JOURNAL 1
- Imagine you could invite David Foster Wallace into the discussion in our classroom. What questions would you ask him about this essay?
If David Foster Wallace came into our classroom for discussion, I would ask him when in his life did he begin to feel the way he does about animals, lobsters in this specific case. He mentions many times throughout his work that he does not want to come across as “shrill or preachy” (Wallace 510), however he does have strong opinions on the pain that lobsters feel when they are being cooked for human consumption. I would like to know if there was a specific event that opened Wallace’s eyes to the concept of animals feeling pain (for some it takes reading an article or watching a documentary about the treatment of animals in the food industry) or if this was the way he felt his whole life. I would also like to know how this knowledge about animals having a preference to not undergo pain influences the way Wallace approaches food. Has this knowledge led him to become a vegetarian, vegan, or is he like many people who do not “think much about the (possible) moral status and (probable) suffering of the animals involved?” (Wallace 510). In other words, does Wallace practice what he preaches?
- Use that experience to talk about larger issues, specifically, what are the limits of a written discussion? How might you anticipate your audience’s questions when you write?
The limits of a written discussion are that the ideas generated by the reader will never be expressed in their entirety. Surely the reader will continue to think about the passage after creating their written response, and may have additional thoughts, or new ideas altogether when given more time to think. Written discussions also fail to express the reader’s emotions with the precision that verbal communication and body language can provide. This is what makes conversation in the classroom so important – it can help bring to life what a students thoughts on a topic are. You may already know what those thoughts are based on reading their written responses, but hearing them express their opinions out loud and in class can give those written words a whole new meaning. Because written conversation is somewhat limiting, when we write, there are sure to be questions that are generated by the audience. When I write, I anticipate my audience’s questions by reviewing my own work and rereading it as if I had not written it myself. I read the work as if I am an outsider to the topic. If I can come up with any questions while doing this, then other readers might think of these same questions as well when they read my writing.
JOURNAL 2
- In detail, describe your experiences drafting writing projects. And what about revision? What did that look like? What was your process? How did it work for you?
My drafting process for writing projects always starts, as it does for many, in my head. It takes me a few days of thinking about how I want to construct my paper before I can actually have anything coherent on paper. Once I have a solid idea, I find myself a space where I can be alone (in high school I would lock myself up in my room, now I can just go to the library or the commons) and type out everything I want to get across to my audience. This first draft is more of a stream of consciousness than anything else for me; this way I can get out everything I have to say, which gives me something to work with. When I think too hard about what I want to say instead of just saying it, I end up with a blank paper. It’s better to get your point across and clean it up later instead of trying to think of the perfect wording the first time around. Because I still struggle with this, sometimes I have a tough time getting started. This happens most often with analytical papers. I would try to start with my introductory paragraph before I had a steady grasp on my body paragraphs. One of my teachers in high school suggested starting the paper by jotting down all the quotes, passages, etc. first. Once you have all the evidence, build around it. By explaining why the evidence is relevant to the paper, it’s easier to arrive at the topic sentence for each body paragraph. Since the introductory paragraph serves as the abstract for the piece, backtrack from the bulk of the project that’s now mostly finished and summarize it. This tactic has always helped with my major writing pieces and kept introductions concise.
Using this process, I eventually put together all the necessary pieces, creating a first draft of the project. I love peer reviewing because I don’t trust my eyes. Not only do I have poor vision, but it’s always better to have someone else review your work for anything you may have missed. This can be small errors like spelling, grammar, or punctuation, or bigger ideas like sentence flow or thematic concepts. Thanks to autocorrect, much of the smaller scale errors get taken care of for us, but Microsoft word can’t analyze ideas quite like the human mind can. We need other people to review our work to check that the concepts we cover are relevant and make sense. For me, the more people that review my paper, the more confident I feel turning it in. I would share my papers with as many people as I could – whoever was willing to look at it. Lastly, I would have my mom look at my work. She’s proficient in reading and writing, and really enjoys doing it, which is half the battle for some people. She’s always the one to find the errors that get by everyone else. After my work is looked over by her, I trust that it’s ready to turn in.
I would say that my process for writing projects isn’t perfect, but it works for me.. I’m sure that my backwards writing process is confusing to some, but some people might have the same tactic. My process definitely has room for improvement, and I am hoping to see the improvement over the course of this class.
JOURNAL 3
- Read the chapter “The Art of Quoting” (pp. 42-51) of They Say / I Say. What did you find interesting about this chapter? Did you find anything in the chapter helpful or useful? Did you learn anything new?
