Hey all,

I thought I would post what I wrote up on the board today so that it was easy to reference in the days ahead.

Recall first that the metaphor we are using is that of a dinner table, or conference table, or seminar table…any big table that a lot of people can sit around and eat and talk.  The table represents the conversation we’ve had over the course of the semester.  That includes everything we’ve read, everything we’ve discussed, and even things that you’ve thought about in relation to this class.

Your final research paper is what you are bringing to the table at the end of the semester.  Here are the parameters for that project:

  • situating yourself within the conversation
    • constructing the conversation
    • creating an opening for what you want to say
    • laying the groundwork for your project
  • what are you bringing to the table?
    • how is what your looking into relevant to the conversation?
    • why should others pay attention and engage?
  • what is the significance or value of your contribution?
    • extend, expand, supplement, critique, resist our conversation
    • goal of continuing the conversation

See you all on Monday!

Hey all,

the first paper assignment–“Travels in Ramageland”–is posted under “Assignments” on the Course Materials page.  Looking forward to the discussion!

Hey all,

I just wanted to let you know that I posted Ramage’s “Rhetoric and Everyday Life” on our page under course materials.  It’s available in a PDF format.

I will post the assignment for the first paper shortly.

Hey all,

Here are the two videos from the Daily Show that we’ve been talking about.  The first video is Jon Stewart’s interview with Jim Cramer from CNBC, which we saw a clip of in class. [something odd happened when I tried to post the video here. I'm including the link to the video below].

March 12, 2009 episode of Daily Show with Jon Stewart’s interview with CNBC’s Jim Cramer.

If you’re interested in more, the Daily Show website also has the full, unedited interview:

The second video, is Jon Stewart’s appearance on CNN’s Crossfire in 2006.  Shortly after Stewart’s appearance on the show, Crossfire was cancelled.

Hey all,

And…here is the info for the Honduras Info Meeting that Amanda announced today:

Hi Dr. Mahoney,

I just wanted to remind you of the details about the Honduras Information Meeting that will be taking place on March 12, 2009 at 11am in Beekey 2009.  At this meeting we will discuss the service opportunities available for Kutztown University and application details for next year’s trip. =)

Thanks

Amanda Keith
ASB Coordinator
SVC President
Special Needs Ad. Board
Kutztown University
Community Outreach Center
281 David E. McFarland Student Union
Kutztown, Pennsylvania 19530
610.683.4022 ext. 1

Hey all,

Here is the info for the disabilities panel discussionn on Thursday (3/12) that Jackie was talking about in class today:

Here is the info regarding my panel discussion this Thursday:

This discussion panel will feature four students with a range of disabilities. The students will discuss their disabilities, obstacles they face on campus, etc. This is a great learning experience for those who are interested; and could also serve great knowledge to those who are an Education or Special Education major.

The event will be held in the Alumni Auditorium in the SUB, which is where the movies are held (I believe it is room 183) on Thursday, March 12 at 11 a.m. It is hosted by Phoenix, the disabilities group on campus, which is dedicated to spreading disability awareness around the community.

I will be one of the panelists and would love to see some familiar faces because this is my first panel discussion.

Please come out and support us. Thank you!

Jackie Conley
Phoenix Group Member

Just a little overview for you:

So, I posted a draft of my paper; however, it doesn’t have a concrete ending yet. Although it sounds like an ending, it is not my intended ending. Also, I’m a little worried about how much content I included from the book. I’m not sure if I included enough.

The idea is that I am talking about my past with Ramage in the 60’s, even though I am an older woman in the present day. The narrative starts out with a scene from a protest and goes from there. In doing some simple research I found that the terms “doves” and “hawks” were used to describe people during that time, and I thought that it reflected what I wanted to say about Serious and Rhetorical people, in a 1960’s kind of spin. So, there it is. Please leave me comments because this is only my third draft, (it says second draft in the title because this is only the second time the CLASS saw what I wrote, but I did have a draft in between this and the one from last class).

Thanks!  Here it is:

 

“Hell no, we won’t go! Hell no, we won’t go! Hell no, we won’t go!”

