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
If you have any questions, email me at:
joseph.longhany@UCF.edu
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteDacotah Roeber-ENC 1101-OM06
ReplyDeletePart One- It is a little after midnight and the exhausted William Zinsser stumbles into a bar after his long night of studying. To his demise he sees every spot taken, due to it being ladies night. He surveys the open chairs and notices one at the bar next to another older looking gentleman. He walks over and asks to sit, the man says sure and Zinsser sits down and orders a drink. He asks for the other gentleman's name and he replies, "Joe." Zinsser recognizes this man and asks, "Are you Joseph Williams?" The man next to him nods in agreement. "Wow I love your work and actually just got done reading the "The Phenomenology of Error"" says Zinsser. Williams asks, "How did you like?" "It was very interesting, but I don't agree on some of the things you stated a bout grammatical errors, or the way you used me as an example" Zinssler replied. Williams is baffled and asks, "Used you as an example how and what don't you agree with everything I said was solid as a rock?" "I am William Zinsser and some of the topics were not accurate to me, such as what errors in grammar are consisted of. You said that there is really not errors, but just constructs, which are ideas that we have come to accept as right" Argues Zinssler. "That is correct," smoothly replied Williams, "Grammar errors are a special type of errors, one that can not be measured like a social behavior error. There should not be a right or wrong in these situations, because writings are not judged upon fairly. When society looks at a paper they judge it on the guidelines of handbooks saying what is grammatical correct, when the handbooks themselves are not grammatical correct" he continued. Baffled at the detailed response he received Zinssler then changed the topic asking, "What about your studies to determine why people see some errors, while others do not?" "Another simple question my friend. Due to the nature of humans and how we do not know how to judge our own habits in speech, we can not fully grasp the proper research due to the conservative answers people give. As I stated in my research when asked if impact is a verb you stated no, even though it has been used as one since 1601, with these questions there are "answers" but who is to say is right or wrong, when even the right are wrong" answered Williams. Having had enough of this conversation Zinsser bids his farewells and exits the bar to continue his studies in the morning.
Part two- In Carr's argument he is asking if Google is making us stupid? He explains how before he had computers he could read rigorously without stopping and now he cannot focus on what he is reading for longer then 2-3 pages. He explains how in his research that brains can automatically adapt to new things and with the ease of Google and the internet our brains are not functioning as efficiently as they could. With Google and the power of being online we cannot really get stupid, due to the high technology we have at our hands we can look up literally anything you can think and it gives you the ability to learn at a faster pace and more rapidly. Although the technology we posses is powerful and can help with the functions of humans, we often find it hard to work on tasks we try to accomplish without searching other things or checking things irrelevant and in doing so we lose our ability to focus on a single task for long amounts of time and as we do that more and more we start to loss the memory capacity of our brains. Carr states that our intelligence is flattening into artificial intelligence, due to how much we rely on computers, which essentially is causing us to become stupid because of Google.
Justin Kennedy
ReplyDeleteENC 1101 Mo3
Part 1- Joseph Williams and friends always go to the local bar in their hometown of Orlando Florida every Friday night to shoot pool and drink the week away. However on this cold January night, Williams ran into one of his old friends William Zinsser who actually just got done reading Williams article,” The Phenomenology of Error". Zinsser had a few things that he wanted to touch on with Williams and so he had to post pone his original plans he had for the bar that night.
Starting off Williams says, “So, did you like my work? Was it not precise and am I not right?” Zinsser replies merely stating,” I liked your work, yes it was on point but I did not like the idea on how you included me as an example for one of your error plots.” Williams perplexed utters back,” Yes I did use you but it was to open the eyes of the reader that even a formidable man like yourself uses sources that could very well not be right. The text that you quoted from had grammatical errors as well as the mind that put them in the book you referenced and even traces back to where that person got their conventions of writing. I’m simple pointing out that errors with grammar are constructs. They are just ideas over time that are woven together and is seen as the only way of thinking and are constructed to look unavoidable.” Zinsser simply back, “I see what you did there. I can agree with that idea of error. The atrocities that I see every day from the billions of illiterate individuals I encounter only prove your way of thinking to be somewhat correct. I still don’t appreciate being used as an error example though. Even in your writing you could have quoted unreliable and error covered sources. Who’s to say you didn’t do what I did?” Williams surprised at what Zinsser said replied back,” You’re right. How could I have known? It all has do to with the fact that in a way my errors and your errors can be fixed. Like with social errors an individual makes, they simply say, “I’m sorry” and with intent on not doing that error again. There are many flaws in grammar, some people just simply turn their head and let them happen and they are put in the books. Like with Orwell’s writing, he had plenty of mistakes that were over looked and now are going to be referenced. A person that seems like he is right is actually wrong. So what is actually right? We don’t know.” On that note Zinsser didn’t know how to respond. He drank what he had left in his glass. Pushed in his chair and left to get some sleep before starting his day of writing tomorrow and really think about this conversation. What is actually right? Who is right?
Part 2- In Carr’s Article, “Is Google Making Us Stupid?”, it opens the eyes to many on just what the internet might be doing people’s minds. As Carr comes to a realization himself, he also sees that he isn’t the only one that can’t focus on a book for any longer than two or three pages without wanting to do something else. In the beginning of the article he brings up that our mind conforms to what is happening around it. Before, having to go through books in the library for information that is now quick and more accessible now through the internet. Even when the material that we are looking for is found, we merely “power browse” through it if it’s too lengthy. The internet is a powerful accommodation a person has in their life. We can go from skimming an article, watching a movie on Netflix, use the calculator, shop and then get distracted when we get an email when it the computer announces that it has arrived. The internet is now meshed into a person’s life because everything in today’s word has to do with online activity. Social networking, getting your schedule for work, pulling up course grades, having to see what assignments are due when for college class. Along with those there is so much more that a person in today’s world uses the internet for and our mind has adapted to it. Carr did en excellent job by depicting what Google and the internet is doing to our minds, making is more stupid.
Madison King
ReplyDeleteENC 1101-0M04
Part 1:
(Joseph Williams and William Zinsser meet to have a few drinks at a bar after work to discuss “The Phenomenology of Error”.)
Williams: Good evening William! Good to see ya!
Zinsser: And same to you my dear friend! There’s something that’s been bugging me lately I’d like to discuss with you.
Williams: Then discuss away!
Zinsser: Well, I read your article about your views on error, and I can’t help but notice you drilling me in the very first paragraph.
Williams: I see. My intentions were to get an important point across that so many errors can be found by so many different people, the point of the piece of writing can quickly be lost.
Zinsser: I understand, but a paper must be grammatically correct.
Williams: Of course! That’s what we’re taught. But there are so many rules out there; one error may be seen differently by someone else. It depends on the textbook we learned that error from, and then we take that information and apply it to what we read.
Zinsser: I guess…
Williams: I mean I’m not saying a paper shouldn’t be proofread, but I’m saying leave out the tiny grammatical errors; stick with the ones you found the first time you read through. Remember, the most important thing is what the writer is trying to say, not exactly how they say it.
Zinsser: As long as I have some room to throw in my opinion on what needs to be corrected, then I guess I can live with that.
Part 2:
In Nicholas Carr’s article, “Is Google Making us Stupid?” he as the rhetor is explaining that the convenience of the Internet is changing our way to gain knowledge. This, in fact, is the exigence. No longer do people read thoroughly through an article, they skim it because the web can be a huge distraction, and one’s mind can’t stay focused on one thing for a long period of time anymore. It opens the eyes to the audience, which could be anyone who has access to the Internet, computers are our everything. According the Carr, the computer has become our clock, printer press, typewriter, calculator, television, etc. Now, the founders of Google are trying to come up with artificial intelligence, which either would be the world’s information directly attached to the brain or an artificial brain. The media has to adjust as well by writing summaries for their articles and scattering snippets of information across a page so the reader doesn’t have to read the entire article. It’s all convenient, but Carr states in his article, “As we come to rely on computers to mediate our understanding of the world, it is our own intelligence that flattens into artificial intelligence.”
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteGabriela Lozada
ReplyDeleteENC 1101-0M03
Part one:
After a long week, two good friends get together to unwind with a couple of drinks at their favorite local bar. The two are extremely opinionated and intelligent men—making arguments fairly prevalent. William Zinsser had just finished reading Joseph Williams’s piece, “The Phenomenology of Error”, and was all but pleased with his long time friend.
Zinsser: Today I took a moment to read your article and I must tell you that I am not very pleased with it.
Williams: Oh? Why is that?
Zinsser: For one, I do not appreciate you including me in your piece the way that you did.
Williams: You should feel honored that I chose to include you! I felt that you were the best example to use to open the reader’s eyes to the reality of errors. You see, you are wrong in bad mouthing grammar errors with such disgust and aversion. As I stated in my article, errors of social behavior differ from errors of “good usage” because social errors (like breaking wind at the dinner table or vomiting on someone) are errors that invade your personal space and demand an apology. When someone makes a grammatical error, an apology isn’t quite needed.
Zinsser: I completely disagree; there are some mistakes that are just downright atrocious. As a matter of fact, I don’t see your point in making all of those mistakes in your article.
Williams: You fool! How could you not see the point when it’s in plain view? I made over 100 mistakes throughout the course of my article and I can guarantee you didn’t even catch a third of them—at least not in the first read. My point is, you don’t necessarily catch certain grammatical errors unless you look for them. There’s a huge difference between reading for content and reading for mistakes. All grammar errors really are, are constructs. Constructs are mental frameworks that people build in order to make sense of the world around them. Ironically the handbooks that provide some of these constructs (or rules) have grammatical errors in them themselves!
Zinsser: Okay…
Williams: So you see, when reading through my article you may have picked up on certain errors whereas someone else may have picked up on errors that you didn’t notice.
Zinsser: Alright alright, I see what you’re saying. Grammar is just one of those things that is not meant to be applied in black and white.
Williams: Exactly.
Part two:
The argument in “Is Google Making us Stupid” is delivered by the rhetor, Nicholas Carr. In the initial part of his argument, he addresses his personal exigence: he can longer focus and stay on task when reading long pieces of writing. He claims the source of his dilemma (as one might have guessed from the title) is the internet and how easily attainable information is on the web. Carr presents the reader (or audience) with various examples to support his claims ie: quoting several bloggers who have come across the same issue, elaborating on research studies that have been conducted to evaluate the research habits of others etc. However, there are several constraints at work. Although the internet is present in most of our lives, there are people who do not depend on the internet as much as he does and even people who do not encounter his problem at all.
Sebastian Brinkerhoff enc 1101 0m03
ReplyDeleteAs Zinsser and Williams walk into a bar after a long day of work they meet eyes and decide to grab a drink.
Zinsser: jumping right to the point I do not appreciate the way that you seem to think it is okay to criticize my grammar right from the first paragraph on. I do not believe I have made any errors that deserves to be judged this harsh.
Williams: what I was trying to get that was the fact that even an accredited author like yourself technically makes mistakes. They might not be using a preposition in the wrong place but nonetheless they are still mistakes. Not only does each individual reader get to determine what mistakes you make they each use a different template to judge.
Zinsser: I am starting to understand where you're coming from but I still feel the fact that a grammatically correct paper will always be correct no matter what template you use.
Williams: I agree that a grammatically correct paper it is correct but each person speaks and writes in a different way yet not always grammatically correct. So every paper can be judged and critiqued in a variety of different ways.
Zinsser: so you're saying that a few grammatical errors are okay as long as you know your audience?
Williams: that is exactly right.
Both men continued on drinking and started on a new book together which each chapter focused on a different way of speaking English all of which are correct.
Part 2
When Carr asked if he believes that Google is making us stupid he replies that Google will never let us become stupid simply because of the amount of information at our hands but he does believe that it has impacted him greatly in the amount of reading he can do. He feels as if she is not getting stupid he's getting lazy. The human mind can adapt their easily but it is hard to understand why should if it is made so easy to use a search engine like Google. The time that we save by simply typing in Google we lose that with the time that we spend distracted on the Internet. Google is a great blessing at the same time it is a horrible curse because we do not know how to concentrate and figure out problems on our own anymore.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteSara Heitzenroeder
ReplyDeleteENC 1101-0M04
Part One-
Every Friday after work, William Zinsser would go to his local bar and grab a drink to prepare himself for a great weekend. This weekend was no exception. Zinsser arrived at the bar promptly at 6pm. Fortunately for him, Joseph Williams was already there and willing to throw back a few beers in his company. “Joe! I haven’t seen you in weeks. How are you?” Williams immediately replies, “Hey! I believe it has been awhile since our last encounter. I have been doing great. I am just catching up on past work with fellow students.” Zinsser took advantage of this chance meeting to talk about Williams’ previous essay The Phenomenology of Error. He had read this article and felt a little uneasy about some accusations Williams proposed. Zinsser starts off, “I had a chance to read your article on The Phenomenology of Error, and found it very interesting, but partially insulting on my part as well. Did you mean to offend me?” Williams refuted, “I had no deliberate intentions on insulting or offending you in any way. I realize that I did use you as a reference, but again, I did not mean any disrespect to you.” Zinsser sits back and relaxes as bit as Williams continues, “What did you think about the article overall?” Zinsser takes a sip of his Jack and Coke and begins, “I did see some prospect in this essay. When you think about it, it is wonderment that so many linguistic errors go unnoticed. And you’re finding on E.B. White’s “Death of a Pig” wrongful use of which vs. that was quite intriguing. I guess what I am saying is, that I never thought of these errors before myself, and am a little bashful to admit that.” Williams gives out a small chuckle before stating, “You aren’t alone. Many people don’t understand or see the linguistic errors being made. I don’t find this as right or wrong. The most important part still would be the message that the author is trying to get across, not just the way the author goes about saying it. The greatest thing about making such errors is there isn’t a great reason to apologize for them.” Zinsser shakes his head slightly with agreement. “I am thankful for that, since apologizing has never been my thing!” Zinsser then engages in a firm farewell handshake with Williams. “It was a pleasure and thank you for the conversation.” Williams nods as Zinsser gets up and turns to leave the bar.
Part Two-
ReplyDeleteNicholas Carr delivers an interesting article on how the Internet is influencing our abilities as readers and writers in today’s world. Most people scour the Internet looking at websites for information to questions. Any question can be answered almost instantly now with the World Wide Web. You no longer have to focus and interpret a lengthy book or novel. Instead, you can just “power browse” the web and come up with a solution. You can skim an article and look for key words so that you don’t get distracted and antsy to do something else with your time. Carr is obviously the rhetor, and I think he has more than a primary audience. His audience is college students, teenagers, parents, working people, and professionals; it pretty much could be anyone who has access to the Internet. He wants us to think about how computers and the internet are taking over our minds and bodies and molding us into an almost robotic-like figure. The constraints in his argument would depend on the audience and their experiences in life. Some examples could be how technology is used in today’s educational system. Every school is different. If you are raised in an area that has limited education funds, you might not have access to the Internet like a private or wealthy school. You might still have to rely a little bit on other sources of information. Another example of a possible constraint focuses on the elderly. They may have never had any education or knowledge of how to use a computer or Internet. It wasn’t prevalent when they were growing up and in school, and now that they are older, some refuse to learn or do anything on the computers. An elder might not accept the changing world so openly. As you can see, there can be many constraints that limit how you view this debate on the Internet taking over society.
Ralph Mahalak
ReplyDeleteENC 1101- oMo4
Part I- William Zinsser storms through the front door of the bar and marches straight up to Joseph Williams. Furious, Zinsser proclaims, “ I just read your article and I am not amused one bit about you calling me out like that.” Of course the article Zinsser is referring to is The Phenomenology of Error, which was written by Joseph Williams. Joe can see that Zinsser is upset and tells him to sit down and have a drink while he explains everything. So they sit down and order a couple stiff drinks to take the edge off. Joe pleads his case to ‘Zins’ and they go back and fourth debating what is right and what is wrong, grammatically speaking. As they keep talking the drinks keep coming and it is no longer an argument of right and wrong, but it is a debate of what is good writing and bad writing. The men can mutually agree that they are both good writers and consider themselves experts in their field. Joe then poses a question to Zins and says, “If everyone in the bar except one person likes a piece that I have written, does that make it good?” (The bar is full). Zins replies, “of course it’s good, you’re a great writer. And everyone can see that except for the idiot in here that wouldn’t like it.” Joe thanks Zins for the complement and agree with what Zins had to say. But then Joe wanted to turn the tables a bit. Joe says, “what if you were the idiot that didn’t like what I wrote? Would you still agree that it is a good piece?”
This puzzles Zins for a minute as he sits still with his drink held up to his mouth. He realizes that he stormed in here not too long ago accusing Joe of writing a bullshit piece.
This creates an interesting situation in which an answer is not clear. Is something good if it is correct? If people like it? Both? Right and wrong is not as black and white as some people think it to be.
Part II- In Nicholas Carr’s Essay “Is Google making us stupid?” he states that he can no longer focus on tasks like he used to. His attention span is very limited due to the convenience of technology. Carr argues that since it used to take time for us to gather our knowledge, it was more valuable to us and we thought more carefully about it. Now that the value of knowledge has gone down so have our attention spans. Anyone can look up nearly anything they want on Google. That is what makes it great. You can absorb as much knowledge as you wish from the Internet at a rapid pace. So this does not sound like it is chipping away at our knowledge. It is simply allowing us to process things quicker and more efficiently. No one said there is a time limit on how long it should take to absorb knowledge. Just because we can do it faster now does not diminish what we can know.
Brooke Drebenstedt
ReplyDeleteENC1101 omo3
Z- So I read your article "The Phenomenology of Error", and I think it's repulsive.
W- Now, really. Repulsive?
