During our last class meetings, you’ll each have the opportunity to present some of the ideas you have for your final blog project. I’ve asked you all to rethink your blogs for two reasons: 1) I’m hoping that you’ll be able to connect the kind of academic thinking we’ve been doing this semester with some of your own personal interests. 2) I’d like you to consider some ways that you might make writing a consistent and deliberate part of your day-to-day life. For your presentation, I’d suggest that you think about the four questions I listed in the assignment description:
- What purpose will your blog serve? What will it help you to do?
- How will your blog offer a critical perspective on your topic or thematic focus? In other words, how will it help you to reflect on and question the idea or activity you’ve chosen to focus on? How will it help you to pay attention to your own thinking or development in the area you’re focusing on?
- What role does writing play in your blog concept? What rhetorical situation are you responding to? (Even if your blog is intended to be private — just for your own use — you should still be able to identify things like the exigence that motivates you and the constraints you are working within.)
- How have you taken advantage of the possibilities that a blog offers? What have you done with your blog that you wouldn’t be able to do with another form of expression
Although you may not address each one of them in detail in your presentation, thinking about these questions will help you to organize your thoughts . The most important point, however, is for you to think about how the blog might help you to approach the activity or idea in question in a new way. How will it help you to take a critical perspective and to add to what you already know?
You can get some general ideas for organizing your blog by looking at what others have done. I’d recommend looking around online for other blogs to see what’s out there. You could start close to home by checking out the social media page for our own Admissions Office. There, you’ll find blogs by a number of student writers here at Washington College. (A general search for “blog” on the college website will also turn up blogs for a number of offices and programs here.)
Finally, I’d also suggest that you consider your presentation as an opportunity to practice speaking in front of other students. Our final presentations can be informal, but they shouldn’t be unprepared. Think about how you are representing yourself to your peers, and plan accordingly. Don’t simply answer the questions I listed above mechanically. Bring some of your own personality and energy to what you do. There are plenty of guides to giving presentations online, like this one, so look there for some tips.
Above all, be creative and think of how your blog might be useful to you. Good luck!
SCHEDULE OF PRESENTATIONS
Tuesday, December 8: Aaron Compton, Jessica Dixon, Laiken Harrigan, Patrick Jackson, Erik Whitcomb
Thursday, December 10: Jon Cooper, Hannah Foster, Jamison Jensen, Kevin Sawyer, Charles Yang, Jungwoo Yun
Saturday, December 12: Ashutosh Aryal, Mia Jackson, Reanna Sherman, Kendyl Walton
Because of the campus closure over the next week, I’d like us to conduct our peer review discussion for the third writing project online. Just as I did with our previous peer reviews, I’ve divided you all up into groups of three (see the listing below). By this Friday morning, you should be able to access your partners’ drafts online through Canvas. Between now and this coming Sunday, please take time to read your partners’ drafts and consider the reflective paragraph they have posted at the top of the documents.
Now, here are the details about how we will handle the new online element of the peer review:
1) I have set up working groups for all of you on Canvas. To access your group discussion page, please do the following:
- Click on the “People” link in the left hand column of our course Canvas page.
- Click on the “Writing Project 3: Peer Review Groups” tab at the top center of the page.
- Find your group number, and click on the small cog wheel icon on the right hand side of the page. From there, you’ll be able to select “Visit Group Homepage.”
- Click on the “Discussions” link in the left hand column.
2) This will allow you and your group members to have an ongoing discussion over each individual draft. My hope is that you will take advantage of this as an opportunity to have a substantial exchange with your group members, but at minimum, you should do the following:
- Please leave one substantial comment on the discussion board of each one of your group members. You might respond directly to the concerns the writer brought up in the reflective paragraph for his or her draft, and you might also consider how well you feel the writer has drawn on the Foreword to The Bluest Eye as a starting point for the essay.
- Once you have received feedback on your draft from other group members, please respond on the discussion board with a comment that indicates how you plan to incorporate the feedback and what other steps you plan to take in finishing your draft.
- Please make sure you have submitted comments to your group members by no later than 5:00pm on this Sunday, November 22.
- You should then post your response to the feedback on your own draft by the final due date for the essay.
You may, of course, feel free to go beyond these minimum expectations I’ve outlined here. Feel free, for instance, to use the comment tools to mark your partners’ drafts if you wish—but other substantive comments should be shared on the discussion board.
