Kayla Lowe
Prof. Miller
ENG 110-H2
1 September 2018
Journal 1-DFW
Wallace is constantly posing questions to the reader but because of his writing style the reader finds themselves asking questions of their own. As a reader i would want to know more about the Maine Lobster Festivals origins. Wallace goes into detail about the events that take place and how lobster plays a role but for a person who is just now hearing about this event i find myself knowing how it came to be. Knowing this information could help better explain the festivals attraction. It would also help explain the locals involvement and approval of the event. I would also like to know why lobster is cooked alive. Wallace explains in earlier times the creature was cooked dead. What happened between then and now to cause a change? Is it a taste difference? Is it more efficient? Knowing the reason behind the method would clarify societies current moral standards and values when it comes to our treatment of animals.I found the criteria for suffering intriguing. For the lobster it for sure checks off the box for behavior associated with pain but if it has the equipment capable of feeling it is still up for debate. I want to know if only having one of the boxes ticked automatically dismisses the idea of suffering. For the lobster its on the brink of ethical suffering the only thing stopping it from being confirmed is our lack of understanding about its neurology. Because of that theory do we as humans have the right to continue our cooking practices? Written discourse is writing about a topic while inserting yourself and your personal accounts into the details. The flaw in this method is the authors experience itself. Experience is unique to the person or animal that has them so as a reader its difficult to get the full picture if the author does not cover every inch of the topic. The reader finds themselves riddled with questions because they have not had the experience themselves. Its then the authors job to predict the readers questions and answer them as they write. To do this effectively the author could ask for peer reviews or second opinions on their writing. They could also conduct a survey to see what questions the audience already has on the topic their writing about. Essentially it’s their job to put themselves in the readers shoes.
Kayla Lowe
Prof. Miller
ENG 110-H2
7 September 2018
Journal 2
In high school, specifically my literature class, we spent a lot of time composing our papers. A good, strong essay was never done in one class period. We might have had one period to plan out and write a draft. Then the next couple class were spend doing peer reviews and class discussions on our drafts and how we can improve them. Then on a final day we could go back and finish a paper. I always start a paper by planning out my points. I compose a thesis statement and then outline what i want each of my paragraphs to be about. After i look for evidence to back up the topics for my paragraphs. Finally i write a conclusion, making sure it reiterates my thesis and expands on the subject. For paper editing i’ve done a lot of peer review. Sometimes we were given checklists on what should and shouldn’t be included in the paper. Most of the time we focused on the prompt, making sure the person addressed it and clearly explained their points. By the end of peer editing our papers would be covered in pen marks and comments covering any blank space you had. We also discussed what we marked up and why to clarify their meaning. Another editing process was our group discussions and criticism. My teacher would collect a copy of everybodies drafts and black out the names. Then they would put it up on the overhead and as a class we discussed the pros and cons of that person’s writing. It was helpfully when we were composing thesis statements and topic sentences, highlighting those specifics sections in our writing and discussing what makes a good thesis or topic sentence. It also eliminated the stress/ anxiety around someone criticizing your work. Obviously we cant read and go discuss everyone in the classes entire essay but going over small parts and learning from others writing was a useful tool.
Kayla Lowe
Prof. Miller
ENG 110-H2
10 September 2018
Journal #3
Quoting in general is a pretty vital skill in order to be a good writer. Quotes can help make you look more credible as an author and prove you have not only read a text or source but you have formed enough of an opinion to quote and use it in your argument.Without quoting essays or other writing pieces would just be a jumble of hear-say. Quotes overall are helpful for elevating not only your writing but your arguments. After reading “The Art of Quoting” I have a better understanding on how to integrate and explain my quotes in a way that makes sense in the essay and to my reader. I was unfamiliar with the dangling quote concept and looking back I have definitely included them in my past writing. I am guilty of randomly throwing in quotes with good analysis but no initial introduction. I now see how this can be problematic for a reader’s understanding of my points. I was able to make a connection between the reading and our current class discussions. We have been going over drafting and revision but i had not consider how quoting played a role in it. When i usually draft or revise i never took the time to look at my quotes and see if they still aligned with their new surroundings. I now know i should also consider how my quotes are doing in my paragraphs. Do they still fit? Should they go in that paragraph or would they fit better in a new one? Or is there another quote that would work better with the point i’m trying to to address? This reading has opened a new door in the drafting process for me. If my paper is changing then the quotes included can change too. Overall i really enjoyed the passage and found it helpful.