Z- Repulsive. Your tolerance for bad grammar is deplorable, and all errors should not be tolerated. We are taught proper grammar in school for a reason.
W- What reason is that?
Z- Without rules and guidelines we would be animals! We have to have order in all that we do, or there would be anarchy. Society would fall apart at the seams. People must be corrected for their wrongdoings, and this applies to their writing. Also, you had much more than 100 errors in your article, which made it nearly impossible for me to read.
W- Oh? Very well then. Could I see your list of errors?
Z- Sure. Here.
W- I agree with you that grammatical rules should be followed when they can, but the point of the writing still gets across whether the grammar is perfect or flawed.
Z- Oh sure, but for those of us that know our usage well, it's painstaking to read something by someone who doesn't.
W- It's painful for you?
Z- Furthermore, the errors shouldn't be tolerated for education's sake. Someone down the line should have fixed every last error.
W- Oh. Okay.
The rhetor, Carr, argues that the internet and having a vast amount of information at our fingertips is changing the way that we read, and rerouting our brain's circuitry. The constraints in this argument is that in modern times, we are accustomed to and nearly required to use the internet on a daily basis to be active members of society. For his audience, those of us that use the internet for the vast majority of our reading and research, to believe and consider that the way they read now as opposed to before popular use of the internet is less effective is Carr's goal in the article. I agree that because of the media we use to do much of our reading now (texts, articles online) we do have this sort of impatience in reading, we expect everything to be short, sweet, and to the point. I agree that I have a harder time doing "deep reading" as Carr calls than I did when I didn't use the internet near as often. I don't get pulled into books anymore - I get bored after a few pages of reading anything. I pull up other things to do, start to read other articles, to split up my attention.
The Phenomenology of Error - Joseph M. Williams
ReplyDeleteAfter William Zinsser had just finished reading Joseph M. William’s writing ‘The Phenomenology of Error’, the two men meet in a bar, are enjoying some beverages and are discussing some aspects from William’s text.
Zinnser: Wow, I must admit that was a pretty intense piece of work to read. But before we start discussing the actual content I’d like to ask you a question about your choice concerning the title. Why did you choose this title? Why in particular ‘The Phenomenology of Error’?
William: Well to be honest, that’s what my whole text is about. But to answer your question, I chose the particular word ‘phenomenology’ since it stands for a perception of a wrong based upon what we are taught and what we experience to be wrong. However, we then, years later, experience that the ‘wrong’ is simply different. It is different from the norms we learn and are taught. The ‘wrong’ is different to everyone.
Zinsser: So, me denying the verb impact as a verb, even though it has been used as a verb for longer than the last 400 years, does actually chime with your point of view towards grammar and grammatical errors?
William: Yes, in this aspect we do have the same or at least a very similar opinion.
Zinsser: But I definitely don’t agree on everything from your piece.
William: Yes, that’s for sure. As you probably noticed, I even mentioned you to initiate my thoughts about errors.
Zinsser: I did. And yes, I do use all the mentioned words and many others disapprovingly. I just don’t think it is right to use them.
William: That’s the point. So you are saying it is wrong to use these words. For you the words are ‘wrong’.
Zinsser: I just think that there are many different ways of avoiding them and if not, I quote them.
William: But who has set the rule that these words are not acceptable to use? I think that, especially then, you catch the reader’s attention. Especially then, the error becomes a part of our conscious field of attention.
Instead of focusing on the context we isolate the errors and therefore make the single words and sentences the objects of consciousness.
Zinsser: I think the error is in the text or on the page, because that’s its physical location.
Williams: I disagree. I think, the error is the reader’s response to the writer’s violation. Additionally, I think that the response is individually different. Only if the reader is aware or observes the error, will he or she react or respond to it.
And finally, as mentioned at the beginning, just because somebody discovers something as an error it doesn’t mean that everybody has to, or simply does, consider it as one. Just because I think it is wrong, it doesn’t mean that it is wrong for everybody. Just because it was wrong then, doesn’t mean it has to still be wrong now. Phenomenology.
Part 2)
ReplyDeleteTo give a brief rhetorical analysis of Carr’s argument “Is Google Making Us Stupid?” I am compelled to break his piece down into different components and will consider Grant-Davie's constituents concerning rhetoric.
The purpose of Carr’s text is very obvious. It can be displayed easily by considering the exigence, the motivation and matter of the situation. The discourse’s exigence in this case is again to change something. Carr wants the readers to become aware of what is happening to them through the possibilities offered by the internet. The internet provides us, the world’s population, with vast quantities of information and therefore leads us to behavior which Carr indirectly criticizes. Instead of reading profoundly, interpreting and including our thoughts on a piece, nowadays we tend to only skim read many articles, one after another to be able to gather the specific knowledge we need.
Being the author of the text and therefore creating the actual rhetorical situation, Carr takes over the role of the rhetor. He uses many different sources and examples which lead him to be seen as very credible and also as someone who has spent a lot of time creating his opinion towards the provided information capacity. Moreover can we see the presented examples as the rhetorical constraints, which if you actually go beyond the written lines and think about them individually, you can still see them as a single large component. Constraints are indeed the factors which may lead to persuasion. Especially the mentioned mechanical clock is used to show the readers how we all have already been ‘reprogrammed’. Instead of listening to our senses, we started obeying the clock. In general you can say that Carr uses his particular examples to show the broad fields, in which our brain has already been ‘reprogrammed’ and to give evidence that we actually have experienced something similar several times in the past. It certainly isn’t the first time that behavior, habits or abilities have been changed and influenced by inventions.
Even though Carr never clearly states which audience he is addressing, it is very evident that he is talking to the entire population which is being changed through the internet. In my opinion he is addressing particularly our generation, the ‘generation of internet’.
Summing up the short analysis, I would say that the author Nicholas Carr, being the rhetor, smartly uses the particular examples as constraints to influence his audience, the readers, the ‘generation of internet’, to be aware of what is happening. He wants to change the audience’s new habits towards gathering information.
Peter Hoang
ReplyDeleteENC 1101- 0M03
Part 1
After reading “The Phenomenology of Error” by Joseph Williams, William Zinsser ran to the local bar where he and Joseph Williams visit every Friday night for a few drinks. There, he confronted Williams about the errors in “The Phenomenology of Error.”
Zinsser – Hello Joe, I have just read “The Phenomenology of Error” and I have to tell you, you are incorrect in some points. For example some of the errors that we see in a person’s writing, we know they are definitely wrong.
Williams – Nice to see you again William. How right you are that the errors you find are definitely errors, but sometimes there are other errors that we may not see. Errors are overall constructs, a set of ideas that we learn early to be true and so we only look and for and practice those errors. However, not all of these ideas are ‘true.”
Zinsser – So you are saying that even though I may find errors in writing, others don’t find the same errors? Instead they find other errors because they may have a different construct than I do?
Williams- That is exactly what I mean. Not everybody learns the same things and look for the same faults, but they have their own opinion in what is wrong and what is right.
Zinsser- Is that why there are also some errors in your article? You wrote your article for a reason. I found some errors in that article.
Williams – That is correct, you have found some errors, but there are many more that others would look for first. It seems you get the reason in my article. Let us now both have a drink and relax for the weekend!
Part 2
Rhetor Nicholas Carr has given the idea that the use of the internet and technology today has not made us more stupid, but really more dependent on them. Similar to his story, I too didn’t struggle with reading a lot back in the past, but now my mind seems to think of something else after I tried reading a few pages from my college textbook. Maybe it is because I spend quite some time on the internet. It seems like I’m not the only one with this issue. With the ongoing improvement in technologies today, a lot of people rely using the internet now, especially those in school. These people would use the internet for many reasons, including chatting with friends, getting help with their homework, or looking up information. These could be benefits; however, relying too much on the internet can degrade your ability to learn information. Before people that struggle with problems could either solve it by looking at it and thinking of ways to solve the problem or just waiting the next day to ask the teacher themselves. Now with internet, people can just look up problems and get the solution quick. Eventually people would rely too much on the internet for help and lose their ability to think on their own, especially when it comes to test. So yeah I think Carr is right in some way. We are not completely becoming stupid just by using the internet, it just that we are losing the ability to critically think in solving problems. With the never ending improvement in technology, it is becoming more difficult to find a solution to this issue. Even young kids today have the ability to use a smartphone or a tablet, something I never had access to during my childhood.
Part 1:
ReplyDeleteJoseph Williams approaches the bar half-past ten. He's meeting his good friend William Zinsser for some drinks. When he walks in, he spots Zinsser near the bar, and immediately walks towards him. "Hey Zinsser how's the evening unfolding?" he says, Zinsser turns and holds out a glass out to Williams, "Much better now that you've arrived, I've got a bone to pick with you." Williams takes the drink and with a smug look in his face replies... "well let's hear it then" Zinsser motions for Williams to take a seat, and he begins, "Just proof read your article, The Phenomenology of Error, and really my friend what were you thinking?" William finishes his drink and says to Zinsser, "I was thinking that this conversation was bound to happen, what didn't you like about it?" Zinsser looks down, "well Williams what's all this talk about opinions in grammar? there's no such thing...!" Williams shakes his head hastily and holds out a hand to stop Zinsser before he could continue. "My dear friend, every person has a set rules for grammar that they follow, and inevitably that's the rules they follow when correcting a paper, that was my main point...quick question how many grammatical errors did you perceive in my paper?" Zinsser, now looking a tad dumbfounded takes a sip of his drink and slowly says, "...At least a dozen.." William smiles, "That's exactly what I mean, I found no errors while reviewing my work, but you, you found dozens! In conclusion we should just stick with some basic set of grammatical rules and just go from there. Simply because.." Zinsser interupts "Someone else can always come along and find their own set of mistakes based on their own rules!" Williams pats Zinsser on the back and smiles at his friends' realization, they share a good laugh and order another round, leaving grammatical errors as a simple conversation starter.
Part 2:
For a man analyzing the effect of the Internet on our brains, Nicholas Carr takes on a very hypocritical role as the rhetor. He mentions his struggles on reading long pieces of information, yet writes a 38 paragraph article. His target audience is a wide variety of spectators. He aims for the blogging community, as well as other writers, and just the general public since we are all victims of the Internet phenomenon. His intentions were to exhort his audience to start realizing that they no longer fully indulge in reading, hence our pattern of thinking shifting. Carr even used Friedrich Nietzsche as a good example to explain his theory that the way we were now receiving our information and reading was making our though process change, Nietzsche realized thanks to a friend that “our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts.”Through a series of very educated points, and thorough examination from various sources, Carr wraps up his essay in a magnificent manner. He synthesized his original theory, and concluded with " as we come to rely on computers to mediate our understanding of the world, it is our own intelligence that flattens into artificial intelligence."
Amanda Cramer
ReplyDeleteENC1104-OMO4
Part 1:
William Zinsser arrives at the local bar, his brow furrowed at the thought of what he had read. “How could one just refer to my practices, my thoughts of grammatical errors, as an error in themselves? I don’t understand,” he thoughts to himself, shaking his head in confusion. “Maybe a drink will help me wind down.” At that moment, he had caught eyes with the one person he had not wished to see, unknowingly confronting the man who had used him as a subject in his work, “The Phenomenology of Error”, the main source of his current frustration. A can of worms had yet to be opened.
Zinsser sat down next to the gentleman, known formally as Joseph Williams. A few glances are shared, and Zinsser introduces himself in an attempt to be friendly.
“My name’s William. What is yours?”, Zinsser inquires, holding out a hand in the pursuit of a firm shake.
“Joseph Williams, but I go by Joseph for short,” he replies, following by a long swig of his drink.
At that moment, the color from William’s face runs off his body, realizing that he had been put in front of the one man he could not begin to understand, did not wish to understand.
“Ah, you’re a writer. I remember your work. You referred to me, don’t you recall?”
“Why, yes. It is you! What a strange world we live in, to end up in such strange circumstances, sitting before each other with such simple introductions, yet a much more complex conversation boiling over the edge to be heard.”
Zinsser winces, suppressing his frustration in the hopes of reaching resolution, or some kind of understanding for that matter. “Maybe it wasn’t meant as it had seemed,” he thought to himself, a calming thought.
“You see, Zinsser, I feel as if your understanding of grammar is a weak assumption of what it’s all about. I don’t see these errors as right or wrong, the errors that you speak of. See, the resource that you quoted ultimately was flawed in itself, leading the flaw back to the author himself. Grammar itself is a construct to be perceived as something that is inevitable in writing. People have their own perspectives and their personal viewpoints become incorporated into the writing itself.”
Zinsser looked at him in confusing. “When I point out an error, it is because the writing is wrong—“”No, it may be wrong in your perception, but in accordance to another’s perspective, it may not be wrong at all. Inevitably, everyone follows their own set of rules.”
“So you’re saying that everyone has their own way of determining error? Then how do we know what is wrong or right?” Zinsser asked, questioning in a fury.
“The only way to determine this is through the majority, simply because if the most people believe in one rule, it is a rule that has been learned more dominantly. It has better use within writing because it is more understood. Ultimately, though, it is important to base your perception of the writing on what the author is trying to come across, not how he is trying to do so,” Williams replies informatively, keeping a close eye upon his audience. “Now, good sir, let me do as I please, and may you be on your way?”
Zinsser, in astonishment, replies “Okay, well, thank you for your insight. Have a good night, sir,” and stumbled out of the bar.
Part 2:
ReplyDeleteIn Nicholas Carr’s (the rhetor) article, “Is Google Making us Stupid?”, his exigence is that computers have hindered his ability to focus, and his overall ability to efficiently learn new information. Because the Internet provides such an expanse of information and activity, it can make for a successful distraction from any one task. Although the Internet and Google allow us to access information in a quicker manner, our brains our devolving into distraction, compelling us to focus on irrelevant activities to our task. We have been made to simplify our tasks now, making it so that even the information we wish to seek will only be second glanced, skimmed for what we deem as “necessary”. As the world evolves, we become increasingly wrapped up in the uses of technology, from schoolwork to email to retrieving information from online resources. We have the whole expanse of information at our fingertips and our mind is overwhelmed by it tremendously, making us unable to process just one item at a time, even when it is set forth to us (portraying a type of constraint). We have the intelligence of a computer at our fingertips, making us less and less reliant upon our individual knowledge. Although we are learning constantly as we continue to experience this massive information pool, we are becoming “stupid” because we are no longer looking for conclusions to life’s questions based on our own abilities.
Some possible constraints within this exidence could be the exposure one has to technology, specifically the Internet. In areas in which the technology literacy rate is low, it is easily assumed that the technology has not molded their brain to helplessness. Those who have more access to technology are more likely to become accustomed to its advantages, therefore utilizing it more.
Carr addresses his audience to the situation, telling the technologically inclined generation to look into what has become of them and their technologies. He wishes to give them the information crucial to redeveloping their habits of learning and discovering the unknown aspects of the world.
I completely agree with Cass in this sense. I feel like my generation has become so reliant on technology, that we can barely do anything on our own. I, myself, find it so easy to just look something up on the internet rather than seeking the information out on my own. I can understand what he is addressing, and after reading this, I feel as if I should start looking into redeveloping my learning habits as well. Admitting is the first step to fixing an issue, and I think I am ready for that change. I refuse to let my intelligence become “artificial”.
PART ONE: Two friends, Joseph Williams and William Zinsser, decide to meet up at an old bar and catch up over a few drinks. Things seem to be going quite well, but soon turn sour when Zinsser brings up the topic of Williams’ article “The Phenomenology of Error”. Zinsser is very displeased with Williams for associating a “good friend” in that kind of text.
ReplyDeleteWilliams: Did you get a chance to read my article yet?
Zinsser: Yes, I did. And to be quite honest with you, I’m not so sure I’m okay with it.
Williams: But why, I thought it was quite good if I do say so myself.
Zinsser: Of course you do! You’re not the one who’s being examined for error!
Williams: Ah, I know of course. But my friend, if you look at it from my point of view I was simply pointing out the simple errors that people can make without even knowing. I am just trying to convey the idea that errors within grammar are constructs. A history of repeated errors just makes them unavoidable.
Zinsser: Okay, when you put it that way I understand. I just don’t like the fact that you chose me to critique. I mean who are you to even say what I did was wrong? You could make the same errors too but no one would even think to check your writing twice!
Williams: You’re absolutely right William. I never thought of that either. How about this, I give you the permission to check and critique my work as much as you please. Hey, you can even publish it if you want, that way we’ll be even. Deal?
Zinsser: It’s a deal!
The two men shake hands, laughing and continue to drink and talk like good friends should.
PART TWO:
Rhetor Nicholas Carr wrote an article for "The Atlantic" in July/August 2008 titled "Is Google Making Us Stoopid?". He was not solely targeting Google alone, but rather the internet in general. I believe his audience was a range of people, starting obviously with the readers and subscribers to The Atlantic, and other people who might have the same take on the internet issue. His exigence was just to explain that people are becoming too dependent n the internet. People are shying away from buying real books because you can read them on the internet which take away from the comprehension part of reading. He also points out that people's concentration levels are diminishing because of the internet. I certainly agree with him on a personal level because I feel that the internet is a huge portion of my life; bigger than it should be that is.
