Considering Types

This blog post will look at the different types of argument would be the most effective or least effective for my argumentation project.

Found Animals Foundation, "Cat Argument 4" August 29th, 2011
Attribution Share Alike

I believe either the Position argument or the Causal argument would be the best fit for my paper. Position arguments look at specific policy or ideas in a policy debate. For my own topic, I could discuss future plans with Pompeii (for example, the plan to add a train station) and argue the pros and cons of this plan. I could compare it to other failed or successful ideas and create an argument about Pompeii's handling by using a specific new plan. The Casual argument is an introduction to the causes of a specific problem, and argues for potential solutions as well. This would probably be the strongest fit, as I want to argue that Italy has failed to protect Pompeii, and this would be one of my "direct causes" towards the issue.

Probably the one that would fit this project the worst would be the Refutation. A Refutation argument has the specific purpose of refuting the opposing arguments for your topic. Seeing as I've been struggling to find people who openly speak against conservation or Pompeii, this would be a difficult paper for me to write. I can give good reasons as to why I believe my topic is important, but with little evidence to refute, the paper will be weak and one-sided.

REFLECTION

I read Chloe's Rhetorical Action Plan and her Considering Types post. After I had read her post, I ended up going back and changing one of my possible genres for this controversy. Therefore my rhetorical action plan is likely slightly more different than my initial comment on her post, but we were in agreement for the Considering types post. We both thought the Position argument style would be beneficial for our respective controversies, though I could see us using it in slightly different formats.
I also read Alex's Rhetorical Action Plan and Considering Types. Alex's paper was more concise than my own, and managed to generally cover everything. He chose to consider a more visual option, like a TED talk, which I think would be really interesting to watch. For his types post, we also both picked the causal and position arguments. However, Alex chose different levels of appropriateness for each type of argument. His blog post definitely went more in depth than mine did, and I may want to look over each type of argument again.
The comment I received encouraged me using an article format over an academic style paper, and I probably agree that would be more interesting.

My Rhetorical Action Plan

This blog post will have a somewhat in-depth response to a list of ideas to help me build my paper more strongly. This includes looking at audience, genre, type of arguments made, etc.
P.S. Happy 50th post!

prettyinprint, "Party Animal" October 27th, 2008
Attribution no derivs 

This became a bit too lengthy for a blog post, so I created a Google doc which can be found HERE

Reflection:

Coggle of Analyzing my Purpose

This blog post will have a link to a mind map discussing the purpose of my public argument.

A Health Blog, "Exercise plays A Vital Role in Maintaining Brain Health", April 24th, 2014
Attribution Share-Alike

It can be found right HERE

Analyzing Context

In this blog post, we will be examining the "big picture" of my controversy, and will be looking at the perspectives and context of my school of thought.

Hallye Becker, "Screenshot from my computer" , October 17th 2015

1) For Art History, there are quite a few schools of thought. Almost every period of art has it's own more specific set of conventions, thoughts, processes, and steps of analysis. There is an overruling arch of the focus on the importance of art. Artists are the clearest reflection on how the intellectuals of a culture thought and felt. This debate focuses primarily on how to take care of this art and how important it is.

2) There is actually very little push-back against conserving art, and few openly oppose it. The issue more lies with it's relevancy to the "common" person. They may visit a museum or historical site every once in a while, but since it's not a primarily relevant issue in their daily life they may not place a specific importance on spending the necessary money to conserve art.  

3) Many people who agree that art is important, if only for aesthetic's sake.  It tells a story about the the past that is easily grasped, and art has been used as a way to communicate with the "uneducated masses" for thousands of years. Saving it is a good way to teach and interest people in the past, and it'c connection to historical eras helps historians glean further insight into the past. 

4) Again, it circles back to just how important people feel art is. 

5) There is not much specific actions that either party requests. However, those who are fighting for the conservation of art absolutely encourage readers to go out and visit these museums and sites.They stress the importance of tourism-based funding for areas like Pompeii, and often have an underlying message that warns of the collapse of the site if they cannot help it financially. There is a push to encourage readers to see the art for themselves, but it is not always specifically stated. On the other side of the coin, readers have demanded sites be improved for their visit. In a research paper I read, many tourists complained of poor facilities and inaccurate visual and audio guides. Each side needs the other to "step up".

6) Interestingly, both of the above arguments could support my argument. I argue that Italy has failed Pompeii in it's conservation, and continues to put the site at risk despite all progress that has been made the past few years. Tourism is poorly handled, and the site itself still lacks all the maintenance it needs on a daily level. Arguing that the site itself is important and that it needs to be improved on a tourism-level as well both will serve to show how Italy has mismanaged Pompeii. 

7) The greatest threat to my argument are the "so what?" people. Pompeii is old and Italy is in a financial struggle right now. Why waste the money on a site that's collapsing by itself? Who cares? Finding an argument that emphasizes the importance of the art and this site without looking biased may prove to be difficult.


