750 Matching Annotations
  1. Sep 2017
  2. hillarysarabiarws411.wordpress.com hillarysarabiarws411.wordpress.com
    1. repetition in name and action, creating a build up in the story.

      I think I see where you are going with this but it would be more precisely formulated.

    2. resonates deeper in listers minds.

      Watch spelling and precision of analysis in homework assignments (not so important in reading responses).

    3. Ong points out these devices because they are used to make stories more memorable because knowledge is only passed down through memory and speech, not though written research and description

      Well put .

  3. hillarysarabiarws411.wordpress.com hillarysarabiarws411.wordpress.com
    1. I would want to further discuss the use of these outlets and how they affect our communication today. I would be interesting in understanding how powerful the use of social media is and analyze the language that is being used. Further research would be the topic of fake news and how this affects our students today with getting informed mainly through social media.

      All great topic areas. Come chat with me about ways of turning these into papers - I'd love to hear your ideas.

    2. Thompson needed improvement on was writing improves cognitive memory. I felt this claim and support did not fit in cohesively in his conversation of public thinking. There could have been more improvement in the evidence

      I agree it is not the best supported claim.

    3. He showed explained how Coats manages their comments so negative and non relatable thoughts are taken out of the public view so these issues can’t affect the community who wants to analyze and create ideas and conversion.

      Again - follow what you are trying to say but aim for a little more precision.

    4. The claim that failed network in communication kill ideas, but successful ideas create a catalyst was relevant and persuasive to today’s audience.

      I see what you are trying to say here but it's a little awkwardly expressed. Try for a little more precision in your analysis of claims.

    5. most persuasive claim from the chapter was how having an audience can affect people to think more analytical and create deeper connections from the support and evidence given in the chapter.

      Yes I agree this is the claim that seems most plausible and has some of the strongest support.

    6. The main claims that were discussed in the chapter were writing today is directed toward some type of audience, writing improves analytical thinking and cognitive skills, and communication through the online community can kill or build ideas

      Nice overview of his main arguments.

    7. ideas throughout the ages.

      Not quite all ages (make your analysis as precise as possible).

    1. To split the oral and literate down the middle brings up an interesting point, when it comes to orality, Ong speaks of the importance arguing “writing slows down creativity (34),” whereas, in the Sundiata, storytelling relied on memory. Pictures are another interesting illustration which occur mentally in the Sundiata if receiving the story orally, compared to, reading and analyzing Ong’s Psychodynamics. Pictures hold representation and individual value, yet in a literate society, name values are placed. Lastly, although seemingly obvious, oral culture depended upon being able to recall, whereas, the literate culture is able to record and revisit information verbatim

      This is a strong general discussion of Ong and his main claims, and of differences between oral and written cultures. I enjoyed reading it. But the goal was to apply Ong's concepts to the Sundiata text - to point to examples of repetition, formulas, epithets, etc., and discuss how these exemplify Ong's argument about oral composition. So include more textual analysis of the "target" text next time the homework calls for analysis.

    2.  For instance, children of oral communities learned by trial and error because an oral culture had no concept of a written and pro-literate instructional system. 

      Well put. This is a key difference.

    3. Ong references the creation story to support this (32). Of course, the progression of agriculture received the blame for propelling the written language, as urban farmers implemented a written records system for business purposes and it evolved from there.

      Yes, "tokens" in clay envelopes, then imprinted on the clay as writing, were the first forms of written communication.

    4. The text elaborates how unimaginable to exist in a society which is exclusively oral. 

      Yes, Ong really wants to stress this - how alien, different, but beautiful and rich oral cultures are/were. The rest of his book is worth reading for the way he helps us understand this world.

    1. The readjusting of my life, time management and priorities since becoming a student have completely changed my world view, expanding it to greater empathy. Taking up writing as a college major has also contributed to the changes I have endeavored, for example, I plan to use this as a tool to teach and contribute to education. The goal of teaching sparks emotion and creativity which keeps me motivated on days in the valley, pushing me forward. The insanity of metamorphizing as a student and when all seems to be unbearable, I dance.

      What a rich, honest, lyrical piece of writing. Thanks for sharing!

    1. Sundiata and understand the two different versions of the ancient story.

      I enjoyed reading this. You capture some of Ong's key claims nicely and begin to explore the Sundiata text using Ong's framework.

      In future homework try to include more examples from the text and some close analysis of those examples to help extend and support your points.

      Keep up the good work.

    2. Version I looks as if it could be a short story or fable like story due to its length and introduction, while Version II looks as if it could be a poem or song because the verses are short.

      Yes, this is correct. One has been transformed into the conventions of (literate) prose narrative, and the other is a transcript of a performance by an oral poet/singer.

    3. Formulas are put in place as a type of rhetorical device that strategizes on how a sentence sounds to is intended to sound like by the author for readers.

      Bit hard to follow - doesn't seem to capture how formulas work.

    4. al cultures also relies heavily on formulas, which according to Ong, “help implement rhythmic discourse and also act as a mnemonic aids in their own right”(31)”. The formulas in the rhythm of languages are what help establish the formulas in language.

      Good, this gets to the heart of several of Ong's key claims.

    1. Without Rhetoric we would not have structure in writing and would not be able to think critically about our writing or the writing of other’s.

      Nicely put!

    2. I find Thompson’s rebuttals to be very persuasive and accurate because he interviews bloggers, scholars, references popular shows, and social media outlets to back up his arguments.

