Here is the link: https://wangmotenzing.wixsite.com/metadiscourse

Now, on to the final! Yaaasss

Oh wow, here we are! It is our last blog and I never thought this day would come, mostly because I’m bad at planning, but either way, we are here! I’ll admit, I’m a bit of a sentimental person so I’m probably making more out of this than is necessary, but I feel like we’re coming to a breakthrough. I don’t know, it feels like all of a sudden, I’ve learned everything I needed to from this class and I feel like all that knowledge that I’ve gained over the past three and a half months is swimming inside my head like a halo right now. Hmm, okay, sentimental part over. Let’s get into Thompson: (wow, that was a whole 100 words!)

So I like the idea of digital tools making us smarter even when we’re not actively using them. Most of the information that I’ve come across on technology is that it’s making us dumber and more arrogant, and I just don’t think that’s accurate. I mean there is a huge caveat which is that if used in unhealthy ways, then anything and everything can be harmful. So in this post, I’m stating that when used in an efficient and a healthy way, technology can be extremely helpful in our day to day lives. One example that directly correlates to me is that I’m currently learning German, mostly through books and the internet. The best way to learn a new language is to have a another person teach you, face to face, but not very many of us have that luxury or the money to do that, so we gotta stick to the options we do have.

Anyway, I watch instructional videos on the internet, take notes, create flashcards on quizlet, and then study them. That is the gist of my foreign language learning process. It’s going well so far, but only because of the ease of access the internet has given me. Thompson is right in stating that when humans work side by side with technology, the result is far greater than when humans work against technology. I don’t think it’s about who is more superior, it’s about how we can use machines to enhance our lives and still have the things that we like. Kind of like having our cake and eating it too! With that, computers can make us more advanced in our own human excellence, if used correctly, as Thompson says.

One other topic that I found fascinating was how our ability to remember something is dependent on the context in which we’re trying to do so and if we have the right cues around us. Thompson talks about locations being one of the best cues to get us to remember things. For me, it’s sounds. When songs that I used to listen to when I was a pre-teen and a teenager plays, I can vividly remember middle school and high school days. It’s like I’m inadvertently taken back to a time when I didn’t know myself or anyone around me. Memory is such a powerful tool and to be honest, I don’t think we need to remember everything that ever happened to us. I understand lifeloggers, but that sounds a little tedious to have millions and millions of pictures of us doing ordinary things–I think I’ll be okay with a couple thousand. I mean, there are some embarrassing things that I’d rather not remember for the rest of my life, and in some cases, it’s okay for memories to dissolve and lose their place in our minds—at least the humiliating ones. I could live without those.

Anddddd there goes the end of my very last post in this class! Well folks, I really want a Twisted Tea right now—it’s been a long Monday. Anyway, thank you to my blogging group, yall were great and we had some great blog conversations! Also Kelsey, I really enjoyed your weekly red updates, they were interesting! I hope everyone has a great last two weeks of the semester!!! Peace out! 🙂

Hi Doug, I decided to attach a word doc instead so hopefully there will be less endless scrolling!

Tables and pie charts to come–hopefully pretty ones!

Metadiscourse refers to the idea of how writers talk about the thing they’re talking about. It is discourse about discourse and it looks at the ways writers integrate themselves into their works to show their intentions with the research. It examines how the discourse already out there is organized and how it tries to “engage the audience and signal the writer’s attitude” (Ken Hyland, 1998).

Metadiscourse functions as a way of conveying writers’ personalities and their understanding of the text they are working with. In the end, it facilitates communication and thus tries to build and maintain a relationship with the audience. “Metadiscourse is not an independent stylistic device which authors can vary at will. It is integral to the contexts in which it occurs and is intimately linked to the norms and expectations of particular cultural and professional communities” (Ken Hyland, 1998). It is contingent on the discipline the author is writing in. A lot of persuasive features are at work in convincing an audience. They include linguistic choices and while metadiscourse is a rhetorical activity, how it is used between communities vary because its meaning are relevant to specific rhetorical situations (Ken Hyland, 1998).

Hyland’s research looks at four academic disciplines: Microbiology, Marketing, Astrophysics and Applied Linguistics, to see how metadiscourse is used in each discipline. He found that writers need to create a space so that readers can understand the discourse community they are reading about. Doing that involves organizing the data presented in such a way that readers will understand what is already known and what is yet to be figured out. His research concluded that each discipline had a preferred method of metadiscourse use. There are two main categories of metadiscourse: textual and interpersonal. The former refers to the “devices which allow the recovery of the writer’s intentions by explicitly establishing preferred interpretations of propositional meanings.” 442. It helps readers interpret links between ideas whereas with interpersonal metadiscourse, “it refers to the tenor of the discourse, concerned with controlling the level of personality in a text” 443.