Reflection:
I read both Victoria's and Chloe's posts about context. Both Chloe and Victoria did a good job balancing the arguments on either side. I feel as though I maybe didn't do a good job balancing my arguments, but I also have a hard time finding opposing arguments. They also had external links, which made me feel like I should maybe go back and add a couple just to strengthen this post.  My argument looks a little weak compared to these other posts, so I'm going to need to dig around more to find the best way to balance out my argument in this controversy. 

Audience and Genre

This blog post will look at the possible audiences of my project and how my paper may be published or accessible.


Group 1) People generally interested in conservation

Buchanon, Phyllis  "Baby nerd 3", June 2006
Attribution sharealike 

Seeing as how my speech act will be based off of the research I do, other people may be looking for papers such as mine for reference or information. These are the sort of people who are not necessarily involved in the field, but still have an interest in the topic. The places of publications should therefore be fairly accessible and not too difficult to find, and a QRG would be a perfect example.

*Places of publication

-A QRG. They tend to be succinct, opinionated, and a good summary of all the "important" information needed to get a grasp on the topic. Not only that, they often have links to outside information that gives the reader a chance to explore the topic more in-depth.
Example 1
Example 2

-A magazine or news article. One of my main sources of research included magazine articles from more scientific associations who wrote about the controversy. One was an in-depth exploration of the current state of Pompeii, while the other was a more opinionated piece about the people involved with the site.
Example 1
Example 2

Group 2) Students in my own field

www.audio-luci-store.it "University Student Group" May 11th, 2014
Generic License 

Who is more likely to be interested in the writing of a student than another student in the same field? These students may be writing their own paper, be looking for a reference, or may just be brushing up on current events in their field. These types of publications are generally in a more specific place than a magazine article that may pop up during a google search.

*Places of publication

-A research journal. These sort of publications are typically reserved for specific papers. For example, the paper I found in this research journal broadly discussed the issues at Pompeii and then narrowed down to a specific one that the author studied. Another discusses the value of private conservation versus public consumption.
Example 1
Example 2

-An academic database. Databases search for information among thousands of scholarly journals, newspapers, reports, working papers, etc. They tend to have an association with being credible and with a strong academic base, so students would likely try to find papers published within the database to find more research information. I have attached some databases specifically tuned to the sort of research students would be looking for in my field
Example 1
Example 2

Extended Annotated Bibliography

This blog post will link will provide a link to my new annotated bibliography in Chicago style. These sites were more specifically for answering some of the questions posed in earlier blog posts.

You can access it right HERE

Narrowing my Focus

This blog post will look at the questions I believe to be the most helpful in my continuing exploration of my first controversy.

Petit, Todd "Magnifying Glass" July 1st, 2006
Generic License 

1)What are the plans/goals currently in place?

For myself personally, I'm curious to know what kind of renovations are still occurring. The last article I read regarding Pompeii, UNESCO's contract was nearly up. I would like to know if they are still involved, and what sort of propositions are on the table to try and continue the upkeep Pompeii needs.

What is the Italian government doing to help? Are the people involved?
This is sort of a combination of two questions, but I want to look at the involvement on both sides. Are the people or the government more involved in this issue? What is the level of involvement on each side? And when people are involved, what kind of people are they? I'm curious to see how the different people in Italy are reacting. 

3)How has the Italian people's feelings about the issue been taken into consideration?

I feel as though this is also something I neglected looking more closely at in my paper. While it was more specifically looking at the people of importance in my field who were talking about the issue, the people's opinion is very important. What people in power say and how they say it is often directly influenced by the general public. Looking at what the public had to say can give greater insight into why the Italian government acted the way it did or why certain people got involved. 

Questions About Controversy

In this blog post I will begin the preparation for the next assignment, in which I will create my own act of public speech based on a controversy I have previously written about.
I have chosen to go with the controversy on Pompeii's collapse. It interested me a great deal, and I'd like to get a chance to learn more about it.

Bellucci, Marco "Question Mark" August 24, 2005
Generic license 

Five WHO questions

1. Who in the general public, aside from Antonio Irlando, has spoken about this issue?
2. Who in the government has made a statement about the controversy?
3. Who is currently in charge? 
4. Who exactly was the person directly in charge of Pompeii at the time of the first collapse?
5. Who else is engaged in this, aside from the government and concerned individuals?

Five WHAT questions

1. What are the best options for conserving Pompeii?
2. What are the plans/goals currently in place?
3. What is UNESCO's involvement still, if there is any?
4. What is the argument for or against private investors in the property?
5. What is the Italian government doing to help? Are the people involved?

Five WHEN questions

1. When did UNESCO first take notice?
2. When was the first formal action taken to preserve Pompeii?
3. When were the first serious degradations in the structures noticed?
4. When did UNESCO's contract end, and when will negotiations for a new one take place?
5. When did the Italian government first take notice?

Five WHERE questions

1. Where was this controversy first introduced?
2. Where were the people in charge when the controversy exploded?
3. Where are the places where this controversy was mainly discussed?
4. Where else in Italy has this been an issue?
5. Where does the need to restore historical sites sit in terms of importance in Italy?

Five HOW questions

1. How was this controversy first presented?
2. How many media platforms has this been discussed on?
3. How many people in the government have been interviewed? 
4. How has the Italian people's feelings about the issue been taken into consideration?
5. How has this issue been painted in the media?