Thinking back, I’m not entirely sure when we were first introduced to using quotes/evidence in our writing. I remember quoting poetry and short stories in middle school, so the process probably started somewhere around seventh grade. Our school system really drilled the writing process into our heads, so by the time we got to high school, we knew exactly what was expected of us. That concept was always huge for the teachers in our district: preparing us for the impossible high school academic experience. Since I have had an understanding of how to incorporate text into writing pieces for a little while now, I can’t quite say that I learned anything completely new from this chapter of They Say I Say. I did, however, look at the art of quotation in a light I hadn’t seen it before. After reading the chapter, three ideas stuck with me which I hadn’t thought in that way of before. First, there is an art to including quotes that is difficult to grasp. There’s an unspoken balance that a writer must maintain when it comes to quoting outside sources. Quoting too little will give the audience the sense that the author knows everything. When we write, we often have to do a little research so we can provide background information on the topic we’re talking about. A lack of quotes infers that the author didn’t need to do any research, or can explain anything they did research better themselves than providing the raw text from which they found their information. On the other hand, too many quotes is just as worrisome; a paper drowning in quotes makes it seem like the author doesn’t have any thoughts of their own to add to their supporting evidence. I had never thought about this equilibrium of evidence before. My second takeaway was on page 44, which mentioned that some writers assume quotes can speak for themselves. I think in some cases, this can be true. However, in writing, it is important to explain any included evidence to help relate the idea back to the main thesis of the project. Leaving the evidence by itself with no explanation doesn’t do any justice for the paper overall. The quote may be extremely supportive for the paper, but it doesn’t serve any purpose unless the writer connects it to their main idea. My last takeaway from this chapter is the difficulty of choosing quotes to include in a piece of writing. When you think about it, it can seem like an impossible task. For me, I just went with whatever words/phrases/sentences etc. resonated with me from a particular text we were studying at the time. Finding textual support is actually so much bigger than that, though. You have the task of finding the perfect combination of words that says what you’re trying to say, but using different words… and they had to be said by someone else already. You have the wealth of all the literature in the world, but you have to narrow it all down to a few sentences that will support your paper in particular. Then, you have to explain why this perfect combination of words supports what you’re thinking by using your own words. It really is a bizarre concept at its core. I’m glad that this chapter opened my eyes to this idea, among others, when it comes to quoting and using textual evidence.
JOURNAL 4
- Choose 3 passages from Lizzie Widdicombe’s “The End of Food” and explain why these passages are interesting/stand out to you.
- Page 5, paragraph 2
This paragraph stood out to me because most of the article focuses on Rhinehart and how he’s still alive after a year and a half of surviving mostly on Soylent powder (Widdicombe’s concern for Rhinehart’s well-being comes through the texture for much of the article. This paragraph, however, pulls all sorts of references from novels to film to TV, which I found interesting. Some of these references supported Rhinehart’s decision to concentrate and simplify his nutritional needs, while others showed how this could go terribly wrong. Showing both sides of the argument proves that there is no right answer regarding this method of eating. I found this paragraph especially fascinating because not only did the author bring in examples from entertainment, but also brought up a real world application of ancient Greece writing of ambrosia to demonstrate that this idea has been around for much longer than we believe it has been.
- Page 6, paragraph 3
There was definitely a lot going through my brain while I was reading this paragraph. First, the description of the headquarters was exactly what I expected it to be: crisp in appearance, and lacking character. The decor (or lack of) in Rhinehart’s space aligns with the simplicity that his diet of only beige liquid takes. We later find out that his personality follows this trend as well, with his mundane conversation and dry sense of humor. The second main thing that struck my interest was Rhinehart’s use of the word “recreational” when describing the only actual food that was in his fridge. He described the baby carrots as a “fun snack”, which was nevertheless strange to me. If anything, carrots and other vegetables are the least fun part of my meals. Since food is such a cultural concept for me, I had a hard time understanding this part of the text, although that struggle made the paragraph an interesting read.
- Page 7, paragraph 2
This paragraph taught me a lot about Rhinehart’s views. It’s a continuation of the tour of the headquarters, except this paragraph was on Rhinehart’s bedroom. Again, the decorations were lacking aside for a few scientific books and a poster of the metabolic pathways in the human body. After giving his two cents on the poster and what it means to him, he describes himself as a “fallen libertarian” and talks about how he is opposed to capitalism. He believes that “things are worthless” which made a lot of sense to me when I read it. His ideology came full circle. He doesn’t see value in material things because consumerism is based on want and not need; it leads to pleasure, which isn’t necessary the way function is. The way he feels about material goods aligns with the way he feels about food. He doesn’t sugarcoat the purpose of food; it exists to fuel our systems, and nothing more.
JOURNAL 5
- Read pages 1-15 of They Say / I Say. What did you find interesting about this chapter? Did you find anything in the chapter helpful or useful? Did you learn anything new?