      OK - but stronger if you include an example of how he rebuts an opposing view.

    3. He interviewed Standford Univeristy English Professor, Andrea Lunsford, who states that, “

      There you go - this is nice framing of primary and secondary author.

    4. became very disciplined. Knowing I had these people reading me, I was self -conscious to build my arguments, back up what I wanted to say. It was very interesting. I got a sense of obligation”

      Nice - key quotation. This is an important piece of evidence for T's argument.

    5. Okolloh states in her article

      Small point - more typical to frame discussion of primary author in terms of how s/he draws on secondary one. Even though I understand perfectly what you are saying, more typical to say "Thompson uses Okolloh's experience to illustrate his argument about the audience effect. He notes she said she "became very disciplined..."

    1. Maybe some of that community and understanding could be brought back to our isolated lands. Maybe we could use that to connect us face to face rather than from a fancy phone

      It is interesting that both Ong and Young and Sullivan argue we should try to bring back some elements of oral culture, and that it may be "healthy" for us to do so.

    2. Now we have books and excerpts from all around that can easily pass information, which is why we have the highest literacy rates in all of human history but maybe something is lost. Maybe that sense of community and coexistence is gone and we are searching for it but can’t seem to find it. Who knows hypotheticals are silly. Sundiata was a textbook example of an oral story as understood through the lenses of Ong’s description. Oral traditions can give a new perspective to stories we have all heard since we were children.

      This is good, insightful commentary. But try to make use of textual analysis as a way of illustrating and anchoring your discussion of texts.

    3. it is interesting none the less that we only know that Plato disliked writing because someone else wrote it down.

      I wish we had time to go through Plato's Phaedrus. It is fascinating to examine the way it responds to the shift from an oral culture to a written one.

    4. or native tongue the poem has even greater flow and works more like a communal song with the audience participating with the speake

      That is how I imagine it. The call and response structure gives us a glimpse into what the performance must have been like.

    5. This would have been necessary for the people to better remember this tale.

      Yes, and it's also part of composing - if you have no way of writing things down as you compose, you need to create "chunks" that can be memorized, and in you will likely use lots of repetition when performing the story.

    6. epetition is seen to close out each stanza.

      Yes, when you count all the instances it is remarkable. There is so much repetition.

    1. Beyond that, I found this article incredibly informative and a wonderful read.

      I enjoyed this post. Keep up the good work. Try to capture authors' claims a little more precisely and give some more quotations to illustrate your analysis. Look forward to reading more.

    2. I am also curious as to the current status of Ushahidi

      So am I - perhaps you could investigate in your paper? If you are interested in the ways social media are used for social change and activism it could be something to include.

    3. As a writer with poor grammar, it definitely shocked me

      I was also surprised, but the work by Lunsford (and others) is pretty persuasive.

    4. However once could argue that anyone could dismiss any of his findings as nonsense

      Not sure I follow.

    5. some of the riches that an interconnected world can give to us.

      Yes it's a good story to anchor his argument.

    1. When we attempt to commit something to memory, some- like myself- rely on the method of muscle memory, where constantly and physically rewriting cements the fact into our minds. This method, however, was not uncommon in oral culture. Rather than writing out facts via written text, though, oral

      Interesting connection.

    2. Another claim of Ong’s oral culture can be seen through another form of redundancy, but in a formulaic way. Whenever a character is being addressed to in the second text, the pronoun of that character is often repeated over and over again in each stanza. By doing so, readers can follow the storyline without the need of directly addressing the character within each line. This is seen in both Sundiata’s lines and his mother’s. T

      Good - this would be clearer if you provided quotes and textual evidence.

    3. Ong states that an oral culture is one that exists without depending on written texts. Such examples of this can be seen in history, via storytelling, songs, poems, etc. that have survived throughout history. They are often known to hold certain characteristics, such as repetition and redundancy, oral patterns throughout the oral style, formulaic for memory support, enrichment in definition and detail, empathetic and intimate.

      Nice introduction and overview of Ong.

    1. Hand-waving: basically wanting to share something, and then having said thing either malfunction or not work at all ‘Blogging forces you to write down all your arguments and assumptions.” – Weinberg Audience effect – the shift in our performance when people are watching effects do not require a huge physical audience to kick in; it proves true online “Once thinking is public, connections take over”; think the theory of multiples, but in the case of ideas, breakthroughs are often seen in more than one individual “Failed networks kill ideas, but successful ones trigger them” Public thinking can be powerful but exhausting Tummeling – mix of persuasion, listening, good hosting; essentially the ‘distration method’ (“Look over here, now look over there!”) Read the room Depends on the human factor examples of where it goes wrong – newspapers and Youtube; constantly unsupervised, trying to grow their community and business, rather than dealing with smaller issues and letting them grow (i.e. comment sections on Youtube) Sharing location online – turns geography into a messaging board More modes of digital media = more sites for public thinking (i.e. eBooks)

      Nice - good set of notes. Captures key elements of the text.

    2. sense rather than to the direct individual. His rebuttals are persuasive, but do hold more of a bitter tone in my opinion.  What interested me the most was seeing him connect both the “old” and “new” ways of public thinking, considering that there is a big audience that likes to separate the two from each other.

      The are some good insights and thoughtful comments in this post. It does seem general, and to move quickly from the text to general response Try to move more deeply into the texts you are analyzing and give a precise account of their claims (with examples from the text) before moving to discussion.