Project Two Final!

This blog post will release the final version of my rhetorical analysis essay of Art Spiegelman's interview.
Take a deep breath- we're finished!

Sid, "Sleepy Mouse" March 1, 2011
Attribution noncommercial license

You can find the essay right HERE

Reflection on Project Two

This blog post will look over my own revision process and how I composed the final draft of my last essay.

Hallye Becker, "Screen shot from my computer aka this was too funny to not put on my blog"
October 21st,2015

1. My first draft lacked a lot of evidence and analysis. The transitions were choppy, my introduction was too long, and there was not enough "directness" in me leading the direction of the essay. Since I tend to revise several times, I worked through each paragraph quite a few times to try to really build up the ideas more and more in each revision.                                           
2. The "revised" thesis I wrote was much stronger than the first one I wrote. It was more specific in terms of what I would be discussing in the essay, though even then it needed to have a more "explicit" standpoint. My organization stayed mostly the same, though the transitions and linkage of ideas between them were made more clear.                                                                        
3. These changes were mostly brought about by peer editing. It was pointed out to me some arguments about my audience were unclear or weak, so I reconsidered who the author was speaking for and tried to be more specific.                                                                                         
4. I would argue that these revisions made me more credible. Having a weak rhetorical analysis in a paper directly specified for such would make me look uncertain about the topic I am writing about, and would likely make me look less credible. Good revisions make the author look more credible.                                                                                                                                                
5. This paper is interesting in that you really have to consider two audiences: who the author is speaking to, and who you are discussing this audience for. By having a greater understanding of who the author was speaking for can help me find the right language to explain the rhetoric used, and make the paper more accessible to my own audience.                                                        
6. Some of my sentences were a bit choppy or had incorrect punctuation. My revisions attempted to improve the overall flow of the writing and keep a consistent style that would appeal to my audience.                                                                                                                                              
7. As mentioned before, a clear and well-written paper is likely to be more accessible to a larger audience. I may be able to look at my own writing and understand the argument I was attempting to make, but the reader may end up confused or lost.                                                         
8. I would occasionally refer to the rubric/conventions of this assignment to assure myself I was writing the paper correctly. I rarely had to reconsider my conventions, as I have written several rhetorical analysis papers before, but writing to a very specific audience was new for me.               
9. Each paper I write helps shape and consider my identity as a writer. I would like to consider myself a good writer, but it is noticeable that when an assignment does not have my full interest or investment that my writing falters. I would consider this one of my weaker papers, as I struggled some with finding enough content to argue everything to the extent I desired. I need to be aware that not every paper will capture my full attention, and work to create a strong paper none the less.

Reflection

I read Michael's blog first. He and I agreed on a lot of topics, such as how revision makes us more credible authors and how we felt the changes we made helped address our audience better. However, Michael seemed more assured of his final paper of than I feel about mine. It made me feel like I may need to go back and finish up revising one or two more quick times so that my essay is stronger. Perhaps I'll read his for comparison.
I also read Evan's reflection.  Again, Evan and I agreed frequently. We both felt as though we have a stronger researching background than an effective analysis background, and felt like we focused too much on summarization at times. This will something I will definitely need to work on, because my field frequently requires in-depth analysis. 

Punctuation, Part 2

In this post, I will continue a reflection on the "Punctuation" section of Rules for Writers." I will be discussing the comma, apostrophe, and quotation marks.


The Comma

 A few notable functions in the "commas" section is the option to use a comma only after an introductory clause, listing a series of adjectives, coordinating conjunctions, and more. The restrictive and nonrestrictive elements of the comma is important. Knowing what needs to be separated by a comma (nonessential information) and what does not can make your writing feel more smooth. Commas are also used to separate years from days to indicate time, set off a quote, and isolate nouns to direct attention to who the sentence is addressing.

The Apostrophe

The main function of the apostrophe is matters of possession. It indicates if a noun is possessive by using and " 's" at the end of the word, unless there is an "s" at the end of the word already. In this case, adding an apostrophe at the end of the word will indicate possession. Apostrophes may also be used for marking an omission with contractions. It should not be used to create the plural forms of words, letters of numbers, and do not use it when the noun isn't possessive.  In formal writing, there are some more specific guidelines. They should be used to cite works, but contractions should be avoided entirely in formal writing.

Quotation Marks

Quotations marks are frequently used in literary analysis essays or other scholarly works. Quotations marks are used mainly for quoting other's works. Using proper citation and essential quotes can seriously strengthen a paper, and quotation marks are key to this. When quoting someone speaking, use a "singular" quotation mark (aka an apostrophe ' ) to enclose the speaker's quotation inside the "outer" quotation.  They have other functions as well: titles of papers, words used as words, punctuation, brackets and ellipses.


