Here is some advice for students thinking of taking this class next year.
Some tips for taking this class next year:
· Be on time. There were always a few people that were late to class that would interrupt the flow. I must admit that I have done this a few times as well, but do not make it a habit. And if you must be late for some reason or another, be polite by being quiet because the class does start AT 10:00.
· Be willing to work hard and learn. This class is fun but it is very writing intensive, hence the name WRIT. In this class there is a lot of focus on your individual style of writing, so also be able and willing to critique your own writing and be able to do it as objectively as possible. The major papers that you do write are crucial to your grade. Therefore, do not put it off.
· Engage yourself in the in-class discussions. Do not be afraid to speak up and voice your opinions. The class discussions can be very helpful and very informational. In our class this year there were usually a select few that spoke up and kind of controlled where the argument went. This was not the best situation for a healthy debate, because we did not always get to see all side of an argument or have them defended.If you think you are the person that would fit these few points, then you will succeed in the class. This is a great class to take if you are an opinionated person. It is also a class that will improve your writing, even if it is in the slightest bit.
Monday, March 10, 2008
Wednesday, February 6, 2008
caucus
As of 11:00 p.m. on Tuesday night, Barack Obama had won over 66% of the vote in Colorado. this is in no way surprising to me because it in some ways represents the consensus here at DU. Throughout the entire school year I have seen so many groups supporting and representing at first the democrats here on campus and recently it has become support for Barack Obama. There are signs everywhere around campus with pictures of Barack saying “I want you to caucus!” as well as people going around talking about him and why they support him. On the flip side, I have not seen one support group on campus for Hillary Clinton. I find this interesting because I do know that there is a large population of latinos here in Colorado and I thought that this would play a bigger role and give Hillary more support. The reason that I thought this was because I have been hearing a lot lately that Hillary has the latino vote because that is one of the demographics that she has been focusing on in her campaign. To go along with that idea, there has been a lot of talk about the stereotype that latinos do not get along with African Americans. I read this in a couple of places online while researching the debates.
Another reason that Barack’s victory here did not surprise me was because I saw both of the candidate’s campaigns here at DU. At Barack’s campaign there were nearly twenty thousand people there to support him and the lines were extremely long. However, at Clinton’s campaign there were only about three to four thousand people there. Judging by this statistic and making DU the sample for all of Colorado democrats, one would not be surprised by Obama’s victory.
Another reason that Barack’s victory here did not surprise me was because I saw both of the candidate’s campaigns here at DU. At Barack’s campaign there were nearly twenty thousand people there to support him and the lines were extremely long. However, at Clinton’s campaign there were only about three to four thousand people there. Judging by this statistic and making DU the sample for all of Colorado democrats, one would not be surprised by Obama’s victory.
Sunday, February 3, 2008
speeches
On Wednesday, January 30th Barack Obama came to speak at the University of Denver. His speech was very exciting and rallied almost 20,000 supporters together to be there for the democrats. In his speech he used a very effective appeal to pathos to rile up the fans and supports. Then, on the same evening William Jefferson Clinton came to Magness Arena to speak on behalf of Hillary Clinton. Mr. Clinton did not draw as large of a crowd as Obama, but definitely did give a very informative and logical speech about Hillary’s views. His appeal to ethos and logos was also effective. The real question at hand is whose style works better. In the case of these two speeches, Bill Clinton’s appeal to ethos and logos is what was most effective in creating support for Hillary’s campaign.
In Obama’s speech, he had amazing charisma. When he would speak, it was like his audience was able to completely connect with him. He was extremely able to build bridges between himself and the audience. For example, when he began to talk about his run for presidency and how he was going to not only change the United States, but change the world as well. When he would say these things, he would say it in a way that made the listener feel extremely optimistic and hopeful. He is a very believable candidate as well as seemingly trustworthy. Also, he had a way of bringing out the enthusiasm in people. He was incredibly good at evoking the emotions of the audience. The downfall of his stump speech was the fact that he never went into great detail about any one subject. He talked about every major issue, but never went into great detail of his policies on the issues.
Bill Clinton’s speech was not as full of enthusiasm and energy as Obama’s, however, he gave much more credibility to Hillary. His speech was filled with information pertaining to Hillary’s experience and past accomplishments. He talked about how Hillary has been making change since Bill was a governor in Arkansas almost twenty years ago. His constant references to his wife’s persona and credibility gave it a very authentic feel. When Bill spoke about Mrs. Clinton’s policies and why they would be good and effective, he gave good arguments and claims to support them. His use of ethos and logos enormously helped his case in defending Hillary’s campaign.
Whose style is better? Ultimately, that is up to the listener. In my case, I believe that Bill Clinton’s appeal to ethos and logos was much better. I feel this way because I appreciated the more logical reasoning and explanation of Hillary’s policies as well as the more in depth look at her beliefs. However, if I were to poll the entire audience that went to both speeches, I think that Obama would have more support just because he was able to draw more attention and create more energy than Clinton.
In Obama’s speech, he had amazing charisma. When he would speak, it was like his audience was able to completely connect with him. He was extremely able to build bridges between himself and the audience. For example, when he began to talk about his run for presidency and how he was going to not only change the United States, but change the world as well. When he would say these things, he would say it in a way that made the listener feel extremely optimistic and hopeful. He is a very believable candidate as well as seemingly trustworthy. Also, he had a way of bringing out the enthusiasm in people. He was incredibly good at evoking the emotions of the audience. The downfall of his stump speech was the fact that he never went into great detail about any one subject. He talked about every major issue, but never went into great detail of his policies on the issues.
