I like writing.
I like writing a lot.
I like writing like Dr. Suess.
Dr. Suess is an awesome writer.
Watch me write.
Read my handwriting.
It is obvious that I do not have the
best penmanship.
However, good penmanship is not the
most telling and defining characteristic of a good writer.
A good writer can also be defined as
the creative person in the room.
I like writing. I like writing a lot. I like writing like Dr. Suess. Dr. Suess is an awesome writer. Watch me write.
The red writing is where other people took over. Despite the difference in sentence length, I think the story worked really well together. As sentences, each of them work and link together. The end sentence is a bit different than the starting conversation, but it doesn't kill the tone/mood of the paragraph. In fact, I believe it completes it.
I didn't really have to do any editing aside from adding an ending sentence.
I can't agree with this enough. I hate when I come across sentences and I get stuck tryin to figure out and connect the first part of the sentence with the last thought. I end up frustrated and sometimes even skipping over the paragraph/information. You want someone to read all of your work so make sure it flows.
I recently had a problem with Wordsworth's "Preface to the Lyrical Ballads" because he would go on about a point and on about a point with so many commas and examples all in one sentence before getting to his final conclusion or remark. Then he would tie the previous extended sentence into yet another point.
Oh and can someone explain the graphs in this section?
]]>I did not like being told this, though I see his point.
"Some scholarly writers claim that by deleting a first-person subject, the passive voice creates an objective point of view."
Part of why the passive voice sounds so objective to me is because it sounds so flat, but journalism needs the action. Otherwise, the news wouldn't sound immediate or forceful or grab your attention.
Even the news needs ratings.
]]>
I understand this concept, and maybe everyone else knows, but I still didn't understand nominalization (mostly because I don't understand nominalize) until I looked it up.
Nominalize - to convert into a noun
All I could think was the internet version of the meaning "nom". The way I would express nominalization is "to noun" something. The reverse is then "to verb" which I use frequently as in "I just verbed a noun".
During this whole section, I started to get the idea that the book spoke about active versus passive voice. The way many of the examples were changed made them seem stronger and used more "active" verbs. Were the sentences then in passive to begin with? Is that what this chapter is about? Or is nominalization seperate from passive voice?
SIDENOTE: On page 32, "We need not" sounded a little old fashioned to me. I agree that it is better than "There is no need" but couldn't it be changed to "We don't (do not) need" instead?
]]>I understand this concept, and maybe everyone else knows, but I still didn't understand nominalization (mostly because I don't understand nominalize) until I looked it up.
Nominalize - to convert into a noun
All I could think was the internet version of the meaning "nom". The way I would express nominalization is "to noun" something. The reverse is then "to verb" which I use frequently as in "I just verbed a noun".
During this whole section, I started to get the idea that the book spoke about active versus passive voice. The way many of the examples were changed made them seem stronger and used more "active" verbs. Were the sentences then in passive to begin with? Is that what this chapter is about? Or is nominalization seperate from passive voice?
SIDENOTE: On page 32, "We need not" sounded a little old fashioned to me. I agree that it is better than "There is no need" but couldn't it be changed to "We don't (do not) need" instead?
]]>At first, I cheer for the writers and think the grammarians are jerks. However, I can see that the grammarians don't mean any harm, in fact, they're just trying to help. Perhaps they get a bad rap in this book.
The "that" and "which" rule really confuses me. Sometimes I think I know which to use, but other times I have no idea and flip back and forth while writing. Usually (in that case) I'll just rewrite the whole sentence to aviod the problem.
I remember last year I was editing a poem with a group and the student had used "that" making the line a little clumsy and the error stood out. The way to fix it would have been to change it to "in which" but that didn't fit with the style/voice of the narrator.
We were stuck. This is one of those examples of a stylistic reason for breaking the rule.
These breaking the rules are good for creative writing, but is it for journalism? The Folklore yes, but the Elegant or the Hobgoblins? We are writing for the common man in newspapers so I write by asking which he would prefer? Which would he see as right? Which would not stick out to him?
]]>I am hopelessly in love with English, that much I have to agree with, but how can it be plain and strong? Perhaps in journalism where you have to use words like "said" everytime, but in creative writing (my main focus and love) I feel there are so, so many words.
Zinsser explains that very well in the next sentence. Unlike other languages we have a ridiculous amount of words to explain just one slight variation of something like "said" and our thesaurus's are filled. We also have the flexbility to (if you're into that) create words or spin-off languages like txtspk or ebonics. We "verb" words or put two together and here comes creations like "bootylicious."
I also disagree that English is always strong. Using passive voice or soft words with minimal consonants sometimes make the language sound and flow almost as beautiful as others. If I had to describe a language that was "strong" I would think of German.
Though for Journalism, New Media, and Communications, his ending thought is good:
Short is better than long.
Simple is good.
Long Latin nouns are the enemy.
Anglo-Saxon active verbs are your best friend.
One thought per sentence.
To see the definition for these sections, see this blog of Dr. Jerz's. This is where you can see other students' portfolios.