Kayla Lowe
Prof. Miller
ENG 110-H2
14 September 2018
End of Food Journal #4
At the beginning of “The End of Food”, Lizzie Widdicombe gives us background on three entrepreneurs and their struggle to start a successful business. This eventually leads to her report on a new complete meal substitutes called soylent. The rest of her investigation caters the many questions someone would ask when told they could eliminate their need for food. She covers the mixtures composition and the research behind its creation. She even goes as far as creating and testing out some recipes for herself. Widdicombe takes the time to look at those who have adapted to the soylent lifestyle such as a group of college students. She explores the many application soylent could have for the world through her investigative reporting.
Initially reading about soylent I found myself feeling a mixture of disgust and fascination. The idea of replacing all food on the planet with a single gooey concoction sounds like something out of a sci-fi post-apocalyptic movie. As Widdicombe’s article progressed I found myself warming up to the strange invention. I enjoy the practical applications it has. As a college student it is hard to eat in between classes and while tackling homework, the task becomes very cumbersome. After reading the section on college students I found myself wanting to try out the creation, maybe not getting rid of all my food but as a replacement meal. Towards the end when she was discussing with the creators’ world applications I started to get excited. Soylent algae sounds like a solution to world hunger, a huge global issue. In the end I though the whole article was really cool and would love to try out soylent for myself.
Kayla Lowe
Prof. Miller
19 September 2018
ENG 110-H2
Journal #5
I found the templates they used very helpful. Going through this section and knowing the title started to pull the whole purpose of reading the book together for me. I agreed with the section on summary and enjoyed the cartoon. I don’t think I have always summarized the other sides argument before stating my own and looking back that could be why I received critics saying the paper was confusing or asking the point I was trying to make. Prefacing your argument does make it clearer and sets up the claim you’re going to make. I like the back and forth element to the templates. Seeing the critic and response in example of writings helped me understand. I can see how most of the writing we are doing is like an actual argument in real life. Real life arguments aren’t static they go back and forth there are points you agree with and other parts you don’t. I liked the section on agreeing and disagreeing with others claims. I needed that conformation it was okay to agree with the other side on some aspects of their argument but not as a whole and you can use that agreement to spring into your own argument. The section on plagiarism threw me off. I didn’t see the templates or reuse of common phrases as wrong because they’re not taking away and claiming someone else’s point. The words themselves don’t hold value alone it matters what you pair them with.
Journal #6
Comments on Naomi’s paper and feedback letter :
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1adiMoeQqzVDSM-g5OsihJLxEgsSL7xWrA2WMqG5XdD4/edit?usp=sharing
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1bj3c4nU8sH7hH7n1rrrjT4xAg9wQxxTSevDmxF8aPw0/edit?usp=sharing
Comments on Ruddy’s Paper and feedback letter:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1yiEGsjR_y8-PlTy4m11xYkiEWLOW2_-JFvR3FbpgBxM/edit?usp=sharing
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xwa5HAJ_VoAwuumrj9jNgEXIm3NhYwPGCXAVaKH2dmE/edit?usp=sharing
Journal # 7
Kayla Lowe
Prof. Miller
ENG 110-H2
3 October 2018
Journal #8
I liked how they used the anecdote about the sociologist speaker and relate it to the chapters focus. In past writing, I have done similar things to the sociologist. I didn’t include any background information on my topic or what views related to it and therefore left my audience questioning my papers/ claims overall significance. In one of my other classes we have been exploring controversial issues and in doing so stressing the importance of introducing all viewpoints opposing or otherwise when writing about our stances on issues. In most of my writing now I almost always start off with a summary of my topic and the views associated with it. In doing so I’m following the order the chapter talks about. It is important to make your point as clearly and quickly as possible in a logical order that doesn’t leave your reader questioning what they are reading. In a lot of my history assignments, I implored the use of standard views. It’s a nice way to introduce the normal view and the opposing ends of the spectrum. What I will need to start doing more is keeping what “they say” in view and referencing those opposing viewpoints strategically in the rest of my paper. I usually did a one and done reference in my introduction but continuing to do so in major points of my paper makes sense and would keep my audience better informed about my argument as a whole.