    3. Least persuasive, however, was when he argued against the statement that the “old way” of thinking and doing things will cease to exist under the new age of media and such

      This is interesting but I am not sure which part of his argument you are referring to. Are you talking about the past when people wrote less? If you bring in quotations to illustrate your points that may help in future posts.

    1. Hand-waving: basically wanting to share something, and then having said thing either malfunction or not work at all ‘Blogging forces you to write down all your arguments and assumptions.” – Weinberg Audience effect – the shift in our performance when people are watching effects do not require a huge physical audience to kick in; it proves true online “Once thinking is public, connections take over”; think the theory of multiples, but in the case of ideas, breakthroughs are often seen in more than one individual “Failed networks kill ideas, but successful ones trigger them” Public thinking can be powerful but exhausting Tummeling – mix of persuasion, listening, good hosting; essentially the ‘distration method’ (“Look over here, now look over there!”) Read the room Depends on the human factor examples of where it goes wrong – newspapers and Youtube; constantly unsupervised, trying to grow their community and business, rather than dealing with smaller issues and letting them grow (i.e. comment sections on Youtube) Sharing location online – turns geography into a messaging board More modes of digital media = more sites for public thinking (i.e. eBooks)

      Nice - good set of notes. Captures key elements of the text.

    2. sense rather than to the direct individual. His rebuttals are persuasive, but do hold more of a bitter tone in my opinion.  What interested me the most was seeing him connect both the “old” and “new” ways of public thinking, considering that there is a big audience that likes to separate the two from each other.

      The are some good insights and thoughtful comments in this post. It does seem general, and to move quickly from the text to general response Try to move more deeply into the texts you are analyzing and give a precise account of their claims (with examples from the text) before moving to discussion.

    3. Least persuasive, however, was when he argued against the statement that the “old way” of thinking and doing things will cease to exist under the new age of media and such

      This is interesting but I am not sure which part of his argument you are referring to. Are you talking about the past when people wrote less? If you bring in quotations to illustrate your points that may help in future posts.

    1. My name is Ian Lubliner, but a since i can remember most people call me Lub.  I’m studying to receive IS3d focused on Kinesiology, and plan on graduating next may.  I grew up in San Jose CA, and am a diehard bay area sports fan.   When i was eight years old i picked up the two hobbies i have stuck with ever since.  I my  got my first drum set for my 8th birthday and had a passion for rocking out ever since.  The same year i picked up a lacrosse stick for the first time, which has consumed most of my free time for the last 14 years.  I rarely write for my own sake, but believe literacy is as important as ever with the limitless stream of information available which brings me to digital rhetoric.

      Great intro Ian. Thanks for sharing.I like your blogs title!

    2. You can also see that the spoken word is much more concise than the written story.  The written version gives much more background to the story, and includes much more detail in the young king’s activities.  This is because when speaking the audience can only retain so much in their memories.  It is important for spoken word to minimize superfluous details, so that the audience can focus on relevant points.   The written text allows for in depth descriptions of settings and characters because the reader is able to go back and re-read anything they did not retain.

      Thoughtful discussion of Ong and the Sundiata text. I think you could discuss both in more detail. This starts to get interesting but finishes as the analysis takes shape. Give yourself more time in future homework assignments.

    3. This supports Ong’s viewpoint that oral rhetoric holds more gravity than written word.

      A bit vague - wasn't sure how this connects to Ong.

    4. his kind of redundancy isn’t used solely to make the audience remember the words.  This repetition adds an increased sense of drama and accomplishment when Sundiata finally is able to stand on his final attempt.

      Good point - there is a functional, mnemonic dimension and also an artistic one.

    1. Lock sheds light on the “order and clearness” rhetoric is useful for. Locke deems rhetoric to be important and provides writing structure. Herrick refers to different scholars and professionals in literary studies to support his claims. I agree with Herrick’s claims and believe that rhetoric is important writing that gives us structure and discipline to organize our language effectively.

      Good first reading response. You provide a thoughtful reading of both texts and make some useful connections to your own experience. In future posts try to capture the authors' claims a little more precisely and draw on quotes to support your reading. I enjoyed reading this - nice work.

    2. eel like this holds truth because it is difficult for me to formulate what I want to say in my head, but when brainstorming “half-formed thoughts on the page,” it enables me to begin writing

      Good point and good connection to the text.

    3. as well as felt more skeptical of publishing

      Perhaps it' more there were few outlets.

    4. Social media has been able to encourage society to write and share their thoughts on issues

      Yes, one of his key points.

    5. Although people are writing more, he also discusses how the quality of writing has decreased in some ways.

      I'm not sure he argues it has declined in quality (later when discussing Lunsford's work he suggests it has improved.) He merely concedes that a lot of it is bad, but it is better that more people are writing and so improving, if only a little, when in the past most people did not write at all.

    1. Alike Ong, I think both versions communicate their point in understanding and intellectual manners. I believe for myself personally, that Johnsons version would be more beneficial for myself because I find it easier to comprehend and recall the information in that sort of format. I also think that I can relate better to this type of writing because I am use to writing how I speak. Therefore I am able to understand others better when its written in more of a vocal climate than the other. Neither culture is considered better than one another, just more or less a different way of learning and communication.

