On Audience

The two articles I found the most interesting and useful were "Writing For Children" and the one simply titled "Audience" from the University of North Carolina. All the articles emphasized the importance of writing to a specific target audience as the best way to convey your ideas, whether you are selling that work or just writing it for a class. "Writing for Children" said it the most straight forward though- which I found kind of perfect the article that writes about writing for children writes in the most basic language and is the easiest to read. Not all the points mentioned can you directly apply to any writing but if you looked at it more broadly, it gives a great template for writing to your audience. It emphasized trying to get inside the mind of your reader, and reading it like they would. For example, with titles, for a children's story a short title is better because children have shorter attention spans, and if you lose them on the title, you can't expect that they will read the rest. I have never really thought about it much, but title is the first place you really should engage your audience and is just as important as the story. I usually think of titles as an afterthought most of the time, especially since most of my writing is academic and sometimes does not even require one. In thinking about itmore though I would read, and have read, a book called "Twilight", but had Stephanie Meyer called it "Edward and Bella" I might not have picked it up. "Twilight" has an element of mystery where I don't exactly know what the story will be about and also brings in imagery, while "Edward and Bella", though that is essentially the two characters the story revolves around, sounds boring, and I assume it's going to be a stereotypical romance novel. I also liked the point in the article about getting rid of "weedy words". Even when writing to an older audience, sometimes we get too "wordy", and we either look like we are trying to show off a broad vocabulary or want to bore our reader to tears by taking 25 words to say something that could be said in 5. Of course, sometimes the 25 words will better ensnare your audience, but being "wordy" in general tends to lose your reader's focus on your point and drifts them somewhere else and pulling them back can become difficult.



In the article "Audience", their point about thinking of your audience, if your audience is just your instructor, as "an intelligent but uninformed audience" is something that I think we all can overlook when writing course work. Because, in most situations, the instructor has broad knowledge of the topic we are covering in our papers we skip saying things in our paper and then lead, like the article says, the instructor to believe that we ourselves don't have a broad knowledge of the topic. It's a fine line writing papers for class because you don't want to over summarize and not have enough of your own argument but you also don't want to have any summary at all and lose your argument in appearing to not even know what you are arguing about. Making the assumption that your instructor generally knows the material, but only has a baseline understanding, or hasn't done any further analysis than knowing what it is, is a useful tool in shaping a paper.

Plagiarisim- Friend or Foe?

I found the article "The Ecstasy Of Influence" really amazing. The fact that he could piece together all those different sources into one coherent thought is a feat. I pretty worried about being able to do it myself for our sequence. The content of the article was an opener for me. When you really think about most writing does have some form of "plagiarism", we all get inspired by others ideas and a lot of times use those ideas as a jumping point for our own thoughts. In academia, as my ENG 241 teacher said yesterday, 9 out of 10 pieces are expansions or arguments on others work, not 100% original thought. As the author of the 'Ecstasy' points out, not only does this effect writing but all creative work as a whole- from cartoons through paintings, a lot of highly acclaimed and loved works are based off of someone else idea or inspired by something someone else already did. It makes you wonder if there can be truly innovative and original work anymore. Most every book or short story, while the characters are different, the setting may change and the plot varies slightly, can be group into a category of one particular theme or another. "Romeo and Juliet" and "Twilight" may on the surface have nothing in common but are both stories of star crossed lovers and forbidden love. The movie "Sleepers" and "The Lord of the Rings" seem to share little in common but are both stories of good vs. evil. In both these examples it could be said that the newer version 'stole' the idea of the older version. What I think though is that while there may not be a 'true' authentic piece of writing that anyone can create, these 'reworkings' we produce now can be just as great if not better than the originals. I didn't really enjoy reading "Romeo and Juliet"; the language is difficult at times, and its a little too over the top for me, but I love the "Twilight" series. We can enjoy these "plagiarized" works today and see them for their own merit regardless of their connections and influences with past works.

