that it came from the books of the Old Testament or if they were the first ones to grab the soul because of the many offensive stereotypes placed upon them over time.

This is an intriguing metaphor, as it suggests that white men's nature is similar to that of a child in the regard that they are always asking questions and trying to play with something that doesn't belong to them.

I find this sentence so interesting, especially when considering its authenticity. In one sense, this is a very blunt way for Hurston to say what is clearly a truth to her, and in that sense is very authentic. But, when examining the action discussed, it becomes clear that the actions of this hypothetical person are certainly inauthentic.

What she wrote about folk lore being affected by outsiders is quite interesting. After so much influence, how authentic are the stories we heard as kids? An obvious example of this, would be the Grimm Fairy Tales, which Walt Disney and others turned into children's stories. Also, the common folktale images of Casey Jones and John Henry have evolved (or maybe devolved) into something that is likely very different from their original form. I can't speak for everyone, but I too grew up to the stories of Brer Rabbit and Brer Bear. However, how dissimilar to the original (if there can be truthful/original "lies") were they?

I think this justifies a lot of discrepancies that may be found between real rural vernacular of the time and his poems themselves; as a translator as long as what Wordsworth is trying to say with this language is understood, he is accomplishing his goals and since he expressly states this as a desire in his writing then it is logical to argue that he is achieving this wish. .

I feel that this is clearly demonstrated in Michael. The language used by Wordsworth is both fueled by deep emotion, and is intrinsically deeply emotional.

He uses the word passion so much wow.

I think this shows what Wordsworth thinks to be the exceptions to always using vulgar, rural language of the common man in his diction. The only time he sees it makes sense to alter language to be more fancy and eloquent is when it is to bring pleasure to the reader. Using this any more often than on occasion would in Wordsworth's mind be "painful or disgusting"

This is fascinating to me, when compared with the clear divide in language used by Wordsworth in Michael, separating his point of view from that of the subject. While he doesn't completely separate himself from the emotion of the subjects of the poem, there is some distance created by the presence of the narrator, which is in direct conflict with Wordsworth's claim in this line.

I believe this paragraph shows Wordsworth confessing that while he will attempt to demonstrate as "real" and "authentic" a work as possible he will probably fall short of this goal

In the Preface, Wordsworth says that the main purpose of his poems is to, " choose incidents and situations from common life, and to relate or describe them, throughout, as far as was possible in a selection of language really used by men, and, at the same time, to throw over them a certain colouring of imagination, whereby ordinary things should be presented to the mind in an unusual aspect." What is a more common, well known subject than that of our lives and hearts?

This is the word used in my paragraph.

This is the word I discussed.

This was my word for my ACE Paragraph

I used this word for my paragraph

It seems like the obvious thing to say, but I find this somewhat alarming. Or, at least to my twenty-first century ears, what Wordsworth wrote in his "Solitary Reaper" sounds like blatant plagiarism. And, as plagiarism tends to do, this makes me question how many of his works were similarly unauthentic in origin.

This is the manuscript to which Wordsworth refers in the 1807 footnote (provided by the editor of our copy of "The Solitary Reaper").

Annotation instructions: please comment on this text or on the short text from Dorothy Wordsworth. You have free rein; the question I'm most interested in is the ways in which these texts make you feel differently about Wordsworth's poem. Questions of authenticity, I suspect, will emerge....

It is good to see that William Wordsworth did indeed take inspiration from what was around him and, it can be assumed, how he felt about those things. This spontaneous idea feels more authentic than taking a line from another's recollections.

Wordsworth's sister's manuscript (also quoted by the editor of our text of "The Solitary Reaper") of which we have a small selection, was written in 1803-5, revised from memory in 1822, and not published until 1874.

Annotation instructions: please comment on this text or on the short text from Thomas Wilkinson. You have free rein; the question I'm most interested in is the ways in which these texts make you feel differently about Wordsworth's poem. Questions of authenticity, I suspect, will emerge....

Authenticity largely revolves around stripping an idea, identity, or some other concept to its core. In some ways, this is the same thing as removing the complexity from the idea, and making it as simple and unembellished as possible. Aside from keeping to his ideas of not using extravagant language, this also allows Wordsworth to portray equally simple, and non-extravagant characters. While I know this is a difficult question to answer, especially with its minor relevance to the actual text, but I was wondering whether or not others would consider this (the simple character) an intentional reference to the idea of authenticity?

Nature seems to be a very common theme in much of Wordsworth's writing. He definitely enjoys discussing natural settings and the emotional effects that they have on people. Coming from Michigan and being an avid sailor and backpacker, this is completely relatable for me, and I think that this is much more relatable for the common man that Wordsworth was trying to reach than for the traditional literary audience of his time.

This seems to encapsulate the value of continuing the family tradition and bloodline to the head of a family in a rural community. Desiring your children to continue on the work you did in your life feels like a common trope among stories of people in the country. Without the child to continue on your work everything you, your father, your father's father, and so on will all be for nought and this feeling that Michael has is one of the most essential for a regular everyday shepherd should have.

I think that this line so perfectly ties back to Wordsworth's desire to write in a simple way, in the words of ordinary people. Here he states explicitly that books held no emotion for him, and it was through nature that true feeling was attained. This line resonates with me simply because it is such a pure distillation of one of the central claims Wordsworth makes about his poetry in the Preface.

