Create a moment where Joseph Williams and William Zinsser meet at a bar
to have a few beverages. Zinsser has just finished reading "The
Phenomenology of Error" and wants to discuss some aspects of the text
with Joseph Williams. Create a dialogue between these two men where they
have a disagreement about grammar. What points do they disagree on? Is
there any common ground?
___________________________________________________
Considering
Carr's argument "Is Google Making us Stupid?" and deliver a brief
rhetorical analysis of this piece. Focus on Grant-Davie's constituents
of rhetoric to help you.
This week's posting is due no later than Sunday, February 3rd before 11:59pm
William Zinsser: Hello Mr. Williams. I just got done reading your article "The Phenomenology of Error". Though I do agree with you content is important, I believe that grammar is far more important. You can not just ignore errors in writing and just focus on the content even though you get their point. If there are errors in writing then they need to be fixed and pointed out to the students.
ReplyDeleteJoesph Williams: I strongly disagree with you. Who cares about simple grammatical errors as long as you are able to understand the content and the point the writer is trying to get across. Errors can easily be unnoticed so why shouldn't the errors we notice be overlooked too.
William Zinsser: Well Mr. Williams I will never agree with you on that. Errors are horrible and they cannot just be ignored. So I'm just going to leave now. Bye.
In Nicholas Carr's article "Is Google Making Us Stupid?" Carr talks about how the internet is changing the way we think and how we process information basically he is saying its making us stupid. The rhetor would be Nicholas Carr. The audience for this article I think is people who use the internet a lot but grew up without it, so they changed the way their mind reads and thinks. The constraints Carr had to overcome is what the readers would think of his article. For example would they believe or agree with him or not. The exigence would be that he thought the internet was hurting the way we process information and read which was making us stupid.
William: Hey Joseph how about another drink?
ReplyDeleteJoseph: Sure. So what did you think about my writing on “The Phenomenology of Error”?
William: Well I believe you had some good points that it is good for people to understand the reading, but I don’t believe that they should ignore the errors in the text. I think that people become better writers by learning from their mistakes and need the feedback from other people to make them stronger writers.
Joseph: Well I think you have a good point but isn’t it more about getting people to read what you are trying to teach or talk about in the first place not just the errors?
William: Yes I want people to read my writing, but I want it to be in the correct way it should have been written.
Joseph: Well at least we agree on one thing. How about that drink?
In Grant-Davie’s “Is Google Making us Stupid” Nicholas Carr talks about how the internet is making people learn a different way. I see Carr as the rhetor of the article. His audience is basically anyone that uses the internet. I would say his exigence of the article would be that people are not truly learning from using the internet. They are just searching for the information needed to get to where they need to go next. A constraint for the story could be while people read it a pop up comes along and they get drawn away from reading it. Also some people could believe that this is the new way of learning and do not want to reflect on the old ways there for ignore his story.
Chet Rosenfeld
ReplyDeletePart 1
William Zinsser: “Thank you for meeting me here, Mr. Williams. I just have a few things I would l like to discuss with you.”
Joseph Williams: “I understand you have just finished my essay, ‘The Phenomenology of Error.’” “Did you enjoy it?”
William Zinsser: “It was quite entertaining.” “How could you say that errors are not important?” “Writers have a responsibility to write well and that includes saying what needs to be said with no mistakes.”
Joseph Williams: “I agree that we have a responsibility, but I think that you put way too much emphasis on things that a reader is just not going to notice and that it by no means, detracts from the topic.” “I’m curious, how many errors did you find on your first reading?”
William Zinsser: “I think your experiment is a travesty.” “If readers and writers start becoming lazy in their error-checking, we will eventually have no standards left to defend.” “As for how many mistakes I found, around 45.”
Joseph Williams: “Well, Sir, you have proven my point. There were around 100 errors that I intentionally made while writing that essay.”
William Zinsser: “Mr. Williams, I will say good-bye. I don’t think that we will ever agree on this topic, no matter how many errors you willingly made.”
Part 2
The exigence is that we are no longer thinking the way we used to, our brains are being changed by the internet. Google is mapping our habits and our brains are responding. The rhetor is a writer who has experienced the changes firsthand. He no longer is able to read a book or stay focused for long periods of time. The audience is the internet. This article is published for the world to utilize. The constraint is that his article may be too long for the average internet-searcher to stay focused long enough to finish it. His argument is that people can’t stay focused longer than a few paragraphs because they are instantly looking for something else and so they skim. I noticed as I was reading the article and other readings in our class that I often feel the same way. My mind is thinking of other things and I constantly have to consciously bring my attention back to what I am reading. But having this much knowledge at our fingertips brings endless possibilities.
Chet Rosenfeld
ReplyDeletePart 1
William Zinsser: “Thank you for meeting me here, Mr. Williams. I just have a few things I would l like to discuss with you.”
Joseph Williams: “I understand you have just finished my essay, ‘The Phenomenology of Error.’” “Did you enjoy it?”
William Zinsser: “It was quite entertaining.” “How could you say that errors are not important?” “Writers have a responsibility to write well and that includes saying what needs to be said with no mistakes.”
Joseph Williams: “I agree that we have a responsibility, but I think that you put way too much emphasis on things that a reader is just not going to notice and that it by no means, detracts from the topic.” “I’m curious, how many errors did you find on your first reading?”
William Zinsser: “I think your experiment is a travesty.” “If readers and writers start becoming lazy in their error-checking, we will eventually have no standards left to defend.” “As for how many mistakes I found, around 45.”
Joseph Williams: “Well, Sir, you have proven my point. There were around 100 errors that I intentionally made while writing that essay.”
William Zinsser: “Mr. Williams, I will say good-bye. I don’t think that we will ever agree on this topic, no matter how many errors you willingly made.”