Coverage - Old to recent, all the work I've done with exception of wildcards at the bottom
Depth - Longer work, goes in detail, and links to other sources
Interaction - where I commented/disagreed on my own blogs. I only recieved two comments so I'm combining Discussions here too. Discussions - Blogs that got comments on and productive discussion.
Timeliness - Posted early by a day or two
Xenoblogging - my comments on other blogs. I did not split it up so, if you're interested, click the links and see to which catergory they apply.
Wildcard - extra blogs that weren't for this class, but I wrote during this time and may tie into the class
Note that in most of the blogs I wrote for this portfolio I mention comments on the school paper (The Setonian) and what could be applied and improved on.
]]>I wonder how many college students actually have a dictionary. I think I have one, but I don't use it. It's more like a collector's item now or a tool that I have just for looks/because you should.
"What makes a symbol symbolic is its capacity to signify additional levels of meaning - major ideas, simple or complex emotions, or philosophical or religious qualities or values" (149).
I remember when symbolism first truely clicked with me while reading a book and I wanted to try to put symbolism into my stories. It was my first step in the literary direction (writing literature that is, not analyzing and writing about it). You want to know the book?
"The Scarlet Letter"
Moving on to chapter 16...
"Our present focus is with the literature that has risen along with many changes brought about by our unique nation of immigrants and their descendants" (234).
What about the natives? Aztecs, Cherokee, Iroquois? I'd love to see literature on that.
"Too often it is easy to read texts as though they were all written last week and to attribute to writers ideas they never had" (234).
This reminds me of American Lit last semester and "The Great Gatsby." Like in older literature where there is little feminism, we (the class) were frustrated that Daisy just didn't leave her husband. Sometimes it's hard to keep in mind that cultural differences and something little that Daisy did might be progressive for the writer's time, but not ours. This is where it's good to have a liberal arts education so there can be a history understanding/application.
Now for a reflection on the course. My work can be seen through the four portfolios I have done for the class. For me, for my creative writing degree, the class furthered my range of literature that I can apply to my own writing. The book Writing About Literature gave me good ideas and explanations of traditional literature tools. However, I still feel this class is really an extension of Introduction the Literature class I took last semester. I see the value in learning to analyze literature and write papers, but I'm not an English Literature major, it's not what I want to do, and I'll be learning and writing lit papers for many of my other courses.
]]>To see the definition for these sections, see this blog of Dr. Jerz's. This is where you can see other students' portfolios.
Coverage - Old to recent, all the work I've done with exception of wildcards below
Depth - Longer work, goes in detail, links to other internet sources, personal anecdotes, or class discussion. There are less comments because of how informative/long.
Interaction - where I commented/disagreed on my own blogs (I didn't get many moving comments this portfolio so I didn't respond a lot.)
Discussions - blogs that got the most comments, productive discussion
Timeliness - posted early by one or two days, some got comments
Xenoblogging - my comments on other blogs. I did not split it up so, if you're interested, click the links and see to which catergory it applies.
Wildcard - blogs that don't exactly fit in that I did for class
You Knock Me Off Of My Feet! - a blog actually for the last portfolio, but comments shot up afterwards
]]>"But as I know your purpose is to do me good, and as I hope to live to be another man from what I was, I am prepared to bear you company, and do it with a thankful heart. Will you not speak to me?"
...
"Spirit!" he cried, tight clutching at its robe, "hear me. I am not the man I was. I will not be the man I must have been but for this intercourse. Why show me this, if I am past all hope?"
In these quotes, he seems to have wanted to make changes for the good of the people before he even sees his death (which I suppose is what really drives the point home). He mentions how he'd like to have said something to his Bob.
"Is it?" said Scrooge. "Go and buy it."
"Walk-er!" exclaimed the boy. (In Stave 5)
What is that? What's that mean?
You know what would suck though? If Scrooge became too fickle in giving away his money and became poor. Then again this may make him even happier and more grateful. I also would want to know if he just does this on Christmas since this is when it takes place and people are generally cheery. But this is supposed to be a real personality change.
]]>"There's a case to be made that while the press has no constitutional duty to be fair, there is a societal obligation to do so. The press is like no other industry in American society. Its importance is acknowledged in the Constitution and its liberty is part of our nation's foundation. Doesn't the press have a duty to live up to its special role in our democracy?"
This short section of Robert J. Haiman's Best Practices for Newspaper Journalists is really summed up best in the title of Greta's blog: With great power, comes great responsibility.
In America, it's unusual not to have a system of checks. The President can be checked by the legislative branch which can be checked by the judicial branch, but the press falls outside of this.
We can get in trouble for wrongful information that gets printed/spoken, but not for being unfair. I doubt a trial would/could successfully prosecute a journalist for taking unfair advantage when asking a child questions, filming scenes of distress, or invading a celebrities privacy.
But doing these things are not right morally. One of our main ideals is to be objective, which we wouldn't do if we only present negative media because it's more newsworthy or we present a scandal and invade the personal lives of the public because it's newsworthy.
I don't want to sound preachy, but catch my drift? (Tokyo Drift)
]]>