Kayla Lowe
Prof. Miller
ENG 110-H2
3 October 2018
Journal #9
I spent most of my time revising my thesis statement and reorganizing my paragraphs. I started out with a weak thesis and went more or less straight into writing my body paragraphs. Because of this when I got to the end of my paper and tried to write my conclusion I realized not everything I addressed in my paper related back to my thesis or was necessarily included. This comment came up in my both my peer reviews, so I spent the most time addressing it. Another piece I focused on a lot was my organization. Because I started off rocky my paragraphs blended and were written in an odd order so I had to take some time to organize my main points and turn the evidence I was presenting into a fully realized paragraph. After doing the brief proofread in class I wish I went back and took a moment to read over my paper as a whole and fix sentence-level errors that interfered with my message. This process was similar to my high school experience in the peer review. What differed was the timeline and my overall papers transformation. In high school, most of my papers looked the same throughout the revision process with the expectation of minor changes. We were never given this amount of time to complete an assignment, so I think that contributed to the lack of change. Our timeline was about 3 days and these papers were over a week. I can say during this process my papers have some similar elements but content wise changed a good bit. Because of the revising and changes I made on a deeper level, I think my revision process lined up with the expectations for the class. We went over at the beginning of the semester how our drafts should look a lot different from each other and I think my work reflected that.
Kayla Lowe
Prof. Miller
ENG 110-H2
8 October 2018
Journal #10 Pollan
Passage 1: “Cooking is no longer obligatory, and for many people, women especially, that has been a blessing. But perhaps a mixed blessing, to judge by the cultures continuing, if not deepening, fascination with the subject. It has been easier for us to give up cooking than it has been to give up talking about it- and watching it.” (Pollan 4).
What Pollan is saying is because of advancements in food and technology our need for cooking as defined by Julia child isn’t required anymore. I agree with his claim. Back in the 60’s when at home cooking was a big thing most women stayed at home and considered cooking one of their duties as a woman. In the kitchen of the 60’s the technology wasn’t as advanced as it is now. They didn’t have blast chillers, top preforming microwaves, and so on. The food was also different. Now a day we have food engineered to be grown and cooked in less time. We can get out of season fruits and vegetables whenever we please because of mass agriculture. Because of all this cooking isn’t as necessary. Why should we waste time cooking when we can go to a restaurant or order take out? It quicker and doesn’t require a tremendous amount of effort.
Passage 2: “What exactly endeared Julia Child to her, she explained that for so many of us she took the fear out of cooking and, to illustrate the point brought up the famous potato show […] Martha Steward would sooner commit seppuku than let such an outtake ever see the light of day” (Pollan 4).
The point Pollan is trying to make is old cooking was more realistic than the reality tv-esque style of our modern day cooking shows. As a person who enjoys cooking and baking I definitely agree. If you have ever made a dish and I mean started from scratch, you know there is a ton of mess and mistakes involved especially if you’re making it for the first time. You never see any mistakes or mess in a cooking show. A chef’s work station is always clean. Ingredients are neat and premeasured. The apron they wear is just a formality because it remains a clean white throughout the entire show. I personally enjoy the outtakes and mistakes in cooking shows normally found in snip it’s at the end of the program purely for comedic effect. They make me relate to the chef and feel better about my own cooking process.