Bill Clinton’s speech was not as full of enthusiasm and energy as Obama’s, however, he gave much more credibility to Hillary. His speech was filled with information pertaining to Hillary’s experience and past accomplishments. He talked about how Hillary has been making change since Bill was a governor in Arkansas almost twenty years ago. His constant references to his wife’s persona and credibility gave it a very authentic feel. When Bill spoke about Mrs. Clinton’s policies and why they would be good and effective, he gave good arguments and claims to support them. His use of ethos and logos enormously helped his case in defending Hillary’s campaign.
Whose style is better? Ultimately, that is up to the listener. In my case, I believe that Bill Clinton’s appeal to ethos and logos was much better. I feel this way because I appreciated the more logical reasoning and explanation of Hillary’s policies as well as the more in depth look at her beliefs. However, if I were to poll the entire audience that went to both speeches, I think that Obama would have more support just because he was able to draw more attention and create more energy than Clinton.
Friday, January 25, 2008
pathos
Evoke emotions in readers to feel a certain way about a topic
Build bridges between writer and reader
Sustain or intensify an argument
Humor can distract, disarm, or sweeten an argument
Emotional Fallacies
Scare tactics
Either or
Slippery slope
Sentimental appeals
Bandwagon appeals
The entire concept of pathos and how it affects me is really interesting. Before discussing pathos in class I had never really thought about how it affected my reading and how I percieved what I was reading. For instance when going back and looking at one of my old favorite books called In the Time of the Butterflies, I now see how she used things like imagery and humor to make me or any reader more able to relate to her story.
Also, now that we have discussed what pathos is and how it can affect the reader and their reaction to the writing, I find that everything that I read now I begin to analyze how it is affecting me. I think about whether it brings out positive emotions or negative emotions, and how they were brought out. Usually, I find that if I am having a positive reaction to a certain piece, that it is usualy because I have found some relation to it. It is either a relation of experiences, views, or emotions, but it always brings out some positive emotion because in my mind, I am able to find one more connection between me and someone else. On the other hand, if I find myself put off it is usually because the author/writer has burned some bridge that I thought was there. This usually happens when there is a statement made that I disagree with. I think that pathos is one of the things that I look at when determining whether or not someone is a good reader.
Build bridges between writer and reader
Sustain or intensify an argument
Humor can distract, disarm, or sweeten an argument
Emotional Fallacies
Scare tactics
Either or
Slippery slope
Sentimental appeals
Bandwagon appeals
The entire concept of pathos and how it affects me is really interesting. Before discussing pathos in class I had never really thought about how it affected my reading and how I percieved what I was reading. For instance when going back and looking at one of my old favorite books called In the Time of the Butterflies, I now see how she used things like imagery and humor to make me or any reader more able to relate to her story.
Also, now that we have discussed what pathos is and how it can affect the reader and their reaction to the writing, I find that everything that I read now I begin to analyze how it is affecting me. I think about whether it brings out positive emotions or negative emotions, and how they were brought out. Usually, I find that if I am having a positive reaction to a certain piece, that it is usualy because I have found some relation to it. It is either a relation of experiences, views, or emotions, but it always brings out some positive emotion because in my mind, I am able to find one more connection between me and someone else. On the other hand, if I find myself put off it is usually because the author/writer has burned some bridge that I thought was there. This usually happens when there is a statement made that I disagree with. I think that pathos is one of the things that I look at when determining whether or not someone is a good reader.
Tuesday, January 8, 2008
Thoughts on Allison and her style
Allison tells her story in a very unique way to me. The way she tells her story is all through what seems to be memories of her past and the life that she has lived. This book, in many ways, is similar to an autobiography. She is talking about her life and how her family has struggled. However, this book is much more story like. For one, she states out right that she is a story teller and that she sometimes fabricates her stories for the purpose of making it more interesting for her audience. I feel as this make the book much more interesting because of the fact that it keeps the reader thinking all the way through the book. This is because she states at one point in the book that she can tell you anything. “All you have to believe is the truth. I think this was a good tactic in writing the book because I am always questioning her accounts of things that have happened and whether or not they are completely true.
She also uses pictures to tell her story which I also think is a good tactic. I think this because it makes the entire story more real, because it now not only uses her descriptive writing for your imagination, but it now adds pictures to make the story more real.I guess the most striking moments in her book are when she is describing her family members. For instance when she is talking about the men in her family and how they all have this sort of stoic look. While she is talking about this, she strategically places two pictures in these pages. These pictures directly relate to what she is describing and play a huge part in getting her point across to the reader. This also happens when she is describing the women in her family. She adds in a picture of the women in her family and it shows their hard, worn down, not-so-beautiful faces. It is very helpful to me when she does this and it seems to make the words that she writes much more meaningful.
She also uses pictures to tell her story which I also think is a good tactic. I think this because it makes the entire story more real, because it now not only uses her descriptive writing for your imagination, but it now adds pictures to make the story more real.I guess the most striking moments in her book are when she is describing her family members. For instance when she is talking about the men in her family and how they all have this sort of stoic look. While she is talking about this, she strategically places two pictures in these pages. These pictures directly relate to what she is describing and play a huge part in getting her point across to the reader. This also happens when she is describing the women in her family. She adds in a picture of the women in her family and it shows their hard, worn down, not-so-beautiful faces. It is very helpful to me when she does this and it seems to make the words that she writes much more meaningful.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