I feel like the bottom line of this book is that we are all pawns. We are the products being sold as Pariser says and for big corporations, our personal information is the most precious aspect of us. We have a relationship with organizations like Facebook and Google. These mega corporations give us something that will distract or entertain us and in return, they take our information and make money off it. Things are different than they used to be in that now, it is unclear whether companies cater to our needs or we cater to theirs. Do they need us more than we need them? In this relationship between humans and corporations, we exchange our data for their services. Everything is more convenient because we are giving something up to achieve that convenience. We talked about this in class, but does that make us prostitutes? Or does that make these companies prostitutes? They are selling their services to us and we are selling our data to them so it’s sort of an exchange.

I find it interesting to think about the relationship between us and them and who’s doing the giving and who’s doing the taking. Or is it both sides doing a little bit of both? Can we live in a world where we longer need any of the services that these companies provide for us? And would sites like Facebook and Google survive without its users? I don’t know the answer to those question, but it leads to me to think about all the ways in which our lives could change, for the better and the worse, without the personalized web. Personalization sounds like a luxury, but how inherently are our livelihoods hinged on it for our survival? Has it become so intertwined with our lives that we cannot live without it anymore? To a certain extent, we allowed these sites into our filter bubbles. I know I didn’t protest much when I signed up for all the popular social networking sites over the years and practically gave them my information on a silver platter. From Tumblr to Youtube, I willingly use these sites pretty much everyday—except Pinterest though, I never got into it ha. Anyway, this article I’ve attached talks about the idea that 75% of people are okay handing over their personal data to companies. Many also said that data exchange is actually an important and integral part of keeping society running smoothly and efficitently. Hmmmm, very interesting.
https://medium.com/@AxelUnlimited/how-concerned-are-consumers-really-when-it-comes-to-data-privacy-21c4587ddc5c

Another part I want to focus on is the a quote that stuck out to me from Pariser which says “how news is conveyed profoundly shapes what is conveyed” (55). We all try our best to not show our biases, but Pariser seems to imply that nothing we do is ever unbiased. Our filter bubbles make it harder and harder to be unbiased and that makes sense to me. I’m a creature of habit and I think big corporations know that and sort of abuse it to make money. Once we settle on a site on where to get out news, we often stick to that site for a long time so in a way, our reliance on what is familiar is then beneficial for them. And we are sort of stuck, in a way. We all have the power to say no to these services provided, but abandoning would make life a lot harder to get through and even a little boring.

This was a very interesting article because when I think of reading, I think any and all genres. I didn’t know that there was a separation between reading literary genres and non-literary genres. I don’t agree with Bauerlein’s idea that online discourse is everything but informational. I read a lot digitally, whether that be blogs, funny tweets, or youtube comments. And I find a lot of them deeply engaging and educational. An instagram page I follow and keep up with, The Artidote, is one of the best examples of digital reading work my thinking skills. This page uses art to help people heal from depression and other mental health issues. It allows people to connect with others and I relate to their posts a lot. Here is an example of one:

View this post on Instagram

Temporary;⁣⁣⁣ ⁣⁣⁣ I have never heard⁣⁣⁣ such a word that made⁣⁣⁣ me feel both ⁣⁣⁣ terrified and⁣⁣⁣ relieved.⁣⁣⁣ —Mandeq Ahmed, Both⁣⁣ ⁣⁣#ToBeVulnerablyHonest⁣ ⁣ artwork by ⁣⁣⁣ juheekim-blog-blog.tumblr.com

A post shared by the artidote (@theartidote) on Mar 18, 2019 at 12:11pm PDT

I think it’s pretty inspirational. Bauerlein’s perception of digital reading is very narrow—I know for a fact that some Facebook posts are extremely engaging.

One thing that I did notice is that everyone thinks English majors only read the classics—the kind of books that are always assigned in high school english classes. And that idea also extends to everyone else, because when they read, it’s only the popular stuff, like Haruki Murakami, Amy Tan, Frank Herbert, or Sophie Kinsella. English majors are always in the corner reading Toni Morrison or Agatha Christie. I find this stereotype so funny, because it’s like we can’t read anything but famous literature. I like Murakami too!

The thing that English majors have a lot of experience doing is close reading. I don’t think my reading level is where it could be it, but I get by. Close reading is great and all, but it takes much longer to get through a book. Regular reading is just more interesting to some. Some people just want to read to experience a story, to be immersed in a new world, and maybe that’s where “reading for fun” came from. Many people read romance novels for fun and others read mysteries. All in all, “reading for fun” just says that the books that we are assigned in school aren’t “fun.” We go through them just so we can say we read them and then we’re done with them. Close reading is fun if a book is immensely interesting, but it’s terrible if you hate the book. And with the books that we were required to read, many of them probably weren’t our favorite books ever. Often, close reading can feel like a chore because we sit with the material for so long and we take notes of every little thing a character says or does. It can be not enjoyable because the text can be too difficult or too dense.