Emily Nakis
ReplyDeleteENC 1101 MO3
Part one-
Joseph Williams had just gotten to the bar when he ran into an old friend, William Zinsser. Zinsser spotted Williams and waved him over. The two old friends were pleased to see each other. They sat and talked for about a half hour before a man approached the table. This man said, “Hi, I’m sorry to interrupt but are you Joseph Williams, the author of “The Phenomenology of Error”?” Williams nodded and asked the man what he thought. The man said that he couldn’t help but agree with the points Williams had made. This caught Zinsser’s attention; he turned to Williams and said, “That was your article?” Of course again, Williams nodded and asked for Zinsser’s opinion. Zinsser said, “I could not have disagreed more with the points you were making.” Williams’ eyes had widened and said, “And why is that?” Zinsser said, “Well first, I just find your grammar appalling.” Williams smiled and responded, “I had purposely placed grammatical errors in my article.” Zinsser looked appalled and said, “And what was your reasoning behind that?” Williams then stated, “Well you see my friend, there are many different views about grammar, and so many rules that. By having so many rules, one person can observe certain grammatical choices, while someone else can observe other errors they find.” “Well then how is one supposed to know which way is the grammatically correct way while writing, as well as reading?” said Zinsser. “Well you see, that’s where my article does the explaining. You can see how some people would point out different errors they may find. It’s not that you aren’t right, it just means that you aren’t the only person who is right” said Williams. Zinsser said he now saw were one could observe different mistakes that another may overlook, or deem correct but still had many questions. He noticed that Williams was getting ready to go into a big debate about his understanding and decided to put an end to that topic, and the two men went on with their night.
Part two-
“Is Google Making us Stupid” was the argument presented by Carr. He states how prior to being an internet user he was a much quicker reader and writer. He now says that after reading two-three pages he begins to lose focus. Many people use the internet for the basic questions one may have. People are no longer required to go searching in books, but just search a phrase or key words and you have the ability to find your answer almost immediately. Carr explains that we now have this dependence on the internet, focusing mostly on Google, is something that prevents us from functioning as effective as possible. For a younger generation, this may seem like the case, but what Carr seems to ignore is the effort put forth while learning how to function on the internet. Next he seems to pay no attention to is that not everyone has full access to the internet, therefore these people become the constraints and at this time we can begin to notice Carr as a rhetor. Therefore, we can see how the audience is made up of the constraints, or people who may have trouble with the internet that so many people are so familiar with.
Part One:
ReplyDeleteTwo men, William Zinsser and Joseph Williams meet up for drinks at a local bar to talk about Williams' text, "The Phenomenology of Error". Zinsser has some points he would like discuss.
Zissner: Why would you bash me in such a harsh way?
Williams: I'm very sorry, but you have to realize that everyone reads differently and finds different things as errors.
Zissner: The errors that you made were absolutely ridiculus.
Williams: You have to realize that I made those errors on purpose. It really does puzzle me how some errors evoke fury while others evoke disapproval in people.
Zissner: But I still do not understand what the purpose of your mistakes were.
Williams: My point is to prove that all errors are different. Some are seen as less serious than others. Although there is always an infinite number of errors, everyone chooses which errors to see and pick at.
Zissner: So when I read your text I only saw some of the errors?
Williams: Yes, there are over 100 errors in my writing. You probably only picked out a few during your first read, but if you read through again I'm sure you would find more.
Zissner: I bet there are a lot of differnt rules out there then. How does a writer know what to follow?
Williams: The only way you can know is by documenting the most common errors made by writers. Writers should not fear having errors. Have fun and follow your own set of rules!
Zissner calms down and the two men enjoy their drinks and continue talking.
Part Two:
Carr's article, "Is Google Making Us Stupid?" brings up the controversial topic of how the advances that we have made in technology just might be making us stupid. Today, Carr states, that most people cannot focus for long periods of time without getting distracted. Information is found in seconds with the Internet, but can take a while when books are used. The Internet holds many different purposes for people from social networking to paying bills. It does not just have a single use as a book does. It is easy to become distracted and Carr brings up the point of our intelligence changing. The large amount of people that rely on a computer's Internet and Google is ultimately making the poplulation stupid.
Calyn Beese
ENC 1101-0M03
Jessica Shevlin
ReplyDeleteENC 1101-0M04
Part One
Joseph Williams (JW) and William Zinsser (WZ) are both staying at the Ritz Carlton Hotel for a Grammar Convention. After a long day of workshops and presentations, they both sit down at the hotel bar to have a beer.
WZ- Hey, Joseph! I’m William Zinsser. I really enjoyed your workshop today, “Grammar In Today’s Developing World.’
JW-Oh, yes I remember you from the small group I had, ha-ha. But, thanks. I know my views on grammar sometimes different than most writers’ opinions.
WZ- Actually, I was hoping to pick your brain. I was writing a third edition of On Writing Well, and wanted to see if I can quote you in the section I included about Opinions of Grammatical Errors.
JW- Sure, sounds great.
WZ- Okay. So, I’m going to take out my phone and we’ll just talk and we’ll figure out which part you like best, and I’ll quote you on it in the section. (Takes out recording device).We’re now talking with Joseph Williams, author of The Phenomenology of Error. So, Joseph, tell us a little bit about your opinions of Grammatical Errors.
JW- Well, William. I think that sometimes errors are overanalyzed, and taken too seriously or not seriously enough. It seems that authors, much like yourself, understand certain observations and situations where the context or use of a word is incorrect, but other times where there is a mistake that another may come across that many authors seem not to care as much.
WZ- Can you give me an example?
JW-Well, I think Erving Goffman does a great job with this in An Essay on the Organization of Experience, when he talks about the errors we have in social behavior of word choice. It’s interesting that this way of thinking about social error either causes judgment or a required apology, but it always depends. That’s what I find interesting about grammatical errors in writings like this, people might be wrong or right, but it’s the listener who is to approve and share how he feels.
WZ-Well, what do you think of authors who describe situations with lots of strong words. For example, if you were to spill your drink on the waitress, and I replied, “That’s absolutely atrocious.”
JW- I think that making a judgment that intense to someone who I just met is a bit of an overreaction. It seems unnecessary to make you feel badly about what you did, hopefully by accident. It is unfair to put you and that waitress in an uncomfortable situation. Instead, it would make more sense to apologize.
WZ- I mean, I understand where you’re coming from, but it doesn’t seem fair to just let you off that easily. You spilled beer on this beautiful woman’s blouse, and I’m just supposed to let it happen and not comment?
JW-Yes, that’s the right thing to do in my opinion. It’s not necessarily a situation that is necessary for that sort of comment to make it worse than it already is.
WZ- Okay, I see your point. What about describing more serious situations like war or something like genocide? Aren’t those things absoutley horrible?
JW- I think those things are not great, but I think that those situations arehorrible, that are worth describing as atrocious, horrible, etc., because of the seriousness and importance of that situation, unlike the bar incident.
WZ-Okay, great. Speaking of spilling all of these drinks, how about we order another one and call it a night?
JW- Sounds absolutely atrocious.
Then, they order one more round of drinks and depart the bar.
Part Two
ReplyDeleteIn Carr’s argument, “Is Google Making us Stupid?” we read a very important message that sometimes is not called to our attention. As the world of the Internet continues to grow, we do too. We continue to grow in our sense of worldliness, being able to look up information at our fingertips and read more than we ever have before. However, Carr believes that this “different kind of reading” is not necessarily beneficial in totality. It’s shown that there are new forms of reading that we experience on the Internet, as we are able to “power browse” through several texts quickly. But, it seems that we are taking this route in order to “avoid reading in the traditional sense.” For example, if you did not want to read The Scarlet Letter, you could easily Google (using Google as a verb) the title, and find anything from analyses to summaries in less than ten seconds.
I think we can look to Carr as the Rhetor who is trying to convey the message that although the Internet is a great tool, it is hindering the motivation and though processes of many constituents in the world today (his audience). I think we can agree that Carr is correct when he talks about readers being unable to hold interest in a reading that is more than a few pages in length, due to the type of reading we do on the Internet now. Google is probably one of the greatest inventions on the earth, but it truly is making us less motivated to stay focused and content with a simplistic way of reading, and a way of life for that matter.
Part: One
ReplyDeleteJoseph Williams is sitting at a bar and all of a sudden William Zinsser walks up and asks if he can join joseph for a drink. Joseph agreed to let William sit next to him and they began to have a long conversation. After having a long conversation of getting to know each other, Zinsser brings up the fact that he does not agree with Williams on his position on errors and grammar in writing. He argues that grammar errors are not just a construct but that they are actual errors that people should know right from wrong on. Williams argues back that errors are a construct and that they are just an inevitable way of thinking. Williams says this is similar to when people make social errors. For example when people pass gas at a dinner party or spill coffee on someone the just simply say I am sorry or apologize. William says that this is because people are ignorant or incompetent. Williams continued by saying, “to address errors of grammar and usage in this way, it is also necessary to shift out attention from error treated strictly as an isolated item on a page, to error perceived as flawed verbal transaction between a writer and a reader” (Williams, pg. 39). Zinsser was impressed with William’s response and said you never look at grammatical errors in that way before.
Part: Two
After reading Carr’s “Is Google Making us Stupid” I noticed that I related to many of the things he was talking about. I noticed that my mind is often thinking about a lot of things and I feel like I can’t concentrate when I am reading. I think the reason I can’t concentrate because of social networking sites and texting that catches my attention. In a way Google is making us more stupid. Since Google allows you to basically find anything it is like you don’t even have to do research anymore.
Williams: How are you doing William, are you working on anything new?
ReplyDeleteZinsser: Even if I were I wouldn’t tell you Joseph seeing as you criticize my every word on paper.
Williams: Oh, William, I didn’t mean to offend you…everyone looks at grammatical errors differently and only the reader themselves can decide what they think is plausible.
Zinsser: Well, if you think that, then why are you l
Williams: Different readings call for different types of attention you see, everyone agrees differently on what is considered an error and what is grammatically correct. I was pointing out, however, that the literate population because of your odd choice of wording does generally not accept your form of writing. It is rather unappealing to readers.
Zinsser: Well, who are you to say what is acceptable, and what is not? To each his own. Am I not right? Who is to say my writing isn’t brilliant?
Williams: Often times, the readers depend on the credibility of the author to decide if a piece of text is properly written or not, you see, in one of my very essays I made about 100 grammatical errors to prove the point that if someone thinks they are reading a credible article, they do not look for such errors because they assume there are none.
Zinsser: Well I do believe I am quite a credible author my friend, don’t you? Why would you try and embarrass me if my credibility is so highly esteemed?
Williams: Precisely, credibility is key. When students are reading over their peer’s papers, they use a different lens rather than if they were reading an essay written by a scholar. Much like how I dissected your paper, since you and I are on generally the same pedestal, I find it easier to find errors in your paper, because they are some of which I myself know to recognize.
In the article “Is Google Making us Stupid?” Carr, the rhetor, recognizes that times have indeed changed, and at the current age, people are able to search for anything they please on the Internet instead of looking reading through books. The exigence he chooses is using examples of credible sources admitting they now have problems reading through entire books though it was once easy for them to do. He goes on to explain that computers have made it very hard for people to focus for too long on one article when there are so many other resources online at the reader’s fingertip’s. Carr confesses himself that he finds it hard to read through more than two or three pages without getting distracted by something. He explains that often times people don’t even stay on one site to collect their information, and that they simply skim through multiple pages not reading more than a page or two to find the information they are seeking. Carr’s audience could very well be the younger generations of the technology world in cautioning them that though information is very easy to come by, it doesn’t mean that research shouldn’t be done on the topic nevertheless.
Kelly Costa
ReplyDeleteENC 1101 OMO4
Part 1: It was a cold and rainy night; William Zinsser had just had a fight with his wife and decided to go out for a drink. He pulls into The Rat Hole, which is the local bar. He walks in and the place is pretty hopping, but out of the crowd he can pick out Joseph Williams. A man that Zinsser had a bone to pick with. So Zinsser goes and sits down next to Williams and says, “Hello sir.” Williams turns and gives a neutral greeting back. “How can you right so much about me and not even know what I look like?”, Says Zinsser. “I’m sure I don’t know what you mean?”, replies Williams. “My name is William Zinsser, remember me now?” “Oh this is awkward, listen I’m not really in the mood to argue with you.” “I do not want to argue, I want to discuss what you said.” Zinsser says calmly, “Why did you feel the need to chastise my writing in the very beginning of your paper?” Williams replies, “It is nothing personal William you were just the perfect example to draw my readers in, I think your writing is great.” “Well it would have been nice to throw that in there to make me feel better.” says Zinsser. “I did say you were an amiable man.”, replies Williams in a sarcastic manner. “Now I have a question for you, how did you like the article?” asks Williams. “Well besides you trying to correct my way of writing I thought it was pretty interesting. Your way of thinking that sometimes writing needs errors because it makes it seem raw and more enjoyable to read seems accurate. Because writing should not just be a straight boring line, but kind of jagged.” Zinsser replies. “Good you got the main point of my piece, which pleases me. And again I was not trying to offend you in any way.” says Williams. “I know I understand that now.” And the two men shake hands and order another beer.
Part 2: Nicholas Carr, the rhetor, is writing about how he cannot focus on a lengthy article, or a piece of reading. And he thinks it is because of Google. We have all of this information right at our fingertips whenever we want. Instead of having to go look something up in a book all we have to do is type it in a search bar. Carr’s exigence in this piece is definitely the fact that he has trouble reading these articles and not being able to focus on them for long periods of time. His primary audience would probably be young adults like me, because we use the internet more than most, and usually go to Google for everything. But really his audience could be anyone who uses the internet. Some constraints could be elderly people because they do not know how to use the internet in most cases, so they still look up things the old fashion way. Another constraint could be if you grew up in a poor town then you probably did not use computers for research in school. I will definitely admit I use Google at least once a day to look up a topic; in fact I used it to look up Carr’s article.
Tara Gray
ReplyDeleteENC 1101 OM06
Part 1 –
It was a Friday night around six o’clock and Joseph Williams decided to go to the bar to get a drink and relax after work. While there, he ran into his friend William Zinsser, who just happened to finish reading Williams work, “The Phenomenology of Error.”
Williams: Hey William! Long time no see, how’ve you been?
Zinsser: I’ve been good, but I just finished reading your essay “The Phenomenology of Error” and I was wondering if we could discuss a few points that you made?
Williams: Yeah, of course, what would you like to talk about?
Zinsser: Well, for starters, I was wondering why you decided to use one of my essays as an example of error. And I also do not agree with how you think people should react to grammatical errors. In my work “On Writing Well,” you may notice that I use some pretty strong adjectives to describe grammatical errors, yet you think that words like horrible and atrocious should only be used for social errors.
Williams: First off, I did not mean to offend you by using you as an example of error. I simply meant to show that even professional writers like you often use grammatical errors. And as for using harsh adjectives to describe grammatical errors, I believe that linguistic errors should not be treated the same as social errors for the simple fact that when a person makes a grammatical error, they do not ordinarily need to offer an apology for it. Now, I am quite familiar with your work and I have gathered that you believe there is a certain list of “rules” for all types of grammatical errors, is that correct?
Zinsser: Yes, that is correct. Someone’s grammar is either wrong or right, no questions asked. What do you believe about a grammar error being right or wrong?
Williams: Well you see, I believe that someone’s grammar is right or wrong based on if the error is noticed or not. As you can recall from my work, I use a matrix to show if an error is right or wrong. Even though a rule is violated, there is often no response to it, so is it really an error? And then sometimes when a rule is violated, it is noticed and there is a response to it. For example, in Jacques Barzun’s “Simple and Direct,” he stated a grammatical rule and almost immediately violated it. But it went completely unnoticed by him, anyone who proofread it, the editor, the publisher, and by anyone who read his work. So this is an example of when a rule is violated, but there is no response to it.
Zinsser: So what you are saying is that something is only an error if it is noticed and there is a response to it?
Williams: Well, yes, I guess so. As I stated in my essay, “Value becomes a consideration only when we address the matter of which errors we should notice.”
Zinsser: Hmm….that is a very interesting fact. I guess I can see where you are coming from with your beliefs, but I do not think that I agree with them. Anyways, it was very nice talking to you and hopefully I get to see you soon and we can discuss grammar in more detail.
Williams: Yes, it was a pleasure talking to you as well. Have a good evening.
Part 2 –
In Carr’s article “Is Google making us stupid,” he goes to prove that point that the internet is affecting our brains, making them less able to concentrate or focus on a single subject for long periods of time. Although he recognizes the benefits of the internet, he believes that the net is making it harder and harder for him to read long novels or really anything that is long than 2-3 pages without getting distracted. If we us Grant-Davie’s definition of rhetorical situations to analyze this essay, Carr would be the rhetor. His exigence is that he is trying to get people to realize what the internet is really doing to our mind, despite all of its great benefits. He says that our mind is getting used to getting information super-fast from the internet that it cannot focus on anything that does not deliver the information at the same speed as the net.
It is a Sunday afternoon, the wind softly caresses the body of the willow tree. Loneliness evokes her actions of dismay. She becomes excited, and strikes the red truck.
ReplyDeleteZ.W: In god’s name, bloody hell! Of all people, my car! You piece of garbage tree!
J.W: If my eyes don’t deceive me, I’ll be darn. Is that really you Zinsser? You old rascal, I see you’re still driving that 1960 Ford four wheeler!
Z.W: Joseph!
Zinsser quickly goes over and hugs Joseph
Z.W: Long time no see old friend! Come, come, they have the best rum here in town!
Both proceed into Ruth’s Ale House, an Iris Pub.
J.W: How is the family? I heard you’re still writing those college text books. Too bad teens these days don’t seen that interested in literacy as they used to be.
Z.W: The girls are doing fine, thank you for asking. Yes, I’m still writing about nonsense! Writing.., that brings up your work Joseph! I recently finished your published ‘’The Phenomenology of Error’’ it was quite an interesting read. I was quite taken a back on your usage of me as an example. You can say, it had an impact on my views about grammar/errors.
Both chuckle and orders two glasses of Old Jack.
J.W: Yes, well you know me, always trying to make my companions’ names show up in my books. All jokes aside, what did you think of it?
