Peterson suggests that it is the fans who determine the text!

This idea is an interesting take on group-identity authenticity--that it is only loosely defined, and subject to fluctuation and change. Authenticity is more fluidic than we believe.

Although Peterson doesn't mention it here, I think I could use this idea in my research paper as a "Argument" source, perhaps, offering a way to think about how fans interact with authors. Fan-fiction is a good example of this phenomenon of a new authenticity that represent the old--fans are building their writing popularity by using characters and places that potentially already "belong" to the author.

"Authentic" food is something one can eat--it not only looks like food, but also acts like food, according to Barthes.

The food of gods, which was associated with granting immortality.

Milk is for the individual, but wine is for the collective.

Barthes's goal for these essays seems to be two-fold: he's trying to demonstrate "real" French life, but he's also trying to encounter a "natural," an "authentic" sense of the present.

I think Ray jumps to this conclusion too quickly. To me, our "unwillingness to pay for a certain kind of experience" doesn't quite align with beliefs of inferiority--I find "naivety" to be a more accurate conclusion. Sometimes we aren't willing to pay for a more expensive, "authentic" dish because we don't know what an authentic experience from that culture is like. I don't think this laziness when it comes to food is exclusive to our experiences with cultural food; many people are more often inclined to buy the cheapest "American" dishes as well!

After reading this article, I've been struggling to agree with some of Ray's perspectives. While I agree that cultures are often exclusive of each other, I don't view American cuisine as a mosaic model, but as a melting pot model. Perhaps American food is cheap, fast food, taken from many different cultures. As a result, although we label some dishes "ethnic," I've always understood it to signify that the food we have gleaned from other cultures belongs more to the United States than the original location, due to our changes. Maybe it is offensive to the original culture and to Ray, but I don't find our country to intentionally be so. Our country is evolving.

And now Grant is taking her argument about cultural identity to the next level. She states that hip hop gansta no longer serves as just representative, but instead as a part of the environment inherently. Claiming that this style of music is in the very "urban environment" is a strong argument to make here!

I find this definition of nostalgia to be intriguing: I've never thought of it this way before!

Country music goes beyond mere relate-ability and becomes a definition that creates its very own meaning.

This seems to be in direct opposition to Taylor's argument--the authenticity of the genre is sometimes based on "faking it?"

It would be interesting to see the demographics of this number. Perhaps the listeners are predominately whites--but are there more males or females who listen to country? Young, middle-aged, or elderly people? I know that going into more detail here would not be following the main goals of this essay, but I also think that, by making too broad of claims about its popularity with whites, it leaves something out (at least in my mind). I guess I just worry about oversimplification in this essay's compelling overall claim.

According to Wikipedia, this word is a philosophical term, although the OED and Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy are sadly lacking in definitions. As I understand it from Wikipedia, interpellation refers to the idea that our identities and beliefs are not our own, but are rather produced for us by others, and we merely take them up as our own.

I think this distinction is an important one for Mann to make in this introduction. He's not necessarily claiming that country music is a reflection of "white culture"--instead, he turns that claim on its head and states that country music produces whiteness. I find the idea of production vs. reflection intriguing, and I think it's something to keep an eye on throughout the argument.

"Unbelievable," by Owl City (feat. Hansen) is a song that encapsulates the emotions associated with childhood. Although the song is upbeat in sound, it is grounded in melancholy and retrospect, putting into words the loss of one's childhood innocence and sense of wonder. Adam Young states, "this is as good as it gets," ultimately claiming that the best part of his life is already behind him. In discussing the elements of his childhood, Young keeps himself real, offering an intimacy with the listener as he describes the activities and products he enjoyed as a child. Many of his listeners are able to relate to these things if they grew up in the 90s, leaving them with the sense that they also grew up with Young. Although I missed a 90s childhood, I find that the emotions associated with the song are true and relatable to me personally. But this consumerist childhood leaves the listeners with a hollow sense of loss--a final confession that childhood is long gone. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w1FbJ4hDeQQ

Taylor is using a strategy here that puts his readers on the same page as he is--by starting at the beginning, he offers his readers the ability to view the topic from the same perspective as he sees it, allowing them to become "experts" as well.

