Here We Go Again

Ok, so i'm gonna be completely honest and say that these articles put me to sleep...and it was hard for me to get anything out of them. But here is what i did come up with...
First of all, this whole conversation about change from "old-fashioned" reading and writing to digital reading and writing is really interesting. but i never thought about how the "old-fashioned" way was once the new way. when people first started writing, people were scared that they would lose their use of memory just like we (or I) am scared that with all the digital reading and writing we will lose the luxuries of real books and actual letter writing. but at some point it is likely that we will all be so conformed to the new way of doing things that we will not even notice what has faded out and what has taken its place. Even the pencil has gone through many upgrades...which i thought was kind of funny. Thoreau seemed to be so intent on keeping things the way they were that he began making his own pencils, but even he would have had to face reality and go with the flow considering one of the articles said it would cost someone like fifty dollars or something per pencil if they were to take that up as a hobby. So are we, meaning the ones that do not want the change that seems so inevitable, going to have to conform eventually, whether we want to or not?

Words vs Pictures

This week's reading was a lot more enjoyable than i expected. I did like McCloud a lot and i like the idea of using pictures and words to work together. Maybe it is because this piece was actually dealing with comics, but i felt this was a thousand times easier to understand the way he had written it than if someone wrote it in the normal essay form. Like i said, it may be because he was actually dealing with the idea of comics, words, and pictures...but part of me wishes that Grant-Davie and all the other people we have read this semester could write exactly the way McCloud does. Its enjoyable and easier to understand. Now i am not saying i understood everything. Chapter 2 was a little fuzzy for me...i'm not real sure i grasp what he is saying about us being able to relate easier to cartoons. That theory may need to be explained a little more.
I did find how much thought goes into the comics intriguing. And not even intentional thought. I think some people just draw the way they want to draw and then others see something special and different in it. Like the way McCloud was describing how the style of comics came about. Did the people think "I'm going to do something entirely new and get rid of the 'word box' and put the words right in with the pictures." Or did they just do it because thats the way they saw it in their minds without even questioning the "newness" of it. Or like how different people did different things to portray movement. I just found it all very interesting. I also think that whoever analyzes this stuff really puts a lot of thought into it...like McCloud.
I also found the Thompson article to be interesting, especially the part about how he was able to explain Obama's plan to everyone better in picture form. I never saw myself as a really visual learner, but now i am starting to think that most of us just might have an inclination to visual learning. And i think we should take advantage of it more.

All About Reading

These three articles, "Hyper-Readers" by Sosnoski, "Reading the Visual in College Writing Classes" by Hill, and "We Can't Teach Students to Love Reading" by Jacobs, I actually found pretty interesting.

Right away Sosnoski's article caught my eye because I am one of those readers who hate to read on the computer. I will print the article out that I am supposed to read for a class no matter how long it is. I will never buy a Nook or a Kindle because I like the idea of having an actual book. But I do agree with Sosnoski that there are a lot of advantages to reading on the computer, like what seemed to be his main emphasis, search engines. I found it kind of funny that this article was obviously written a few years ago because the author said one day he is sure that there will be some sort of handheld computer that will be like a book. That was kind of funny. I find it really interesting though how even back then, when it was still dial up interent, that people were predicting that soon texts will all be digital...and look at us now? We are getting closer and closer to that happening...unfortunately.

What I found interesting about Hill's article was how much emphasis our culture really does put into images and what all you can actually do with images. One can make so many assumptions just by looking at a picture. Or even make assumptions of what a article or essay is about by the style of font that the title is written in. I also found it interesting that two people can make different assumptions by seeing one image. Its just crazy how pictures really are worth a thousand words and how much meaning they have to us. Even as people not studying rhetoric. They use images in ads that get the message they want across to all sorts of people.

The Jacobs article is the one I liked the least. My only real comment on this article is why are they even questioning the idea of not being able to teach people to love to read. There are plenty of hobbies that some people are very passionate about while others do not understand the craze. I feel like reading is a lot like math. My boyfriend loves math and does not understand my love of reading. I love reading and do not understand his love of math. You cannot teach people to love something that they don't. I think hobbies are kind of engrained in people. If you like something, you like it. If you don't, you don't. I just don't understand why they think reading is different than any other hobby out there.

My Insights on Rhetoric

So, from the two readings that we were assigned ("What is Rhetoric?" and "Rhetorical Situations and Their Constituents") I definitely found "What is Rhetoric" to be helpful. It helped me at least define what rhetoric was in a way that I myself can understand it. It is persuading someone. Whether it be in an unimportant argument with a friend, or a presentation on why your organization needs more funding, or in a paper in which you present your thesis. In all of these, you want your audience to at least believe that you may be on to something. You don't want them to just discount what you are saying as nonsense and for this, rhetoric comes in handy. What i found most helpful and interesting is the style that rhetoric can take. I never thought that simply emphasizing a point by raising your voice or italicizing a certain point in a paper can be a style of rhetoric. This actually helped me understand things a lot. As soon as i read this part, something just clicked...i had an aha moment.
Honestly, the essay "Rhetorical Situations and Their Constituents" was hard for me to follow and I didn't get much out of it. I did have the question as to why the author of this paper actually was the first to come up with the rhetor being one of the constituents. To me, it seems kind of obvious that the rhetor would be and that he could be considered as audience as well. Maybe that is why others never really regarded the rhetor in this way? Because they just put him in the category of audience? Or is there something that I am not quite understanding in which they had every reason to discount the rhetor as one of the constituents in a rhetorical situation?