Reading Response Chapter 3 Academic Writer

A rhetorical situation summarizes 4 key components of correctly addressing the reader of an essay. These 4 elements are writer, reader, text, and medium. The first element of rhetorical situations reminds the writer that he or she should know precisely what they mean to convey through their writing. Also, the writer must direct his or her writing towards a specific audience and create a specific voice that tells readers what role they should take. The writer's chosen text must reflect aspects like informailty versus formality through text sizes or fonts. Lastly, the medium is the surface that the writer uses to present his or her information. The medium could be anything from a simple piece of paper to cardboard or posters. Much like the writer's chosen text, the medium depends on how formal the writer wants his or her information to be. Rhetorical analysis focuses on the writer's familiarity with his or her readership. In more plain terms, rhetorical analysis is how the writer shares his opinions in a way that readers can understand.

To be honest, I rarely write online anymore. If I did though, I would most likely appeal to pathos. Factual arguments online normally create more chaos than connection. I think that emotional vulnerability online would probably be more effective in expressing myself or connecting with another person. Along with focusing on pathos, I would also focus on ethos in my online writing because positive reputation online can give a person a better chance of connecting with and persuading a reader.

It's interesting to see how these politicians weave evidence with emotional stimulus. The first speaker tells a story of his interaction with a young boy earlier that day. Then, he uses that story as a platform to launch his factual argument against the President's policies. In a more subtle way, Paul Ryan follows the first speaker's example. He brings his family along with him to the event, hoping to maybe soften up the President to his proposals. Other speakers attack the President's previous comments. The man who refers to himself as a house "freshman" lists off several prior promises from the President as evidence of Obama's failures. As any politician would, all of the Republican speakers leave out any acknowledgement of Obama's policies having a positive effect. There is no room for give and take in their arguments which I believe is essential to having a constructive argument. Each side attempts to disprove the other, but the President is the only speaker who makes a substantial attempt to find middle ground.

Each speaker varies their tone based on the content of their speech. The first speaker uses a very passive aggressive tone, saying things like "well unemployment is 10% now, as you well know Mr. President." Paul Ryan takes a more bipartisan approach. His tone remains friendly and his speech covers a possible compromise that he hopes Obama can go over with his team. However, the tones of the speakers progressively devolves into more aggressive speakers questioning the President's actions. One of the speakers even interrupts the President in the middle of his response. In turn, the President also escalates his defense of his policies with a more aggressive, loud tone.

Throughout the Q&A, logos, pathos, and ethos are utilized by every speaker. Of course, each speaker uses logos throughout their speeches. Paul Ryan says discretionary spending has increased by 84% which is a fact backing his argument. As I mentioned before, the first speaker uses pathos when he describes his experience at the Salvation Army with the young boy. His emotional story about the boy and his father's comments provides him with a transition into his real point. I suppose that the appeal to ethos is the attacks on the President's policies. The speakers all question the speaker, President Obama, about his credibility in backing up his promises. The man that refers to himself as a house "freshman" even goes through Obama's unfulfilled promises and holds him accountable for his letdowns.

The blog that I discovered for this writing assignment is called Grease and Glamour. Written by a young woman named Jinna, she shares her travel experiences with her following and divulges the secrets to traveling the right way. In her words, Jinna says, "I created this site to serve as a visual representation of my story." The website has several different pages from "Travel" to "For My Father", a page in tribute to her father who passed away. Each of Jinna's posts is accompanied by beautiful pictures of her most recent trip. She likes to write in short paragraphs, using boldface type to emphasize her points from time to time. To access each post, a user has to click on a box with a headline and a picture from the post. All of the boxes include a quote from the article. For example, her post entitled "6 ways to cure your wanderlust without traveling" has a quote that says "the truth is, you'll never cure your wanderlust, but you can certainly lessen the symptoms." Overall, Grease and Glamour is a sleek stylish way for users to share in Jinna's experiences.

Based on a lot of the visual factors and the general idea of Grease and Glamour, it seems to be directed towards mostly middle aged women and some men who are middle class workers. This young woman has designed the website in a more modern, classy way that will appeal to that socioeconomic group. Many of these types of people fall prey to moving through their life in a mindless rut. So, Jinna's experiences awaken a sort of "wanderlust" in these people. Also, Grease and Glamour could attract the attention of an older generation. Specifically, retired men and women might read the posts hoping to share in Jinna’s experience of the world in their remaining years. Jinna's advice would provide guidance for these people so they can enjoy their retirement to the fullest.