The article, "Defining and Avoiding Plagiarism" has some very good points. It emphasises the difference between plagiarising and poor citing, which is something that sometimes is misunderstood. Teachers are so virulent about anti-plagiarism that if they see any kind of copying without perfectly clear citing, they jump to the conclusion that its plagiarism without another thought. Many times, with so many types and styles of citing, students get confused as to what and how the instructor wants them to cite, which results in these mishaps. As the article says, poor citing shouldn't be punished as plagiarism, but be something that is shown or re-shown to the student, or marked down in grading, not automatic failure or other harsh consequences as actual plagiarism accounts for. The other point it mentions that I thought was important yet overlooked is that students don't usual mean to plagiarize in a defiant manner. Most of the plagiarism is out of desperation that you can't finish an assignment on time, fear of failing because insecurity in your own work, and lack of guidance by instructors in assignments. Yes plagiarising without any kind of citation is wrong to do, put I think in many cases the punishment should more fit the crime. If you plagiarized because you weren't guided properly by an instructor on an assignment, immediate failure of that course is harsh. While I understand the universities especially want to make examples out of plagiarizers to discourage it from others, jumping to extreme consequences is not helping anyone learn what not to do, but just hanging this somewhat mysterious threat above our heads: plagiarize and you will fail and probable be expelled gets many believing that we can't use anyone else's words at all in our work for fear that if we don't cite it properly or use it poorly we are doomed to an ill fate. This discourages using pieces for inspiration, which can stifle new creative work.

Reading and the E-Book

When I read "How The E-Book Will Change The Way We Read And Write" my first gut reaction was no. No we can't get rid of books and go to all e-books. That's insane. That was obviously the old school reader in me screaming out. I have always loved reading. My mom taught me to read when I was four and I have been eating books up ever since. During the summer if I'm not taking classes I will read two to four novels in a week. The thought of losing that tactile sensation of picking up a new book, that just off the shelf smell (yes I know I'm a total book nerd) makes me feel disheartened. I can't imagine reading in any other sense other than curling up with a book in hand at the end of a long day and diving inside another world waiting inside the pages. Then I got to thinking- e-books would not take that all away. It would change the experience of course, but it will open up a whole different way of reading and finding new reading material that is great. Instead of driving to Barnes &Noble or ordering books at Amazon.com, and waiting three to five days for their arrival, I can just pop on a Kindle (which I am now seriously thinking of purchasing) and buy one right then and begin to read in minutes. That is very exciting to me (again I'm a total book nerd). The e-book would make it easier for anyone and everyone to start reading.

The flip side of this is the point brought up in the article that it will also make it easier for people to stop reading. If you are reading an e-book on your iPhone, there is bound to be hundreds of possible distractions that will stop you from ever finishing. You read a line in the story about a character checking their e-mail, and now you just have to check yours, and its right at a touch of the screen. Reading an actual physical book somewhat repels these distracts. When you read that same line while reading a physical book, you will have to set the book down, go to the nearest computer, and then check your email. While that is all easy enough, it is not half as easy as when you were reading the e-book form. Maybe its just because of my own personal love of reading, but I really want people to read. I think it is a truly unique and wonderful experience that is almost indescribable being placed in another time or place through simple words on a page. Sure you can go to Rome, which would be a great experience, but when you read about some character going there in a novel, you can get a completely different feel, and not to mention its much cheaper. Reading for me also can relive stress or make me feel better on a bad day. By immersing myself in some character's problems and troubles, I can forget my own. I think that that is something everyone should enjoy, without all the distractions the web has to offer.

In all, I think e-books could really be a great thing, even though I will always miss my hardcover books if and when we switch completely over to e-books. They would make it easier for everyone to read, even if the huge potentially for distractions would come into play, and everyone reading I think would be wonderful thing.