These first pages of They Say / I Say caught my interest right off the bat. From the first chapter we read from this book, I found the suggestions of templates/ways to set up your ideas presented between paragraphs quite interesting. The authors of this novel seem to really support the idea of templates when it comes to writing. I like to outline things for the sake of staying on track and keeping myself organized, but it’s never all that detailed; it’s more just a place to dump out my thoughts that I will later build off of. The “Template of Templates,” however, is like the master mechanism of ordering your thoughts in a way that flows nicely. Although this is a helpful reference to have, I think of these templates as equations. This makes writing seem less like literature and more like math to me, at least for analytical writing. Academic and creative writing are two completely different flavors of literature, though. I think this template can be useful in academic writing, but may take away from the essence that makes creative writing so appealing to readers. Creative writing can begin and end almost anywhere if done properly. To what extent does this writing style have to be “proper”? Well, enough so as the reader doesn’t get lost. It is important to provide enough background information so the current situation the character is in makes sense. Then again, the writer shouldn’t spoon feed the audience; they should be left hanging at a certain point so they can draw their own conclusions and take the writing somewhere new. It’s all about balance, really.
I don’t mean to come off as being anti-template; they can be very useful. I don’t think they “destroy” the creative process. Rather, I think they can help jumpstart the creative process if a writer is having a tough time getting started. Like one of my high school teachers said about memorization (for my anatomy class where we had to learn hundreds of vocabulary words), “it’s a great place to start but a terrible place to finish. The right place to finish is knowing and really understanding” That’s my philosophy on templates. They’re great to help you organize and start piecing your ideas together, but your finished product shouldn’t be that same exact template with the blanks filled in. A template should serve as the gateway to an original, well-supported argument backed up with evidence. Plus, like the authors were saying, the more comfortable you get with academic writing, the less you will have to rely on such templates. The template will become internalized as you gain familiarity with the basic “moves” of writing. You may even develop your own template, customized to the way you approach and present your thoughts. With time and practice, this internalization process is possible for everyone to achieve.
JOURNAL 6
Paper 1 Robert Clark Paper 1 Alex Smyth
JOURNAL 7
***See page titled “Journal 7”
JOURNAL 8
- Read the chapter “Start with What Others Are Saying” (pp. 19-29) of They Say / I Say. What did you find interesting about this chapter? Did you find anything in the chapter helpful or useful? Did you learn anything new?
While reading this chapter, I found that it made sense to mention what “they say” before stating what “I say” as a sort of call and response format. The first chapter of the novel really underlined the point the authors were trying to make about how writing is an interaction with other writing. Our thoughts are a response to other, preexisting thoughts. With this explained in the first chapter, this last chapter made much more sense. Following the format they set readers and writers up with (as well as the title), the first part of “they say, I say” is to explain who, or what, is “they”. One strategy the authors use that makes the book so user-friendly is their ability to breakdown a concept into simple, familiar terms. The “Dr. X” metaphor made the idea very clear to me in terms of why writers should include a “they say” component, as well as where it should go in their writing. At first when I was reading this, it seemed like a somewhat new concept to me. I’ve brought in outside resources and therefore, outside ideas into my own writing before. However, this usually doesn’t happen until I reach the body paragraphs of my work, where I include the majority of supporting information, and thus the majority of what “they say”. The templates that helped introduce what “they say” clarified the idea for me. What the authors consider a “they say” is similar to what I learned to be a “lead”. It starts the essay and can have a number of different approaches: an anecdote, a quote, a common opinion, misconception, or controversy, or another method. In high school, we used the lead as the “icebreaker” of our essay, then used the opening idea to help reach our thesis. I’m not sure if this is what the authors mean by the “they say” portion of a written work, but it seemed similar to this tactic that I’ve used before. Using this method has helped me bring in outside ideas and allowed me to weigh in on those ideas.
JOURNAL 9
- What did you spend the most time revising? What would you change? How much is the drafting/revising process different from your past drafting/revising approaches? How did your approach to this project fit with the expectations for this class?
For my first project, I would say that most of my revision went into rewording my ideas to make them more concise, as well as cutting ideas down to make them clearer. When I write, I have a tendency to get in my head and drive a topic deep into the ground, even if it isn’t all that important to the overall thesis. During the rough drafting process, I get all my ideas out – whatever is in my head. When I go back and look over what I wrote, I notice that the paragraphs may connect to one another in some way, but where I end up in my thoughts doesn’t necessarily connect back to the main idea. To help bring my ideas back to Earth, I usually end up chopping the majority of at least one paragraph of the first draft, which happened with this first project. The drafting process for this project was much better than it has been for previous projects. Usually, when I had an in-class peer review, we would switch rough drafts with our friends and then watch them correct our spelling errors and write “awkward” after a sentence. Although these are good things to point out, most of us can find those errors on our own. The exchanging of a first draft is more to assess the conceptual progress of a paper: does it have a clear thesis, does it make sense, does it have support? etc. This time around, peer review was more about making global comments, which is extremely helpful as was the feedback letter. A paper free of spelling and grammatical errors doesn’t do much good if the overall idea is incoherent. Getting broader feedback helped me make sure that I was on the right track, and what to address moving forward. I think my approach to the project fit pretty well with the expectations for the class. I started as I usually do with brainstorming, then drafting out ideas, pulling support, generating a thesis, and then continuing from there. I gave myself ample time to revise my work (which doesn’t always happen) and I gave careful attention to my peers’ projects. I guess I won’t really know how well my approach fit in until I know the grade, but I feel proud of what I turned in.