      Again, I enjoyed reading this post. There is some insight and useful observations about Ong and SUndiata. But the response is general, and tends to bounce quickly to your own comments. I suggest in future posts you try to focus on the assignment questions, capture authors' claims more precisely, and discuss quotes from the texts.

    2. Growing up I wasn’t big on writing, and even now I find myself struggling with it sometimes. However, I just picked up this habit of journaling and I have found to love it. I also am a frequent “tweeter” but my tweets aren’t political or serious, mostly just dumb thoughts that I feel other 20-somethings can relate with. I am big on Instagram and Facebook when it comes to sharing photos and achievements with my family and friends. I have come to realize that it is an easy platform to share photos and information on, whilst reaching almost all the friends and family I need to! I use twitter to stay updated with breaking news happening around the world. From this class I’m mostly excited to see how advertisements, social media sites, blogs, images and media influence my life. I am really excited for a great semester!

      Thanks Hailey - very interesting.

    3. One of the most interesting parts of the text that I found was the comparison of Rhetoric and Community. Its not a common thought of mine that rhetoric builds communities and that a lack there of can be devastating to a community. I think this is very applicable in the world right now, where everyone is throwing there opinions on the internet and instead of having an intellectual debate using rhetoric, people are choosing to make a division. This division is caused by rhetoric of each other and the lack of understanding and willingness to try and see the other side. I found this concept very interesting and applicable in our lives currently.

      There is a lot of good insight in this post. You make some useful observations about Thompson and Herrick. But the response is very general, and tends to bounce off the texts pretty quickly into your own comments. I suggest in future posts you try to focus on the response questions and the key claims advanced by each author, and you ground both in textual evidence.

    1. Sundiata is additive, aggregative, repetitive, and overall rather formulaic. Such features ultimately help carve out a rhythm within the story. This rhythm imprints the story into the griot’s memory and allows him to continuously repeat it over time and pass it on to members of the culture and other storytellers.

      This is really impressive. Your analysis of repetition, redundancy, formulaic language, epithets, and aggregative style is very strong. You make wonderful use of textual evidence and read both texts with care and insight.

      Great work!

    2. e three times he tries to do this, the description reads: “He put his right hand o’er his left,/And upwards drew himself/And upwards drew himself” or some slight variation of this (“Sundiata: Two Versions” 449-450). Through these similar descriptions, the audience can see that Sundiata is attempting the same action over and over again (with unsuccessful results the first two times and successful results the third time), and also through them, as at other points throughout the narrative, the griot must remember less words overall.

      Good - like the way you consider both the mnemonic and dramatic/aesthetic dimensions of the performance.

    3. Sundiata successfully walks with the help of a staff, his mother runs toward him gleefully, and the narration reads: “Running, his mother came forward,/And clasped his legs/And squeezed them,/ And squeezed them” (“Sundiata: Two Versions” 450-451). Two different past-tense verbs are used (clasped and squeezed) that both end in -ed, and they are both used with introductory “ands.” This parallel structure is rhythmically pleasing and congruent, which allows the griot’s mind to retain the phrases without much effort

      This is good, careful, incisive close reading.

    4. Sundiata, both of which add rhythm to the story, enhance the griot’s ability to recall it.

      Excellent paragraph- gets to the heart of Ong's concepts and their realization in the Sundiata text.

    5. Sundiata, which relays the tale of the Manding Empire’s founder (“Sundiata: Two Versions” 443). A specific version of Sundiata by John William Johnson is a record of a griot’s performance of the tale that was preserved without alteration for a Western audience (“Sundiata: Two Versions” 443). This analysis will examine Johnson’s version of Sundiata and Ong’s features of “Orally Based Thought and Expression” that it satisfies.

      Another great metadiscourse section

    6. ral-a large following may end up being needlessly frustrating and hard to control. It would be fascinating to see if any studies have been done on what number of followers is most manageable.

      Great discussion and analysis of Thompson. Keep it up! This is thoughtful, comprehensive, and smart.

    7. claiming “conversation works best when it’s smaller” and “conversation doesn’t scale” (80). He specifically cites YouTube and Newspapers as having so many people contributing to their comments sections that they easily

      Great analysis of Thompson's argument!

    8. Thompson states, but writing digitally puts our thinking in order even more successfully due to the “audience effect” (5

      Nicely put.

    9. f Thompson had explained how exactly he had come to that 36 million book estimate, however, his ethos would be strengthened and his claim more persuasive. H

      Agree entirely. This seemed sloppy and a little fishy.

    10. Lunsford is a professor at a well-respected college a

      Yes, it doesn't get more prestigious than Stanford.

    11. more “writing” and “production” instead of just “reading” and “consumption”

      Yes, this is central to Thompson's argument, and key to changes in mass literacy.

    12. This response will include a summary and evaluation of and some reflection on Thompson’s main claims and rebuttals in his “Public Thinking” piece. It will also contain a brief discussion of certain intriguing parts of Herrick’s “An Overview of Rhetoric.”

      Nice metadiscourse section

    1. because writing digitally can be classified as a newer type of Rhetoric that is worthy of further examination and study.

      Indeed, and Herrick seems to believe that digital media are fertile grounds for a rebirth of rhetoric.

    2. Even though Rhetoric is so closely associated with persuasion, the planned aspect of Rhetoric shows that persuasion does not necessarily equal Rhetoric and vice versa.

      Yes, that does indeed seem an implication of Herrick's position. I suspect a number of scholars would be troubled by Herrick's definition for just this reason - unplanned persuasive communication would not be rhetorical.