REVISING

While revising my own draft, I came across a few punctuation errors that were easily fixable. The sentence
"For example, in Spiegelman’s opening line to the interviewer’s question about Maus’s ban, he claims he worries the decision is..." has some unnecessary commas and improper apostrophe usage. The same line could be changed to read 
"For example, Spiegelman’s opening line to the interviewer’s question about Maus’ ban claims he worries the decision is...".  
Another sentence that needed revision is 
"However, it’s linkage to a dark and brutal history has ruined this peaceful interpretation." There is no noun for "it" to take possession of, nor is it a proper contraction of "it is". The sentence should be changed to 
"However, its linkage to a dark and brutal history has ruined this peaceful interpretation."

Copy for Paragraph Analysis 2

This blog post will have a link to a detailed paragraph analysis on my rhetorical analysis paper.

After reading and analyzing my essay, it seems pretty clear that I definitely need to put more work into the analysis of this. While each paragraph has a fairly clear main point, not all of them are very well developed and could use more evidence. The internal organization is pretty straight forward as a "point by point" sort of essay. However, paragraphs could use smoother transitions and link ideas more strongly between them.

It can be found right HERE.

Revised Conclusion

This blog post does the same thing as my previous one, in which I threw out my old introduction and started from scratch. This time it will be my conclusion.

Again, I added a link HERE to view.

Revised Introduction

This blog post will take my old introduction and thesis and throw it straight into the garbage. Which is probably a good thing.

Here's a mouse in a trash can. Get it? Because the paper is on 'Maus' and I threw my old thesis...nevermind. I think I'm funny.

Mestdagh, Mia and Steve "Mouse in the trash can" June 15, 2006
Attribution sharealike

Since my introductions ran a little long, I added a link HERE to view my new and old introductions.

Reflection on Project 2 Draft

This blog post will look at the drafts I read for the last post ( Swati's draft and Victoria's draft.) and compare them to my own. Admittedly, I have had a very busy few weeks and have not had time to write a very complete draft yet. I will fix this very soon.

Mancini, Anderson. "Reflection" November 19th, 2008
Generic License 

Do you have an identifiable thesis?
Yes. While it is not as strong as Swati's intro and thesis, there is a a direct claim I am making about my paper. It needs more strength and detail added to it and should be more "explicit".

How have you decided to organize your essay?
 My organization is very similar to Victoria's and Swati's. I chose for each paragraph to have a specific discussion of a device my author used. By organizing it by rhetorical device, it keeps a flow to it that avoid confusion.

Did you identify and analyze several important elements of the text's rhetorical situation?
 My elements are identified, but as of right now my draft is still basically in the "outline" phase. To be on par with the other essays I have read, I need to add much more analysis and thought to my text.

Did you explain how these strategies were employed?
Roughly, yes. My outline has "evidence" attached to each of my arguments. Swati did a very good job of just looking at what the author did to reach their audience and how they used their rhetorical devices, and I should look to her paper for some guidance.

Are you thoughtfully using evidence?
 Look above. My paper needs a lot more thought. Both Swati and Victoria did a fairly careful analysis of how the evidence was used to create a point.

Do you leave your reader wanting more?
I would say yes. Right now because my draft is very very rough. Half-jokes aside, Swati's paper definitely wanted to make me read more about her topic and field. Mine is weak, but hopefully can garner the audience's interest.

Punctuation, Part 1

This post will review topics covered in the "Punctuation" section of the 'Rulers for Writers' book.

The Semicolon

I chose this section due to the fact that I occasionally confuse the use of semicolons versus colons. Semicolons are used for closely related clauses that have a clear relation without a conjunction necessarily being required, and require two independent clauses. It essentially takes the place of the omitted conjunction. It can also be used for items in a series that has internal punctuation. Transitional phrases for semicolons are preceded by the semicolon and are usually followed by a comma. While I was aware of most of these things, a review of what semicolons should and should not be used for was a good refresher.

The Colon

Again, I decided a review of this form of punctuation would be helpful for me. Colons are used after an independent clause to draw attention to the next thing that will follow. That could be a list, an appositive, a quote, or a summary/explanation. It also has conventional functions. A greeting in a letter, telling time, proportions, titles and subtitles, bibliographies, etc. It is different from the semicolon, because the colon must be preceded by an independent clause but does not necessarily need one after.

Other Punctuation

This includes dashes, slashes, parenthesis, etc. Dashes are used to set aside/bring attention to information that needs emphasis, introduce a shift or a dramatic change in tone or thought. Parenthesis offer supplemental information, while brackets are used for things like paraphrasing. Slashes were ones I was less familiar with. Slashes can be used to separate up to two or three lines of poetry. More than that should become a quotation, which I did not know. That is their basic proper grammatical use.


REFLECTION

I first read Swati's draft. Not only was her essay very thorough and well-written, she had nearly flawless usage of of the punctuation I reviewed. For example, her use of parenthesis was well used to give extra information. " 'But growing usable tissue in the lab is notoriously difficult; the advent of 3-D printers that can print ink made of cells has offered a ray of hope” (para. 12)' " Her addition of the parenthesis to lead the reader to a specific paragraph was very well done.


I also read Victoria's draft. Victoria had good punctuation, and even used colons in her title like I reviewed in this section. Her title "Stem Cell Controversy: Ethics or Science?" uses the colon perfectly. It gave me ideas of how to use the colon similarly in my own paper. She had some small comma errors, but nothing that was unfixable or clearly wrong.