Sometimes, close reading takes the enjoyment out of reading. I agree with Hayles that a book, a blog post, a poem, or a Facebook post are interesting only if you find it interesting. It all depends on the person reading and what their likes and dislikes are. Bauerlein claimed that only certain genres can be classified as “interesting” and anything outside of those genres, are not. People have become inspired by trends that happened on the internet and something was done about them only after reading about it online. Digital reading does a lot to further developments in the world we live in.

This was a hard one and most of the ideas came kind of last minute. I had to scramble to come up with what design I wanted and I ended up using a template from Powerpoint. I moved some things around and used a couple icons from the Noun Project website. The topic I focused on, high school writing vs. college writing came about last minute because my original topic was far too broad and not as fleshed out as I wanted it to be. This e-poster was very hastily put together, but I think in my haste, I found some clarity in what I wanted to pursue for my actual CPE. This was a “lobe” of the project that I knew I wouldn’t really get a chance to look at so it was nice to get the opportunity to examine it a bit.

This project was borne out of a desire to think about how my writing has changed going from high school to college. I think even during freshman year of college, I wrote like a high schooler in that I tried to follow the 5-paragraph rule and go with that structure, but I knew that I hadn’t developed my style or voice yet so I was working off a formula to feel safe. My writing wasn’t very good then, but it has developed over the years and with that I have developed my own style through the years.

I really like the idea of visualizing data because it’s much easier on the eyes. The writing process here was easy because I just needed snippets of texts to go with the images so I didn’t have to write paragraphs upon paragraphs. I’ve done projects where I have dealt with designs before. Last semester, for my final project in my James Joyce major authors class, I made a Ulysses-themed magazine in which I did all the designs as well as the layout. I learned how to use Adobe Illustrator and it took a lot of time and effort, but I was extremely proud of the way it turned out. So in this case, this reminded me of that project and it was similar, just on a much smaller scale.

One thing I would do differently in the future is the same ole’, same ole’ “I wish I didn’t wait until the last moment to start this.” It gets increasingly hard to stay on track as the semester goes on, but as long as it gets done, there’s no problem, right?

A path I did not take in creating this piece was trying to summarize my entire CPE in this poster. Rather, I decided to make this into a sidebar, where I talk about something related to my project, but not about the project itself. There are a lot of topics that I know I can include in my research, but the space just isn’t there. The other problem with that could be that my project would seem to be all over the place if I did have the space to integrate all the different “lobes.”

In comics, are both words and pictures needed? Or can just one do the job? With the saying that sometimes less is more, I think this can apply to comics. If I can interpret something the author says in just pictures, then having words there to explain it is too much. Does that mean we’re following the natural roles given to us? “Art is the way we assert our identities as individuals and break out of the narrow roles nature cast us in” (166). This makes me think about how we first fall into the patterns that we take part in. Did someone give the roles we participate in and did we assume those roles because that’s what we thought we were meant to do? Do comics artists do their work in the way that they know is standard to the way it has always been done? McCloud talks a lot about how broad comics can be, but also how narrow its definition can be as well. It seems comics has evolved a lot over the years and we are, at least I am, becoming more and more aware of the all the ways that comics has broken new ground. But then thinking back on the earlier chapters, we know that comics can range from anything to pretty much everything.

In all art, it’s the surface level image that people appreciate most easily. We’re more interested in surface level—what instantly attracts us, but sometimes, something that’s pretty on the outside can lack substance on the inside as McCloud states. But other times, when we see things that are shiny or pretty on the outside, we actually don’t know what we’re looking for so in that case, whatever catches our eye the fastest is the winner whereas in instances where we know exactly what we want and where to find it, we are more likely to settle on something that doesn’t have as pretty an outside as others. So it’s hard to say whether comics writers should focus on selling their art to longtime fans or to people who are just browsing. To the latter group of people, the cover is the most important part for them and longtime fans are more forgiving if a cover is ugly.

I’m not very artistically gifted, nor did I ever take very many art classes. So for someone like me, I would just stick to words, but with others who have the training in art and words, it’s like a double threat! Why not put both skills to good use if you’ve got it! McCloud is right in saying that comics are looked down upon for bad reasons. People rank art in terms of intelligence and somehow, comics falls to the bottom because of its simplicity and straying away from realism. It still holds true that simplicity is the fastest way to get people to resonate with what you’re saying and comics artists does that increasingly well. It’s not something everyone can do so it’d be cool to see these comics writers get more credit! Anyway, this was an awesome book—really enjoyed reading it—nothing like I’ve ever read before!