    3. It would be fascinating to see if any studies have been done on what number of followers is most manageable.

      Great discussion and analysis of Thompson. Keep it up! This is thoughtful, comprehensive, and smart.

    4. ge groups of people, claiming “conversation works best when it’s smaller” and “conversation doesn’t scale” (80). He specifically cites YouTube and Newspapers as having so many people contributing to their comments sections

      Great analysis of Thompson's argument!

    5. ue to the “audience effect” (51-54)

      Nicely put.

    6. f Thompson had explained how exactly he had come to that 36 million book estimate

      Agree entirely. This seemed sloppy and a little fishy.

    7. Lunsford is a professor at a well-respected college

      Yes, it doesn't get more prestigious than Stanford.

    8. “writing” and “production” instead of just “reading” and “consumption”-

      Yes, this is central to Thompson's argument, and key to changes in mass literacy.

    9. This response will include a summary and evaluation of and some reflection on Thompson’s main claims and rebuttals in his “Public Thinking” piece. It will also contain a brief discussion of certain intriguing parts of Herrick’s “An Overview of Rhetoric.”

      Nice overview of your analysis.

    1. Ong understands that the audience has no initial investment in your story so you must be quick, simple, and precise; continuity, rhythm, and repetition work in unison to have a captive audience and move your story forward

      This is starting to get interesting! But I feel this analysis ends too early. I wanted to see you explain Ong's claims about oral composition, and then apply this to the Sundiata text. It seems you just got into this. Don't leave me hanging in future posts (;-)

    2. Ong’s writing is the pinnacle of prepetition ending each of his major points with repetition

      Perhaps you mean the Sundiata text contains a lot of repetition?

    1. Thomson’s writings had many legitimate claims but I feel that the claim that social media and internet benefit all forms of writing had the best ideas and supporting details. Social media has given us the opportunity to go back to the traditional way of communication, openly addressing any topic, regardless of how controversial allowing for the safe analysis and communication among all those willing to have a civil conversation. Being able to communicate through conversational and informal means benefit writing a whole, it allows for thought and the development of ideas.

      There is a lot of interesting discussion. Good to see you grappling with Thompson's claims. A few passages are a little hard to follow and could give the reader a more precise account. Something to consider in future responses.

    2. sharing written works because social media inherently takes possession of any ideas posted in its sited.

      I think I see where you are going but this could capture his claim a bit more precisely.

    3. ccess to all sorts of audience members, who then can give directs commentary and ins

      Yes, and "authentic" audiences, as opposed to the "artificial" ones found in school.

    4. things suck

      Freudian slip? (just kidding)

    1. the takeaway from this is that we can get away with not writing to exercise memory, but there is still a limit to how much we can retain before we find the need to write things down.

      Yes - I would just extend that slightly to echo Y & S's claim that without writing there are various kinds of high-level, rigorous thinking that are impossible.

    2. “wicked” or evil queen hindering the protagonis

      Indeed, that is an evocative comparison.

    3. baggage” over concision (33). In Niane’s version of Sundiata, Sassouma is described as “malicious” and “wicked” (444) to retain her negative persona throughout the

      Great observation. That was an example that jumped out at me also.

    4. Ong’s characteristics of a primary oral culture can be seen in the two versions of the Sundiata tale. His first characteristic is that a primary oral culture tends to be additive rather than subordinative. In version II of Sundiata, written by John William Johnson, there are plentiful lines where is this illustrated: “Ah! Bemba!/And found some custard apples trees,/And cut one down,/And trimmed it level to her breast,/And stood as if in prayer” (450). This allows a sense of flow and seamless continuation of narrative in Johnson’s version of the Sundiata tale.

      Good example, and a good connection to Ong. Perhaps just explain a bit more fully how the quote illustrates additive style (and repetition).

    5. haven’t really been prioritizing my time correctly, and therefore haven’t gotten much effective studying done since school started. I started my new job at Starbucks, and commuting to and from Escondido everyday, along with living in a moderately demanding household, is tiring.

      Hang in there...and keep writing regularly, even if you don't have a lot of time. Writing it like exercise - you have to keep doing it to build those muscles.

    6. think it would be interesting to delve more into this – to encourage society to write more rather than be merely consumers. I

      Great - perhaps a topic for your paper?

    7. Thompson addresses people who potentially disagree with him particularly in the subject of Ta-Nahesi Coates. Coates went out of his way to moderate his blogs and delete any abusive comments and posts. H

      Yes, although I think Thompson discusses to address the objection that much of new online writing is nasty and hateful. Coates (and tummeling, as you say) shows you can set up environments where such nastiness is is unable to take over.

    8. I find this interesting because it emphasizes collaboration over competition; mainly focusing on sharing and expanding ideas seems to be a more productive use of time and knowledge rather than fighting over who owns the idea.

      Yes, this was one of his more provocative ideas.

    9. Another of Thompson’s claims involves public thinking, in which today’s Internet encourages talking and writing about the same thing simultaneously

      I know what you mean by this, but could include a more precise account of public thinking.

    10. Unleashing ideas in any type of format, whether it be verbally or in typed or written words, helps to express ideas, for “the effort of communicating to someone else forces you to think more precisely, make deeper connections, and learn more” (55

      Yes, this is what Thompson calls the "audience effect."

