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

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.

It seems like there are healthier ways to do this

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

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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)

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.

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"

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.

Hey, look, our course's focus!

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.

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)

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. .

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"

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

This was my word for my ACE Paragraph

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.

Wilkinson frequently takes note of objects of nature and its wonder, which makes sense as this is the area that Wordsworth surveyed and in his Preface he mentions that the best poetry is based around nature and its relationship to the individual common man. His respect for nature is evident in his poetry.

Aha! The solitary reapers are present but also relatively common in this area, which makes me curious on whether the singing that the woman in the poem does is commonplace in this area similar to a work song, or if she is an exception

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.

This point being made is an extension of the idea that, according to Wordsworth, his time period was shifting toward an era of instant gratification. He means to say that his era is beginning to becoming used to being pleased quickly but also they are growing accustomed to being pleased and satisfied in a similar way repetitively. So Wordsworth believes that this old poetry style is a style that has people entrapped in their traditions, a pattern that can be seen in all forms of art across all time (film, paintings, sculptures...) as well as in every aspect of culture and tradition. Today in 2017 a major cultural change is the shift to using technology for information and reading. While books of old still exist and are used and retained primarily by the older generation, the new era of having technology fill this need is becoming more and more prevalent. Thus the theme that Wordsworth introduces here is not only relevant in his time but topical today as well.

Dr. Samuel Johnson was a critic and poet who dominated poetry in the time that Wordsworth wrote and while he did subscribe to a need for a break from traditional poetry in terms of diction and style (he believed it should be less 'lofty') he also still maintained that all poetry should still be somewhat more decorated and fancy than prose writing.

Wordsworth means to challenge other writers and their authenticity in their writing of a pompous and more "sophisticated" manner; he intends to propose that to be authentic to one's self in their writing is to be honorable and is in itself indicative of a true poet.

     The first concept that comes to my mind when reading this quote is the idea of developing from an infant/novice to a state of maturity. The state of being born implies a newness to existence and a general inexperience, whether this instance of being born is to be taken in a literal (being a newly born infant) or figurative (changing or turning in philosophies or status) sense. The 'becomes' part of the quote indicates a change or a series of developing until one reaches the status of, in this case, a woman. Thus the quote can be interpreted to signify that one must work and develop from a figurative or literal birth in order to reach the status of womanhood; the title cannot be achieved through simply existing.
          While this was the first thing I thought of when reading this, at closer inspection this quote is in its simplest form  "One is not born... a woman". This sentiment, without the rest of the quote between the commas, delivers the connotation that one is born as something that exists outside of the dichotomy of gender. This further implies that the concept of being a woman, and the concept of gender in general, is something created by society. So while one doesn't start out being born as a woman, society eventually forces the transformation on its people until they conform to match the standard archetype of a specific gender. With this interpretation the quote is saying overall that gender is not a natural happening, rather it is something that one becomes due to societal pressures and cultural norms. 

Since our class is centered around the theme of authenticity and 'Keepin' it Real', should we craft our major essays to be centered around this same concept?