Passage 3: “The glamour of food has made it something of a class leveler in America, a fact that many of these shows implicitly celebrate. Television likes nothing better than to serve up elitism to the masses, paradoxical as that might sound. How wonderful is it that something like arugula can at the same time be a mark of sophistication and be found in almost every salad bar in America?” (Pollan 10).
Pollan believes television shows about food is trying to bring everyone to a higher class. They purposefully market ingredients as fancy and sophisticated even though they are very common. From watching cooking shows I can say they definitely pushing this. On shows like chopped you hear the elaborate descriptions of food that are actually simple common foods. Breaded chicken breasts with a tomato puree is actually a fancy way to say chicken tenders and ketchup. Weather this is a good or a bad thing I’m not very sure. While its bringing everyone up in sophistication it’s also lowering those who don’t have access to these basic foods.
Kayla Lowe
Prof. Miller
ENG 120-H2
10 October 2018
Journal #11
The passage starts by talking about how the authors used to discuss writing in their classrooms. It was very one dimensional and focused more on the author’s thesis statement. In my past high school experience, this was also the case. once we identified the author’s main point we never really delved deeper. What we should have done was discuss all sides to the argument the author was presenting. Not only the disagree or agree with aspect but the maybes too. Similar to the other section we read on the “they say I say” method of presenting information this chapter talks about doing a similar thing when looking at an author’s claim. Further on it goes on to discuss authors make their argument clear. In one example the author explicitly goes over the other sides argument and then transitions into his own. In the other example, the author doesn’t go over one side of an argument because it’s already implied in the rest of her writing. When I read each example, I could easily decipher which side of the argument the writer was siding with. When I go to attempt this, I know that is something I will need to look out for. I’ll need to watch how much space I give another argument and how much is appropriate to back up my own viewpoint. The particularly challenging texts section confused me at first but when I saw how they broke down each part of the writer’s sentences it made much more sense about the writers standing. It reminded me of deciphering poetry in high school except with argumentative writing. One other skill I will have to watch out for is not oversimplifying an author’s ideas or changing it to fit a preexisting argument. I can see how not including the subtlest of points can change an arguments meaning entirely.
Journal #12
Kayla Lowe
Prof. Miller
ENG110-H2
31 October 2018
Cremation is a practice that builds a lot of tension just like death is. There is the romantic aspect of cremation with family involvement and a more spiritual experience overall. Then there is the industrial side where cremation is carried out by a stranger and handled by a machine. There is also the conflict between cremation and just the natural disposal of the body.
Doughty’s philosophy is to normalize death. Our culture shys away from what happens after a person dies and she wants to make that experience less frightening and allow other closure and more involvement in the processing of their deceased loved ones.
Kayla Lowe
Prof. Miller
ENG110-H2
5 November 2018
Journal #13
I think my writing process for paper 2 was much more successful than paper 1. For paper 2 I started immediately looking at the eportfolios the day it as assigned and started to form an idea of the texts I was going to use. For the last paper, I committed less time and wasn’t fully sure what elements of the Widdicombe text I was going to use until later in the writing process. I made sure I lined all my thoughts up clearly on an outline and followed a template for my text on text moments. I think the structure I forced myself to have when initially writing helped me to produce a better piece that was more coherent and flowed nicely. I’m not sure I did the best job of clearly stating my topics which was a problem I faced in my last paper. I did dedicate more time to my topics sentences and especially to my thesis but I’m not totally sure they were a great as the needed to be. I do think my revisions on my thesis did make a difference and helped me form one that was more specific than my previous attempts. This time around focused more on content and less about word count which I think helped me form ideas better and allowed me to analyze without the feeling of being constrained or just barely making it. It wasn’t until the end that I edited to match the word count unlike my previous paper when I edited constantly to try and make it to the count. I wish I had gone back one more time and read through my paper to correct any spelling or punctuation mistake. I know I tend to have run on sentences, so I wish I had gone back and doubled checked for them. At the end of this paper, I think I’m fairly satisfied with what I have produced.