  4. hafsabadsha.wordpress.com hafsabadsha.wordpress.com
    1. Ong’s essay is helpful in highlighting the ways that oral communication thrives and these characteristics substantiate themselves in the story of Sundiata.

      You have given a concise, thoughtful account of Ong's main concepts and done a nice job applying these to the text. I enjoyed reading this - keep up the good work.

    2. n this narrative, we see a participatory dialogue emerging; the audience is given as much of a voice as a narrator and asserts their authority to contribute. This is characteristic of oral culture’s ability to showcase originality, one where “originality lodges not in making up new stories but in managing a particular interaction with the audience at the same time.”

      Smart observation. In this sense originality perhaps comes closer to creative "remix" and delivery.

    3. “Go to that cripple child of yours,” is repeated in the first few verses and its repetition is key in inspiring empathy towards the other figure; with each house she is belittled at, we are reminded her suffering is constant. The refrain, “and upwards he drew himself” evokes suspense and thrill in the reader, hoping that the narrative’s underdog will succeed.

      Good - like the way you consider both the mnemonic and dramatic/aesthetic dimensions of the performance.

    4. We see this use of fixed, rhythmized expressions in the second version of the Sundiata legend. Conveyed by a griot, it establishes a marked departure from Western conventions of storytelling. It is written in the form of a free verse ballad, giving the words an immediate musical quality.

      Excellent observation. "Musicality" is a good word - it is central to oral composition and performance.

    5. here are many avenues that digital world has given these fandoms; collectives where there can engage in intense debate, creative works such as stories and art forms, podcasts and shows of their own.

      Good - perhaps suggest a project that addresses this.

    6. has seen a rise in digital writing in the last few years. While we must prize the luxury of free speech, we also must understand how its tenets are abused by those who would spread racism, xenophobia and homophobia in its name

      This is indeed the part of his text that aged least well since he wrote it four years ago.

    7. Thompson is aware of the misgivings that individuals may possess about digital writings, but through an amalgamation of research and facts, manages to deconstruct them.

      Well put!

    8. against the rise of digital literacy

      Not sure this is the most accurate way to frame opposing views - they don't all center on digital literacy.

    9. n this way, the digital era borrows from the knowledge forming processes of the past, while simultaneously witnessing its evolution.

      Nicely put - this sentences captures an essential element of T's argument.

    10. all over the Internet who speak to our personal passions, interests and goals.

      Yes in some sense his text is a call to action.

    11. Chennai, India, bringing daily lives to a standstill and endangering thousands. Rescue teams, supplies and funding were conducted online for a large part, with people utilizing their blogs, social media platforms and digital campaigns to ensure aid reached those in need.

      Interesting connection. Perhaps such events suggest the need for other, similar apps.

    12. validated.

      Slight overstatement of his position

    13. our cognitive thought processes; in terms of the way we write, respond and cater to an audience. Writing is no longer a contained activity reserved for a few; an era where there is little constraint on who can publish means that a plethora of voices have sprung forward. While Thompson concedes that not all writing can be considere

      Nice overview of Thompson's project and overall argument.

    1. Walter Ong writes about the sounded word being of power and action. The nine different methods talked about can be summarized as: aggregative rather than analytic, redundant or ‘copious’, conservative or traditionalist, close to human lifeworld, agonistically toned, empathetic and participatory rather than objectively distant, and situational rather than abstract. These characteristics can contrast the two versions of the same story both written and orally reproduced.

      Good overview of Ong's main claims. Your comparison of the two versions of the story is thoughtful and smart. This overview of Ong happens at the end, and these concepts could be connected to the specifics of the second version. Going forward, try to add more analysis of the specifics of texts in your homework assignments. I enjoyed reading this.

    2. king’s palace, the second versions food, culture and names can be interchanged to fit other regions in their narrative. By painting a picture of the story so well, we are not able see outside of the situation that is currently in front of us.

      Found this part of your analysis a little hard to follow.

    3. he fact that most of the lines are dialog between two or more people further emphasizes the empathy that we as an audience are meant to feel.

      Yes, good example of the participatory character of ral performances.

    4. The first version, a work by D. T. Niane describes the tale in written form to be read by their audience. The second version is transcribed to text by John William Johnson as a spoken, call and response story told verbally to an audience

      Nice overview of the differences between these two texts.

  5. ottocolomsblog.wordpress.com ottocolomsblog.wordpress.com
    1. King of Nyani”, and “Will you Rise” that extends in the next stanza. By telling the story of the King of Nyani through the use of repetitions in a rhythmic poem, the power of the words is not only able to project visual images that paints the poem into a story but also it allows those hearing the poem to remember the story, which is then orally passed down generation to generation

      Nice post. You provide a thoughtful overview of some of Ong's main claims. You also start to apply Ong's concepts to the Sundiata text in a very interesting way. It does seem that your analysis gets started and then is over - I would like to have seen you explore more of both texts as your work on repetition shows much promise. This is what I would like to you focus on in future homework assignments - fuller exploration of arguments and more detailed textual analysis.

    1. Laugh of the Medusa,” a manifesto for women to write women, a call-to-(writing)-arms if I may. Another point Young and Sullivan make is that “the reason we write is to enable ourselves to engage in a kind of thinking that would otherwise be beyond us, that is extended thinking” (216). Writing absolutely helps me organize my thoughts.

      Thoughtful response to Y & S. This is another model post. I enjoyed reading it very much. Keep up the good work.

    2. pically complex prose story for an audience.