I was surrounded by hippies. People wearing tie-dye t-shirts with signs that said “make love, not war” were everywhere. There had to be at least 1,000 people on the streets of Haight and Ashbury. Their chants were loud; you couldn’t hear anyone unless they were screaming in your ear. But I was so happy to know that we were making attempts to have our voices heard, no matter how hard they tried to shut us up.

“Hell no, we won’t go!”

I thrusted my sign into the air and marched forward. A few friends of mine came to protest as well.

“Hell no, we won’t go!”

I kept walking, chanting as loud as I could on this beautiful day while thinking about my brother and his love for the sun’s warmth. It was sad to know that thousands of our brothers, fathers, and friends were dying this very moment. And just as I was swimming in sadness, I accidentally bumped into someone.

“I’m so sorry,” I shouted.

“It’s okay, are you all right?”

“Fine. It’s nice to see a fellow friend supporting the cause. I’m Penny.”

“John. John Ramage.”

When I was in my 20’s it was a real crazy time to live, you know? The war was going on, everyone was messed up on drugs, and people were coming together but also separating. Everything was political: the music, lifestyles, you name it and I guarantee you it was making a statement. It was rough, so I decided to help people. I attended some protests to have my voice heard and helped transport my friends to them as well.

After the protest, John and I decided to sit on a stoop outside the bar. He told me the news was calling Vietnam “the war between the doves and hawks.”

“I never thought of it like that.”

“The world is going bonkers, Penny.”

“I know, tell me about it. I wish this war would end so I could see Daniel again. I miss him so…”

“A friend?”

“My brother.”

“Ah, I’m so sorry to hear that. Don’t worry love, he’ll return soon.”

“I hope so.”

John showed up to a couple protests every now and then to support me and my friends, which was nice, but there was something I couldn’t place when it came to him. He was a little older than my friends and I, but not by much, probably in his 30’s. He drank lots of coffee and always had a pack of cigarettes on him. But it seemed John was confused when asked about his views concerning the war and all things government. It was sorta like an Independent living in a Democrat and Republican world. We weren’t sure where he stood on each individual issue, as opposed to knowing where he stood on a whole slew of issues.

John and I were really starting to get to know each other. Although I think I started understanding myself even better when I was around him. You see, John had a tendency of explaining things in a way that was confusing to me and my friends.

“Well I can’t help but question the government, John. They’re crazy for putting us in this mess.”

I didn’t understand why he was arguing against me and my beliefs when he had shown up to the protests just like the rest of us. I was beginning to think I had to defend myself to my own friend. He took out a cigarette, lit it, and gestured me one. I took a deep breath.

“No thanks.” I was afraid of being judged for who I was: a non-smoker, an anti-war supporter, a believer in love and peace. At this point I was scared of everything I was because John made me question myself.

“Don’t worry so much, darling. I won’t judge you. I’m not that type of person.” I gave him my best smile considering he was trying to be nice, but I was still worried. “Anyway, I agree. I mean, why can’t we discuss our options? Sometimes I wonder if they have brains.”

“Who?”

“The government, Penny. And the people that aren’t like us, who aren’t doing what we are—sitting around having a civil discussion regarding our options as a country, for every person involved.”

“The hawks?”

“Yeah.”

I smiled, I was so happy that I finally understood what John was talking about. He was right, why couldn’t we discuss our options? But why did he say options? We should never have even started the war.

“I would love to be a dove, John. Flying freely, living in a world of peace and harmony.”

“You and me both. But even if we were doves, Penny, we would still live amongst hawks. They don’t go away, no matter who or what you are.”

“Why do you keep challenging me? Maybe there will be a world where we can all live in peace someday. I can believe and hope.”

“That’s true, Penny, but nothing is concrete. We haven’t reached the future yet so how can we know?”

I didn’t know. But I did know that I believed the world was going to come together in the future. I had the right to believe whatever I wanted. And again, the weird thing was that I really thought John and I had the same beliefs. He was such a good friend, always there when I needed a shoulder to cry on when I started missing Daniel’s scent or his bright personality.

I was so sick of the war and missing Daniel. My parents were supportive of the crap they were putting us through. I was angry. I protested even more throughout the latter part of the ‘60s and was increasingly passionate.