Caliban is the a main character in Shakespeare's "The Tempest." Some have claimed him to be a representation of Europeans colonizing North America and Africa.

If our identity is so centered in publicity, would it really be possible to purge ourselves of what other people think of us? Although this seems like a worthy goal, the execution of this goal would be very difficult.

A clearly stated thesis that is multifaceted! Here Taylor claims that identity is (not entirely) crafted by "recognition" (either its presence or its absence). Because of this claim, the implications are that identity is always public--which Rousseau would approve--and that our identities are fundamentally dependent on what other people think of us. We become what the world thinks of us; we become a "distortion."

Rhetorical: Goldberg's strategy in this article is interesting to me. Although the title of the article is "What is a Woman?" the focus of the article does not seem to be so much about forming an answer to that question, but rather showing the continuing debate. Why would the focus be on the disputes and disagreements, such as the tension between speaker and audience? Perhaps Goldberg believes that this will make the reader have more at stake in the article, answering the "So What?" question in a provoking way.

Contextual: The two sides in this article are the trans women and the radical feminists. Trans women believe that a "real" female is based solely on emotion and a personal self-reflection, whereas radical feminists find that being an authentic female is much more public than merely having feminine thoughts. Difference here in arguments about what it means to be real.

Interpretive: Rousseau would probably agree with the trans women, as he supports a public confession of one's feelings, and finds this to be authentic.

Essay 1 Prep: Interesting claim that our authentic selves are drawn from our surroundings and experiences.

Essay 1 Prep: Rousseau admits that it is much more difficult to confess shameful events--he is lead by his feelings when he decides which scenes he wants to confess, and how he wishes to explain them. One should view Rousseau's anecdotes as being tainted by the feelings which drove him to confess.

Essay 1 Prep: I really like this sentence and the few paragraphs leading up to it. There is vulnerability in Rousseau's description of himself, but after stating all of this, Rousseau continues on to say that there is no need for him to describe himself so accurately. The "real" Rousseau should be self-evident, and obvious to the reader.

Analytical notation: I find that I agree with this statement on a personal level. The complicated imagery and vocabulary that many poets use serve a different purpose than what Wordsworth seeks to do here. Generally--although not always!--poetry is utilized by taking words and making them into mysteries. Perhaps this is why so many people are intimidated by poetry! Wordsworth attempts to connect with his readers on a more personal level, drawing upon situations and feelings that everyone experiences, as a way to make himself better understood. I think there is something to be learned from Wordsworth's strategy. Language is fundamentally about allowing one's meaning to be clearer, not to further confusion. There is no answer to the "So What?" question if no one is interested enough to read or understand what one has written.

Rhetorically focused notation: Wordsworth's thesis/motive in this work, he claims, is not to write poetry as others have, but rather to serve as an accurate representation of the language of humans. But, the audience that he is targeting seems to be people who wish to see "ordinary things ... presented to the mind in an unusual aspect." He is writing to be understood, not to throw riddles into the wind of humanity to be swept away.

Contextual notation: In this preface, Wordsworth is seeking to defend a project ("an experiment") that he performed in the Lyrical Ballads poems. With them, he is trying to find a universal type of poetry, one that will appeal to generations of people. Thus, he is attempting to find a "real" poem, one that will stand the test of time.

Do you have any suggestions on where to go to locate additional texts?

In my initial response to this quotation, I examined the quote as though it were a declaration of personal discovery, where the writer has found a real that transcends the fake. The more I think about this quote, however, the more I wonder if the author is making larger claims about the relationship between the real and the fake. One might interpret this quote as arguing that the act of faking something can also become a kind of reality, depending on intentions and abilities. What does it mean to be "so real" at faking oneself? Does a kind of authenticity emerge from the acknowledgement that one is faking? And where does the line between "fake" and "beyond fake" begin? Perhaps personal reflection becomes the key here, and analyzing authenticity makes one "beyond fake."