      Yes, important point. Ong is sometimes criticized for overgeneralizing about oral cultures and imagining a "great divide." There is some truth to this. Sometimes one also hears him criticized for over-privileging literate culture, but I think this is not the case. As you note, he makes it clear that both are rich and complex. He also suggests much is lost in the transition to mass literacy, and suggests we re-acquaint ourselves with more of it, perhaps drawing on some elements. I also wish more oral performances were available to see or witness.

    3. Kònaté,” and other epithets, untranslated. The most striking difference between oral and chirographic cultures is that the audience’s responses to the storyteller are included in the transcription, emphasizing the participatory nature of orality, that “the audience must be brought to respond…vigorously” (Ong 41), versus the “objectively distanced” nature of the written word (45).

      Exemplary analysis.

    4. allows the audience and griot to keep their place in the story, but also emphasizes the emotions the storyteller is trying to evok

      Yes, both important features of oral delivery.

    5. cultures are “agonistically toned” in that they are steeped in themes of physical prowess and violence, as well as effusive praise, which creates a “highly polarized, agonistic, oral world of good and evil, virtue and vice, villains and heroes” (45).

      This is impressive writing and analysis. You clearly and identify the distinctive characteristics Ong argues are part of oral composition. You do this with precision and elegance. This paragraph also sets up your analysis of Sundiata very nicely.

  6. tylerchalmers.wordpress.com tylerchalmers.wordpress.com
    1. very immaculate

      not sure I follow

    2. This is very true when there are larger audiences, Ong states that not everyone understands every single word that a speaker is saying but it does not stop them from moving towards the next thing said. Copia is an idea that rhetoricians use to explain that when you’re speaking it is better to move on or repeat what you said previously instead of stopping, this is done to keep the listener(s) captivated. Another aspect that was brought up by Ong was the idea that when you are reading something your mind is open to a different type of speculation of how something may have happened. In the oral culture, there is much less speculation because every story is unique and is told certain ways to insinuate and certain happening at the time. This could be done many ways but can be done the way they articulate the story and the emotions the speaker may have. These can all influence how you may view and hear a story.

      Good points - better still if you can connect to the Sundiata text.

    3. With more repetition comes a more accurate representation of the oral story told to the next person.

      Partly true - Ong talks about "homeostasis" in Oral tales, the "drift" that takes place, the adaptation to a new context, and the fact that things just get deleted if they are no longer relevant, since remembering is hard. But repetition does help in the creation and delivery of texts, and through practice tales take shape, which is perhaps what you are getting at here.

    4. “Sundiata.” At the end of most of the lines, there are chimes that create a receptive element to the story.

      Yes, this is easily the most characteristic stylistic element. It's great you mention this.

    5. learn info much quicker and m

      This is rather vague and imprecise (homework assignments should be a bit more formal - a general response if fine for reading responses).

    6. Rhythm is one thing that Ong discusses as a very important part of learning something orally. Repetition, patterns, breathing processes and gestures are all things that make it easier for people to learn something orally.

      Good - these are key points Ong makes, and directly relevant to the composition of the Sundiata text.

      Remember to support your analysis with textual evidence and textual examples.

    7. He compares it to picture and video saying that sound could never be stopped like a movie could into pictures.

      Yes, that is one of his most compelling analogies. We can imagine doing a "freeze frame" on video, and analyzing the composition, and visual texts more broadly make possible stasis. But (until recently) oral texts exist momentarily and can't be frozen, and thus dissected and manipulated and arrayed in space.

    1. writing for an audience,” not only encourages people to write more

      Yes, central to his argument.

    2. Thompson claims that in today’s age, there are a lot more writers than before, he adds that the usage of Internet and social media platforms have modified the way that writers carry themselves

      Excellent - this is indeed one of Thompson's key points. (Perhaps "carry themselves" could be a bit more precise).

    3. Overall, I really enjoyed both of these texts since they both brought a lot of information to light.

      Great post - enjoyed reading it.

    4. rely risen at all. More astonishly, that today’s freshman-comp essays are over six times longer than they were back then, and generally more complex.” (67) This is an important claim because it is coming from someone who has actually digested and studied student’s writing over the years, which includes before and during the rise of social media platforms. This type of research specifically, is something I would be interested in looking into.

      Great observation - bravo.

    5. rebuttles

      rebuttals

    6. or she may be one of many. I would’ve liked to see him provide more evidence behind that claim.

      I agree that Thompson's evidence for this claim seems fishy. I believe his larger point is on solid ground, but he exaggerates and his reasoning seems sloppy, which undermines his ethos.

    7. Thompson emphasizes the idea that “Literacy in North America has historically been focused mainly on reading, not writing; consumption, not production.” (50)

      I really like that you have selected this quotation since it is often glossed over in readings of Thompson's work but is very important, particularly for scholars of the history of literacy. In some respects this is the most radical dimension of new media. It could signal a shift in the nature of mass literacy.

  7. annette511blog.wordpress.com annette511blog.wordpress.com
    1. our very first post. Click the Edit link to modify o

      great point

    1. by taking a stand against the fragmentation of Americans, there’s an assumption that there is one, true ur-American to be fragmented

      Not sure this necessarily follows. I suspect Herrick would share some of your concerns. Whether fragmentation or cohesive community are accorded a positive or negative value seems in large part a matter of context.