Z.W: I somewhat agree with you on a degree, however, I cannot fully understand why you would compare grammatical errors to those occurrence of social error. The human mind is wired to correct errors where their actions have a negative effect on society or their audience. While as, in text, when you make an error you have simply done that. There is no apologizing; rather, you must correct it.
J.W: Are you implying that errors we make are not due to constructs or outside influences? Just think about writing to a CEO compared to writing a letter to a student. Your style will be effected and you automatically systemized your brain function to write proper and formal, vs. somewhat loose leaf and informal.
Z.W: Well, in most cases you should always just follow the structure and what you were taught in school as far as grammar goes and proper writing. I do not think audience effects the overall writing style of the writer. If I wrote to a CEO, student, mother- heck monkey, they would all follow the same format I write with. If I do make errors, they were due to my lack of awareness, not my judgment on audience.
J.W: Mind you this, if I was reading an article from a high new paper publisher, I would be reading for context and not errors, correct? Same with the human mind, when we write for content and rather error, we seem to focus more on how to express our words. Rather, if we focused on not making errors, we would write extend amount of words that follows the rules of grammar, however, lacks clear expression.
Z.W: Joseph, you do not make much sense here. If I was a well educated student, I wouldn’t have these problems because I was taught how to write in a clear way and in addition, grammar.
J.W: My concerns are for students these days, didn’t you read my book, you old rascal!
Z.W: Ah, my sincere apologizes, I think the Ole Jack is kicking in! How about we call it a night?
J.W: Till next time!
Both depart.
(continue next post)
Vivienne Do
ENC-1101 0M04
(continued from post above..)
ReplyDeletePart 2:
Many of the respond to our usage of the internet on the previous Blog posts were reflective of positive attribution towards our education. As a college student, or any student, I would much rather have the ability to find information that supports my research in a matter of minutes- rather hours. Carr makes this point, and explains that by reducing the time we spend on acquiring knowledge, our brain is slowly changing how it receives information now. From my person opinion, I have noticed when I read articles posted online, I try to skim it really quickly to pick up the main points. This is because of distractions around the article that persuades me to do so. In a way, the ability to obtain knowledge in the fastest way possible is an exigence, our perception of knowledge is how much we can memorize. I personally believe knowledge is understanding the context you are exposed it. If I read Shakespeare ‘’Hamlet’’ I could memorize Hamlet’s key speeches, but I would have to be able to understand the language and text in order to truly gain knowledge from it. We are constantly distracted because the media is trying to deviate our attention, distracting us by adding missilenous information our eyes can easily pick up by simply shifting viewpoints. This brings up another exigence of money making, information gathering, government investment. They, the media, makes us click on different links so the company will have more hit views, which makes money for them. There are certainly constraints that alternate how we view the internet. With the perception of ‘’the internet is easy and quick to obtain information’’ we fall into the whole reason why website producers make it easy to get knowledge. By posting small amounts of text, with different links our ‘’See more’’ we have to click to a different site, with different adds/money making which contributes to more views.
Vivienne Do
ENC-1101 0M04
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteTaylor Beam
ReplyDeleteEnc 1101 0M06
Part 1:
(Joseph Williams and William Zinsser are meeting to have a few drinks at a bar)
Joseph: Hey WIll, how are you?
William: Good thank you. How are you?
Joseph: Good thank you. You seemed very eager to talk to me when I listened to your message.
William: Yes I am. I read your article "The Phenomenology of Error" and I wanted you to meet me here so I could tell you what I thought about it in person.
Joseph: Okay I am open to listening.
William: Joe, why would you try to challenge a tradition of writing grammatically correct?
Joseph: I wasn't trying to challenge it. I was trying to say that maybe the focus should be put more on the writing piece itself and the point it is trying to make rather than the grammatical errors.
William: I understand the focus should be more balanced towards the writing's purpose. However, writing a paper that has no grammatical errors and a clear thesis that is supported shows the knowledge of someone educated versus someone who is not as educated.
Joseph: This is the part where we don't agree. I don't see grammatical errors as being "atrocious" as you would say. Just because some people take further steps into their education than others does not necessarily mean they are smarter than those who don't. Did you not relate to the example in my article about social errors? Doing things such as breaking wind at the dinner table or accidentally stepping on someone's toe calls for an apology, while grammatical errors do not call for an apology. They are far from atrocious.
William: I still do not agree with you.
Joseph: I was really hoping you would be more open-minded.
William: I don't understand why you intentionally put errors in your article.
Joseph: I did it to show that the most important thing about a piece of writing is what the author is trying to say, not necessarily how they may be saying it.
William: Let's just agree to disagree. You will have your opinion and I will have mine.
Part two:
In Nicholas Carr's article, "Is Google Making Us Stupid?", he doesn't say that Google is making today's generation stupid. His exigence is simply that people today rely almost completely dependent on technology. He says he now struggles with immersing himself in a book or lengthy article, which use to not be the case. He believes it is because he spends so much time online searching and surfing the internet. While I personally do not struggle with this, I do know some people that do. I agree that so many people rely on today's technology with everyday life, whether it pertain to school, work or their social life. Books are read online rather than on paper. Some people start businesses online and work from home. Facebook and Twitter are popularly used for people to interact and socialize online. The internet is a huge factor in today's world.
Orane Walters
ReplyDeleteENC 1101-0M03
Part 1
On a busy week night, two business associates decide to meet at a local bar to discuss some aspects of the article, “The Phenomenology of Error”. Joseph Williams sits at the bar patiently waiting for his colleague, William Zinsser. As he waits tolerantly, he enjoys a few beverages that the bartender has made him and five or so minutes goes by. Zinsser approaches the bar and the two men acknowledged each other, shook hands and sat at a table. Zinsser orders a drink and the two men delve into the conversation.
Zinsser: I have just read your marvelous article “The Phenomenology of Error” and I wanted to discuss some aspects of it with you.
Williams: Thank you for reading Zinsser. And what aspects might that be?
Zinsser: Well you see. You mentioned me in an example about grammatical errors that, in my opinion weren’t entirely correct.
Williams: Yes I did include you in an example of grammar errors. I used you as example to state the fact that grammatical error can be perceived as a flawed verbal transaction between the writer and the reader.
Zinsser: And where exactly are you going with this?
Williams: The idea of the error originated in the mind of the writer of the source, and then the error was planted into the source from which you received it. So it is not entirely your grammatical error.
Zinsser: I see.
Williams: Grammatical error is a construct. They are simply choices in thinking that they are unavoidable.
Zinsser: A brilliant observation Williams but how do you know that you didn’t make the same mistake that I made?
Williams: That’s a good point. But I don’t.
Zinsser: You don’t?
Williams: Let me explain. To address errors of grammar, assume the idea that social errors are usually errors that violate personal space. Correct?
Zinsser: Yes, continue
Williams: Now think of a social error as a flawed transaction or an accident that manifest itself as an invasion of personal space.
Zinsser: Okay
Williams: Now to address grammar errors with this way of thinking, a simple error such as using a ‘like’ for an ‘as’ or saying ‘between you and I’ shouldn’t offend us. We must treat errors not as something that’s on the surface of the page, but rather as a variably experienced union of item and response.
Zinsser: I would have never thought of it like that. I’d be sure to think of where the error resonated next time. I want to thank you for meeting me here tonight Williams.
Williams: No problem at all. The pleasure was mine.
With Zinsser not having thought of grammatical errors like Williams did. He was thankful for the knowledge he gained that night. Now, with the discussion and disagreement resolved, the two men finished their drinks that headed their separate ways.
Part 2
In his article “Is Google Making us Stupid?” Carr (rhetor) proposes an argument (exigence) that the internet is changing the way our mind works and that it has negative consequences such as the concentration span of the mind. The rhetor directs his argument to internet users (audience) by stating that the internet is hindering the mind of human beings in the long run because we are influenced by the way we read from the internet. It has become a habit of internet users to skim through web pages, articles and jumping from one web page to the next. Carr believes that our minds can no longer stay focused on a book, or lengthy articles for example because our brains are trained to quickly view bits and pieces of information from various internet pages which results in a short concentration span for lengthy readings. Carr proposes an important and valid argument to society but there a many constraints that prohibit his argument from being factual such as the many different ways human beings learn.
Brittany Callarman
ReplyDeleteENC1101 0M04
Part 1-
It was a late Wednesday night out at the local bar, when two intellectual individuals happened to run into each other. Both Joseph Williams and William Zinsser agree to disagree on many different aspects of grammar. It all started off with Zinsser..
Zinsser: Joseph Williams: The Joseph Willians of “The Phenomenology Error”?
Williams: Yes sir, how are you Mr. Zinsser?
Zinsser: Well quite happy I happened to run into you. What is all this non-sense about?
Williams: Non-sense?
Zinsser: Saying my writings are not accurate? What if I put you in that position?
Williams: Mr. Zinsser, you’re taking it to a different extent than I intended it to be. I am not in any way saying your work is bad or wrong or right, I am trying to prove how numerous “errors” are mainly not even looked at nor visible to the average human eye.
Zinsser: Well before you correct me sir, I believe you need some help yourself. You are trying to write to our society telling them there are not really errors, just constructs? Then on top of that, you want to criticize my work as well?
Williams: I respect you on many levels Mr. Zinsser. I’m trying to prove that grammatical errors do not necessarily have a right from wrong.
Zinsser: And where are you going with this?
Williams: Children are being raised by asking the question “Is this right” when turning in their expository and narrative papers. If every single thing on the paper was wrong, to the extent of every grammatical error, wouldn’t that discourage them from continuing to write? Numerous errors that are considered wrong aren’t even noticed by the average person. In your examples I used there were still a numerous of grammatical errors. These examples were taken from books that were proofed by numerous professionals. Where I am trying to get with this is that even after they proofed it, they still didn't catch some errors.
Zinsser: So everyone should ignore all the grammatical rules then?
Williams: Not so. There are many flaws, mistakes, and errors in grammar and many just simply read right over not even noticing it. It doesn’t make that writer any less of a person? We’ve all made mistakes and can quickly fix them with an “I’m sorry”, we all do things that we may think is right when it really is not right, so the question is what is really right?
Part 2-
ReplyDeleteIn Carr’s article “Is Google Making us Stupid?” he tries to open our eyes to the fact that the internet is changing us day by day. He writes to prove to everyone that its not only in himself, it is in everyone that our brain is adapting to the computer and internet life versus the life of books and research and long night studies. He explains that how back when a 700 to 800-page book was long and now we look at 3 to 4 paragraphs and think we need to just skim. Our brains have adapted to the life of the easy way out and doesn't provide us with the patience to sit down and read a book and enjoy it. Carr believes that since our brains are sculpting around the easy way out, our society is now forming into a lazy, less motivated world. He even states how doctors are now just referring to the Internet for major questions and skimming through articles to find answers rather than reading up on the information they should know. With that being said, is the internet a new improved technology, or is it really just destroying the intelligence of our society?
Chris Arizmendi ENC 1101-omo3
ReplyDeletePart 1-
After a long day of working on new writing material, Joseph Williams drags himself across the street to a local town bar. With the attitude of a cat, Joseph bumps through the mess of crowd inside. Fortunately, Josh acquired what he wanted, alcohol, but he could not find a seat. He soon finds himself towering over the game of pool located in the middle of this shindig. He grows bored of watching and as soon as he turns a man bumps into Joseph and spills his beverage all over Joseph. After much argument, the other man noticed he ran into the great Joseph Williams and introduces himself as William Zinsser.
Zinsser- “Mr. Williams! So shocked to just run into you! I just finished reading your piece called ‘Phenomenology of Error.’”
Joseph- “Yes, my work has stirred great controversy over how people should view error. Unfortunately, people remind me of how I may be wrong, everyday...I stand ground on my case as it seems though.”
Zinsser- “Well I don’t agree about your main focus of a paper. Grammar is crucial and should thus scale the better from good to bad!
Joseph- “Stop right there! Stated in my writing, I do give and show the importance of grammar but I have no intention to make Grammar more key than the topic and main idea itself.”
Zinsser- “But, proper grammar is what kids learn all through school. That is key, no small punctuational or linguistic error should be left in a paper and it not be noted.
Joseph- “No Zinsser, you must agree to not let errors override the importance of the issue or topic being told in the actual writing piece.”
Zinsser- “Well, said, I agree, as long as you agree that errors as still out there is most writing pieces and it can somewhat decrease the value of the piece but not completely.
Joseph- “Understood fellow man, now buy me a new shirt and don’t just stand there!”
Part 2-
Being the rhetor, Carr argues and delivers a great point in "Is Google Making us Stupid?" Carr delivers the message that the internet today has completely shaped the way in how you and I read. All of this information and easy access to books, blogs, and anything else can draw our attention away from the main source of information and only reading the synopsis of the main points online through “Google.” Carr also states how people are not really required to use books as sources for anything. Most people say, “Hey, just ‘google’ it.” Saying this simply means just go find the quickest answer in the fastest and least effort kind of way. You could type in any word, topic, or phrase into google and it quickly finds what you need in a short and easy way without any effort in learning how to actually search true databases and research books. Carr sees the audience as everyone, specifically kids growing up in an internet based world though. The ease of easy access gives kids today no challenge in researching. Unfortunately, not everyone has access to internet and those people can be the constraints along with the oldest generation out there today. The elderly are not fond or can’t use computers due to there lack of being able to learn such an advanced thing to them. Carr’s exigence is not being to focus on pieces that are longer than a few pages due to google’s fast and short effective way to get information
Aasim Bhimani ENC 1101-0M03
ReplyDeletePart 1-
After reading his name mentioned so atrociously in Joseph Williams the Phenomenology of Error, William Zinsser decides to have a talk with Joseph at their local bar.
William: So nice of you to join me this evening Joseph
Joseph: Wouldn’t have missed it for the world, now tell me, what did you think of my article?
William: Well, personally, I feel it was unnecessarily harsh and highly offensive to not only me, but many others
Joseph: And why would you say that?
William: Our grammar is correct in the way that we use it
Joseph: Is that how you see it?
William: I think that’s how we all see it.
Joseph: Well then, as I stated in the piece, you are all incorrect
William: Please, elaborate more
Joseph: Gladly, see readers, no matter what age, are prone to pick out errors they want to see, not what they have to see. When words like atrocious, oaf and idiot are used, a blind eye is usually cast over, but in turn, we must eliminate those kinds of errors. We are also not fast on fixing an error since we feel it reflects poorly on us. For example, a teacher might find an error in a student’s work and not correct it since that would reflect the teacher did not do their job correctly.
William: Is that so?
Joseph: Please, let me finish. I also find it appalling that those who state rules go on and commit those same errors later on. To avoid continuing on this sort of a path, we must not be afraid to correct an error when identified.
William: I see, now I get it, I apologize for being so angry at first
Joseph: No problem, now, let’s enjoy our drinks.
Part 2:
Carr’s Is Google making us Stupid, he explains how as technology has increased, our attention span has decreased, and will continue to do so. He explains how even those who are highly educated see themselves getting constantly distracted while reading a paper or long article. He shows how the internet has diminished our ability to concentrate on one thing for a long period of time. He wishes to portray to the general public what the internet is doing to our brains and the potential long term effects.
Lauren Helinger ENC1101-0m06
ReplyDeleteIt's late one Friday night and Joseph Williams is out at his favorite dive bar enjoying some drinks and relaxing after a stressful few months of writing and publishing his newest article. There's only a few regulars in the bar and Williams seems pretty calm, that is until his old pal William Zinsser walks in. Williams knew it wouldn't be long till Zinsser showed up after seeing what was written about him in William's article.
Williams: Hey Will, I knew it wouldn't be long before you tried to find me.
Zinsser: Yeah! Can I talk to you about your something?
Williams: Of course! Whatever you need to say, feel free to say it.
Zinsser: Why, out of everybody you know, did you pick me to degrade in your article?!
Williams: No, no, no, I did not degrade you, I simply used you as an example to explain something to my readers. You were prime for the example, your discretion towards errors in writings was just something else. Do you realize how many different rules there are for following correct grammar? Do you understand that when reading someone's work you should try and focus on the actual message of the writing, not solely the errors?
Zinsser: Your writing was atrocious and it was almost unbearably hard to read due to all of the errors I kept coming across. The fact that you felt the need to mention me in the article didn't make it any easier to read, either.
Williams: I apologize for the unpleasant surprise, but I hope you can understand what I'm trying to say.
Zinsser: I guess I can see where you are coming from, but over 100 intentional errors, really man??
Williams: It was all to prove a point, and I think I did a mighty fine job. We could agree to disagree, but thank you for understanding me.
Zinsser: And that you did, my friend. I just wanted to clear the air with you and I am glad we could discuss. Have a good rest of the night; I look forward to reading your future works.
Williams: Thanks for the understanding, I will see you soon.
Part 2: In Carr's article “Is Google Making us Stupid?” he discuses the struggles we now face due to the growing internet usage and ease of finding out information. If we use Grant-Davie's constituents of rhetoric, we can easily begin to analyze the piece. We know Carr, the one expressing his exigence, is the rhetor. His exigence comes from the issue that he doesn't think the way he used to; he doesn't have the same attention span he did before the answer to any question was right at the click of a mouse and he realizes many others are facing the same problem. His audience is us, the reader who uses the internet and is more than likely experiencing the same thing as well. He makes a point to say in the title that Google is making US stupid, and he says “What the Internet is doing to OUR brains”. A few constraints are present including the technologically inclined way we are educated, and I would say the ease of it would be a constraint as well. Especially for people who have grown up using the internet, it is much easier to type a question or topic into Google than it is to go to the library and look it up which leads most people to only rely on the internet for sources.