JOURNAL 10
Identify 3 passages you find centrally important to Pollan’s essay, his big point. For your response, start with naming the page and paragraph, and then indicate if you agree, disagree, or have a response that is complicated. Then, for each A,D,C, respond with 150-200 words explaining why.
- Page 6, paragraph 2: Agree
This was the first paragraph of Pollan’s article that really resonated with me. I am familiar with Julia Child and have seen Julie and Julia, so there wasn’t anything groundbreaking from the first few pages since it was more setting the scene for anyone who hadn’t seen the movie/known who Julia Child was. This paragraph to me seemed to be the first that really brought something to the table – some historical connection between Julia Child and the world around her. I had never heard of “The Feminine Mystique” before, but I am glad that Pollan brought it into the article. It added a layer of complexity to the idea of cooking, specifically what it meant for a woman to be in the kitchen in 1960s.The ideology of Betty Friedan’s work directly addressed gender politics in cooking, which was a common theme in Child’s own work. Through her cooking show, Julia Child opened her audience’s eyes to the idea that cooking is a satisfying, creative process and not just an oppressive household job.
2. Page 7, paragraph 2: Agree
This paragraph, like the last one I chose, brought in an outside perspective which I enjoyed. Pollan shared his phone call with Harry Blazer, a food-marketing researcher. During the call they discuss not only how the ritual of cooking has changed over the years, but also how the concept of cooking has changed as well. I agree that the term “cook” is overused in today’s time. In the 1960s, “cooking” entailed all the preparation and assembly of ingredients that Julia Child demonstrated in her cooking show. Now, cooking usually means heating up already-prepared food in the microwave. This would have never passed in the 60’s, nor should it pass now. People credit themselves when they use a microwave oven because it’s closer to a home cooked meal than Postmates. I agree when Blazer says that the term cooking has become so broad that it has lost its meaning. I think this happens with many words, but I would definitely consider “cooking” to be one of those words.
3. Page 16, paragraph 5: Complicated Response
For me, this paragraph is what connected this article to Widdicombe’s, which connected these two articles to the overarching topic of this course. The paragraph had the same big idea of food having meaning beyond what it physically is, although this article took a slightly different approach which I found interesting. Widdicombe seemed to focus on food as being a uniting medium and getting people to experience moments together. Pollan on the other hand, has a more primitive approach. He relates food to being a “fundamental thing” that the first men transformed using fire and ice. No other animal does this to their food – just humans. This hands-on interaction with food sets humans apart from the rest of the animal kingdom, which makes food a sacred thing to us. I always thought of the meaning of food being cultural in a contemporary sense, so the Widdicombe article was easier for me to understand. I agree with Pollan’s idea as well, but I never thought of his idea so it was interesting to read about.
JOURNAL 11
- Read the chapter “Reading for the Conversation” (pp. 176-186) of They Say / I Say. What did you find interesting about this chapter? Did you find anything in the chapter helpful or useful? Did you learn anything new?
Right off the bat, I was intrigued by this chapter because of the familiar situation the authors set up. Everyone has been in that classroom before, where the teacher is pulling hair to get students to discuss a reading. I’ve both sat through that class trying to carry on a conversation and been a passive participant in this situation before. There’s definitely a relationship the reader has to develop with the text to care enough to talk about it. This relationship usually develops as the reader puts their opinions and emotion into (or against) what the author is saying. I think there’s an interesting paradox the authors mentioned about this topic. When students read looking for not only the thesis but whether or not they agree with the thesis, their involvement with the text is more involved and complex. However, this method is also “easier” than just searching for the thesis because we are prone to identify where we stand on various topics, making this type of reading more natural for people to do. Something I found interesting was the section of the chapter that mentioned when what “they say” isn’t directly stated. It requires more careful attention from the reader, who needs to interact with the text to figure out what “they say”. When the “they say” portion is not directly addressed, it is the reader’s job to piece together context clues to construct what “they say”, like a puzzle. I don’t distinctly remember having to do this any specific time, but not all written pieces are created equal. Some pieces are more direct and straight to the point while others require the reader to draw conclusions based on the limited given information. Although more vague texts might be more frustrating for the reader to comprehend, the struggle is worthwhile. Through this independent piecing together of information, the reader builds a relationship with the texts and, at the point of understanding what “they say”, will likely have an opinion or reaction to the thesis.
