While reading "Reading Analytically" the author seems to be arguing the case of real meaning and context of every word. Also the difference between how better reading helps you develop yourself as a better writer. I agree with the author about how words matter and meaning but not about the world being text. If I have any understanding of what the author means about the world being text and language you acquire with it, I have to say it's how you say them. Language is all about where you come from and every culture has different meanings to words. Wether your reading or writing the topic of your assignment is alway more complex then it seems. You can say a fairly simple word mean nothing intentional by it and another person can see something totally different then how you meant it. Suppose I read just as a hobby, does every word have a significant purpose combined in the reading?
The author breaks down the barriors of understanding the components when reading. She includes pitch, complaint, and the moment. If i were reading and you asked what was is the pitch? the pitch seems to me as the cause and purpose of it. The constraint is obviously the situation but the most vaulable part of it is the moment. knowing what the author or person was going through, timing, how they felt, emotion, puts you in better position of understanding. Which puts me at a standstill about her main arguement of world and text.
Reading analytically is so time consuming it's something I know I couldn't be succesful in. The authors gives different steps and ways of analyizng sources with comparsions to one another. Conversing with others ideas is the only I could from my own perspective have a better understanding of unvealing the actual meaning or text in reading analytically. I think certain things work for different people. There's plently of outstanding I would never think of in having a better understanding in writing, the converse method works best for me. You go further into detail about source the s and etc. then I'm stuck with the discussion of which one is more credible. In all the reading I don't question any of the authors ideas and information because as I before different things work for different people. Its almost like the difference between cultures.
Hi Jerrell:
ReplyDeleteThanks for your thoughtful and interesting response to Writing Analytically. I understand that the distinction between world and text is a bit murky, and it's honestly an incredibly difficult concept to explain and-or work through. I think the gist of this authors meaning was just that its important to work through your sources-- your articles-- in a granular way, responding to specific rather than general features of their writing. We'll be discussing some techniques to do this on Wednesday.
I had asked for everyone to find a source and apply the framework from the unit one sheet to it. So, in terms of practice, this would just mean finding something that relates to ANSER-- eg, education-- in some way that's interesting to you. It's Ok, at this stage of the game, if you find something that gives a broad overview of the topic rather than something specific. Wikipedia might even be a good place to start, though it obviously isn't quite where I would like to see you finish.
Keep this in mind when you complete your extended bibliography entries that are coming due Monday. Otherwise, keep up the good work!
I really enjoyed the way that you managed to connect "Writing Analytically" to aspects of your life that interest you. Being as you are a communications major, it was cool to see how you used that as a kind of lens to look at the assigned text. Overall I think you did a really good job in your analysis.
ReplyDelete