Second Essay

Here is my second essay
http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0Af6i16cwRwAqZGNwM3I1a2JfNGdnemh6c2d3&hl=en

Frustration-Taking an Approach

There are multiple ways in which a writer can take an approach. The first is a basic, elementary school type writing style in which one simply applies the concepts of another writer. It is in many ways similar to predicting the response of an author to a particular subject. Although this type of writing can be useful, it does not add or expand upon any existing ideas. In many ways, you are just repeating and reaffirming what the other author has already stated. Another strategy of taking and approach is much like forwarding. However, forwarding uses a few phrases or ideas, while taking an approach uses the entire intellectual style or sensibility of the author. Harris outlines three ways of positioning your work around those who have shaped your approach. They are: acknowledging influences, turning an approach on itself, and reflexivity.
It is very difficult to find an example of taking an approach online, because taking an approach often requires the involvement of an entire text or intellectual style. Taking an approach is often used in the writing of novels. I am currently reading an example of this writing style, a novel, Countess Below Stairs, by Eva Ibbotson that is a retelling Bronte’s Jane Eyre. Journalists are rarely given the freedom to take an approach when writing articles. They must be careful to stay unbiased and do not really have enough room in their article to incorporate a complex text or intellectual style. They can also rarely use the concept of reflexivity, because when there is limited space it is difficult to justify ‘cleaning the slate’ when you are already writing and unbiased article. On the other hand, editorials tend to be so opinionated that they would have little use for reflexivity as well. In a lot of ways, a blog or article cannot take an approach by itself. However, the combination of all of the articles or all of the blogs seems to convey an intellectual style of its own. If you were to hand an avid reader of the New York Times a printed version of a blog post, he or she would be able to almost instantly identify it as not The New York Times. One could say that this is because he or she recognizes the intellectual style of the paper and looks for that when he or she reads.

Countering Myself

After reading ‘America the Illiterate’, I was infuriated. I tried to respond as fairly as possible in my blog, but my opinion was still very biased. I am going to try and counter my previous statement to more fairly address the opinions expressed in the article.

“Hedges was stating that illiterate people should not be allowed to vote, or it is their fault there are so many problems in America… the tone makes illiterate people sound like helpless animals rather than human beings.”

Even though Chris Hedge’s article ‘America the Illiterate’ can be interpreted as offense and course, there are many valid points within his article which may help us understand some of the social problems and tensions occurring today. To say that Hedges, “makes illiterate people sound like helpless animals” is a severe exaggeration. In his article Hedges is not blaming these problems on the illiterate population. He is simply pointing out a cycle of illiteracy that feeds more incompetence. He is stating that uneducated and illiterate people do not have the mental capabilities necessary to make a logical decision when it comes to voting. Because they are dependent on the image-based culture, they are more susceptible to lies. If an individual has a basic understanding of algebra, how can he or she understand the consequences of the healthcare bill or the bailout? According to Hedges, nearly a third of the population is semi-literate, or illiterate. If one third of the population is voting based on lies rather than truth, how can this country hope to function, let alone remain a superpower? By pointing out this alarming flaw in the political system, it allows us to recognize and correct this issue. If enough people begin to realize that illiteracy is a major issue, then we can begin to take steps to improve our nation’s literacy. When closely looking at Hedge’s article, one will realize it is an attack on the lack of education in the United States, not illiterate people.

Countering

Many academic writers, including myself, have a tendency to try and prove another view point wrong rather then counter it. According to Harris, the aim of countering is to use another text's faults to create or refine a new line of thought. I could relate to Harris's example when he wrote a paper for graduate school, and his professor responded by saying, "Why are you spending so much time discussing the work of somebody you seem to think isn't very bright?". My senior English teacher and I had extrememly different view points. I believe that the principles of countering can also be applied in a discussion. We read Heart of Darkness and Empire of the Sun Mr. McBride and I frequently disagreed about the way the novels should be analyzed. For the first half of the semester we argued mulitple times a week, but there was never any resolution. After a few weeks I began to 'counter' his stance, rather then just argue with him. I'm not sure if his opinion changed in the slightest, but I know mine did. I still don't agree with him, but when I used the positive adn negative aspects of his views to refine my way of thinking I came to new conclusions that I never would have developed on my own. When we counter rather than argue we are able to develop new ways of thinking, which in my opinion, is the entire objective of academic study.
When considering the concepts of countering, I found a really interesting blog on the Daily Dish. A few months ago the records of a conversation between Thatcher and Gorbachev that took place two months before the fall of the Iron Curtain was released. In it Thatcher stated, “A destabilization of Eastern Europe and breakdown of the Warsaw Pact are also not in our interests.” In the blog "Margaret Thatcher, Secret Defender of Soviet Security" on September 10 the author underhandedly attacked the former Prime Minister for the above statement. The blogger simply stated, "...what's interesting is to see Thatcher, a neocon idol, acting in such brutally realist fashion. Toryism, even Thatcherism, is not neoconservatism, is it?". Although this does not seem particularly aggressive, the blog is topped by a picture of Bush awarding Thatcher with the Presidential Medal of Freedom. In the contradiction, lies the biting critisicm. In response to the first blog, a second blog defended the same quote made by Thatcher twenty years ago. The author compared Thatcher to a cop in a room full of hostages trying to calm down a criminal with a loaded gun. Rather then try and argue with the previous blogger, the second blog took the same quote and countered the other writer by providing more history and background information to put the same quote into a different context. By doing this the blog was able to better accomplish its goal of defending Thatcher then if he had just argued the points made by the first author.