JOURNAL 12
After looking over my peer review from paper 1 and paper 2, I noticed that almost all of the comments were global ideas, which was a relief. In high school, peer review was almost explicitly local concerns, so to see that I have shifted to a broader, bigger picture state of mind was satisfying. For paper 1, my comments were split half and half of “Ideas” comments and “Evidence” comments. Mostly any suggestion I made was a way to push the author’s thinking in a certain direction that I think would make a valuable addition to the writer’s main argument. In some cases, this would be a suggestion on elaborating on a specific point the writer already made, and sometimes I would ask questions, or a series of questions. It is important when making suggestions that you don’t direct the writer and instruct them what to do. Asking direct, yet open-ended questions allows for the writer to critically think about his or her work and how to further keep the reader engaged in their point. Leaving the question open-ended gives the writer freedom of interpretation. Then, when the final draft is turned in, you can see where they took the question and how they incorporated into their preexisting ideas, which is interesting. This commentary I made on paper 1 was much different than my paper 2 suggestions. I think this is because the draft is still in the works. When a full draft is brought in, it’s generally organized in a way that makes sense. With a partially written draft, the writer is still figuring out how they want to set up their argument and build off their ideas. Due to this, most of my paper 2 comments were “Organization” and “Visibility” to help the writer rearrange their pending thoughts in a logical order, or point out where the start of the author’s idea is explained, but needs to be further elaborated on to fully support the main idea.
JOURNAL 12B
- After listening to the podcast, what ideas come to your mind? What interested you? What curiosities emerged? What concerns come to mind?
This podcast was really intriguing for me. Death, whether or not we want to admit it, is an interesting concept to talk about. The death rituals for humans is unlike any other species on the planet, yet it is such a taboo topic to this day that nobody wants to speak of such rituals. One thing that struck me was the mentioning of witness cremation. I have never thought of this before because I always imagined that it was the mortician’s job to take the body and prepare it for either burial or cremation. Thus, it was the family’s job to mourn as they either plan the funeral and/or receive the ashes. I never imagined the family being involved in any of the intermediate processes, like the cremation itself. Part of me thinks that being the one to physically send your loved one into the crematory would do numbers in terms of emotional trauma. However, Doughty makes an excellent point that, in the process of finding closure, the family should seek involvement in these events. In this way, they are taking responsibility and having integrity for the lost life. I did not know this was even an option, like many audience members as well as the podcast host herself.
Another point Doughty makes later in the podcast aligns exactly with my thinking. As a society, we put tons of money into death rituals, including wakes, funerals, and burials. Families make the rituals as elaborate and involved as possible as a way to honor the dead and hold them with the highest regard, even after their passing on. Although it is nice to think of honoring our loved ones, money isn’t necessarily the way to do it. A large portion of the price goes towards the preservation of the body. This process is expensive, and also harmful to the environment. Harsh chemicals are used in order to keep the skin looking taut and the organs preserved so the body looks presentable for the wake. Placing these chemicals into the ground isn’t good for the environment, and adds up overs the years in terms of accumulating hazardous waste in the ground. Weening off these chemicals and aiming towards more natural death rituals, like caskets that decompose, are more natural and therefore healthy for the environment.
JOURNAL 13
Spend 30 mins. writing a reflection on your process for the lifespan of paper 2. Honestly evaluate your efforts over the lifespan of this project.
After going through my essay and color coding my interactions with the different texts, I felt much more aware of how connected I was or was not throughout the paper. Seeing highlighted where and how often I intervene with Pollan and student essays was eye opening for sure. I was able to visually identify my points throughout the essay, where a big point was made, where the “fluffier” parts were, etc. For me, this will probably become a regular part of my writing and revision process moving forward. One major issue I have is overexplaining, or trying to get too many ideas across on my own. This was easy to see because there would be no highlighting for a while. Doing this while revising can help me with concision moving forward.
As far as the process for the lifespan of paper 2 goes, it definitely did not go as smoothly as it did for paper 1. Adding to the well of possible resources is a great thing because it allows for students to make connections from different pieces we have read, having to connect the dots themselves. I saw all of these resources (which there were many counting the favorite meal archives) and immediately was overwhelmed. There were so many directions to go in, I didn’t even know where to begin. I had an idea revolving around the Pollan essay that I wanted to run with, and then I added to it as I found more things to talk about. I think I tried too hard to pack content into the limited pages, which may have made the reader feel like they’re rushing through the ideas. I spent a long time going through student essay and trying to figure out how I wanted to incorporate them into my essay. There was one point in my paper where all of the essays I wanted to use could butt heads and help support the idea. I think I did this, but not enough throughout the paper. I only used the evidence for the one point I wanted to make, and then moved onto a different idea where the support wouldn’t work anymore. In the end, I was able to pull something together, but I think the large pool of resources scared me off, making this paper more difficult to write. The process was about the same for me, but I definitely felt myself struggle more with paper 2 than paper 1.