    2. I can’t help but think that some things may slip through the cracks if New Media Studies were to simply be a part of rhetoric

      I agree. Herrick is proposing what is sometimes called "big rhetoric." I'm not really on board. Rhetoric needs to be interdisciplinary, but it should not make too large a "land grab" in establishing its relevance. I'm not sure the field has the theoretical firepower to make such a claim, and in suggesting everything is rhetorical there is a danger of collapsing levels of analysis.

    3. here contributors discussed their inputs. From here he discussed digital marginalia (82), which is something that already exists, to a point, for readers on a Kindle who use the X-Ray function. It will be fascinating to see how marginalia will be remediated into a digital culture.

      This is a smart, thoughtful, expansive analysis of Thompson. I really enjoyed reading it. You have set a high bar for your (and others') reading responses!

    4. eate audiences, make connections” (78). Ultimately, access to the internet has provided users with a platform to express themselves in a thoughtful manner (whether or not they actually do so) and way for like minds to achieve goals.

      This paragraph captures his central claims precisely and eloquently.

    5. Thompson further claimed that the increase in society’s reading and writing is changing our behavior. He wrote that, historically, North American literacy focused on the ability to read, not write (50). Pre-internet, not a lot of people “wrote anything at all for pleasure or intellectual satisfaction after graduation from high school or college”

      Yes, this is an absolutely crucial point, one with potentially radical implications for mass literacy.

    6. Smarter Than You Think (2013), in which Thompson argues the internet is “changing our minds for the better” – the book’s tagline. In this chapter, Thompson laid forth the claim that the internet has exponentially increased the amount of writing done regularly, and that the increase in both reading and writing facilitated by the internet is changing our behavior. To strengthen his claims, he used studies published by university professors, anecdotal evidence, and historical evidence.

      Beautiful opening paragraph - captures the rhetorical situation elegantly.

  8. Jul 2017
    1. Because teens grew up in a world in which the internet has always existed, many adults assume that youth automatically understand new technologies.

      test

  9. Dec 2016
    1. "Michael — the police called pizza gate a fictitious conspiracy theory tonight," Tapper wrote. "Does someone have to die before you take this s--- seriously. Spreading this nonsense is dangerous." "I want it to be false," Flynn Jr. responded. "It is not the site of a satanic pedophilia cult," Tapper shot back. "It is a f------ pizzeria. Show me what you're talking about that proves a satanic pedophilia cult. Your tweet is wildly irresponsible. Listen to me. You are going to get someone killed. Maybe an innocent child. For what??????"

      Feels like I'm in an alternate universe. A port-truth universe. Thanks social media (;-)

    1. The barriers to entry for media outlets, including the bogus ones that spread the Pizzagate story, are extremely low, while traditional outlets can no longer maintain any sort of oligopoly on distributing news, so that the emergence of fake news stories is unstoppable. The press can debunk them, of course, and in fact it has done an admirable job—as Silverman’s piece and another in the Times did. But this makes little difference. The audiences that are receptive to those debunkers are the ones who would have missed the original fake story anyway, and the ones who believe the fake story are inclined to dismiss mainstream reports out of hand, so the debunkers won’t influence them either.

      Alarming example of the danger of filter bubbles and the collapse of traditional journalism/gatekeepers

  10. Sep 2016
    1. It’s time for us to join the future and support all forms of 21st century litera-cies, inside school and outside school.

      Being told I must "join the future" makes me nervous. Wasn't Mulder's battle cry in one of the X-files movies "fight the future"? What if Facebook is not in fact the shiny new commons where democracy will flourish, but instead a creepy digital playground being surveilled by the Smoking Man?

    2. This is a call to action, a call to re-search and articulate new composition, a call to help our students com-pose often, compose well, and through these composings, become the citizen writers of our country, the citizen writers of our world, and the writers of our future.

      One of the most important sentences in the text.It captures key elements of this call to action.

    3. A Call to Support 21st Century Writing

      The heading clearly announces the text's purpose - it is a call to action, one that is repeated throughout the text.

  11. Aug 2016
    1. e people may think, a lot of learning nowadays starts with our modern technology and the Internet. It is true; we are becoming smarter and more intelligent because of modern technology rather than becoming dumber. For example, an interview done for the Pew Internet in 2010, “The Future of the Internet IV,” involving 900 experts were asked for their views on how the

      alexis, i rally like this introductin. it gabsthere

    1. HAL pleads with the implacable astronaut Dave Bowman

      This is an inaccurate representation os the movie. HAL is a psychpathic killing maching, and Dave is trrified.

    1. contend that

      Although an op-ed, the text bears many of the hallmarks of academic writing (Mullainathan is professor of economics at Harvard). Note the way he begins with a "They Say" move, prefacing his contribution by locating it in terms of a prior conversation.

    1. there’s a story about how Twitter was more popular with black people than white people, years ahead of most mainstream coverage of the platform’s influential role in public discourse on race.

      interesting information about twitter

  12. Jul 2016
    1. I became very disciplined," she tells me. "Knowing I had these people reading me, I was very self-conscious to build my arguments, back up what I wanted to say. It was very interesting; I got this sense of obligation.

      Nice illustration of one of his main claims - that public writing leads people to be more careful, reflective and disciplined. Having a real audience makes a significant difference.

    2. In 2003, Kenyan-born Ory Okolloh was a young law stud~nt who was studying in the United States but still obsessed with Kenyan politics.

      Thompson drops the reader right into a dramatic story to gain the reader's attention.