Part 2
The exigence is that we are no longer thinking the way we used to, our brains are being changed by the internet. Google is mapping our habits and our brains are responding. The rhetor is a writer who has experienced the changes firsthand. He no longer is able to read a book or stay focused for long periods of time. The audience is the internet. This article is published for the world to utilize. The constraint is that his article may be too long for the average internet-searcher to stay focused long enough to finish it. His argument is that people can’t stay focused longer than a few paragraphs because they are instantly looking for something else and so they skim. I noticed as I was reading the article and other readings in our class that I often feel the same way. My mind is thinking of other things and I constantly have to consciously bring my attention back to what I am reading. But having this much knowledge at our fingertips brings endless possibilities.
Andre Grace
ReplyDeleteJoseph:"Hello Mr.Zinssser glad we could meet. I am very interested to know what you thought about my book Phenomenology of Error.
William: Yes I am glad to meet you too. I have just finished reading your book and have a few opinions of my own about your thoughts.
Joseph: Well good go ahead I am listen
William: I believe your sentiment is based on an emotional since of literature.
Joseph: How so?
William: Well I mean you seem to have a good understanding of or literary rules but you give a great deal of weight to emotions and reader comprehension to the validity of an grammatical error. I mean I know there is a human element to literature that works with our literary rules but I believe the rules are law and when it is broken it should be without question be deemed as such.
Joseph: Mr. Zinsser I do agree however as I stated I believe there are different levels of errors and they depend on context and Pathos of the situation.
William: Well we would have to agree to disagree. I believe there to be one law for all writer,reader,and editor and when it is broken no matter the effect it is wrong and should be noted and corrected. I would be scared of us going into a literary chaos without this understanding
Joseph: Well what some call chaos others could view as enlightenment on ways to close the gap of of human comprehension and writing. Its been great though hope to maybe one day write an article with you debating this issue in more detail.
Part 2
I do agree with Carr's article. Having access to more information via google and others has its positives but definately there is a affect on our minds way of processing. We do tend to skim over information alot more. I have noticed alot more of highlighting being done in newspapers and magazines to keep our attention. Our concentration levels have dropped as well as we are constantly bombarded with info. If the subject doesn't catch us immediately it off to the next thought. So maybe the amount of information is more but the depth by wich we go into it maybe less. I will argue that the opposite is true too. When I really interested in a topic google allows me quick access to links about it and I can study all of the information given in as much dept as my interest justifies.In other words I believe we search faster and look for more catchy things to grab our interests but when we find it our minds tend to determine how much we decide to go into it not google....
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletePart 1
ReplyDeleteWilliam Zinsser: Thank you for meeting me on such short notice, uh, what are you having?
Joseph M. Williams: I’ll have a Newcastle, what seems to be the problem, your message seemed to indicate some urgency?
William Zinsser: How nice to see we at least agree on one thing, the finer points of great beer selection, but I called you here for a much more important issue, namely your article entitled “The Phenomenology of Error”....I mean, I’m trying to save you some embarrassment!
Joseph M. Williams: I’m not sure if I follow your point, what seems to be the problem?
William Zinsser: Did you really think you could have such an atrocity published in it’s current state? (Mr. Zinsser’s face is now red, obviously bothered by Mr. Williams paper.)
Joseph M. Williams: Are you saying you read the paper in it’s entirety?
William Zinsser: Well, yes but...
Joseph M. Williams: Did my paper prove an important point regarding error and it’s interpretation of error in writing, even by the very handbooks created to aid instructors on how to spot errors? Take for instance A Dictionary of Modern English Usage, Oxford, 1957, where Fowler violates his own rule of usage in the very definition of usage error?
William Zinsser: (Mr. Zinsser pauses and chuckles for a moment) Yes, but....
Joseph M. Williams: Did the paper do a sufficient job of pointing out the fact that in today’s schools, instructors often find themselves so caught up in finding grammatical, spelling, and punctuation errors that they often ignore the content of the piece itself and maybe even the creativity of the writer?
William Zinsser: Perhaps, BUT, in your closing statements you admit to making 100 errors in the paper yourself!
Joseph M. Williams: This is true, but had I not pointed them out, how many of those errors would you have caught without the prompt and did the errors take away from the content and arguments my paper established?
William Zinsser: You got me there! (Mr. Zinsser takes a deep swig of his beer as he considers the argument of Mr. Williams) I think we can agree then, that instructors should consider the writer’s knowledge of the content of his work, while trying to offer instruction on how better to present his ideas. I must argue that good grammar and spelling are critical for the up and coming writer.
Joseph M. Williams: (Mr. Williams looks up from his bottle and cracks a smile.) Let’s drink a toast to instructors doing more instructing rather than merely chastising the very students we try so hard to mold.
William Zinsser: Here, here!
Joseph M. Williams: One more thing, it is clear that grammatical errors, no matter how big or small seem to affect you in a negative way, but why not save words like “atrocity” when describing the horrors of war? (Mr. Williams’ smile broadens, Mr. Zinsser returns the smile as their bottles clink.)
Part 2
This article was written for the everyday reader, giving him food for thought. In the article, the rhetor, Nicholas Carr points out how the internet and our electronic devices have made us a generation that no longer need to think or memorize things as in the past. The exigence is clear, we have become a society of “fast food” learners and readers, treating knowledge much as we do our lunch or the quickie breakfast sandwich we grab in the
hustle of getting to work and school on time. Our lives are ruled by the clock and lack of time to accomplish all that we set out for the day. Having the internet at our disposal is a helpful tool that is used by people of all ages. I’m not sure sure what we would do without it. Mr. Carr makes reference to the future and what that future will hold for the generation of children being raised in this technological, data flooded environment. He also contemplates the future of those of us who will spend most of our time just trying to keep up.