JOURNAL 14
After reading “What the Crow Knows” by Ross Anderson, what ideas come to your mind? What interested you? What curiosities emerged? What concerns came to mind?
I thought Anderson’s essay was interesting as it offered new ideas to concepts to me. I had never even heard of Jainism before, so it was interesting to learn the fundamentals of this religion. A lot of it made sense to me. At its core, it seems as though the main principle of Jains is to be kind to other living things. We all share this earth, so we as humans should respect the presence of other organisms that inhabit the planet. In that respect, we should avoid acting violently towards them, both against animals as well as other people. I think the principle of not disturbing the living elements of the earth can only be followed to a certain extent, though. It gets to a point where you can’t completely avoid infliction with living organisms. For example, cutting out root vegetables out of diet has much less impact than refusing to eat meat, where an animal must be slaughtered in order to be prepared to eat. The concept has good intentions, but I would find it near impossible to follow through with. Something that interested me was all the talk of animal consciousness, apart from that of human beings. There seems to be a working definition of “consciousness” that scientists base their experiments on to test its presence or absence in living organisms. Personally, I feel that more living organisms are conscious than we are willing to admit. Some animals are obviously more self-aware of their existence than others, but I would argue that all living organisms are conscious to some extent. One fundamental principle of life is that it responds to an external stimulus, or its environment. In this way, all life is conscious. A dog may not recognize itself in the mirror, but it can learn its name. It can learn tricks. It can even learn to serve people, recognizing certain situations and communicating it to their owner. I don’t necessarily think that the mirror test is the ultimate indicator of consciousness. Consciousness takes many forms. I would have liked to read more about the consciousness of birds, particularly crows. I found the introduction about the bird hospital incredibly interesting, and I would like to read more about the visit and what Anderson learned. I feel like he used the bird hospital as a segue to get to the consciousness of animals in general, but I think the introduction could make an interesting essay all on its own.
JOURNAL 15
Identify 3-4 passages from the essay “Animals Like Us” by Hal Herzog and help explain why they are significant to Herzog’s argument.
1. Page 2, paragraph 3
This paragraph brings up an interesting, controversial topic that I was expecting to see at some point in this essay. When we think of our relationship with animals, we most likely think of pets. Branching off the previous paragraph which mentions animal rights, it’s not unusual that the morality of keeping animals as pets is challenged. Some would argue that pets, once they become pets, are not just animals but part of the family. I believe this to be true for my pets. I adopted a dog with my own money, so I feel like I have the fundamental responsibility of taking care of him. However, the responsibility seems natural, not like a chore because I consider him a member of my family. Herzog mentions his friend Jim who released his pet bird after questioning the morality of keeping pets. It wasn’t clear to me whether or not Herzog personally agrees or disagrees with his friend’s ideas, but the concept certainly supports his argument on the complexity of human relationships with other animals.
2. Page 4, paragraph 3
I wouldn’t consider this paragraph a turning point in the essay necessarily, but definitely a challenge of a preexisting notion. This paragraph is Herzog arguing against the rumor about him that he feeds kittens to his pet snake. This is a bold statement to make up and spread to people, to Herzog does his best to unpack the theory. He tries to argue his point from an objective point of view, more scientific and fact-driven than emotional. He explores the logistics of cats vs snakes in terms of how they impact plausible prey organisms. When you think about it, cats are much more cruel animals to own than snakes, going out and killing small animals for game. By the end of the paragraph, I was actually convinced that it is better to have a snake than a cat. Although this paragraph served justice for Herzog supporting his side, it also showed how we perceive relationships with animals as “normal” has preconceived bias that we don’t consider on an every day basis.
3. Page 7, paragraph 1
If there’s one paragraph that takes the cake for driving home Herzog’s point, it’s this one. It doesn’t explicitly say that the relationships between humans and other animals are difficult to understand, but rather it shows the audience the complexity of these relationships. Herzog mentions that he has gone to great lengths to understand as many points of view as possible. This includes animal rights-protests to farm cow slaughtering. He has participated in all sorts of events and rituals to help come to a conclusion. By the fact that he experiences all these things yet still has lots of questions, potentially more than he started with, shows the continuum of tensions in understanding the relationships between humans and other animals.
JOURNAL 16
Re-read David Foster Wallace’s “Consider the Lobster.” Refer back to your original journal entry on CTL and reflect on your ideas for this entry. Has your thinking changed since you last read the essay? What seems more obvious to you now in a second reading? What ideas remain murky or unreachable?