I will also post a comment on each your drafts through the discussion board by 5:00pm on Sunday.
Group 1: Kevin Sawyer, Kendyl Walton, Reanna Sherman
Group 2: Jungwoo Yun, Charles Yang, Hanna Foster
Group 3: Mia Jackson, Jessica Dixon, Laiken Harrigan
Group 4: Jamison Jensen, Aaron Compton, Erik Whitcomb
Group 5: Patrick Jackson, Jon Cooper, Ashutosh Aryal
Toni Morrison begins The Bluest Eye with what might be an unfamiliar reference. The first page of the novel starts with the following abrupt sentences: “Here is the house. It is green and white. It has a red door. It is very pretty. Here is the family. Mother, Father, Dick, and Jane live in the green-and-white house.” Those lines–and others like them–reappear from time to time, often at the beginning of major sections of the book. With each repetition, the words become increasingly garbled and indistinct.
The lines are meant to echo a series of children’s books that was popular during the 1940s and50s. The books were primers, intended to help young children learn to read, and they featured a “typical” family–a mother, a father, and three children. Because they reflected the wholesome values of mid-century, mainstream America, the adventures of Dick, Jane, and Sally were a common feature of early education for many students.
Given the nature of the images here, it probably isn’t difficult to see how Morrison, an African-American author, is working against some of the assumptions about American life that are evident in the Dick and Jane readers. I think it’s useful, though, to consider how we might read The Bluest Eye in light of – or in response to – these children’s books. How does Morrison use this text as a source in constructing an argument with her novel? How does Pecola’s narrative problematize the version of reality we get in “The World of Dick and Jane,” and what is the result when those problems go unacknowledged?
You can read more about the Dick and Jane books here at the Wikipedia page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_and_Jane.
Or here, at the web site for a past rare books exhibit at the University of Virginia: http://rarebookschool.org/all-programs/exhibitions/dick-and-jane/.
To continue our discussion of The Bluest Eye this week, I’d like us to consider two of the terms at the heart of the novel: Beauty and Ugliness. The children in the MacTeer and Breedlove families, in particular, seem baffled by the way that grownups use these words, and their confusion leads them into distinctly different kinds of behavior. We’ll spend some time figuring out what’s happening for these characters, but I’d also like us to consider what Morrison herself might be up to in crafting this narrative.
To guide our discussion, we’ll use Morrison’s Foreword to the The Bluest Eye (this should be at the front of your edition, pages ix-xiii). There, she describes some of her motivations in writing the novel, and she also explains how she feels she fell short of meeting her ultimate goal. You might notice, especially, that Morrison’s language in the Foreword at times resembles the language that Joseph Harris uses in Rewriting. She attempts to define her project as a writer and identifies some of the motivating problems she was trying to address.
In her Foreword, Morrison also makes a subtle reference to a cultural movement that had gained popularity in the years leading up to the novel’s publication. The phrase “Black is Beautiful” became a slogan or unifying declaration for many in the Civil Rights and Black Power movements of the 1960s, and in some ways, we might see Morrison’s novel as a response to that phrase. We’ll talk about the implications of this in class, but for now, you might do a bit of internet research about the historical context that Morrison was working in (for instance, here’s a brief Wikipedia entry on the phrase, and an overview of the Black Power movement, with a reference to “Black is Beautiful” toward the bottom).
With this bit of historical perspective, I’d like us to consider what questions or problems Morrison is wrestling with in The Bluest Eye. If “Black is Beautiful,” for instance, then why did Morrison choose to write a novel about ugliness? What are the sources and effects of “beauty” and “ugliness” for these characters?
For the next few weeks of the semester, we’ll be spending some time with The Bluest Eye, a novel by the contemporary author Toni Morrison. If you’re familiar with Morrison’s writing at all, you might be more apt to recognize titles like Beloved, Song of Solomon, or Paradise. The Bluest Eye, however, is Morrison’s first novel, originally published in 1970. It recounts, as the first pages make clear, a devastating event in the life of a young African-American girl and the reaction of those around her. The subject matter is challenging, but Morrison’s approach in the novel is well worth our time.