Forwarding

In his book Rewriting Joseph Harris writes, “Much of academic discourse thus tends to proceed sideways, as writers take ideas and phrases from what they have read and reuse them in approaching a different set of texts and issues.” I believe that this is the best way to summarize the concept of forwarding in this chapter. According to Harris, there are four main ways to forward a text: illustrating or finding examples in other texts, authorizing or using another’s expertise to support your ideas, borrowing or using terms and ideas taken from another text to formulate your ideas, and extending or putting your own spin on another’s concepts. When using any of these four methods, the author is taking the ideas found in another text and recirculating them. Harris summarized an idea of Plato’s when writing, “…texts can become “fatherless,” detached from their authors and interpreted recklessly.” This can be easily seen with the circulation of information on the internet. I was casually scrolling through the Daily Dish, when I saw an article that looked rather interesting. I don’t have a very firm stance on ‘marriage-equality’, but it is interesting to hear how varied the views on this subject are. The blog in the Daily Dish took a quote directly from the blog Adam Serwer wrote for The American Prospect, Tapped. Although the opinions were very similar, it was interesting to see this example of authorizing. The Daily Dish used Adam Serwer’s work and reinforced it, giving it more emphasis and more of an impact on the reader. Oftentimes students feel like they need to quote someone famous or influential for it to be a valid quote. Although I recognize the importance of valid sources, I think that one can forward the ideas of people who may not be as well known but make a strong point, and have an even stronger point. After all, isn’t that the idea of academic writing? To discover new minds, with fresh ideas?

New York Times vs. Blogs

I have been following the New York Times and Andrew Sullivan’s ‘The Daily Dish’. I really enjoy reading both, but they are very different. When I read the ‘The Daily Dish’, I feel slightly overwhelmed by the diversity of each blog. On one hand, there is a blog about the best Halloween costumes which contained a YouTube video. The clips of a human keyboard cat and an iPhone costume that actually worked were very clever and fun to watch. However, that blog was followed by a blog about a gay man who is against marriage equality and an article about Ms. Scozzafava, a republican candidate who just withdrew from the race in Northern New York. After spending years in the public school system and reading standard articles in the newspaper, it is strange for me to flip from such extremes. I am used to focusing or concentrating on one topic, then switching to another. Skipping around from blogs for entertainment to informative information, almost gives me a sense of whip-lash. I enjoy it, but it will take some adjustment. The New York Times is more comfortable, if slightly less entertaining. I found an article about Ms. Scozzafava on the ‘Daily Dish’ and in The New York Times. I was surprised at how similar the articles were. Ms. Scozzafava withdrew from the election when she realized that she would come in third place. She claims to be a Republican, but she supports gay rights and abortion rights. I do not follow politics very closely, but it is disappointing that national conservative forces seem to be manipulating local elections. I never appreciated how important national and financial support is for a candidate. Even though her views better reflect that of the district, she has no shot at winning because she does not have the support she needs to campaign. I found it interesting that both the ‘Daily Dish’ and New York Times used the same quote by Ms. Scozzafava, “In recent days, polls have indicated that my chances of winning this election are not as strong as we would like them to be. The reality that I’ve come to accept is that in today’s political arena, you must be able to back up your message with money — and as I’ve been outspent on both sides, I’ve been unable to effectively address many of the charges that have been made about my record.” Even though the blog and article are not necessarily contradictory, it is interesting to see how a quote can be used in two such different sources.