Jasmine Tagle
ReplyDeleteENC 1101 - OM06
Part One:
Joseph Williams and William Zinsser meet to have a few drinks after work to discuss Williams’ new article “The Phenomenology of Error”.
JW: Hey William, how are you this evening?
WZ: I’m doing fine although I just read your article on grammar and I’m a little shaken up about it?
JW: Oh don’t be such a baby, yes I mentioned you and no it was not in the best of lights but it’s just grammatical errors.
WZ: Yes I suppose, but explain yourself.
JW: Fine. As I said in my article, everyone has minor errors in their work from time to time. I, however, am not offended by it. It’s humanly nature to make mistakes. You see most people feel the need to apologize after saying or writing something grammatical incorrect, I feel that that is ridiculous.
WZ: How so?
JW: If someone were to drop their dinner plate onto the floor at your house, you would expect them to say apologize right? I don’t see the equality of clumsiness or an atrocity with a grammatical error. It’s just not the same, nor close to being so.
WZ: I guess I can agree with that. We should acknowledge our mistake and try to fix it but an apology would just be extending the kindness.
JW: Exactly my thinking, which is the reasoning for my article William. Also you may or may not have picked up on my own errors throughout the article.
WZ: Well I didn’t want to say anything about it, seeing as you went so into depth on grammar and made your own mistakes. *chuckles*
JW: Very funny, but I did that for a purpose. You may have seen only a few of my mistakes while someone could have spotted different ones. There are different rules to grammar. Everyone sees differently.
WZ: Okay, I understand your logic. There are grey areas in every subject.
JW: Now that we’re on the same page. Let’s get another drink.
Part Two:
In Carr’s article “Is Google Making Us Stupid?” he is arguing that the Internet and the media is subliminally tampering with our brains. His argument is his exigence, as Grant-Davie would call it. He is aiming his argument at all Internet and media users. Carr uses anecdotal evidence as well as actual experiments on Internet usage. Carr’s own anecdotal evidence was that he can no longer deep read, he often skims long passages and has to force his brain to focus on the passage entirely. A potential constraint in response to exigence would be that media and the Internet are vastly growing and advancing, it is controlling more of every day life and will continue to do so. Our brain has been taught to use “the less efficient method of actually turning the pages and reading the articles” of skimming which is turning our own intelligence into “artificial intelligence.”
Allison Serafine
ReplyDeleteENC1101-0M06
PART 1: Joseph Williams was initially surprised when he received word that William Zinsser had just finished reading his “Phenomenology of Error” and was fuming to discuss the article, but after mulling over the daunting idea of taking on Zinsser face to face he decided that taking the ultimate opportunity to defend is ideas on grammar. As they met in a bar Williams was eager and prepared for what Zinsser may bring to the table.
William Zinsser: Hello, Joseph? Joseph M. Williams?
Joseph Williams: Yes sir that’s me. I’m presuming you are William?
Zinsser: Good guess. I’m glad you finally agreed to meeting with me, I’m very curious as to some of your “findings” within your “Phenomenology of Error” piece.
Williams: Have at it my friend; I will stand by my words.
Zinsser: First of all, why did you choose my work to pick apart as if written by a child?! I had eloquent research along with widely excepted, almost textbook grammar, with only a few added elements of uniqueness!
Williams: Well I will answer your questions in order. I chose you because in most elements of your writing I found you respectable and scholarly, so it aloud for a rather narrow assessment of your grammar instead of having to dealing with flawed reasoning too. And as for your grammar, you made some seriously biased and adamant claims on writing and I simply was using it as examples to further my own claim that while grammar is taught from childhood there is not always an exact right or wrong.
Zinsser: No right or wrong? How is that?
Williams: Well I believe that grammar is an area where there can be two uses of one word phrase of punctuation and possibly still be correct. Did you not notice all of the grammatical errors in the article?
Zinsser: That really was on purpose? What a relief, I thought I was being taken apart by someone without any merit! (Both laughed)
Williams: Are you feeling better about my assessment yet?
Zinsser: Perhaps a tad. But still, using my use of “impact” against me was slightly ridiculous, I clearly backing for that.
Williams: Yes, sure. But I think its incredible how someone could just all of a sudden change the meaning and association of a word that’s has century old roots. This, again, was being used to make my overall point that there is no definitive right or wrong.
Zinsser: I see your point. I guess that pretty well wraps it up on my end. Now what do you say we enjoy these drinks.
Both ended up enjoying they’re drinks and each other’s scholarly company and at the end of the night walked away as friends.
(Because of character count restrictions I've posted my "Part 2" right below!!)
Allison Serafine
ReplyDeleteENC1101-0M06
PART 2: Nicholas Carr’s “Is Google Making Us Stupid?” is certainly a thought provoking article, to say the least. The idea that my generation is constantly relying on Google rather than literature for knowledge and instant gratification has brought forth awareness to the possibility that Google is more harmful than helpful in the long run. But Carr puts that to rest by hypothesizing that Google, in fact, will never make us stupid because of the sheer volume of information that it brings to the tips of our fingers. In a way, it seems almost absolutely impossible to think that with all of that information that would otherwise be nearly inaccessible being instantly in our hands could be anyway detrimental to our mental well-being. As a generation that has practically never known life without the internet, we (18-24 year olds) are, if not his direct audience, we are definitely the “us” in the subject matter. As Glen-Davie would explain, we are his audience, and we hold restraints against his writing only in the way that our lives depend on Google, and severing that tie would most certainly kill our perception of “intelligence”. Another restraint would be how carefully he speaks about Google, since his article is on the internet; he definitely did not write that article hoping no one would read it. Google has undoubtedly help get his words and eloquent writing skills into the people that most need to read it, so he can’t talk too critically of Google. All in all, Carr has an excellent point in the struggle between Google and literature learning, but we all know that nothing can go backwards now, and that certainly includes how we gather the majority of our information- the internet.
ENC 1101-0M03
ReplyDeleteUpon reading Joseph Williams’ article “The Phenomenology of Error”, William Zinsser decides to have a small meeting with Williams to discuss his call out and reasoning behind it.
Zinsser: I do not appreciate you calling me out in your article Williams, especially when you made so many atrocious errors in your own writing.
Williams: That right there is exactly why I called you out Zinsser! By making purposeful or accidental grammatical errors I have not committed an atrocity. Plus you missed the point of my 100+ errors in the article.
Zinsser: Point! You are trying to teach people about errors and not making errors, while putting errors into your writing.
Williams: Yes exactly! You understood the article and what I wanted my readers to obtain from it right?
Zinsser: Well yes…
Williams: Then you just proved my point and falsified your own. There is no need to nit pick at every single word and phrase to make sure they grammatically coincide with every known rule, otherwise you as the reader miss the main points of information that the writer is trying to get across.
Zinsser: Williams, you cannot tell me to just simply ignore some grammar rules and follow others.
Williams: But that’s the beauty of it because you can! Each article, journal, essay or any piece of writing must be examined to make sure that not only are the words and punctuations are correct but that the piece of writing is actually stating the information properly for the reader to understand.
Zinsser: I would rather not admit it but I guess you’re right Williams. Grammar is not an on or off, up or down concept. There must be middle ground and most importantly the readers must understand what the writer is trying to tell them.
Williams: I’m glad you see things from my perspective Zinsser, and now maybe you will be more lenient when digging into writers and their “hideous” grammatical errors.
Zinsser: Alright, I get it. There’s no need for mocking Williams.
Part2 ENC 1101-0M03
ReplyDeleteAs the rhetor, Carr could have given the audience his exigence in a much shorter article. He did not consider that many other people have the same fault that he is experiencing, lack of attention and the ability to focus for long periods of time. I have been noticing this in myself as well and reading his article proved this to me. The Internet, though a vital tool in almost every aspect of our lives, also hinders people’s cognitive functions. Carr wants the audience to understand how much each generation’s thought processes change based on each new invention. Information exchange becomes easier and more rapid from decade to decade but that doesn’t give it any less value, it simply increases efficiency. His worry is that increasing efficiency too much will turn us into mindless machines. I believe there’s nothing wrong with the internet and only blame video games for my lack of focus. There are two sides to every coin and we can see how much more advanced we have become after the initial invention of the computer. People have not become stupid as a result of the internet, they’ve become lazy.
Matt Concelmo
ReplyDeleteENC 1101-OM06
Part1
It was a cold night in New York as an unhappy William Zinsser walks into his favorite local pub, MacLaren’s, for a few drinks. He is meeting Joseph Williams to discuss his role in William’s essay “The Phenomenology of Error”, which he just finished reading a night earlier. Zinsser sits down at his usual spot and waits for Williams to arrive. After a few brews and a glass of their finest scotch, Williams arrives, greets Zinsser, and sits himself across the table. “Hello, Willy,” Joseph Williams says to Zinsser, “How are you on this fine night?” A blank expression goes across Zinsser’s face. “Do you really think you can meet me in person and act so nonchalant. Why the hell did you use my name as an example in your writing? You have defaced my character, and caused me to look like an asshole because of the way I express my attitude towards usage errors. I am a writer for God’s sake, can you not see reason to my actions?” As Zinsser finishes his short rant, his face turns a shade of pink. Williams responds, “It was not my intentions to make you look like a fool. I was making a point. Who is to say that you, or anyone else for that matter, can determine the severity of certain mistakes? Everyone follows their own set of grammatical rules,” “If that is the case,” Zinsser counters quickly, “then how are we suppose to determine correct and incorrect usage? Grammar does not change solely because one believes they are correct.” Williams smiles and responds “Majority, my good man. Majority determines correctness. Everyone has some set their own grammatical rules, and in those rules, there are occasions that a majority would deem as an ‘error’. That is why I included you in my work. Just because one acclaimed writer, you, states that ‘impact’ is not a proper verb does not make it set in stone.” Zinsser is silent for a moment, and then responds “so the reason why I found all these mistakes are not because I posses full knowledge of grammar, but because I am just simply following my own rules?” Williams smiles “Yes. As you should be aware of since you did my reading, just because a rule finds it’s way into a book about grammar…” “…it does not mean you have to honor it,” Zinsser responds, with a sudden realization.
Part2
‘When the mechanical clock arrived, people began thinking of their brains as operating “like clockwork.” Today, in the age of software, we have come to think of them as operating “like computers.”’ This quote stuck out to me the most while reading this article, and it makes perfect sense. The increase in use and reliance of the Internet and other forms of technology has molded the brain to think and process like a computer. The example Carr uses of The New York Times explains the change in human’s mindset very well; since our attention span has shorten, media has become more “efficient” by “shortcuts” such as text-crawls.
Echoing HAL, I can feel it. Before reading this article, I had similar beliefs. It is hard to focus on one task, such as what to write for this blog, before my mind unconsciously jolts to another thought. Because of the reliance on computers and technology, our minds are constantly working. This is why it is so hard to concentrate on one task, before another thought enters the mind. There is a constant need for information that we seek. Our minds are really operating like computers, and there is less and less “quiet spaces” for our mind to relax and just think.
ENC 1101 oMo3
ReplyDeletePart One:
Two men walk into a bar, one of them is William Zinsser and the other is Joseph Williams. They sit down order some drinks and start conversating about Williams new work, "The Phenomenology of Error." Zinsser starts out by asking Williams "so why is it that you had to bash me like that in your paper?" Williams, not surprised, retorts with "William I was not trying to bash you I was simply bringing to light the fact that some people no matter who they are make mistakes in grammar." Zinsser comes back with "I guess I can see your point but what about all the mistakes you made in your writing?" "Ah you see," said Williams, "that was all part of my plan I mean everyone has to make mistakes and the fact that you caught them means you understand that I had errors but I can guarantee that there are more that you did not see because you have different rules of grammar then most others do." "So are you saying that my beliefs in grammar also cause me to miss some mistakes because I just do not believe they are mistakes?" said Zinsser. "Exactly, our conscious mind only see what we want to see so it is easy to see that mistakes or not everyone is right and wrong at the same time because grammar techniques are not cut-and-dry." said Williams. "Alright I completely see where you are coming from now Williams, my writing is correct in only some peoples eyes while it is way off in others. It is just a big compromise on whether or not the work is good." said Zinsser, and the friends continue with their drinks talking about other topics.
Part 2:
In terms of Grant-Davie's article on rhetorical analysis, Carr's argument named "Is Google making us stupid?" shows that Carr has problems with the fact that he believes the internet is good and bad for us at the same time. This is Carr's exigence because in one corner there is the internet that rots our brains and destroys our learning habits but on the other side our society would not be able to function without it because it rules so much of our lives and gives us instant access to knowledge, which are the restraints to his exigence because even his life would be severely changed if there was not an internet. The internet has completely changed our way of learning because most of our minds see something long and try to summarize it immediately by just skimming over it for a minute or so whereas this would not be the case if there wasn't an internet. So, Carr brings up some great points but no matter where you go with the argument the internet will always come out on top because the benefit of it outweighs the costs.
Joseph Williams is at his favorite bar enjoying a nice cold beer, when a man named William Zinsser approaches him saying, "Mr.Williams I have studied your various texts and I want to let you know that your writing is extremely offensive." Joseph then asked the man, "What do you find offensive?" Will then responded, "Well in your text it says that I am ignorant on the many rules of grammar however I happen to excel in the field of grammar. Joseph then looked at William with perplextion and stated, "Mr. Zinsser you fail to understand my argument, I was simply trying to state that since there are so many complex uneccesary rules of grammar that nobody follows, technically speaking no individual writes grammatically correct." Willaim then taken aback said, "You are right my firend."
ReplyDeleteIn Carr's arguement he states that because of the new technological innovations in the past few years, it has become so simple to find specific information, that we have lost a lot of knowledge that would have been gained by reading through long articles. I personally agree with his statement for many reasons but the one that I would like to stress with utmost importance is the fact that reading increases intelligence level, and if we were to read more long articles trying to find specific information we would get more out of the situation rather than just asking a question in a search bar.
Nicholas Perez de la Mesa ENC1101-0m06
ReplyDeletePart I
ReplyDelete"You know," said Joseph, "I appreciate the time you take out of your day to meet me here in the bar. While I do enjoy literature, constantly immersing myself without a break shouldn't be healthy for me at all." "I hear that," said William after taking a sip from his cognac "but what can you do. You know, speaking of work, I saw that one thing you wrote." Joseph brightened up, "Ah yes, 'The Phenomenology of Error. I feel that the subject over how an error should be addressed should have been discussed." William looked at him, "absolutely, errors are an absolute nuisance, completely detestable. One must strive to avoid them at all costs." "Funny that you mention that, Zinsser." Williams chuckles as he sips his drink. "What does that supposed to mean?" replied Zinsser curiously.
"Nothing, it's the way we perceive errors." said Joseph. "Oh? Come on, you can't really tell me you don't find them annoyingly detestable. As a matter of fact, just plain wrong." said Williams excitingly. "No, no, no; you see, that's where everybody gets it wrong. You're treating it as if you just witnessed a person walking in to a woman's bathroom and using it." Joseph looked at him, "it's a grammatical error, not a social error. The point still goes across just not in the uniformed way we would like for it to be." Zinsser exclaimed, "Oh, please. You're just to lazy to fix the erro-"
"You see, what I did with my fists was the wrong way for me to tell you to shut the fuck up, but the point was made with my fist.", Joseph laughed heartily
Part II
The rhetor, Nicholas Carr, presents the idea that the internet is changing people, their mental habits, etc. The way these people think. I believe it's generally safe to assume that the audience for this piece of writing would be anybody that uses the internet. Although the text just sounds like a man lamenting the changing technologies of dynamic times and its consequences on the human mind, he does not necessarily have to say that the internet if making us stupid. Personal examples and testimonies are strong in here to deliver the point the rhetor does not want to say, but it is also truth. The Internet and Google has been dumbing down humanity since the first command line was executed. The reason only why people a quarter century ago would make advantageous gains compared to today's society is due to the fact that 25 years ago, the internet infrastructure was still growing and in those previous times like Carr said, people would spend days in libraries unlike today where those days are now summed up in minutes by clicking the "I'm Feeling Lucky" button. When technologies change, societies change; just like with the letter press. We're still a very knowledge-thristy society, there's no doubt in that, the only problem between then and now is the amount of effort we put in to indulge in knowledge. A society of convenience.
Part I
ReplyDelete"You know," said Joseph, "I appreciate the time you take out of your day to meet me here in the bar. While I do enjoy literature, constantly immersing myself without a break shouldn't be healthy for me at all." "I hear that," said William after taking a sip from his cognac "but what can you do. You know, speaking of work, I saw that one thing you wrote." Joseph brightened up, "Ah yes, 'The Phenomenology of Error. I feel that the subject over how an error should be addressed should have been discussed." William looked at him, "absolutely, errors are an absolute nuisance, completely detestable. One must strive to avoid them at all costs." "Funny that you mention that, Zinsser." Williams chuckles as he sips his drink. "What does that supposed to mean?" replied Zinsser curiously.