One night I called John from a payphone crying hysterically outside the bar where we first talked. I asked him to meet me right away.

“I’ll be right there.”

John showed up 10 minutes later.

“What’s wrong?” John said as I cried hysterically, sitting on the stoop to his right.

“I just don’t know who I am anymore. This war has made me into someone I don’t even know. People are dying and getting hurt. We haven’t heard from Daniel in five days.”

John sat still, letting me spill.

“Who am I?”

“You’re Penny. You’re Penny, and I’m John. We’re pretty good friends.”

John Ramage taught me lots of things throughout the ‘60s. However, the best thing I ever learned while in his presence was who I really am. I am me: Penny.

The war was tough—but we got through it. Doves and hawks still exist today, both never stopped existing. I was young and stupid when John tried warning me that I’d forever live in a world full of both types of people. He was right.

Well, here’s the start to my paper guys. I think it’s pretty self-explanatory about where I want to go with it. Hope you enjoy it; any criticism is welcome and appreciated!

Paper #1: My Discoveries with John Ramage in the 1960’s

When I was in my 20’s, it was a real crazy time to live, you know? The war was going on, everyone was messed up on drugs, and people were coming together, but also separating. Everything was political: the music, lifestyles, you name it and I guarantee you it was making a statement. It was rough, so I decided to help people. I attended some protests to have my voice heard and helped transport my friends to them as well. That was where I met John Ramage.

When I met John for the first time, he told me, during a discussion we were having about the world, that it was full of two kinds of people: the Rhetorical and the Serious. We met a few times after that to share ideas about various subjects, and I’m pretty sure he was a Rhetorical Person. He told me about the different kinds of people living in our society back then, which is when I discovered my identity as a Rhetorical Person. I mean, I never cared to follow anyone’s rules but my own. According to John, the Serious kinds of people did the opposite. They were strict rule followers and were much more methodical in their ways. It seemed right to be that way, but I could never help beating to the sound of my own drum—I just liked it that way. The Serious People seemed to take what the government was telling us and tuck it away as the absolute truth, without thinking twice about the decisions they were making over Americans lives. The Rhetorical People, on the other hand, questioned their decisions and wanted to come up with alternative ways to handle these situations.

-Jackie

Unfortunately, I found this chapter a bit harder than the last chapter. However, there are a few things I’d like to comment about. (I’ll try my best anyway.)

On page 81, Ramage says, “As noted in the first chapter, rhetoric is more or less a “science of single instances” such that no formula could be conceived that would be adequate for every possible instance.” This really made sense to me. It’s kind of like Ramage is saying that rhetoric IS hard to explain, and there is no easy, textbook formula or definition to help us understand “rhetoric” in “fifty words or less.” However, I’ve talked to a few of you, my classmates, who have said that they understood this chapter better than the last two. Basically, the response I got from them (or you) was that it just felt as though Ramage was really explaining what rhetoric was in this chapter, or I guess you could say he was almost giving us a definition.

I think from this chapter I’ve learned that I acquire rhetorical knowledge better through Ramage’s examples than I do from his attempt to a textbook-like definition. When Ramage wrote about the State of the Union Address spoken by George W. Bush in 2003, I understood how rhetoric related to it. It was a lot simpler.

Many of the terms confused me in this chapter. Ethos, pathos, logos, mythos—these words are familiar to me, but not very well understood. Earlier in the chapter I could comprehend them given the context clues, but later in the chapter I started to lose my understanding of their meanings in order to relate them to the sentences respectively.

I know that tomorrow’s discussion will help me, it always does.

Jackie Conley

I found this chapter to be a much easier read; I’m not sure if this is because I adjusted the way I comprehend the book since the first chapter, or simply because the text was written clearer in chapter 2.

 

I did find myself thinking about the book “in terms of” J a novel rather than a textbook which helped. Plus, Ramage started to grow on me. He used some very personal examples in the chapter, and now I feel as if I know him.

 

Anyway, I enjoyed Ramage’s thoughts concerning rhetorical identity. The readymade identity was explored far beyond what I expected. However, he used examples repeatedly which really helped me understand his main points regarding the readymade.