After looking over my first entry on CTL, I would say that overall my ideas have remained the same. While reading the DFW piece for the first time, I felt concern for the lobsters. I felt bad that they were up on display just for people to choose the “best looking one” and have it boiled alive. The way a lobster is prepared seems torturous and inhumane to me, so much so that many people who prepare them can’t even stand to be in the same room while it is cooking. If they feel so bad about cooking the lobster alive, then why do it? This was a question I have contemplated since reading this article. To make a long story short, I have since become a vegetarian. I have been for probably about two-three months now. Shortly after we finished reading and discussing this piece, I found myself disgusted with my own habits. Most days after English class, I headed over to get a sandwich for lunch. Every time it had either turkey or ham. I never thought about it because when they ask, they call it “protein”. Of course I want some kind of protein; you need for a balanced diet. The more I thought about my habits, the worse I thought of myself. Eating meat made me feel like a bad person, but I had been doing it my whole life so I never contemplated it. One day I asked for turkey in my sandwich, and then I never asked for it again. Now when I look at, it disgusts me. I used to be okay with eating it. More, I used to be okay with promoting animal rights and eating burgers at the same time. This hypocritical thinking ate at me, which caused me to change. Since, I have felt so much better about myself. I did my research to ensure that I am getting my dietary needs, and I can be at peace knowing that no animals are harmed in order to fulfill these needs. I’m not preaching that everyone become a vegetarian, but it definitely helped me feel more morally okay with myself. All in all, the DFW piece exposed me to the hypocrisy in my thoughts and actions, which then propelled me to make what I expect to be a permanent lifestyle change.
JOURNAL 17
Read chapter 6 of They Say / I Say: “Skeptics May Object: Planting a Naysayer in Your Text.” Respond to the text.
I think this chapter was an important read for the growth and development of the writing process. Throughout high school, we were always required to include a counterargument in our essays, but we never exactly knew why. More than anything, it was a category in the grading rubric that would be satisfied with one paragraph. Not only did this chapter explain what counterargument is, but it also helped me understand why we use it. More, it showed me where in an essay or other piece of writing you might find counterargument, and where as an author you might include it. First, the prefacing story of Jane Tompkins inferred what counterargument is: any and all opposing ideas to your argument; criticisms of your ideas. Based on what these first few pages outlined to be counterargument, I better understood why we need it in literature. Not everyone will agree with the point you are trying to make; that is given. By addressing points that go against the grain of your own, your argument becomes stronger. Showing the audience that you recognize opposing ideas and can anticipate where they might come in makes the written work much more interesting. It also shows that you are open to listening to all sides of an argument, which in time can strengthen your writing skills. I think the most important takeaway for me was learning that not only is it important to include opposing ideas, but to include them throughout your piece of writing. As mentioned earlier, counterargument was more or less something you could check off as “I did that. I have my paragraph. I’m a good writer now.” It’s obviously much more complicated than that. Instead of limiting all possible criticism to a single paragraph, opposing ideas should be included throughout the argument as they arise. Not only will this strengthen a person’s writing, but it makes more sense. There are many places to poke holes in for nearly any argument. To include these as they appear in your own paper is logical for the reader, but demonstrates that you have thought out not only your opinion, but the opinions of others. By thinking of all sides, we broaden our perspective which can better allow us to understand complex topics.
JOURNAL 18
Look at the last paragraph of page 5 (beginning with “Some of my happiest childhood memories…”) and help explain what is lost by giving up meat for Foer and what is gained for Foer.
For Foer, giving up meat is more than just the food. To Foer, giving up meat is giving up the memories/experiences where that specific food was eaten. When the memory of the food is lost, there is a cultural loss that the person experiences as well. Personally, I would argue against this loss. It seems that the memory that Foer holds close to him isn’t so much the sushi as it is having a lunch date with his mother. By association, sushi became an important memory for him. However, the sushi could have been replaced with any other type of lunch food and, in time, could have similar significance. Since Foer enjoyed eating meat, he felt an obvious loss when it was abruptly cut out of his diet. Through the loss of pleasure in eating those specific foods, he felt loss in experience, memory, and even a cultural loss. Although he recognized the loss in not eating meat, he did recognize that there needs to be a loss in order to gain. In his case, the gain was a stronger grip onto his morals. Foer always felt an extent of guilt for eating meat, yet did it anyways. When he gave up meat permanently, he could better align his actions with his moral beliefs.
2. Review the two paragraphs on page 6 that begin with “While the cultural use of meat can be replaced…” What do you make of the “question” Foer presents? How would you answer that? If you can’t answer the question, what does it suggest about your value system?
Although the cultural use of meat can indeed be replaced, there is definitely a question of pleasure. I definitely agree with Foer. As someone who formerly ate meat, I agree that my palate was more diverse and was much richer before I went vegetarian. I don’t necessarily miss eating meat, but I miss eating more types of foods. You get sick of foods much faster when your options to choose from are few. I also agree with the last sentence of the first paragraph that states that Foer doesn’t like meat “without limit”. This is an important point to me. I don’t eat meat, not because it makes me feel like a better person, but because the conditions we prepare the meat are torturous and immoral, as well as environmentally taxing. Taste – because we were hungry – is not an excuse to treat farm livestock the way we do in the United States. It is interesting that we wouldn’t pass off any other reason for treating animals this way. Consciously thinking of the inhumanity of the human race regarding the livestock industry takes away any pleasure I could possibly get from eating meat. I think that based on my views, I follow through fairly well with my beliefs; my value system is reflected in my actions.