Online Writing: More to it Than Meets the Eye

The first article, "We Are All Writers Now", I found very true. Anyone with a Facebook or Myspace or blog or Twitter is someone who is now writing daily or at least weekly when in the past they would have only been writing when necessary. Even if all they are putting out to the world is "Took my dog for a walk" as an update status, they are writing. I never thought about it before taking this class, but any bit of writing you do helps improve your writing skills. I find myself thinking a little closer about what I put into a status update now- the content still might not be witty but I'm taking more time to put something out there that is at minimum not in text speak and is grammatically and spelling correct. I used to just quickly throw something up without ever even checking if it made sense only to later read some illegible nonsense because I was typing so fast. Now I write more carefully. "doing hw" has become "Reading Descartes for my Metaphysics course".

All the articles we have read, but especially "Traditional Writing Skills Don't Work On The Web", have really made me think more about the how and where of putting up ideas online. The article is talking about not using long winding language when you want to grab the reader, or buyer in the articles example, but to catch the readers attention and cut to the chase. This is an excellent point as I think I can speak for everyone when I say that it is extremely annoying to be on website trying to find the answer to a simple question, and having to read through three paragraphs of nonsense to get to the answer that could have been stated in one sentence. So the how is clear- write for your audience. If your audience is a customer, make the speak easy and friendly to make them want to buy your product. If your audience on the other hand is a group of English scholars, feel free to use the 'big words'. This how idea ties in directly with the where idea. If you want to write long prose, Twitter or a Facebook update is probable not the right place.

As a whole, online writers, especially new online writers, should think more closely about where the right place is to put up their thoughts or ideas. If you want to write about your day to day routine, Live Journal is a perfect place to do that as it is exactly what the name says- an online journal. That is a better place to write things like "I'm eating pizza for dinner" than Facebook because when people go to a Live Journal, from the title they can expect just that sort of remark. I think we all have to decide when we are putting our thoughts online, just like we do when we write a paper, what is appropriate in the forum we are using. Maybe we need many 'wheres' online to include the many styles of writing we want to do instead of just trying to make one our every kind of composition outlet.

My Own Everyday Writing

The article entitled "Everyday Writing" that we read I found very interesting. It made me think about how much actual writing I do in a day and in how many forms. I write for classes obviously, notes, papers or exams, but there is many other places I compose in as well. I update my Facebook two to three times a week, I write two to three emails a week, and I make grocery lists. I also have to put in work orders for work. I work here at U of M-Flint in the housekeeping department, in the Rec Center, and anytime I find a lightbulb burnt out or something not working I have to go through the Facilities Management page and put in a work order. Also for work, we have inter shifts that we write any pertinent things that the other shift, there is a morning and a night shift for housekeeping, might need to know. In a day I might use four different forums to write and probable write for a total of three hours minimum out of my day. That is a lot more writing than I ever realized I did.

The other article I found interesting was the "There's An Art To Writing On Facebook". First, the mere fact that Facebook is so huge that people are debating about what a proper update on it is seems crazy to me. Facebook used to be just for college students, and it was big but not half as huge as it is now. Second, I feel like Facebook is a place where you don't have to be witty and charming necessarily. For most people our everyday lives are pretty mundane. We get up go to work or school, come home do homework or yard work or watch TV, and then we go to bed, wake up the next day and do it all over again. Weekends might be a little more thrilling or occasionally something exciting will happen at work or school, but on average most of us are never going to have some update on Facebook that is better than "Class was really boring today" or "Eating takeout Chinese". I feel there is nothing wrong with telling my friends on Facebook that I'm bored and watching the Food network or writing a paper for English. That is my life 90% of the time so why shouldn't I share it on the page that is supposed to be all about that life? The article we read condones those of us who do put up our "boring" updates saying we must be more clever or funny. I say if you want to be clever or funny, go for it. But if on the other hand all you can say for the past day or so in your life is that you are tired and still have 100 pages of reading to do for the next days class, well that's just fine too.

First Post

I made my blog!