Draft of Rhetorical Analysis

This blog post will have the first draft of this project attached. It has been a while since I have written a rhetorical analysis, so please be critical of the draft. Call attention to any areas that need strengthening, poor word choice, awkward grammar, or any sort of shortcomings. Thank you so much!

You can access my draft HERE 

Practicing Summary and Paraphrase

 This post will be a practice exercise for summary and paraphrasing by quoting from the interview with Art Spiegelman by "All Things Considered" on NPR

Original Source

"The whole point of what we're calling "graphic novels" is the melding of visual and verbal information — to sound professorial for a second — and part of that information starts with the first thing you see. ... It's why when, when Pantheon didn't want to give me the right to do the cover — back in 1986 when the first volume was published by them, and there was no such thing as a graphic novel that anybody'd heard of — I was sputtering. Like, how could they do that, if the cover's part of the book, of course?" -Art Spiegelman


My paraphrase of Original Source 

The cover art for graphic novels serve a greater purpose than to just look pretty, so that a reader walking by may be struck by some visually pleasing art work. A well designed graphic novel combines visual and textual information. The cover should begin the relay of information, because it's the first thing a reader will see. The cover art is just as much a part of the book as the actual pages.


My Summary of the Original Source 

Spiegelman discusses the importance of cover art by linking it as a part of the whole instead of just a cover. It's a critical part of the graphic novel that introduces information about the story, and is more than a flashy gimmick used to draw readers in.

Project 2 Outline

This post will show my detailed outline for my rhetorical analysis essay. My outline was guided by the "Sections of the Paper"

I found reading this section in Writing Public Lives  was actually quite helpful. Breaking down the components of a good rhetorical analysis helped me see the the pieces that go into it and make it successful. For example, there needs to be a solid intro, a thesis, strong body paragraphs, an analytical claim, and a strong conclusion. The introduction should help shape the rest of the writing. It can include some background information but should mostly be limited to the general idea of your reading or text and the argument you will be discussing. The thesis is arguably the most important part of the intro. A strong thesis reflects the opinions and rhetorical strategies that will be looked at more in-depth in your paper. It should also tie into your body paragraphs, which will work to back up your claim.  It should support the ideas and purposes you suggested about your author in the intro and thesis. Good body paragraphs will have analysis, commentary, textual support, and boost the thesis. The work as a whole needs a strong conclusion, a summation of all the pieces that should also be persuasive and continue the thoughts of your analysis. Don't be afraid to think about the implications of your analysis for the conclusion!

APPLYING THIS TO MY ARTICLE
I couldn't find an image I liked so here's a cat that supposedly looks like Hitler.

Puetz, Josh "Farm Cat that Looks like Hitler" August 31st, 2010
Generic license 

Introduction

 I will introduce the issue of 'Maus' being banned in Russia due to it's cover. I will add some context and relevant information, such as the history of banned swastikas, and then introduce Spiegelman. I will offer his ideas and present his interview and then lead into the thesis.

Thesis

 While I am still in the process of perfecting my thesis, it will generally offer my own opinions/ideas about Spiegelman's use of rhetoric. It will have brief descriptions of what I believe to be his most successful  use of rhetoric.

Spiegelman looks intelligent and rational in the discussion of his novel. In his recent interview with NPR, comics advocate and cartoonist Art Spiegelman carefully appeals to his audience's values. His use of personal stories, references of credible sources, humor, and elevated word choice all work to persuade his audience to see the absurdity of his graphic novel being banned in Russia. He manages to negate the credibility of his opposers in a credible and even-handed manner. The predominant use of emotional and credible appeals helps Spiegelman effectively communicate his stance on this issue.

Body Paragraphs 

1. Personal stories and credibility 
• Discusses his past negative history with Maus and how it was handled
• Talks about the controversy from his own stand point
2. Tone
• Casual but still professional
• Manages to make jokes-some at his own expense-to seem more likeable 
• Discusses the values behind this decision
3. Negating opposition
• Calls decision "arbitrary"
• Puts it in terms of other decisions that are considered ridiculous 

Main Claim:

Maus should not have been banned in Russian bookstores because of it's cover.

Conclusion

My analysis will wrap up by looking at the implications of my thesis and work to convince my readers of Spiegelman's effectiveness in discussing this controversy.


Reflection

 I read Swati's Project 2 outline and was very impressed. Her outline had more depth and specific information than my own. Her main claim read more strongly and the organization of her body paragraphs was very strong. I liked her decision to do "point -> example -> strategy" for her organization. She seems well set up and prepared for this project, and I would like to go back and build more upon my outline.

I also read Isaak's outline. Our outlines were a bit more similar, and more looked at the components of each section rather than begin to actually write, like Swati did. I feel as though both of us could use a little bit more "meat" on the bones of our outline. Being able to recognize the weakness of my own writing through others is an important skill. 

Draft Thesis Statements

In this blog post, I will share some of my preliminary thesis statements for this project. I will also some reflections and thoughts.