"Nothing, it's the way we perceive errors." said Joseph. "Oh? Come on, you can't really tell me you don't find them annoyingly detestable. As a matter of fact, just plain wrong." said Williams excitingly. "No, no, no; you see, that's where everybody gets it wrong. You're treating it as if you just witnessed a person walking in to a woman's bathroom and using it." Joseph looked at him, "it's a grammatical error, not a social error. The point still goes across just not in the uniformed way we would like for it to be." Zinsser exclaimed, "Oh, please. You're just to lazy to fix the erro-"
"You see, what I did with my fists was the wrong way for me to tell you to shut the fuck up, but the point was made with my fist.", Joseph laughed heartily
Part II
The rhetor, Nicholas Carr, presents the idea that the internet is changing people, their mental habits, etc. The way these people think. I believe it's generally safe to assume that the audience for this piece of writing would be anybody that uses the internet. Although the text just sounds like a man lamenting the changing technologies of dynamic times and its consequences on the human mind, he does not necessarily have to say that the internet if making us stupid. Personal examples and testimonies are strong in here to deliver the point the rhetor does not want to say, but it is also truth. The Internet and Google has been dumbing down humanity since the first command line was executed. The reason only why people a quarter century ago would make advantageous gains compared to today's society is due to the fact that 25 years ago, the internet infrastructure was still growing and in those previous times like Carr said, people would spend days in libraries unlike today where those days are now summed up in minutes by clicking the "I'm Feeling Lucky" button. When technologies change, societies change; just like with the letter press. We're still a very knowledge-thristy society, there's no doubt in that, the only problem between then and now is the amount of effort we put in to indulge in knowledge. We are a society of convenience, a society where we take pride in our laziness in the name of technology.
Connor Waugh ENC 1101-0M04
ReplyDeletePart 1
Joseph Williams looked up at the man reading his essay with an expectant grin. William Zinsser, the man with the essay, took another from the glass of tan liquid in his glass and sighed. He kept his eye on the text and simply muttered “I don’t believe I was that harsh-“ He took another sip “In the context of it all, I believe I had every right to call use of such vocabulary in that fashion.” Williams, knowing he wouldn’t be able to change his colleague’s mind replied “But, it does seem harsher than necessary and if you look at the fact that it made you seem like you were intentionally looking for these errors, you could argue that you weren’t getting the full content of what was written.” Zinsser looked up at the paper and shook his head disapprovingly, “There’s more than just content when it comes to literacy, you should know that-“ “But you don’t see that there are at least four different ways to go about errors in literacy” Williams cut him off. “Here, I even drew up a chart of how they can play out!” He started to pull out sheet of loose leaf with images of boxes and lines printed in black ink. Zinsser chuckled “My friend, is it honestly necessary that you made charts for this? Don’t you think you’re going a little overboard with this? I mean, in my opinion, the use of the words ‘garbage’ and ‘atrocity’ seemed to fit in that situation.” Williams looked defeated and put the charts down, “I do suppose that you are entitled to your opinion. I suppose that there are no set-in-stone rules that one must follow like we are led to believe. The standards seem to be dictated by whom is reading the text and by what standards they are to believe are correct. Even then, when one makes a rule, it’s not necessarily always followed by said person. I mean, just look at ol’ Orwell!” Zinsser smiled. “Exactly.” They both took the final chugs of their drinks and stood up in unison. “So, same time next week?”
Part 2
Carr, in his article “Is Google Making Us Stupid?” comes to the realization that with the expansion and regular use of search engines such as Google and the internet in general is causing culture to change. He explains to his audience how the simple task of reading a book for an extended period of time has become difficult and the simple reason is because we have reprogrammed ourselves to focus solely on trying to obtain information as quickly as humanly possible and to find new information through hyperlinks. It’s actually sort of ironic how he goes in to explaining that it’s difficult for him to read an article longer than about three paragraphs when the article he writes well over that amount and expects for it to be effective. The rhetor, being Carr, is clearly focused on delivering his argument to an audience that more than likely focused on the good rather than the possibilities of Google being bad which creates a constraint for Carr. He does, however manage to really drive home the point that we rely too much on Google and it could be having adverse effects that are essentially making us stupid.
Robert McKamey
ReplyDeleteENC 1101-0M06
Part One:
This scene takes place at a local bar in downtown Orlando. Long time friends Joseph Williams and William Zinsser coincidentally meet and have a conversation about Williams’s newly published “The Phenomenology of Error.”
Williams: Zinsser! Is that you? I haven’t seen in you in ages.
Zinsser: Hello Mr. Williams! It’s good to see you. How have you been?
Williams: I’m doing fantastic. As a matter of fact, I just finished publishing my new essay. Have you had a chance to read it?
Zinsser: Yes I have, but I must say I have to disagree with the points you make in your essay.
Williams: Please explain William.
Zinsser: Well to start, I think your assumption of my writing is incorrect. You point out grammatical errors that, in my opinion, are correct. Furthermore, I do not appreciate you using me as an example in your writing.
Williams: First of all, I must apologize if I offended you in my essay. That was not my intent. My intent was to enlighten my readers on a different perspective of how to interpret grammatical errors and your writing was a perfect example. Mr. Zinsser, I must say, you have just proved my point in your statement. ‘Your opinion’ dictates whether grammar is correct or not. Each individual person has a different set of rules they abide by in observing errors in writing.
Zinsser: I accept your apology Joseph and I’m starting to understand where you’re coming from.
Williams: You see, William, I still believe a writing should be grammatically correct, but I feel readers are too critical of the work they evaluate. I believe they are too focused on finding errors and lose sight of the author’s central point of the writing.
Zinsser: Thank you for the great insight Joseph! I must say that does put a new perspective on my critique of other’s work.
The two men enjoy a few drinks and finish the night by reminiscing about past experiences.
Part Two:
In “Is Google Making Us Stupid?,” the rhetor Nicholas Carr explains his take on how the internet is degenerating our literacy advancement. The article starts by describing his personal exigency. Carr states he believes his mind is changing. He once was enthralled with literature, but within the past decade, his increased use of the internet has deterred his interest in reading. Before, his research would take an immense amount of time sifting through a stack of books and articles, but now, with the internet, it can be done in a matter of minutes. This can be a huge advantage to a writer but also detrimental at the same time. The convenience of the internet becomes the constraint in this particular case. Carr does not directly state the audience he is trying to grasp but I would speculate he is reaching out to the younger generation.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletePart One:
ReplyDeleteWilliam Zinsser picks up the phone. “Joey, you ready? It’s that time of the week again-Friday. Lets grab a couple drinks!” “Yes sir. See you in fifteen”, Joseph Williams picks up the other line. Before hanging up Zinsser adds, “Oh and Joe, I got a couple bones to pick with you.” Click. Thirty minutes passes by as Zinsser sits at the bar alone and decides to order another drink. Joseph arrives and sits next to an empty barstool next to his friend. “Hey man, how’s it going?” “Glad you could finally make it. Want a beer?” Zinsser replies and takes a sip of his drink. Joseph looks up and smirks, “Sure. So what are these bones you say you have to pick with me?” “Well one, your late, as usual. But most importantly, what’s up with your latest, The Phenomenology of Error?” Zinsser asks prominently. “What do you mean, Man? I thought it was my best piece yet.” Zinsser laughs, “Well I guess I would have to disagree with you there. You used me as bait in your work. I don’t understand your purpose within the text nor do I agree on the concepts.” He goes on to explain his misunderstandings, “For example, I do not believe, as you do, that errors are a type of verbal transaction between the writer and the reader. An error, to me, is an unconscious mistake that a writer makes not intended for the readers judgment, or lack there of.” Joe replies, “And why not sir? There are different types of errors. You may have your own conclusions upon this matter however; the reader’s response to a writer’s error exemplifies their connection. Whether the reader perceived the error as a flaw, they can than judge it on the amount of error, or seriousness. When I used you as an example in my work, such as when I explained you do not consider the word impact to be a verb, I was not trying to throw you under the bus at all. In fact, I was simply trying to exemplify that everyone has their own beliefs and view points. Just as everyone can have a different view on to what degree an error is held accountable, if they even consider it to be an error at all.” “You have indeed explained yourself but I still have to disagree with you on the fact that an error is an error. No matter what type of error it may be, the piece of work that includes errors cannot be deemed grammatically correct.”
Part Two:
In Nicholas Carr’s “Is Google making me Stupid?”, he explains how the internet has evolved into an influential part of our everyday communication system and may be a main reason for his, and everyone else’s, recent lack of concentration when reading text. He describes that the online research databases have made it easier to complete tasks that would have required days of hands on research and readings, which ultimately can be linked to altering how we focus on and analyze work. Furthermore, he goes on to point out how readings now a days are different types of readings such as text messaging which in return require a different type of thinking. This new type of thinking, which can be considered the exigence, inhibits us from grasping a deep and thorough mental connection to what we are reading. And it is because of Google’s main mission, the constraint, to systematize all of the world’s information into a click of a mouse that we face these challenges today.
Taylor Brown
ReplyDeleteEnc 1101-OMO4
Joseph Williams decides to go to the bar to celebrate the success of his newly published “The Phenomenology of error” in College composition and communication. He was really proud of himself and his ability to explain error on a level that no one else has done before. In walks William Zinsser; He has just finished reading said journal article. He was embarrassed of the way that Williams deliberately calls him out as being incorrect.
Zinsser- Hello Joseph
Williams- why hello there William! How are you my fellow colleague?
Zinsser- I have been better Joe…
Williams- what’s going on? Is there anything I can help you with? (to bartender: Can we have a round of scotch on the rocks)
Zinsser- I have just finished “The Phenomenology of error” and I have to say I am quite appalled that you used me as an example.
Williams- I did not mean any offence by the example, however people need to know that error do occur even in professional works.
Zinsser- I do understand that but I am positive that my view on error is correct. It is imperative that a paper be grammatically correct prior to turning it in.
Williams- I think that sometimes errors are overanalyzed, and taken too seriously or not seriously enough. It seems that authors, much like yourself, understand certain observations and situations where the context or use of a word is incorrect, but other times where there is a mistake that another may come across that many authors seem not to care as much.
Zinsser- But there is different level of errors. When basic errors occur, its atrocious. How can one over look the most simple errors?!
Williams- There is so many aspects of error. First of all we have social errors, which would occur if you spilled a drink on someone. These errors require a formal apology to that person. However there are also linguistic errors, which do not require an apology but can be edited out in later editions.
Zinsser- Yes, I understand that. I agree with that aspect of your work.
Williams- when a person reads for typos, the content is virtually inaccessible. However, when you read for content, semantic structures are put into focus and letters recede from consciousness.
Zinsser- yes, that point is also true.
Williams- another problem associated with error is that there is a great variation in the definition of error, and in the reader’s emotional investment, and in the perceived seriousness of individual errors.
Zinsser- I have never thought of those three aspects of error. It is quite amazing how perception is everything. Now I understand what you mean when you describe the way an error got to a student. It must first be in a book that is taught but a teacher that doesn’t catch the error, which then means the error, lies in the student.
Williams- Precisely! Now, I am not saying that the grammatical rules are not important, on the contrary. However, more people need to view error as a variably experienced union of item and response, it is more important to view the piece as a whole.
Part 2-
In his article, "Is Google Making Us Stupid". The rhetor, Carr, does not directly state that Google is making us stupid. Instead his exigence is the fact that we are too reliant on technology and the ability to browse as such a record speed. Carr directs his argument towards internet users, the audience. He describes the affect of the mental process that technology has had on us. I agree with him, because I know that the internet has had an effect on me. I can not sit down and read long passages at once. I am so used to dealing with the internet and having the ability to scan different websites at the blink of an eye. There are many constraints involved in a topic of this nature. Some of these may include elderly who tend to be technologically challenged in most cases. Also, a constraint could be that someone could not afford to own a computer and therefore can not do internet research at such a level that could effect the brain process.
Trevor Gross
ReplyDeleteENC 1101 – OMo6
Part One:
William Zissner was just home from work when he read in the newspaper that talented and well-known author Joseph Williams has just moved into town. Mr. Zissner had been waiting for months for an opportunity like this. As so Mr. Zissner was upset and somewhat embarrassed because of the way Joseph Williams used him as an example in his piece “The Phenology of Error”. Rumor had it that Joseph had been hanging out around the town bar so Mr. Zissner decided to pay him a long anticipated visit.
Both men are seated next to each other at the bar
William Zissner: “Your Joseph Williams. Right?”
Joseph Williams: “Depends who’s asking.”
William Zissner: “Well sir, my name is Mr. William Zissner and I have a score to settle with you.”
Joseph Williams: “Please tell me this isn’t about my work The Phenology of Error.”
William Zissner: “Your damn right it is.”
Joseph Williams: “So what’s your problem man? Id love to know.”
William Zissner: “You used me as a punching bag!! Pointing out countless errors in my own work to further your own!”
Joseph Williams: “Listen big guy, you need to relax an look at the big picture. While I may have used you as an example and pointed out some flaws in your work it was all to prove a point.”
Williams Zissner: “And what point is that?”
Joseph Williams: “The point is that readers are predisposed to look for certain mistakes an errors when they are reviewing a piece of writing. The things readers look for are determined by what readers think is right and what is wrong. And since there are thousands of various “rules” one could use to review a paper there are thousands of interpretations of what an error is.”
Williams Zissner: “Hmmm..”
Joseph Williams: “Yes. There is great variation in our definition of error, great variation in our emotional investment in defining and condemning error, and great variation in the perceived seriousness of individual errors.”
Williams Zissner: “That brings up another one of your topics that I disagree with. This being the idea that grammar errors no don’t require an apology, but social errors do.”
Joseph Williams: “Listen Mr. Genius grammar errors are somewhat subjective unlike those in the social sphere. Errors in the social sphere are outright an either right or wrong. Therefore, committing a social error usually requires some sort of apology. This is different from grammar errors because of the simple fact that grammar errors can be interpreted differently by different readers with different rules of writing therefore, making them not well defined and not requiring an apology.”
Williams Zissner: “Hmmm.. all my arguments seemed better at home.”
Joseph Williams: “That’s what they all say.”
William Zissner: “Good Day Sir.”
William Zissner exists the bar in a nostalgic manor.
Part Two:
In Nicholas Carr’s article “Is Google making us Stupid?” Carr, being the rhetor proposes the argument or exigency that the Internet is changing the way our brains acquire information, the way they function, and that the Internet and Google overall have negative effects on the brain. An example of a negative effect listed was that the ability of our brains to concentrate and focus is decreasing. Carr directs his argument to Internet users, being the audience by stating that the Internet is hindering the human mind. Carr explains how it has become a habit of Internet users to skim through web pages and too jump from one web article to the next. Carr believes that our brains can no longer stay focused on a book, or lengthy articles because our brains are trained (via the Internet) to quickly skim bits and pieces of information, which results in a shorter concentration span. I believe what Carr is saying to be true. People use the Internet more today then ever before. Websites like Google allow for the human brain to not be in top form i.e. the spelling feature, the math feature, and the simple fact that you can type any word into Google an a definition will immediately appear.
Ashlynn Allums
ReplyDeleteENC 1101 0M04
Part 1-
William: Hello old friend! How have you been?
Zinsser: I’ve been great, I just finished reading your eassay, “The Phenomenology of Error” and I just wanted to say I hated it.
Williams: Oh.. and why’s that?
Zinsser: Well for one, I felt it unnecessary for you to criticize my work and offend me.
Williams: I am very sorry if that’s how it came across to you. I think of you as a scholarly writer. I was merely trying to get my point across that there are many different types of errors. We all have experienced different things and therefore have different errors.
Zinsser: Well I believe that my grammar is correct!
Williams: We all have our own opinions. But I was just saying that it’s funny how the people that made certain rules for writing, are the very ones who broke them. And errors in writing are overlooked in professionals work and more in common works.
Zinsser: I see..
Williams: The most important part of our writing is not the errors it’s the message that the writer is trying to send to the audience. And when reading students essays, we should be looking for their creativity and idea’s, not their errors.
Part 2-
In Nicholas Carr’s article “Is Google Making Us Stupid?” , he talks about how the internet “is chipping away [his] capacity for concentration and contemplation.” In Grant Davies’s terms, Carr would be the rhetor in this situation and the exigence would be his message to the audience. One of his main points is how the internet is having negative effects on the human mind. Opening up an article, there are so many distractions on the page. You are never really gathering all the information. In my opinion, I agree with Carr. The internet is the fastest way to attain information, and just typing in a question and receiving an answer makes us lazy. We rely on the internet for solutions. Carr says how his own memory has been affected, and he’s not thinking the way he used to. He says how once research required hours in the library and now it’s one click away. But at the end of his article he says how there are benefits to this. He tells the audience to be “skeptical of [his] skepticism.”
Part one- Two men, Williams and Zinsser meet up after work one day at their favorite bar to have a drink and pick each others brains. Williams has just wrote an article that Zinsser wants to talk to him about.
ReplyDeleteZinsser: Hello Joseph, how was work for you today?
Williams: It was quite a productive day as a matter of fact, how about yourself?
Zinsser: Mine was pretty mediocre, just glad that its finally Friday.
Williams: Ill drink to that!
Zinsser: So Joseph there was actually a reason I wanted to meet up with you today and get the chance to talk to you.
Williams: What’s on your mind William?
Zinsser: Well the thing is I read your article “The Phenomenology of Error” and I really didn’t appreciate you degrading me within the very start of your piece.
Williams: I am sorry William, I did not mean to upset you I merely meant to use you as an example of how many people believe there is only one way to view reading: grammatically correct or not.
Zinsser: But there is only one way?
Williams: That’s not true, there are many infinite ways and “rules” to writing. They are not all set in stone they are merely personal opinions and views of every individual.
Zinsser: What do you mean?
Williams: Well you saw there were grammatical errors in my piece correct?
Zinsser: Well yes of course I did.
Williams: But yet my point was still given through the piece and the readers were not so distraught by the grammatical errors that they couldn’t read it. So really if a piece is not “grammatically correct” that does not mean its not good.
Zinsser: I guess I understand what you are saying. Now that you explain it that way I could see it from that point of view. Now I guess I wont be so offended that you used me in your article.
Williams: oh good! Well cheers, drink up!