This fits with Wordsworth's desire to keep his subject matter realistic while still entertaining. Wordsworth doesn't need some freak occurrence to make his stories appealing to audiences like the novels of his day apparently do. Through his own power of storytelling he can spin interest even out of less than spectacular events.

Phrases like this, while not exactly following the typical syntactical patterns of today, are still easily understood despite their oddness, and in this way I believe that Wordsworth is succeeding in the goal he set out to make in his Preface. He is making his work much easier to understand in the language of the common man (as opposed to the Phoebus passage we viewed in class, which was very unclear and confusing without close inspection) while maintaining the poetry of his piece. He consistently balances this common vernacular and phrasing with the poetic nature evenly throughout the poem.

This is a side note in a sense, but I was initially confused upon reading this passage that Wordsworth was using a lot of language that is rather unused today, words such as "bethought", "appertain" and "thither". While this confused me at first after a quick google search I found that all of these words were actually quite common in the 1800s, so Wordsworth was indeed maintaining his goal of 'authenticity' and removing himself from more pompous writers. It just didn't seem that way at first to me, a reader in the 21st century.

With all the time Wordsworth devoted to every other part of the tale, this seems rather sudden. I am not sure why, but the quickness of it bothers me somewhat.

Wordsworth is making similar claims to those he made in the preface. He is explicitly stating that his tale is simple and everyday, but he hopes that it will still bring pleasure to his readers.

In the literary sense of the word: " A literary work portraying rural life or the life of shepherds, esp. in an idealized or romantic form." See the OED definition ii, 3

My annotation guidelines are in a "page note"!

At the end of the file I've provided the notes furnished by the editor of this text (these include both WW's own explanatory notes, and some additional notes).

I'm asking you again to annotate your reading, & I've kept things simple this time:

--one annotation of your own, where you comment on the poem in terms of the ideas we've set up thus far in the class (connecting the poem to the "Preface" or to ideas of authenticity more generally)

--& one comment on someone else's annotation, where you take up their idea and try to take it one step further!

This is key for anyone who's confused by the terms throughout the essay: "meter"="verse"=for example, Shakespeare's iambic pentameter; but if you read enough prose, with an ear tuned to poetic rhythm, you'll find that rhythm creeps in all the time....

This may be a little brash of me, but perhaps Wordsworth did impact portions of the written word in the form of the Imagists. Per their ideals, Imagists write incredibly short poems that have "a certain colouring of imagination." Often times, their poems also revolve around everyday happenings that are represented in a strange manner. So, despite my lack of any concrete evidence, I would say that his dreams were at least accomplished, no matter if it was because of his role in writing.

For me, this is highly reminiscent of Emerson's Nature, in which he described the power of, and the empowerment of man through, nature. Admittedly, Emerson focused rather extensively on religion in the context of nature, but he nonetheless wrote over the goodness of rural life and being close to the land. Also, somewhat begrudgingly, I admit that Emerson's style of writing isn't quite the simple form that Wordsworth wrote about.

This is often what scholars usually refer to as the author's "apologetic preface." In other words, that type of a preface is intended to "apologize" to the reader for the author's mistakes or for when they bend the rules of their genre/style.I believe Emily Dickinson and some other early Transcendentalists did this as well, but I could be mistaken. Arguably, Galileo had a preface added to his book, too, so that it would be accepted by the church.

I see where Wordsworth is coming from. At what point does a poem become prose, or an essay, or something besides poetry? Having read some exceptionally long poems myself, I think this is a reasonable question to ask. Poetry in contrast to prose is typically much shorter, but I think the characteristic that distinguishes poetry is its rhythmic structure. If a poem is not written in verse, with some sort of rhythmic pattern or rhyme scheme, I think that it can hardly be called poetry. This is a very valid question Wordsworth brings up about how we distinguish prose from poetry, but I think that there are ways to make that distinction, and it doesn't all fall in the same pot.

This pursuit truly is admirable. In Wordsworth's time, poetry and literature were not meant for the common man, so his pursuit of writing in such a way to connect with the common man is really ahead of his time. I don't think that many poets of this time would make the steps that Wordsworth is making, not only for fear of judgement from other writers, but because there is a clear social bridge that Wordsworth is trying to cross.

This is really the foundation of Wordsworth's argument. The belief that feelings should inspire action and situation, and that poetry should focus first on delivering a feeling, an experience, rather than focus on events. His claim is that other poets focus on content too much, and they lack the power of emotion in their works. In large part I agree with him, mostly because poetry CAN convey emotion, it can artistically draw a picture of an emotion, portray feelings that other literary forms would struggle with. I agree with Wordsworth that this kind of poetry provides more literary value than an action/content based poem.

This statement, particularly this portion, illustrates that humans tend to prefer that which is familiar. All people do sometimes desire change, but such desires are typically balanced by the love of the familiar.

Wordsworth uses these examples to reference ancient Roman works, each of these men living between 200 BC and 50 BC

I think that this is such an interesting point, and one that I agree with. By claiming that the plain language he uses is more permanent and has greater meaning than the flowery language used by other poets, he clearly explains his choices regarding the language used in his poems. I believe that this point can be supported by examining our modern modes of disseminating information. Platforms like Twitter limit the number of characters one can use, forcing people to be concise in their thought, and in spite of that these types of platforms remain wildly popular.