Beall, Jeffrey. "Draft" April 24th, 2011
Attribution ShareAlike 

Thesis #1:

In his interview "Maus Banned in Russia for It's Cover", Art Spiegelman addresses the issue of his book's removal from bookshelves. His use of personal narrative and tone appeals to his audience's beliefs about the value of free speech and censorship. His use of appeals to his credibility on speaking about the "arbitrary" decision helps persuade his audience that the removal of 'Maus' was absurd.

 Reflection 

I worry this thesis is concise but does not do the most effective job at laying what I will be discussing for this essay. The second sentence holds most of the bulk of the argument for this thesis, but I worry about the lack of specifics and word choice. I feel as though it has good ideas, but could be written so that it sounds more professional or less obviously scream "This is a thesis!".

Thesis #2:

In a recent interview with NPR, Comics advocate and cartoonist Art Spiegelman carefully appeals to his audience's values. His use of personal stories, references of credible sources, and elevated word choice all work to persuade his audience to see the absurdity of his graphic novel being banned in Russia. The predominant use of emotional and credible appeals helps Spiegelman effectively communicate his stance on this issue.

Reflection

This thesis is not too different from my first one. However, I do feel as though it is a little big stronger. It has some better word choice while not being too lengthy, and doesn't seem too wordy.I still believe it could use some work, but it feels a little stronger than my first thesis.



Other Posts

 After reading over a couple other drafts, I feel simultaneously more and less assured by the strength of my theses.

I read Laurence's drafts first. While he had a good building blocks, they needed to be fleshed out a bit more. Theses for rhetorical analysis seem to be more than just one sentence long, and have a good chunk on information in them. If he just added a little more information to his theses, they would be very well done.

I also read Swati's post, which seemed a little more in-line with mine. They were quite well-developed, and I feel like she did a much better job than I did connecting her ideas. Hers were quite specific and the two theses were more than two different ways to restate the same idea. Mine could use some more work, perhaps from opposing views, so that I may be able to enhance my ideas.

Analyzing my Audience

This blog post will address the six bulleted questions found in the Student's Guide to First Year Writing.

Hunt, Tara "Audience" Septemer 9th, 2013
Attribution ShareAlike Generic 

• Who am I writing for? What are my audience's beliefs and assumptions?

According to our rubric for this project, my audience would be a freshman or entry-level student in my field. They will have a basic knowledge of the topic and field, but nothing in-depth. It's likely we will share similar beliefs in art and and freedom of speech. They may hold the assumption that 

• What position might they take on this issue? How will I need to respond to this position?

They will either agree or disagree with Spiegelman. If they're in my field, there is a good chance they will agree with Spiegelman's position disapproving of the removal of "Maus".  I will respond with Spiegleman's thoughts and comments as well as adding outside context so they see both sides of the argument. It is not necessarily my job to judge the "correctness" of the author's argument, so I will not go past analysis and information. 

• What will they want to know?

Extra general information to gain further understanding of the issue. What are the pros and cons of this? What is the context of the argument and what cultural values may be different? What is the background of this issue? I will need to provide extra context and give both sides of the argument. 

• How might they react to my argument?

Assuming my audience are new comers to my field, they may be unfamiliar with how rhetorical analysis works. They are likely to be interested in the topic as it's related to the field and have will require an active debate. 

• How am I trying to relate to or connect with my audience?

My audience and I have the same major, so I am trying to relate to them on a disciplinary level. We have common interests, beliefs, and ideas. That will be the basis of our connection, as I don't know them on a face-to-face level. 

• Are there specific words, ideas, or modes of presentation that will help relate to them this way?

Since my audience and I share disciplines, they will have a general knowledge of key terms and phrases that I will be able to use. I'll want to pique their interest in the topic without sounding too verbose or pretentious. My diction should be straight-forward, even, and professional. I want to be able to relate to my audience, without sounding too unprofessional.


Reflection:

I read both Casey and Bri's blog posts. While comparing mine, I feel as though my own analysis lined up fairly well. My blog post is fairly well developed, though some sections in their blogs were stronger than my own and may require a little tinkering. I feel as though I could have done a slightly better job trying to consider the likely interests and traits of Art History students. I should definitely be aware of my audience so that I can tailor my writing to them.

Cluster of "Maus Banned in Russia for it's Cover"

This blog post will feature a coggle cluster map of my article. I broke it apart by the different rhetorical devices and cultural values. The cultural value side is more about what the what the artist believes, as opposed to the other side which is purely rhetorical.

You can find my coggle map here

Analyzing Rhetorical Strategy in : "Graphic Novel 'Maus' Banned in Russia for It's Cover"

This post will look at the rhetorical strategies that appear in my article. It will be guided by our reading in 'A Student's Guide to First Year Writing'

   

Decker, Kathryn "Strategy" taken January 14th, 2004 via Flickr
Generic License

Appeals to Credibility or Character

• Spiegelman uses personal stories as examples of the topic
• Despite the fact this is based off an interview, there are links to outside sources
• Also references well-known and professional people
• Elevated word choice; speaks professionally with ease
• Author is generally well known and respected as a cartoonist, teacher, and advocate
• Appeals to his audience (listeners on NPR; generally educated)

Spiegelman does fairly subtle appeals to his credibility. He has a famously known book, and knows he is speaking to an educated audience who will have a good chance of knowing who is already. He sprinkles in some names of people in positions of power to look more credible. However he barely acknowledges counter arguments, which takes away from his credibility slightly. Though, to be fair, his interview was less than 5 minutes long, which doesn't allow much time for discussion. 