Part two- In the article “Is Google Making us Stupid” Carr starts off by addressing just how the internet is affecting him personally. He said that he used to be able to read large chapter books and books with difficult literature in it but now he cant even sit down and focus on reading more than two to three pages of it. Google is at the fingertips of most the population now. Every smart phone has the capability to go onto Google, and it is a very rare occasion that you don’t see someone without a smart phone. It’s the easy access to everything that you might want to know without having to go find a book and look it up or having to ask some. It has made out society not only stupid but also extremely lazy. We get easily frustrated if we can’t find the answer we want right away when we type it into Google. I also agree with Carr that websites such as Google make us not be able to concentrate on anything. We don’t want to have to take the time to actually read anything we just want the quick and easy way out.
Skylar Summers
ReplyDeleteENC 1101 – oMO4
February 4, 2013
Part 1
After a long day of writing and reading two men enter a bar to grab some brews. One orders a winter lager and the other orders a martini, the arguing begins! “Are you really drinking a women’s drink?” chuckles Zinsser. “Yes, I am! Do you really know how to write or are you purposely putting grammatical errors in your writing?” replies William’s. “Take a look at this article I put together. I looked through your writing and you have over a hundred errors that you even made the rules for!” says Williams.“ I like the topic, “The Phenomenology of Error”” states Zinsser, “But why did you have to make fun of my writing? Its not about the grammatical errors, its about the message!” argues Zinsser. “There is nothing that states weather your grammar is right or wrong, but when you state that something is wrong and then you clearly disobey your own rule, there is something wrong with that.” says Williams. “But there are hundreds of teachers and professors that use my work in class and they have never caught on to it, why do you have to be a jerk and expose my flaws?” sadly mummers Zinsser. “Because there are some errors that a obviously wrong to a third grader and others that are difficult to decipher.” Answers William’s. “I can agree with you on that, but I didn’t have many obvious ones that you could pick up on, but I still had errors” agrees Zinsser. He orders a martini too. “I believe as long as you get the message across and do it with few “so called” errors then it should be fine” says Williams. They cling their glasses together and enjoy the rest of their night.
Part 2
The online article “Is Google Making us Stupid?” by Nicholas Carr makes interesting points on how the internet is affecting peoples brains and the way they read and write. Carr states how he easily loses focus now after he has become attached to the Internet. He has lost the feeling of being immersed in a book and can only focus on a few pages at a time now. The Internet has affected people’s brains to just skim over the material. There is so much to look at from headlines to pop-ups, and even podcasts and blog posts. I find myself doing the same thing as I search the web, I will not read articles, just fly over it to understand the basic message of the article. I found it hard to do this online reading and read the whole passage. Luckily, our brain is adaptive and our nerve cells can break connections and from new ones to help our minds adapt to the new style of reading and writing. There is so much information on the World Wide Web and we have access to a majority of it. Google allows us to look up any fact and have it in the blink of an eye. Processing all this information seems to be the struggle. I can think of a question like “Who is the owner of the Atlanta Hawks?” type it in to Google, fin the answer and then in three or four minutes forget the owner. Once our brains can come to comprehend such large amounts of information we will succeed, but now I feel it is an easy way out. Being able to have short-term memory, know the answer, and then erase it from our memory.
Adam Tran
ReplyDeleteENC 1101-0M04
Part 1:
J=Joseph Williams
Z= William Zinsser
Zinsser just finishes reading “The Phenomenology of Error” and is outraged. As a result, he barges down to his local bar, as he Joseph will be there. He sits down next to him and begins to speak.
Z- What are you doing? Why’d you mention me in this article?
J- I was simply using you as an example, that’s all.
Z- How am I incorrect? Grammar is a set of rules we must abide by. There isn’t anything more to it. If someone makes a grammatical error then it’s an error. No “ifs” “ands” or “buts” about it. Grammatical errors cannot just be excused because the author disagrees with the proper ways of writing.
J- I’d have to say that I disagree. People have many different views on grammar errors. One person may think a sentence contains an error, while another person may not. There are literally hundreds, maybe thousands of grammar rules. Everyone cannot remember every single one.
Z- I beg to differ. Even though everyone may not be aware of a specific rule, does not mean that the rule is invalid.
J- We as humans simply cannot remember and notice every grammatical error. As you can see, I intentionally placed many errors in my article. It’s safe to assume that everyone who read my article did not notice every single error.
Z- I noticed many, it was horrid.
J- Ah, but I doubt you noticed them all, my friend. Your perspective and views on grammar are the rules you should abide by. One person may think a simple grammar mistake is horrid, while someone else may just read over it and not think twice about it. We tend to focus too much on simple grammar errors when they are subject to opinion.
Z- But they are fundamentals! Simple grammar mistakes are atrocious!
J- That’s your opinion though. You may think it is atrocious, while other audience members may not be bothered whatsoever. Someone’s writing should not be judged entirely based on grammar, because like I said, grammar is subject to opinion. Rather, let the author be the judge of his or her own grammar.
Z- You should hear yourself! You aren’t making any sense. Grammar is….grammar! They are rules of the English language that we are expected to follow.
J- This is a lost cause. We are getting nowhere. I guess we can agree to disagree. Now, I’ll continue to enjoy my drink like I was before you interrupted me. Go home.
Z- Whatever you say Joseph, goodnight.
Part 2:
Nicholas Carr (the rhetor) and his argument “Is Google Making us Stupid” is basically explaining how the Internet and Google has resulted in him losing the ability to read long passages/articles (exigence). This is because the Internet makes finding information so easily accessible. You can search something and find an answer quickly and efficiently, opposed to the old way of having to go to the library and spend a lot more time to find an answer to your question. He explains how Google has taught us (the audience) to search for an answer, skim through a web page, and quickly find the answer we are looking for. He believes that this has caused our brains to adapt and has caused our ability to read lengthy articles to diminish. He also goes on to talk about how distractions (such as the notification we receive when we get a new email) divert our attention and focus from what we are reading. Therefore, our mind becomes easily distracted and tends to lose focus easier, also causing our ability to read long articles to diminish. He states that our minds are basically turning into artificial intelligence. He believes that we find it difficult to read long passages because we are so used to finding answers so quickly and easily. Although all of this may be true for some people, there are some constraints because it cannot apply to everyone.
Joseph Williams was always known as the guy who had it all; a beautiful wife and two kids, the perfect home, and a high paying job. When he found out that his wife cheated on him, he was devastated. After leaving work, he drove to the bar and began ordering shot after shot after shot. He noticed a man sitting next to mumbling to himself about grammar errors and how detestably vulgar they are. "Excuse me, sir, what is your name?" he asks the man. "William Zinsser", the man responds. Williams begins to question Zinsser on what exactly is upsetting him about grammar and he is surprised to hear how strongly Zinsser feels about the subject. He states, "we as children are put into schools to learn how to read and write. We learn basic grammar rules growing up and as we get older, these rules become more clear and specific to us. If we are constantly learning all throughout our development, why is it so common for basic grammar rules to be violated? People that do this turn our language into garbage. Simple illiteracy is becoming so widespread in our culture now and it is an atrocity." Now Williams finds his argument a bit overdramatic and the alcohol gives him the confidence to challenge this seemingly well-educated man. He barks back at Zinsser, "people are too critical when it comes to grammar; they take simple misuses and make such a big deal out of them, but then are easy to make mistakes with grammar rules that are more complex. When these more complex errors are violated, it seems to pass by without judgment. Who is to say that there are certain rules that can be broken and some that cannot?" Zinsser agrees that what Williams has said is true, but the proper use of grammar includes knowing the proper usage of words and phrases. While Williams agrees, he knows that it will be nearly impossible for that to ever happen solely on the fact that humans are prone to mistakes and are so used to informal speech that this type of formal writing would be too much of a change. The men both see each others' sides of the argument and agree to respect the others' opinion and go back to ordering body shots.
ReplyDeleteNicholas Carr proposes the idea to his audience that google is making us stupid. He starts off by using an example of losing your mind to catch the readers' attention so they'll read through the whole article. He uses examples of how he was before using the internet, able to spend hours reading and analyzing something, and how he is after, losing focus after two or three pages of reading. He also uses a lot of imagery to explain the downward spiral to keep the audience interested. Examples from other people and scholars are used to present his argument in a more credible way. He wants to get the audience to start thinking about the way that google affects our brains and has changed us to more machine-type thinking. He isn't trying to force the idea into the audience's head, but he definitely wants them to be aware of this and form an opinion.
Kristen Keenan
ReplyDeleteENC 1101-0M04
Part 1:
On an uneventful Monday night, William Zinsser calls up his old friend Joseph William’s and asks him if he wants to meet at a local sports bar and grill to watch a football game and talk. Although William’s infers that Zinsser will mention his article and doesn’t want to deal with him, he agrees to meet with him anyways.
William Zinsser: Hey Joseph, how’s it going?
Joseph Williams: Hey William, it’s going okay, just a long day. How about you?
William Zinsser: I’m good. My wife told showed me your “Phenomenology of Error” article. I noticed I was mentioned. I was a bit surprised to see my name in the article to be completely honest.
Joseph Williams: Sorry I didn’t consult you. What did you think of it?
William Zinsser: Well, I obviously think my opinion is correct…writing should be grammatically correct. When I read your article, I found many grammatical errors you made.
Joseph Williams: Well yes, it should be. However, my conjecture was that readers have a different opinion on what is correct or incorrect. Some may follow different rules than you do. And you see, I did that to make a point. A point that you just proved, that we all have predisposed rules of grammar but there are so many rules, we are bound to miss some.
William Zinsser: I guess that is a pretty interesting perspective, even though it is hard to grasp that some may not find the simplest errors. So basically one error I think is awful, someone else may not even notice or think much of?
Joseph Williams: Well yes…there is no right or wrong, it all comes down to the rules one was taught. I would focus more on the point the writer is trying to get across instead of the errors they make grammatically. Just a suggestion!
William Zinsser: I may take you up on that.
Part 2:
In Nicholas Carr’s article, “Is Google making us stupid?” he serves as the rhetor, making the argument that the Internet’s convenience has presented many with a dilemma, including himself. He does however note that the Net does have many advantages, such as the wealth of information .His dilemma, or exigence, is that he has found he can no longer read longer that 2-3 pages without facing concentration problems. He elaborates, saying, “Once I was a scuba diver in the sea of words. Now I zip along the surface like a guy on a Jet Ski” which was meant to prove his point that the Internet has chipped away at his capacity for concentration and contemplation. The audience, which is obviously Internet users, is supposed to conclude for themselves the influence the Net has on their concentration. Carr brings up examples of how many skim pages and constantly go link-to-link. He also brings up how society in transforming to intellectual laziness, a notion that was brought up in the time of the printing press and has proven correct.
Brandon Heath VanLandingham ENC 1101-OM06
ReplyDeletePart1
Joseph Williams and William Zinsser have decided to meet at a bar to have drinks like best friends do to spend time together. They arrive at the bar, sit down, and order their drinks. As they are talking the topic of Joseph Williams article comes up.
William Zinsser- So why did you choose to write an article on my grammar mistakes? It felt as though you were prosecuting me for my grammar mistakes by pointing them out to the whole world.
Joseph Williams- I’m sorry it seemed that way to you, but that wasn’t my initial intent.
William Zinsser- That may be so but it isn’t as if you didn’t make any grammar mistakes within your article you made a lot of common grammar mistakes. This is something that made me wonder why you would have the right to ever point out my grammar mistakes.
Joseph Williams- Well the goal of my article was to show people how most people will only recognize some of the grammatical errors in an article. Also my article tells how there are many right ways for grammar to be interpreted it is just how a person views it. There is no such thing as a perfect paper since some people see grammatical errors differently than others. How many grammatical errors did you actually notice inside my paper?
William Zinsser- I noticed about 7 or 8 grammar mistakes.
Joseph Williams- See the truth is I put much more than 8 grammatical errors inside but without looking over my paper many times and even if you did you might not find them all. The reason that happens is because to you, my grammatical error may not be a grammatical error.
William Zinsser- I understand now but even so does that mean that I should proof read my papers many times so that I can get rid of all the grammatical errors?
Joseph Williams- No you shouldn’t because it is more about what you are trying to say and as I said some of the things that are grammatical errors to one person aren’t to another.
William Zinsser – I’m glad we cleared that up now we can go back to drinking, laughing, and telling stories.
After all this they continued with their joyful night till it got late then went home.
Part#2
Carr’s argument says that Google is making us stupid. But he mostly is referring to the internet in general. He says that because we are able to access almost any information instantly, we are losing our memory capacity. We are losing memory capacity because we are adapting to the ability to have information anytime anywhere. He also states that because we have adapted to the internet we are not able to read large amounts of information without getting distracted or wanting to do something else. The main flaw I see in this is that there are many other constraints that would be affecting you not just the internet. Just because he says that we all no longer have the capacity of memory due to the internet and that we can’t comprehend as much would most likely be false because even though some people don’t read as much due to having the internet there are also people that read constantly because of the internet which would mean that it can work both ways it all depends on the constraints and exigencies. Basically the internet can either be a support or a constraint depending on your circumstances and drive.
Joseph Williams and William Zinsser go to a bar to drink and discuss “The Phenomenology of Error.” They order a couple beers, and as they sit down Zinsser says, “The definitions of words are partly based on perspective. For instance, the word horrible can be applied to a rainy day, the loss of a job, the end of a relationship and so on.” “I see what you mean,” says Williams, “but where is the line drawn? When is it correct to use words such as horrible and when is it not?” Zinsser explains, “Each situation must be examined separately. However, there is room for generalization as to words that are likely to be acceptable.” As the conversation goes on, they are both led to realize that they agree on important common ground. That is, if a generalization about word use is made it can be broken in certain cases. Williams seems to disagree with Zinsser due to Williams’s approach of looking deeper into the situation of error. Beyond his deeper look, they both acknowledge that the specific situation at hand must be considered.
ReplyDeleteNicholas Carr is worried about the effect technology has on peoples’ brains. The easiness of scrolling through brief articles leads to less desire, and possibly ability, to read long passages. Google strives for exactly this. The company figures out ways to get people to click on advertisements, doing so by offering considerably small chunks of information with ads on the sides. Google allows us to browse through vast amounts of information in a way that changes our way of thinking. We have a need to seek for knowledge that can be found on the Internet. Sites such as Google give us the ability to search for literature. However, we, as the audience, are constrained to the type and length of information available. This situation is a rhetorical situation, indeed. Websites such as Google are rhetors, contributing mass amounts of information to the public. We, as searchers, are the audience, using the rhetors to our advantages. While we do so, advertisements pop up according to the individual’s interests. A reciprocal situation emerges, leaving both the rhetors and the audiences satisfied.
David Lipszyc
ENC1101-OMo6
Part One - As Joseph Williams sits in his classroom on a Thursday night at 7 p.m., he thinks to himself “why are these students making the same grammatical error’s time after time?”. As he continues to grade, he consider’s his past article “The Phenomenology of Error” and how he had William Zinsser take it home to read it that day. Moments later, Zinsser calls him. “So I’ve just finished your article Joe, and I have to say that your analyzations of error and the idea of them being constructs is somewhat disappointing.” Williams, taken back by his response becomes intrigued and questions Zinsser on his response. Zinsser explains to Williams that an error is an error and one can almost always relate his ideas and opinions while having correct syntax and grammar. Williams brings up that grammar is based off of one’s upbringing. He explains how educationally, writing changes from focusing on grammar and syntax to the body and contents of the writing. “This change, especially with this evolving society,” explains Williams, “is what causes that idea that writing ‘feels more authentic when we condemn error and enforce a rule’”. Zinsser asks “I noticed in the end you put errors into your article to see if people would pick up on them, but why?”. “I did that on purpose to solidify my previous point. You could find many errors and pull a rulebook out and analyze my article, but to what extent does one criticize and find my article at fault? In reality, rules of literature have been created by people like you and I, and we must realize that these rules are just our own ideas of reading and what is to be correct grammar and incorrect grammar, what sounds right and what doesn’t. Researching society and their ideas of what is correct or incorrect grammar is how societies grammar evolves.” Zinsser replies with a disgruntled tone “so you’re saying that how you grade those papers is based off of your own set of rules? You’re making this society evolve into your own ideas then.” Williams replies with a satisfying response “Yes, essentially. I need to get back to grading papers now.”
ReplyDeletePart Two - In “Is Google is making us stupid?” by Nicholas Carr, I think many of us can relate to the fact that reading for extended periods of time as well as lengthy articles is some what of a tedious feat for us. Carr’s belief and cause for the article, or exigence, is to research how and why we, as an audience, are having this issue. The idea that knowledge and the ability to attain knowledge from Google at an almost instantaneous pace is the cause of the audience’s lessening attention span. I refer to the audience and reader as an equal person because someone who has read this article is most likely very in tune with the relying on Google for answering of questions and acquiring of knowledge in some sense. Being unable to use Google due to the lack of a device or computer to access it is a constituent that seems to fade as society evolves. One must consider the fact that the adaptation of Google and the internet as Carr says is “becoming our map and our clock, our printing press and our typewriter, our calculator and our telephone, and our radio and TV”. A constituent which we as an evolving audience must consider is which form of reading do we feel to be more beneficial for our minds.
Mike Boyd
ENC 1101-0M06
Part 1:
ReplyDeleteJoseph Williams walks into a local bar to meet up with William Zinsser. Zinsser was angry after reading Williams piece “The Phenomenology of Error” where he criticizes Zinsser’s own opinions on error. He decided to set up a meeting where he could confront the issue. The conversation begins with the usual introductory lines and quickly progresses into the real topic.
Williams: My intentions while writing my article were not to offend you, Mr. Zinsser. I was merely educating my readers about the substance behind the definition of error.
Zinsser: I understand your point, but you made me out to be a complete oaf while explaining that my views on error were not only incorrect,t but atrocious.
Williams: I had no idea that my views had that much impact on your reputation Mr. Zinsser.