 

The readymade seems to be based upon outside influences which create identities that few people actually hold as their true identity. Later, I believe he refers to these people (the creators of these fictional identities) as “Rugged Individualists.” When Ramage brought forth all of his examples: the Harley, [beer] advertisements, and even The Death of a Salesman, it proved in many ways that our culture is being TOLD what an identity, specifically THEIR identities, should look like. I guess what I’m wondering is: don’t all cultures experience this, at some level? Personally, I believe they do. Only, the argument is much stronger in a society like ours, where people are constantly watching T.V., and therefore constantly being exposed to advertisements. But it’s not just in T.V. as we all know. Ads are everywhere. So, in a way, we can’t escape what we are being told—and a lot of the time we don’t even think twice about the fact that we are being so heavily influenced in terms of identity.

 

I guess I’m trying to say the chapter, sadly, made me agree with Ramage. And I’m a little angry about the idea that we can’t escape from what we are being told an identity should look like.

 

In terms of writing, chapter 2 begins focusing on language and identity. Here, I think Ramage makes some very good points. He talks about the metaphor and all its great uses, what a definition is and its uses, and explores essence v. substance, all of which serve great uses in our language.

 

OK—I have to stop writing now, I’ve been at it all day and just got home from my three hour. See you tomorrow for some great discussion!

So, I just left class and thought I would get this post out right away…for those of you who are rushing over the computer lab right now because you can’t wait to start bloggin’. ;-)

Anyway, your blogging assignment (if you choose to accept it) is to rewatch the four videos of Ira Glass discussing the craft of storytelling.  As I said in class, I want you to think about his advice–directed at people interested in broadcasting or video pods–in terms of writing.  That is, not everything he says about broadcasting will apply to the kind of writing you do.  However, both writing and broadcasting use “storytelling” so there might be some interesting connections.

Looking at the videos as writers, what can you take away from his advice?  Does what he says seem relevant?  Do you see connections to your own processes, struggles, and experiences as writers?

I’d like you to post your thoughts to the blog.  If you have any difficulties accessing your WordPress account, you can simply comment on this post.

Here’s to the first weekend of the semester!

Hey all,

I just wanted to let you know that the assignment for the first paper and this weeks conference schedule are posted here.  You can find that paper assignment under the “Course Materials” tab.  You’ll find the conference schedule on the right hand side of this page under the “conferences” category.

I can’t wait to see what you come up with!

 

Consider this speech by former Senator from Tennessee and the kind of cultural readymades he invokes.

Consider Michelle Obama’s use of cultural readymades in her speech to the Democratic National Convention, 8/26/08

Hey all,

Well, another academic year is upon us and here we go with ENG 230 Advanced Composition–Mahoney style.

The title of this course, “Public Pedagogy: Managed Discourse and Available Means,” signifies that this course has a rhetorical bent and is interested in how discourse is “managed,” controlled, and manipulated in our current world. The rhetorical approach of this class means that we will be looking at the social and political contexts of discourse and will inquire into how we can intervene in this context.

This blog will be part of the little experiment we have going.  We will be talking about writing as an on-going conversation all throughout this class. In his book The Philosophy of Literary Form: Studies in Symbolic Action, Kenneth Burke, a literary and rhetorical scholar, gave us the following metaphor of a “parlor” to highlight the conversational nature of knowledge making and, I would argue, writing:

Imagine that you enter a parlor. You come late. When you arrive, others have long preceded you, and they are engaged in a heated discussion, a discussion too heated for them to pause and tell you exactly what it is about. In fact, the discussion had already begun long before any of them got there, so that no one present is qualified to retrace for you all the steps that had gone before. You listen for a while, until you decide that you have caught the tenor of the argument, then you put in your oar. Someone answers; you answer him [or her]; another comes to your defense; another aligns himself [or herself] against you, to either the embarrassment of gratification of your opponent, depending upon the quality of your ally’s assistance. However, the discussion is interminable. The hour grows late, you must depart. And you do depart, with the discussion still vigorously in progress (110-111, brackets mine).

So, let the conversation begin…I’m looking forward to our little late-afternoon rhetorical parlor…Welcome!!!