JOURNAL 19
Help illustrate how you’ve gone about your work for project 3 in detail. Explain what your process has been like in terms of time on task, place for writing, resources you’ve availed yourself to, and challenges.
I was really excited about project 3. As we were reading and discussion the final pieces of the semester, I started connecting a few of the dots, starting to see why what we’re talking about right now is in line with our conversation from day 1. I started thinking about how I wanted to compile my ideas before the prompt officially came out, which, to be honest, NEVER happens. Usually I wait to see the prompt and then start freaking out over what to write about. This time around, I was brainstorming as we were reading through the prompt. I was answering questions in my head that I wanted to address in my paper, and starting to think about what articles, I wanted to incorporate into my argument. When we had free time at the end of class that day to start brainstorming, I took a blank sheet of paper and jotting down all my ideas. I had my argument (what would become a working thesis), the major points I wanted to bring up and in what order, and what articles would support those points. I had some debate in deciding which articles those would be, but I’m happy with my decision. After class, I stashed that paper away and didn’t look at it for a few days. On Sunday, I went to the second floor of the commons with that paper and some headphones and just started. I started with the introduction, read it over, fixed it, then kept going. I did that for roughly 4 pages of writing. I let my stream of consciousness go and get my thoughts all out on paper. At this point, all I have to do is tie it all together, conclude it, and then figure out what it all means.
2. Explain how this compares to your process on paper 1 and paper 2.
This time around, I was the most organized with my writing process. I had my ideas all planned out and written down shortly after I read the prompt. The writing process itself was fairly similar, where I designate a day solely for writing. Sundays usually work the best for me because I have the entire day to use. I will make sure that all my other homework and studying gets done on Saturday so by the time I start writing, that is my only focus. Writing is a creative process that doesn’t have a clear endpoint. If I’m in the middle of writing an essay, it’s hard to focus all my energy on it if there’s other assignments on the radar that require only a finite amount of work. That being said, I didn’t write my entire essay in that one day. I kept writing until my brain fizzed out. My eyes would start to hurt looking at the screen and the page I just wrote would look like just a bunch of words. At that point, wherever it be in the essay, I would call it a day and leave it for a few days. I find that if I start to review my work right after I write it, I won’t find as many errors. I know what I meant because I just wrote it. If I give the writing a few days and then look at it again with fresh eyes, I can better start the reviewing process.
JOURNAL 20
Steven Imbrenda project 3 Erica Verville project 3 Galen Arnold project 3
JOURNAL 21
Consider the work you’ve done up to this point on paper 3. Now, consider the workshop you just had and the work you are gearing up for in revision. Continue to revise your paper and then spend 30 minutes or so helping to frame the kind of revision work you did between the draft you workshopped and the paper that actually exists presently. Where did you add/subtract/rethink/rewrite/organize/reorganize?
Since the peer review workshop on Wednesday, I did what I usually do before I look at my paper again to start editing: I wait a few days. I need to “forget” what I wrote about so when I look at the paper again, it’s like I am reading it for the first time and from a more objective perspective. I know this is physically impossible because I know I wrote the paper, giving myself some time between revision periods gives me time to become unfamiliar enough with the exact verbiage of the essay where I may be more likely to catch errors. I did write down what I planned on revising specifically based on the workshop. For me, the specifics were (1) working on transitioning into my next idea more smoothly in a few places, (2) using words that really capture the idea I want to get across/re-evaluating the use of certain words throughout the paper, (3) adding in my personal experience and opinion into the paper so the audience can see where I stand and (4) avoid repeating my ideas in a few places. Once I did these things, I thought about what I thought I still needed to do, and had two major concerns. (1) Proofread, and a lot of it. I hate when there’s any sort of technical error in my paper because, for the most part, they are easy to avoid. Taking a few extra minutes to read though your work can make a huge difference in how carefully written it comes across to the reader. (2) I needed to finish my conclusion. I had a few sentences, but it wasn’t all that compelling. I needed to bring back the authors whose works I used in my essay as supporting evidence, and give a little description on each author in terms of what they said influenced what I had to say. Lastly, I had to give the big “so what” of the paper. What’s the point? Why should anyone waste their time to read about what I had to say? What does my two cents offer to the rest of the world? This part is always high-pressure for me, because I want to feel like the work I did was meaningful. At the end of the day I come up with something and pray that it did the prompt justice. I still have work to do in these last few days, but I feel I have made great strides in the reviewing process.
