Log
Log 02/06
Alejandra Pena
Class started with a mini clarification on what the genre presentation entails, we then read the poem Paris October 1936 by: Cesar Vallejo. Mikaela read her log and Hannah read her log both from (02/01). Mikaela then presented on finstas and how they are a place to express yourself without being judged and how they differ from actual instagrams. We then talked about how we would be meeting in dirac for our next class (02/03) and how the librarians can help with databases and researching. Hannah then lead the discussion, she started off with consider the lobster and her own blog post (how aesthetics and morality intertwine to create a research paper) and how the article helped her see possible ways to structure future research papers. She then spoke about Christian’s post and how she liked his blog because he was able to express his point of view more thoroughly and she briefly hit on morally driven motivation and the documentary Food Inc. Mikaela’s blog post was more factual but added her experience to make it more personal, we hit on how you can add more sides to a paper, yet keep it personal (nice switch up from just a pathos perspective.) We then went over how overall Wallace was a good example on how facts can be presented all the while making it enjoyable and interesting. Hannah then spoke on Brittney’s blog post and how she had a more apathetic mentality, went into how people are too quick to judge (was he one sided? Or was there a broad perspective?), and how it is more convincing when you address both sides of an argument. We went into tourism, how Wallace differs from the food critic “norm”, how people need to be more aware of the consequences of their actions, and how we say things to ourselves to feel better about our actions, Hailey spoke on the whole “one person can’t change shit mentality”. Also we went over how hard it is to think about how one person can make a difference, but if you can make a space for people to be heard it is a step in the right direction. We touched on how it’s a eat or be eaten world, how to avoid being boxed into one genre, and how everything is biased nothing is truly objective. Went over the description of project 2 and how to start thinking about how to subvert our genres. We need to pick a community (possibly career related), our community needs to be a place you can “see”. However, our community does not have to be something you’re a part of, you don’t have to be well versed in said community. We need to interview someone who is in said community, but don’t have to join it, interview doesn’t have to be recorded, but we have to turn in our notes from interview. We went over pikto chart to give a visualization of project 2 to further reinforce what is expected. Went over the deadlines for each piece and how we have to come up with some kind of research question, a basic first step one can be “How does genre relate to this community.” We talked about how we shouldn’t sweat the research question. As well as, how our research paper will build an argument in the end and how we’ll see whether this genre is helpful or harmful to the community. We shouldn’t view this project as a repeat of what others have said, we are “the expert” we will be presenting what others said, but only using that to build our own credibility. We’ll have to cite 10 sources and create an annotated bibliography (summary of research), also our second project doesn’t have to be related to our first.
Comments