Quote: "The first time this reared its head was way back whenMaus was not a known entity [and]... the head of Rowohlt publishing said, "We have a problem — it's against the law to show swastikas on the covers of books in Germany."

Appeals to Emotion

• Uses personal stories (mentioned before)
• Has formal diction, but still manages to speak with casual ease
• Sense of humor-cracks a couple jokes
• Reads like a QRG almost; short and sweet with external links 
• Tone of voice is professional 

Spiegelman speaks with a certain ease that makes him easy to read and listen to. His sort of casual concern for this almost screams "Isn't this a bit ridiculous? I've been here before, no real need for alarm, but come on. This is a bit arbitrary don't you think?" His ability to communicate makes him easy to listen to and sympathize with. His humor at his own previous misadventures with his cover art immediately makes him likable, and therefore more people are likely to side with him. 

(Said in an easy-going tone) Quote: "So I did. I got a separate paycheck on top of the relatively small advance — and when the second book came out, they insisted that I do the cover, so I don't get any extra money."

Appeals to logic 

• Text is based off an interview with some extra analysis and background
• Reads like a QRG; organization is easily readable 
• Clear transitions (Interview questions and subheadings)
• Image of Spiegelman's book for reference 

Becker, Hallye. Screenshot from my computer, October 1st, 2015. Accessed via NPR.org

Though not a logical strategy is used, Spiegelman manages to come across as very logical. It's more in his tone and word choice than the actual organization of the article, though it is easily broken apart and readable. The image used just serves as an illustration of what the cover looks like, so that nothing is left for the reader to imagine (aka an enormous swastika dominating the page when in actuality is it not the focal point).


REFLECTION

I read Isaak's analysis of his rhetorical strategies. Reading over his, it seems like we're fairly even in terms of depth of analysis. However, he definitely utilized more quotes than I did. Having lots of things to quote off of made it easier to see the exact content he was referring to. We both seemed to have less depth for logical appeals. I'm not sure if it was because it was difficult to pick out the logical rhetoric.  

Analyzing Message in : "Graphic Novel 'Maus' Banned in Russia for It's Cover"

Link to article can be found here. This post will evaluate the message of Art Spiegelman's interview about his graphic novel 'Maus' and it's ban in Russia with the guidance of A Student's Guide to First Year Writing. 

Here's a little mouse playing his trumpet because 'Maus' and right to free expression, get it? 

Scott, Richard "Jazz Mouse" December 26th, 2007
NonCommercial ShareAlike License 

Does the author

1. Express an idea or opinion?
2. Respond to a particular occasion?
3. Inform the reader about a misunderstood topic?
4. Analyze, synthesize, or interpret?
5. Reflect on their topic?
6. Advocate for change?
7. Move the readers to feel a certain way?

The most relevant questions to relate to this text would be numbers 1, 2, and 5. The entire article is a response to a particular occasion. Spiegelman is speaking against the purge of his novel 'Maus' from bookstores because of the swastika displayed on the cover page. It was relevant and a topic of discussion at the time of this interview.  He strongly disagrees with this, and openly shares his opinion of the decision. He also goes back to reflect on other times this has happened. In Germany, swastikas are vehemently banned with the exception of scholarly writings. 'Maus' is a graphic novel, which at the time of it's production, was a term that was practically unheard of. Spiegelman had to get Maus approved as a piece of scholarly literature before it could be sold in Germany.

There's more layers to this, however. His speaks about the importance of cover art and it's ability to convey the general idea of a story before the book is even opened. A ban on that, and a refusal of his rights to his own artwork, is something that he also talks about. It's a crucial part of the information. Spiegelman's reflection on these topics build up his main point. 

The least relevant question would be 3. It isn't exactly surprising that many European nations ban swastikas entirely, so the extension of that law on novels shouldn't come as shock. The discussion is still interesting and multi-faceted, but I wouldn't say the ban on swastikas would be misunderstood. 

Analyzing My Own Assumptions

This blog post will be a continuation of my analysis of my selected text. It will be guided by provided questions, displayed below.

Becker, Hallye "Screenshot of my computer" October 1st 2015

What cultural or social values doe we share with the culture in which the text was written?This article discusses the value of obscenity rulings and removing an anti-fascism book from shelves because of it's use of a swastika. Spiegelman vehemently disapproves 'Maus'  being removed from Russian bookstores, for reasons deeper than the fact it is his own graphic novel. It's a very American argument. Our culture heavily values freedom of speech, as does not have a ban on swastikas as other nations do. The idea that an anti-Nazi book would be taken off shelves simply because it uses a Swastika as an illustration seems absurd to us. This idea has endured so long mainly because it's clause rests in our Constitution, as is believed to be one of the founding principles of America. 