Kayla Lowe
Prof. Miller
ENG110-H2
5 November 2018
Journal #14: Reconsider the Lobster
My thinking has changed slightly when compared to my previous analysis on DFW. Originally, I was more concerned with the lobster and its suffering more than anything. I was looking at the criteria for suffering and if the lobster’s behavior qualified as suffering. Now when I read the sections involving the lobsters suffering when being cooked I also look at the human behavior. What does cooking the lobster alive say about us as a people? Does our behavior show our guilt? When we leave the room as the lobster bangs in the pot is it because we know what we’re doing is wrong? These are some of the deeper questions I’m not considering after reading the text a second time. The subject I always find confusing is how lobster used to be regarded as horrible food and now its representative of high-class standards. I see the contrasting ideas but coming up with reasons or questions to consider is difficult for me.
Kayla Lowe
Prof. Miller
ENG110-H2
7 November 2018
Journal #15
This is when Foer had children and decided he would become vegetarian. He grew up with some of his favorites food like sushi and his grandmother chicken with carrots. He tied these foods to experiences of joy. Sushi was the time with his mother and the bond they strengthened. Turkey burgers with his father were centered around a big celebration where he got to spend time with his family. Chicken with carrots was the time with his grandmother/ the greatest chef in the world. By giving up these foods Foer is losing the taste of those memories. After this he contradicts this lose with a gain. Not eating meat doesn’t necessarily mean he loses the time he spends with each of his family members or the memories of them, It actually gives his the opportunity to form new memories with people that are centered around his new values system. He may be losing a taste but that can be replace with another. The memories aren’t being replace just the food is.
Foer makes a very strong argument. There is not a valid reason why we need to eat meat. I agree with his experimentation scenario. Eating meat does not benefit anything except our taste buds. Logically I can agree with everything he’s saying but I don’t know if I could change my actions to reflect it. Unless I had a health issue I don’t think I would ever stop eating meat. I know the torture animals go through for the mass production of meat. I know they are just as capable of feeling pain and emotions as humans do but despite knowing all this I still chose to eat meat. My own behavior exemplifies Foer’s argument. Humans are dictated by our sense of taste even though it is the least complex. The fact that we don’t acknowledge it is another example of humans choosing what to consider and what not to. I honestly couldn’t tell you why we place taste on a pedestal but that’s the way we work. The people like Foer who become vegetarians must have a strong sense of self to be able to equalize all their senses.
Kayla Lowe
Prof. Miller
ENG110-H2
12 November 2018
Journal #16
I actually really enjoyed this chapter. It reminded me of the debates I had to participate in during high school. Over all it really asserted writing isn’t a one- sided story it a big conversation. Originally, I had been taught to include a counterclaim into my writing but as time went on I started to omit them more and more. After reading this chapter I realized it can be a real together in my writing. Looking back, I’m trying to remember if I include one in my 2nd paper. If not, I totally should of as it would be a great tool is looking at so many texts. When reading pieces, especially ones about controversial topics as the reader I find myself looking for both sides of the argument. In court we want to hear both sides so why shouldn’t we be hearing both in our writing? I found the section on naming your naysayers very interesting. In the past I would generalize my naysayer in an attempt to distract from their objection and not give them a voice. I like that the book encourages you to name them, so you can make the objection tangible and easier to comprehend. The last thing I thought was eye opening was the very last section of this chapter about changing your position. It makes sense to change you position if you no longer feel you can supported but for some reason when I’m writing its never and option I think I have. Now that I see it’s an option, even if it can be difficult, its will be a lot more useful to me when I’m writing papers. Im trying to adjust to the idea of writing as a fluid process that is ever changing but seeing how you can flip ideas completely really cements that ideology for me.
Recent Comments