After scrolling through the comments on all of Jinna's posts, I've found that her main audience is women anywhere from 25-50 years old. Most of them have some amateur experience traveling, but they use this blog as a way to communicate with other more experienced world travelers. Occasionally, some users share photos from the same location mentioned in that particular post. For those of the readers that don't have travel experience, their comments generally say something like "Real positive post! Makes me want to go out and explore now!" Although a good number of the comments contain lots of clichés, the readers are genuinely inspired to step out of their proverbial rut and explore. Unlike other blogs, the readers almost exclusively communicate with Jinna. So the community of Jinna's followers are merely united by their shared interest in Jinna's stories. Rarely, veteran travelers will share some advice with the novices on the site. However, the general attitude is that traveling can't be instructed too much or the novice traveler won't experience the world in his or her unique way.

Grease and Glamour works well with its audience. It mainly acts as an online travel guide. Jinna personally responds to most commenters with encouraging words, making the audience feel welcome and acknowledged. Apart from her main website, Jinna uses lots of social media like Youtube, Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter. Her social media sites cover her fashion tips more than her actual travel so it is more woman-oriented. However, her blog is more focused on women travelers so the social media aspect works well alongside the blog.

Overall, Gee's definition of literacy is the acquisition and learning of a secondary discourse. People go to school to engage in secondary discourse which is essentially the capability to converse with people that aren't in your family, or "non-intimates". Also, people acquire secondary discourse through social interactions in the real world that take place outside of the home. So, young children learn to master the English language through schooling but also through conversations with friends or adults outside their immediate family. At the center of Gee's definition of literacy is his definition of the word "discourse". Instead of discourse referring to one person talking to another, Gee's definition says that proficiency in a discourse welcomes a person to a sort of club where all of the other members can criticize and discuss the discourse using an "identity kit".

Honestly, this distinction in the definition of literacy seemed trivial to me. As a linguist, Gee is tasked with proficiency in languages which leads him to question the definitions of words often I would assume. However, my personal definition of literacy is still just the ability to read and write in a basic sense. I agree that literacy can be grasped to different levels from person to person, enabling one person to better discuss and persuade than another person. I just don't think that it's necessary to dissect the definition of literacy to such a great extent. Gee's definition does have some relevance to my literacy story. I've experienced firsthand the struggle he described with learning a second language. I've taken Spanish classes for 6 years now, learning from native speakers and masters of the language. However, I don't feel even somewhat proficient in the language because I've never visited a Spanish-speaking country and acquiesced the language. So, I understand the importance of the division that he makes between learning and acquisition. I just don't see the relevance of his definition of the word "literacy".

Ong's first major point discusses the shame that comes from being illiterate in a high-technology society. He says that "the deviancy of illiterates tends to be thought of as lack of a simple mechanical skill." In our current world, a person can't even hope to be employed if they don't have the ability to read and write. He or she wouldn't even be able to read a menu at a McDonald's. Ong's second point creates a split between what he terms "primary orality" and "secondary orality". Primary orality refers to the basic language skills of a culture with no literature or historical records. Most of these cultures don't understand the importance of writing their language down so they maintain it through oral tradition. On the other hand, high-powered nations like the United States rely heavily on the presence of secondary orality. Ong says that secondary orality grows out of things like radio and television that are commonplace in modernized societies. These two inventions rely on the viewer's or listener's ability to understand basic writing and reading in their language. Next, Ong vaguely talks about the different way that cultures using primary orality grasp the word "nevertheless" versus the cultures utilizing secondary orality. People using primary orality can simply focus on the single entirety of the word nevertheless. However, people using secondary orality automatically imagine the word spelled out in their mind. As they spell out "less" at the end of the word, they have already forgotten the presence of "never" and "the" in the word. In a more complicated sense, Ong says that this habit in secondary orality cultures allows people to use "exploratory thinking" more than primary orality cultures. Lastly, Ong talks about how recent of a development writing is. He says, "Only in recent centuries have human beings generally had the idea that a language could be written." In part 2, Ong talks about how writing was seen as a invasion into the old habits of oral tradition. Socrates said that "writing destroys memory" and "weakens the mind." Overall, Ong's main argument states that our high-powered secondary orality nations are robbing people of the importance of oral tradition and therefore the natural strength of memory and basic knowledge.