Zinsser: My concern about my reputation as a writer is minimal compared to my concern regarding your argument about error in general. You have classified error into categories and came off as completely over reaching.
Williams: My views on error are valid by my understanding. I clearly categorize error into two fields: one in a level of consciousness and another in a level of experience.
The debate goes on until the two men have both finished enough beer and have exasperated their arguments in full. Nothing seems to be resolved as they don’t see any common ground between their opinions.
Part 2:
In “Is Google Making us Stupid?” Nicholas Carr is writing to inform. His dilemma comes from his own concern of concentration. He explains his transformation over the years as a warning found in his own fidgeting while studying research. He is the rhetor, his audience is us, and he is describing the way he loses the thread of conscious thought while reading text of any sort. He blames the issue on technology. While he praises it for making his own research a lot more advanced in modern technology, he curses it for robbing us of our mental capabilities.
Kaitlyn Huber ENC 1101 OMo6
Daniel Keegan
ReplyDeleteENC1101-OM04
Part I- After reading "The Phenomenology of Error" William Zissner is very upset with Joseph Williams, and completely disagrees with his theories of grammar, and how a work of writing should be judged. He goes to the local bar to confront Joseph and discuss his article.
Z: Joseph can I have a word with you real quick
JW: Of course! how are you doing?
Z: Not to good I just got done reading your article, and I am not too fond of what you said. Do you really believe a work of writing does not need grammar!?
JW: No! Of course a work of writing needs grammar. The main point I was trying to state is that there are so many rules of grammar that people follow there own set of rules based on what they were taught
Z: I'm not following you
JW: There are so many rules in the English grammar system, and based on what you were taught there are certain rules you are going to follow and certain rules you aren't going to follow
Z: Well that doesn't mean grammar doesn't matter!
JW: I know that, but what I'm trying to say is that I believe instead of telling someone that there work of writing is wrong that you should focus on the right. I also think you should focus more on the body of the work and the content instead of the grammar. There are so many different forms of writing and so many different formats. A high school student's grammar is going to be completely different than an office receptionist's grammar. I believe we should focus less on grammar, and if we do that then it will help society as a whole express there selves more in a positive way.
Z: I don't know if I completely agree with you, but you do make a few good points and I'm glad you pointed them out to me.
JW: No problem hopefully we'll be able to discuss this topic more sometime, but for now lets drink. Waiter gives me two brews!
Part II- In Carr's article he states that google is making us stupid, but what he is really trying to say is that google is making us lazy. In this rhetorical situation Carr serves as the rhetor, and the people reading the article serve as the audience. He tries to explain how google is allowing us to obtain vast amounts of information in a matter of seconds, so in this situation google can be considered a restraint. Also the amount of info that we are available to obtain is also a constraint. Carr is not worried that we can receive this knowledge quickly; he is just worried that we as a society are becoming lazy and lack the discipline too look up the information. This leads to the discussion that google leads us to being more susceptible to distraction, and encourages the reader just to skim through information instead of reading the whole passage. Carr makes a valid argument, and the points he suggests are true. Yet google in my opinion has changed the world in a huge way, and although there are some negatives the positives outweigh them by a long shot.
Khondaker Rahman
ReplyDeleteENC 1101-0M06
Part I
Joseph M. Williams, well known Professor of English and Linguistics at the University of Chicago, is a regular at a local bar and is having a drink one night. Soon another patron came up and sat next to him. The patron was to Joseph’s surprise was William Zinsser, who Joseph had mentioned in his article “The Phenomenology of Error”.
William recognizing the man next to him asked “Aren’t you Joseph M. Williams, the man who wrote the article The Phenomenology of Error?”
“Yes”, replied Joseph, “I am, did you read my article?”
“I have actually” said William. “Well, what did you think of it?” asked Joseph. “I did not see your point on errors being constructs, and why did you use me as an example?”
Joseph explains “You see, what we see as errors today became over time a set of ideas that readers cannot avoid. Errors in grammar have many rules to them that one person cannot get around all of them. They will only catch and fix the ones that they can see. Those who are more focused on the writing won’t notice them. On the contrary those who are trained to look for and criticize errors won’t pay much attention to the writing. I used you as an example because you had sources that contained grammar errors yet you despise grammar errors. Because you are an intelligent man but still gave more of your attention to the writing of the source then the errors proves my point that the standard grammar rules established by institutions does not affect the way a person reads a piece of writing that might be full of such errors.”
“So you’re saying that people can catch grammar errors that they will understand and it might be different from people to people,” responded William.
“Yes, because there are so many variations of types of grammar errors, the best way to find the most common ones is by gathering the common errors different people found and documenting them. Then they will match them based on what they found but there are different points of views on what the errors are. So truly there is no real correct way to write but rather the best way one can and make it understandable to the reader by following a basic set of grammar rules that is most commonly found.” replied Joseph.
“Huh”, said William, “so what you’re saying is that piece writing is correct if the writers point is made and we understand what they are saying if we give more attentions to the message and less to the grammatical errors it has. I need to think about this. Thank you for your explanation.”
“You’re welcome,” said Joseph as he continued drinking and Williams decided to call it a day.
Part II
In Nicholas Carr’s article “Is Google making us Stupid?” he states that we are getting more distracted for traditional reading because the Internet allows us to get information faster than books and articles on papers did. Carr as the rhetor of the article presents us with the exigence that our brains are being dumbed down because of the Internet’s ability to provide us with fast access to important information. What used to take researchers days or even months to gather up can be done in hours or even minutes using the internet. Carr presents his personal experience on how his ability to immerse himself into a narrative has become a drag ever since he has become a surfer of the Net. He provides examples of bloggers who also experienced similar symptoms. He points out that although it is not making us stupid but only lazy because without Google, many people cannot workout complicated problems or do research. With Google that can be a very easy task. Constraints in his claims are people who are book lovers or people who do not use the inter net as often as others. But these are small figures as most of the world has access to the Net and we are becoming more and more reliant on it. It could be that at one point we might not be able to live without the Internet.
Colby Maynard
ReplyDeleteEnc 1101 - 0M04
Part 1
It's thirsty Thursday at a typical downtown Disney bar where Joseph Williams and a couple of friends like to meet up. Joseph has been there for over an hour wondering where his friends could be. Being at a bar alone for this amount could get a single man rather intoxicated. So as the beer starts to slap him in the face, a younger gentleman who seems to have it all together takes the bar stool next to him. This man's name is William Zinsser. Zinsser just got off work and is almost done reading an article called "The Phenomenology of Error". With the picture of Joseph Williams in the back of it,he realizes that Joseph is sitting right next to him! Without a doubt, William asks, "are you Joseph Williams?" Joseph responds, "Why yes i am." In awe, William tells him about how he just finished the article he was reading and thought it was fantastic. William says "I just have a few problems with it." Jospeh questions him by asking "what could be possibly wrong with my work?" William responded by saying "I was just very confused how you said there is no such thing as a real error. You say that it is just a construct which is what people accept for being right." Joseph justified this by saying "Yes, that's correct. There's really no way of being grammatically correct as there is a way to be socially correct. People tend to live off a handbook or even get assesed from a handbook. But who is the one that says that handbook is 'grammatically' correct? These are all the things you need to think about William." William felt empowered with such intelligence that he just stood up, walked out and went home and to sleep with such satisfaction. Unfortunately, Joseph's friends never showed up but he was happy for the rest of the night to help a fan.
Part 2
Nicholas Carr writes an article about how Google is making us stupid. I can honesty say I agree with that. Carr said he used to read rigorously and not stop for anything. Now he can't focus for more than 2-3 pages online. Google is definitely an easy access for information but in my opinion, it kills the literacy levels of the upcoming generations. As soon as you type something into google, it starts bringing up suggestions for you. Once you press enter on one of those options, you usually find your answer within the first cople of sentances. This really does stop the reading so much from everyone using Google or basically any internet search engine.
Chibundo Egwuatu
ReplyDeleteENC 1101-OM06
p1
It’s New Year’s Eve in 2012. Joseph Williams arrives at a party at a loft downtown of an old friend (really, she hung out with people Joseph Williams hung out with; however, he was invited to not violate any social rules) from college. The décor is a bit upper-east-side-NYU-grad kitsch for his tastes, but he finds it kind of charming. He sees her across the room talking to some people he doesn’t know, and he decides to get a drink before he goes. By lantern and fairy lights, he drops off his bottle of supermarket merlot, and gets a solo cup for the freshly tapped keg. Someone’s iPod (obviously put on shuffle, due to the eclectic setlist) is playing a Lana Del Rey song; Joseph Williams does not know who this is, not having changed music tastes since freshman year of high school in the late 90’s, but he likes the sound of it. As he sways, filling his cup, he is glad he left his house, maybe the X-Files marathon wasn’t the better choi-oh come on. He sees William Zinsser, and eye contact is achieved before he can look away. William Zinsser drops off his bottle of imported champagne (as in actually from the region in France), and starts to make small talk. He says how the ridiculous the upper-east-side-NYU-grad- kitsch décor is seeing as the host is pushing 30. Joseph Williams is now regretting his abandonment of Agents Scully and Mulder, as he is perfectly aware of the elephant within the room. On cue, William Zinsser brings up the article Joseph Williams recently had published, congratulating him. He’s smiling as he brings it up, but Joseph Williams sees it more as baring his teeth. Joseph Williams states how he was only stating that an overemphasis on grammar as the judge of text being well written is maybe and unwise and pedantic stance to take on the matter. William Zinsser lays into him immediately, making it clear that he thought on this quite a bit before coming, on how grammar is the foundation of any lexicon, and stringent adherence to those rules should not be stigmatized. Joseph Williams is so not about this life right now, howerver he persists, saying the convers should also be true; he sites Socrates’s Apologia, how his opening lines says how the people of Athens should disregard the manner in which he speaks, and care more for what is being said. He also says, losing grip of tact remembering how he could be eating pizza in comfortable pants right now, how the overemphasis of grammar to the point of absurdity is not a healthy literary environment for the youth growing to think to follow the rules rather to say something of consequence. William Zinsser raises the heat in return, siting the literary greats who followed grammar and still managed to say something of import, saying maybe if the idea of grammar is too difficult for someone to grasp, it is a way of intellectual natural selection. Joseph Williams is officially done with William Zinsser, and says maybe he’s just butthurt that his own article was written about in a harsh light, regardless of the truth of the matter. William Zinsser is shocked, then starts to laugh. He cannot believe Joseph Williams, published essayist, just used the term “butthurt” in a sentence unironically, and Joseph Williams concurs, laughing along, blaming an influx of bored Redditing for his language while giving him his beer, pouring another for himself. “Tipsy” By JKwon starts blasting around them. William Zinsser remarks that nothing quite says 2003 like J Kwon, a stab at their host’s age, and the men both laugh as she rushes to the iPod change the tune.
p2
ReplyDeleteWhile reading this, I was immediately reminded of Socrates, and by extension, Plato’s thoughts on the written word. I was ambivalent between feeling pleased that the article brought up this parallel as well, and annoyance that it had before I could myself. Socrates’s idea on writing was that it was inhuman; access to perfect, effortless memory would lead us to being less able to remember. Memory, in this context, is what makes us human, what lets us know we are human. As the article says, though Google (an amalgamation of internet sources, therefore an apt name for the jist of it) is the most recent iteration of this thought, before that there was the printing press and the clock. I admit, I recognize the exigence of the piece; as I was reading it, I checked my email, tumblr, facebook, and made a playlist. Only in the duration of the article. I am definitely a part of this audience, as I think anyone who would have access to this article would be. Writing this, I also perfected the aforementioned playlist, and started thinking on more assignments. It is strange, like the availability of constant information and perspective process has made our minds eternally one step ahead; we are looking to the next task before the current one has been finished. Sometimes, I will admit, it won’t be. It has also created a guise of multitasking. We jump around like mental hummingbirds, from tab to tab, believing we are getting so much done, when in fact, our ever growing attention deficit has only made it impossible to stop moving. If we stop, we die. Ask any student made to complete a reading, only to stare at a page for 20 minutes, not retaining any of it. If they read it at all, rather than skimming for an idea of the text and rolling along with it, a personal favorite. The technology is thought to expand our thinking, while it seems to be taking it over. It is a strange disease though, seeing as it is caused by things we willingly consume. But as the cipher of thought and march of technology continues, it becomes less and less a socially viable choice to quarantine the things that steal our thinking processes from us.
Edgar Ortiz
ReplyDeleteENC 1101 0M04
On a chilly Monday morning, Joseph Williams is having coffee at a cyber cafe while he writes a new article on his laptop. Sitting there across him is William Zinsser, watching him from a distance. The later then approached Williams saying "Excuse me Mr. Williams, do you know who I am?". As Williams looked up, he replied: "Well of course! William Zinsser, what a surprise! How are you doing these days?". "Well...", replied Zinsser with a straight face, "I was actually just reading your article on grammar errors. Are you trying to make me look bad to the public??". Williams felt nervous for a few seconds. "Uh...No Mr. Zinsser, why would I do that? I was only pointing out different grammar mistakes that some writers made and how they confuse me since some of them even made some grammar rules of their own and did not follow." "Myself included," , quickly replied Zinsser, "tell me one good reason why I shouldn't sue you for unauthorized and offensive use of quoting!". Williams was sweating of fear and even felt some of the people in the place stare at them. "Listen Zinsser, ", trying to calm things down, "all I wanted to point out is that many writers and authors spend too much time making a set of rules in grammar when there are just hundreds or thousands to follow and at that point the readers simply won't care. Not that they won't notice obvious typos but when it comes to grammar errors, we analyze their usage and therefore we could sometimes commit mistakes that are simply socially acceptable. That's why I made the categories on my paper, to categorize the errors in acceptance levels, because some might notice some wrong usage of words while others won't even notice, and I think you were a little harsh on calling out the bad grammar on some of your work when you yourself had some mistakes as well...My point here is that grammar mistakes don't necessarily make an essay, article or writing work bad and there are always people who don't notice them, same with the ones who do." Zinsser paused for a minute and replied: "Well...we all have our opinions, Williams. But next time you publish a piece of work with someone's name or work mentioned, you better give the head's up." Zinsser then quietly left the place. Relieved, Williams learned his lesson and continued his work as the rest of the people inside carried on as well.
In Nicholas Carr's atricle, he tries to explain how the internet and technology slowly devour our way of thinking and writting. Nowadays most articles and blogs are written in two or three paragraphs and people quickly get it over with before jumping into another article or topic. The idea of browsing simply messes with our minds and slowly take away our ability to focus on a single writing. Since the internet is fast and filled with endless things to do, we adapt to that speed and multi tasking on our minds and feed our brains with different topics, readings, information, notifications, ect at the same time and eventually we just go nuts and think we can feed ourselves anything our brain desires as we loose the reason why we were even there in the first place, like an overpowered drill spinning out of control from it's designated area of work. He uses a scene from the movie 2001: A Space Odyssey as a way of foreshadowing the future of mankind for relying too much on technology; flat on intelligence and dependent on what machines tell us to do. As a rhetor who has experienced the same phenomenon of going flat on the reading ability, he feels the exigence to address an audience of other internet users to open their eyes and be aware of the potential damage the internet can cause before it is too late. I for one think technology would never become our enemy since it is of course made by man and controlled by man, but of course we must always be cautious not to let ourselves become that spinning drill as technology grows.
Kevin T. Bhim
ReplyDeleteENC 1101 0M04
Part 1
One day William Zinsser called Joseph Williams and asked Joe if he would like to meet at the local bar later that night so they can have a few drinks a chat about a few things about writing.
WZ- So I read your Writing about “The Phenomenology of Error” and I saw that you included one of my writings in it too.
JW- Yes I did, not to mock you in any way but I used your reading as an example to show how making errors is not grammatically but it is also the way you use words in your work.
WZ- I see why you used my work in regard to making errors after reading your work (which I liked) and I would want to disagree because high leveled writings have little to no mistakes grammatically so I think word choice is not too important as long as the grammar is correct.
JW- I would agree with the grammar part but word choice is important too because the reader can take the word choice and make it into another thing that is not entirely what you meant to convey to them.
WZ- So your saying that what makes sense to me and I think is grammatically correct might not always
be correct to the readers?
JW- Yes exactly and that would eventually become a violation with a response to the error based on what the reader sees and responds with. That is also why I included other writers and authors with their so called error to show that changing word choices in the right way will show no violations with little responses.
WZ- Since you explained that I might agree with you there but what makes those readers think of my word choices as errors?
JW- It all matters in how they are reading the work based on their emotions and from there its all about how they interpret their readings that they read at the time.
WZ- So, Errors are not really errors all the time you are saying then?
JW- No they are not always errors as long as the reading is understandable to the reader and it has a overall point to it it should be all right with just a few errors.
WZ- Well, this helps a whole lot because after I read your writing I was a little confused so now this clears some things up.
JW- Glad I can help. I guess we should finish up these drinks before they become some type of error too.
Part 2
In Carr's Argument in “Is Google Making Us Stupid” Nicholas is saying that The Internet and Google are big resources that can help us with expanding our knowledge and becoming better people. Just like when the Printing Press was made there will be good and bad things associated with Google. It would be Positive because if we need to learn something we can Google it but negative because we might become too dependent on Google/Internet. The Rhetor in this is Nicholas Carr and he brings up the exigence of Google and the constraints of it having good effects on people or bad ones based on how they take advantage of the resource. Overall, Carr is stating the obvious with how people are now using the great resource of Google to their advantage with when they don't know something and want to find that answer out they would just have to type it in the search box and get the needed information. Which that leaves the human mind to not have to work as hard to retain the information obtained that can affect the bad or even the good way when used in the right way to learn new information and be able to mentally remember that information.