What cultural values do we not share? I tend to agree with the argument Spiegelman makes, and I tend to align with him. It could be argued that this is also about values we do not share with Russia and other European nations. For example, Spiegelman discusses his problems with his book being banned in Germany because of their ban on swastikas entirely. He talks about loopholes he found and petitioning for the book to have it's intended cover. It truly speaks to his tenacity, as he refused to simply change the cover. However, not enough was said in the article to really have enough fact to create a solid argument. This actually weakens his argument a little, seeing as his acknowledgement of the other side is minimal at best. 

If the text is written in a culture different from out own, what values do and don't connect to our own? This text was written based off of American culture and beliefs, though it does somewhat address Russian beliefs. However, it's discussion of Russia's values are so minimal that it would be hard to discuss Russia's culture based solely on this text. 

If the text was written in a different historical time, how have beliefs changed?This article was published in 2013. It is unlikely any vast changes in belief have occurred over the past two years

REFLECTION:

I read both Isaak and Evan's blogs.  After reading over their posts, I noticed we all tended to have a similar issue. Our biases and values tended to align with the speaker in our articles. While we didn't all necessarily agree on the basic arguments of the text (for example, I disagreed with Isaak that medication was the new cultural norm for weight loss), but the idea was the same. It made me realize I could definitely take a step back so that I could more effectively analyze this text. What piece of the puzzle might I be missing by only focusing in on one area? What extra research could I do to better inform myself and understand the cultural implications of this work as a whole? I'm supportive of the idea of this article, but should I delve deeper so I can understand it better and challenge the ideas presented to me? I'd like to get a bigger picture on this controversy, so I can have a better understanding and therefore better writing when analyzing the post overall. 

Analyzing My Text's Cultural Setting

This blog post will address three questions one might ask when analyzing the cultural context of a text previously selected. It was written in April of 2015, and is mostly direct quoting from an interview (which is linked in the article). It was published concomitantly to the controversy, and before a decision was made about the books belonging on Russian shelves or not.

What values, ideas, norms, beliefs, or laws of the culture play a role in the text?

This text address the concepts of free speech, censorship, interpretation of law, and abidance to the law. It really regards two different forms of values.  It's a balance of two different cultures- Russia and it's freedom of choice, and an artist's argument about a censorship he sees as "arbitrary". It's about content versus illustration, and to what degree freedom of speech can be used against an enforced law.

Menezes, Tyler "The worst thing about censorship" June 27, 2008 via Flickr
Attribution Share-alike License 

Does the text address these values directly, or indirectly?

Spiegelman addresses these values very directly. He directly challenges the bookstore's decision, and resorts to some (admittedly highbrow) name calling. Spiegelman discusses the history of his issues with the book's cover, discusses his opinion of the bookstore's decision, an expresses his concerns with historical context to back it up. He doesn't skirt around the issue or his values at all.

What is the relationship of the text to these values? Is it critical or supportive? Does it seek to modify these aspects of the culture in a certain way?

This text directly addresses the values. It's a current issue being actively discussed, and it's even a article that gives the direct opinions of the person arguably most affected. It's simultaneously critical and supportive. It's critical of a sort of over-censorship which follows a law to an almost unnecessary degree, while supportive of expressionism and illustration for the use of making a point. It's not about Nazism, because the graphic novel is clearly against fascism. It seeks to modify a culture of over censoring works for fear of being "nailed". It's against publishers who refuse to allow certain plays or books with certain cover art for fear of getting in trouble, despite some that could arguably be clear exceptions.

Cultural Analysis of 'Maus' Removal in Russia

I have chosen to address the article "Graphic Novel About Holocaust 'Maus' Banned in Russia For It's Cover", including Art Spiegelman's interview. The keywords or cultural values I picked out from this text are "arbitrary" (relating to the rulings on the removal of the book) and "obscenity" (a word that changes definitions from person to person). The main topic of this article is questioning Russia's choice to remove the book and what Speigelman calls "rather well intentioned stupidity". 

Ardesia, "MAUS- Art Spiegelman" January 11th, 2006
NonCommercial NoDerivs Generic License 

How do these keywords help support the author's argument?

The definition of arbitrary is "a random choice based on personal whim, rather than any reason or system". This keyword was used in reference to Russian bookstore's decision to pull 'Maus' from it'se shelves. The use of arbitrary immediately negates their choice. It declares it foolish and out of the realm of reason from the very start, which boosts the author's stand point. "Obscenity" is more to provoke thought from the audience- is this really obscenity? Is a negative symbol is used for illustrative purposes that go against the symbol's intent, is it still okay? At what point can we approve or deny free speech? It makes the audience think and decide for themselves whether or not Spiegelman's use of the swastika is obscene. 

Why might an audience support the argument if it's connected to these values?

As mentioned before, listeners of NPR tend to be college educated and range from ages 25-54. (Source) Spiegelman makes a sound and professional argument. His tone and language are engaging to an educated audience, including his keywords/values. If his audience feels engaged by Spielgelman and connect to the ideas behind his key arguments, they're likely to connect to his opinion.