I thought I’d start out my blog with an explanation of what I presented with my last “essay.” For starters, we were given no guidelines, so I don’t feel like I failed to write upon a topic and follow a format that was limitless. Very rarely do we in academia get the opportunity to write something that does not follow tradition conventions. Isn’t this very concept one we have discussed in class? My essay, on several levels, challenges the definitions we have tried to develop in our class discussions.
Based on our varied readings, Exposition can be anything. Like DuPlessis, an expository work can be a combination of authors and prose styles that follows no particular structure. Taken to a further extreme, why can’t expository writing be merely a combination of others’ ideas alone? I could argue that my contributions to my essay were in the creation of a forum in which our authors could be juxtaposed to discuss the topic of our class. Simply because few of the words were my own does not mean I had no dealings in shaping these peoples’ words in relation to one another’s and fitting them into the confines of 140 character Twitter limit.
Am I employing rhetoric to persuade in my essay? No, I’d have to be trying to make a point; which I am not. But why must we assume that I have to be? We are all used to writing and reading the conventional essay formats that include an Introduction, Thesis, Body, and Conclusion. The “academic essay” has little to no place in the world outside of school, so why should I continue to write in a format that is becoming useless and archaic? My aim was not to write a prose-style academic essay but instead to show a variety of ideas and how these authors might respond to one another.
My essay is a slice of discourse. Look at what we read, particularly online. Other than books (which many people are now reading on electronic devices) Americans are reading more and more information online or on a computer. This is how we read now: articles on http://www.thedailybeast.com/ or the main yahoo homepage http://www.yahoo.com/ are short in format and commentary in nature. They are conversation starters, not complete “point makers” with tidy intros and conclusions. Do our conversations, digital and otherwise have thesis statements? No – they digress. The comments we make, whether in response to an article or a Facebook status, have no traditional format or structure. They bounce from idea to idea and can often have little reference to the initial article. This type of digital discourse is how many Americans are acquiring information. It is sometimes tangential and hectic and not orderly in reference to other comments.
We read pieces written by anonymous people within the news media that merely offer an opinionated conversation about what we think is happening in our world. There is no beginning or end to the “stories” yet we still listen and receive information through these outlets, on the radio, TV, or internet. Is their means of communication expository? Would self-professed expert on Exposition Grabe agree? Electronic writing is informative, deals in abstractions, uses a consistent type of grammar/language, so why not? This style of written communication, a snippet of an online conversation, can speak volumes. It is the new medium for reading and displaying information and those who participate are happy to leave behind those who cannot adapt or understand. We have to learn to embrace new methods, albeit in the case of my essay through exaggerated approaches. The devices we have become too comfortable utilizing will soon be outdated and we will be left in the dust. Sure my essay was hyperbolic, but often we need to see such an amplified version of things we are discussing to identify and evaluate the processes and elements that need to be debated.
From one CCBC adjunct to another; allow me to explain myself.
ReplyDeleteI was not in my best mode when we graded each others' essays. Reading yours required patience, which I did not have. For that I apologize. After going over parts of it with Cheryl, I indeed see the cleverness of it where at first it just over my head.
You have written a valid defense of that essay and I now see what you were going for.
now to play bad-cop a little
Essentially the Twitter Essay and the In Defense of My Twitter Essay become one well-rounded project. Your explanation and writing voice are established here and I could probably go forward with reading the Twitter Essay and catching on much better.
This defense could have easily been a preamble that would have helped me know what I was getting into. Now, if you had done that then you would have then conformed to academia and thus made a point. It's a great point that you make and it's interesting. If this was your plan all along then you indeed have succeeded.
If your true point was to not make a point then I'm sorry but you left that in the dust by including this blog post. You are evidently part of academia, Ms. Every-time you try to get out, it just sucks you back in.
I thought your Twitter piece was very clever! Who says we can't make a point by typing up a Twitter conversation between Grabe and DuPlessis? Hell, throw Shakespeare in there, and you've got yourself a pretty snappy piece of work :)
ReplyDeleteNevertheless, even if you didn't intend to make a point or argue something, I think the piece speaks for itself..especially because we talked about social media in class before and how it affects writing.
I was frustrated with the outcome of this last assignment. My feedback was all over the board. I think we (as a class) made the mistake of not setting clear guidelines. I don't necessarily think we needed to define everything to a tee, but the scope was definitely too broad.
ReplyDelete