I loved how Wysocki stated that feeling anger and intrigue are the perfect mixture that brings about critical work. Anger is such a good motivator–even more so than contentment. And woah, I wasn’t ready for such a philosophical read this week! Had to get my philosophical thinking back in gear!

Anyway, Williams writers that designs “help us see how visual layout is not magic but is instead rationally organized and can be formally analyzed” (151). Wysocki talks about Robin Williams’ book saying that we have to talk about the woman in the advertisement solely as we see her, not as a person who has a life outside of this advertisement. His argument being that what you see is all there is to it. We don’t take into account the woman’s profession, hobbies, or her family life–we only see the parts of her that is portrayed. To me, that sounds a little repressive, it implies that she is just a body and that’s all she is in this ad. I keep thinking about the purpose of the woman in the Peek ad and it seems to me that the woman is there for others to see. She is displayed so that viewers can see only the perfect aspects of her. Wysocki writes that beauty is created through gravity and that art is beautiful, but how do you describe art? Art is perfected and it is not down to earth—it’s formalized to be universal and if we take the woman in the ad out of her natural habitat and generalize her, then she is perfect.

We seek perfection out of things that can’t be perfect naturally. Humans were never meant to be perfect—we’ve endorsed people who were a mess because they seemed more human and there is a certain charm in humans who are a mess. So if beauty is something we build, then we must connect through the problems we face and the mess that we go through to build beauty, right? In this sense, we kind of visualize beauty away from gender and just focus on connections. In the ad, we only see one side of the woman—the part that’s meant to be seen, not the parts that she hides or the parts that she’s told to hold back. In our ego-centric world, she is whatever we want her to be. The audience has the power to make her what we want her to be, making the connections forced and not based in beauty since it’s not shared.

She is a generalized version of herself—the acceptable version to society. It all comes back to this idea of how we see ourselves in everything. That’s how things are become relatable and it comes back to our ego-centric nature. Do we actually want to know her as an individual being with her own thoughts and intuitions or do we only want to find ourselves in her? And is our idea of ourselves even individual? Or is that idea created from the form that we think we should follow? In other words, are our ideas ever our own or were they spoon-fed to us to think that’s what we should perceive as beauty?

Also, I loved Wysocki’s layout in this chapter, especially on page 152 with the writing inside the flower arrangement. It reminded me of visual poetry which I love and find so fascinating! Here are some examples:

SO, my memory is probably not that good because I thought I never read any comics, but as soon as McCloud mentioned Osamu Tezuka and Japanese style comics, I remembered that I read most of, if not the entirety, of Tezuka’s Buddha comic series. I mean, I read it in elementary school so I can’t be expected remember everything that I did at age nine. But anyway, the Buddha series had eight volumes and I’m fairly certain I read six of them…. and I really enjoyed them!

I don’t know if this is a widely accepted thing, but I feel like Japanese comics feature stories that happen over a longer duration of time. For example, the Buddha series featured the entire length of Siddhartha Guatama’s life and I don’t know how common that is in western comics. Another thing that I’m trying to grasp is McCloud’s idea that time and space are one and the same. Can there be an instance where time and space do not have a linear relationship and is that possible? Cause if comics artists really wanted to manipulate time or even just get rid of its construct, couldn’t the closure make up for it? Even if time is never stated and nothing in implied about it, then it’s up to the readers to decide, making comics kind of an interactive art. The only question with that is, will readers be satisfied with making time up for themselves? In a way, everything the artist or author doesn’t give away in plain text is somehow not real to readers. They want to know exactly what the author was thinking instead of guessing on their own. When the author states the time and meaning of something in their work, that makes those meanings and illusions stand out and are in a way, more meaningful.

I found McCloud’s notion of a single moment pretty interesting and how he mentioned that time doesn’t really exist in comics. Many things could be happening which can’t possibly be one moment, but they could all be happening at the same time which would suggest that each panel has a life of its own. Just as I’m writing this blog post, someone in Germany is probably eating a chocolate bar. Even though, the German chocolate eater and I are on different continents, we are still living in the same moment–kind of like McCloud’s mention that all events happen on a single vertical axis.

Now that I think about it, I wish I had read a bit of comics from western artists so that I can see the differences myself. But having seen western comics like Spider-man and Watchmen, I do know that Japanese comics tend to have less words. Is that deficit somehow made up in other ways? How can they get around showing as much emotion as American comics but with fewer words? In a way, they’re drawings are more visual and contain more minute details. Maybe smile lines on a character’s face as well as dark eye circles and bags under eyes. And I love the idea of making emotions visible. Comics art thrive on invoking emotional responses in readers and it’s not to say that it is any harder than how emotion is portrayed in books, music, and television.