I’d like us to begin thinking about the novel by using some of the terms of academic discourse that we’ve picked up in our reading of Joseph Harris’s Rewriting. This may seem strange at first. A work of literature isn’t exactly an argument – at least not explicitly – and chances are we won’t see Morrison making the distinct conversational “moves” that many academic articles do. But I would like for us to think about how Morrison is working purposefully to respond to particular questions and problems that were relevant at the time she wrote the novel. To put this another way, we need to consider the rhetorical situation at stake in Morrison’s composing process.
Here are a few questions to begin with:
* What is the problem at the heart of this novel, and how is Morrison articulating that problem? Or, in Harris’s terms, what is Morrison’s project here?
* How does Morrison make use of other texts in her novel? What specific moments of intertextuality exist in the first sections, and what purpose do they serve?
* How does Morrison choose to present this narrative? What choices has she made in organizing the story, and what difference does that make in the way we react to it?
For more information about Toni Morrison, you can start at the following websites:
The Wikipedia entry for Toni Morrison
The Toni Morrison Society website
Toni Morrison on the Nobel Foundation website
In our reading for this week, Keith Grant-Davie defines a rhetorical situation as any set of circumstances that is motivated by the need to communicate. The resulting communication might be aimed at “changing reality” or affecting the perception of others about a certain issue—or it might simply involve persuading an audience about a particular point.
Grant-Davie identifies four components that make up any rhetorical situation:
- Exigence, or the motivating factors that create the need for communication.
- Rhetor(s), or the agents who are responsible for creating and delivering the communication
- Audience, or the people who receive the communication, and
- Constraints, or the conditions that limit or shape the communication.
To explore these concepts, I’d like us to consider a particular rhetorical situation that has been in the news over the past year. Bruce Jenner, a past Olympic athlete and current popular culture figure, announced that he now identifies as a transgender woman. Caitlyn Jenner debuted her new identity in a highly publicized interview and photo shoot for Vanity Fair magazine over the past summer.
For class on Tuesday, we’ll think about how we might understand Jenner’s announcement as a distinct rhetorical situation. As a prompt for our thinking, you might consider visiting the following web sites:
The Vanity Fair interview and photo shoot:
Caitlyn Jenner’s web site:
How might we understand Jenner’s act of communication in terms of the exigence, rhetor(s), audience, and constraints of the situation?
For the second essay in our class, I’ve asked that you identify a particular problem, question, or controversy that you can respond to by joining in to a conversation with other sources. In Joseph Harris’s terms, this will most likely involve coming to terms with the sources you’ve chosen and then forwarding or countering some of the claims those sources make. The conversation you choose to enter may be one we’ve already identified in our readings, or it may be one you’ve noticed in sources outside of our class texts. The goal, however, is to try to say how three or more authors have wrestled with a similar idea and then to add something of your own to offer a new perspective.
On Thursday of this week, we’ll be working again in groups to brainstorm and respond to each other’s initial drafts, and that means you’ll all need to do some preparation before our next class meeting. Here’s what you should do:
As a writer:
Post a draft of your second writing project to Canvas under the assignment “Second Writing Project: Peer Review Draft” by midnight on Tuesday, October 20.
In the “Comments” column to the right of your uploaded draft, post a substantial paragraph including the following information: 1) What do you feel best about with your current draft and 2) What questions do you have that your peer review partners might be able to help you with?
As a reader:
By Wednesday, October 21, visit the assignment page on Canvas. In the right hand corner of the page, you should see a “Peer Review” option with links to the drafts of your peer review partners.
Take time before class on Thursday, October 22 to read your partners’ drafts. Please post at least one substantial response to the draft in the “Comments” column to the right of the draft. Although it isn’t required, you may also use the comment toolbox, located at the top of the screen, to insert specific comments or feedback within the draft.
** Taken together, your paragraph reflection on your own draft and your comments on your partners’ drafts will count as your next quiz grade. **
Please be sure to bring a laptop or tablet to class with you on Thursday to access your partners’ drafts. If you aren’t able to bring a laptop of your own, let me know by Wednesday, and I’ll arrange to have one for you.
Group 1: Hannah Foster, Mia Jackson, Jamison Jensen
Group 2: Jessica Dixon, Aaron Compton, Jungwoo Yun
Group 3: Charles Yang, Patrick Jackson, Reanna Sherman
Group 4: Laiken Harrigan, Kevin Sawyer, Erik Whitcomb
Group 5: Jon Cooper, Kendyl Walton, Ashutosh Aryal