Blog #5 - Discourse in Force

Alright guys, so I just got home from school after taking a dreaded exam. It was for BA 360; if any of you are business majors you may be familiar with it. People said it would be really hard, but I did not think it was too bad. Hopefully I did well. Anyway, I am pretty tired, so let’s knock this out.

Alright, let’s just write down Swales’s main points and talk about them.

So, I wrote the six defining characteristics of a discourse below. I just copy-pasted them from the reading, so I haven’t read too much into them. Based on what we talked about in class, I am going to attempt to think of something I think qualifies as a discourse, then I’ll go through the qualifications and see if it makes it. Sound good? Yeah.  Sounds pretty good when I’m this tired.

Alright, I’m gonna go ahead and say a that the fantasy football subreddit known as /r/fantasyfootball is a discourse. If you don’t know what a subreddit is, I assume you don’t know what Reddit is. If you don’t know what Reddit is, then you are missing out. Anyway, let’s test it out.

#1: A discourse community has a broadly agreed set of common public goals.

Okay, so this subreddit qualifies for this, I think. Everyone on there has a common goal of winning their fantasy football league.

#2: A discourse community has mechanisms of intercommunication among its members.

The subreddit itself provides a variety of intercommunication mechanisms. At it’s core it is a forum. You can comment and message people and what not. So, I’d say there is a great deal of intercommunication.

#3: A discourse community uses its participatory mechanisms primarily to provide information and feedback.

As I said before, you comment and message people. It is highly encouraged. There are daily posts for "Who do I start (WDIS)" where users provide feedback on questions other users have about certain players.

#4: A discourse community utilizes and hence possesses one or more genres in the communicative furtherance of its aims.

Okay, so this is pretty tough, but I’d still say /r/fantasyfootball qualifies. You see, not every post follows the same format. Sometimes it is news, other times it is projections, sometimes rankings, and other times it is a simple discussion. I have seen times where people will post something that looks like it belongs in an academic journal, complete with charts and stats and even citations for player databases.

#5: In addition to owning genres, a discourse community has acquired some specific lexis.

This is pretty easy. Of course this subreddit qualifies. Do you not know about our lord and savior Josh "Flash" Gordon? Are you unaware of the "trade-rape," the "Taco" of the league, the "workhorses," the "WW," "OBJ," "PPR," the "handcuff." "IDP"?

#6: A discourse community has a threshold level of members with a suitable degree of relevant content and discoursal expertise.

193,278 subscribers last time I checked. There are also posters such as u/quickonthedrawl or u/Beer4TheBeerGod who provide detailed statistical analysis that is often more accurate than claimed "fantasy experts."

Alright, so I think I did okay. Maybe I messed up? Let me know what you think. I would also like to know if any of you are fellow FF players or Redditors.

After reading this, I realized I said "alright" quite a bit. Damn, I am dull.

via GIPHY

Blog # 4 - Editorials and OP-EDs

So, I’m writing this as I read each article/editorial. I think it will be easier to talk about them as they are fresh in my mind.

The first article I read was “Why Facts Don’t Unify Us”. It seemed pretty straight forward. I wasn’t sure about their research methods, but I guess that is besides the point. The authors wanted to make the article seem scientific and credible. What bugged me is when they stated, “These findings help explain polarization on many issues.” I mean, do they really? Did they test that as well? These guys established some credibility at the beginning, but then made that generalization and then stated, “Essentially the same tale can be told with respect to immigration, terrorism, increases in the minimum wage — and candidates for the highest office in the land.” To me these are just generalizations made to make people feel good about the way they think. The last thing that got me was how they got all preachy with their last sentence, “For those who believe in learning, and the possibility of democratic self-government, that’s very good news.” This is just there to make the reader feel like they are one of those people, that they are good.

Just finished “Liberals Are The Sort Of People Who….” and holy shit. I could not believe that dude is an actual journalist. His whole article sounds like those rants that you see in Facebook comments on a political video. His argument was not based on logic, at all, but rather an emotional piece to confirm the beliefs of conservative readers. This is not to say anything about his audience, either. I’m sure many conservatives think this guy is crazy too. But, I get it. There are liberals like him as well. I’m not going to get into politics, though. That’s not what this is about. His genre is...well...I don’t really know. It’s an opinion piece for sure, filled with emotional appeals and fallacies. It seems like he is just a hyper-conservative blog writer, rather than a news writer/journalist. If people share the ideologies that he mentioned, then I’m sure he did a great job with his piece.

(Just want to say that his entire article reminded me of the “Drake the type of n***a meme.” I don’t know what is allowed in this blog, so I blurred out n***a.” And it’s used in the same way as “dude”, so I hope no one gets offended, because I’m sure you guys know this meme.)

Okay, finished up “Criminal rape cases should not be on a ticking clock.” So this article is hard to analyze because you have to read as unbiased as you can. There is pathos used in this article, but it is on a different level than the crazy dude from the “Liberals” article. This article talks about something more serious than “F you liberal pansies.” The credibility is established due to the fact that the author is an attorney, so you can believe what she says about laws and acts. But, you also have to take into account that she represents the accusers in the case. (I am not taking a side here, just trying to be unbiased.) What makes her use of emotions more appealing is that she uses anecdotes, and the real names of victims. I think she did a good job in using pathos. She ends the article with a call to action, “If Gov. Brown signs this bill into law, statutes of limitations no longer will be a sexual predator’s best friend and a victim’s worst enemy.” I say it’s a call to action because although it does not ask the reader to do anything directly it reinforces everything the author just said, poking at readers’ feelings just a bit.

First JSTOR piece down: “WHERE AMERICAN PUBLIC SCHOOLS CAME FROM.” Right away I can tell that this article is credible. There are facts pulled from sources, dates, and citations. The ethos is clearly there. There was no agenda being pushed, it was just informative. I guess it answers a question that some people may have, but it does not make you choose a side or tell you that you are wrong. This article feels academic but readable, it makes you feel smart that you understand it. It breaks away from the long, verbose (oooh, fancy word) language usually found in academic writing. And it was short.

Done with “VIRAL BLACK DEATH: WHY WE MUST WATCH CITIZEN VIDEOS OF POLICE VIOLENCE.” This piece was more persuasive than informative. Right away I could tell that the author wanted to relate to the audience. He establishes his credibility by stating his qualifications, then immediately follows with a hashtag. As soon as he is finished with that sentence he states his argument, “We should acknowledge and absorb the pain captured in the videos, just as antiracist activists bore witness in the past to gruesome photographs of lynchings.” So, you can tell there is a structure to his argument and that he is going to follow some academic parameters. This is way different than the “liberals” dude who just rambles. He uses #staywoke, which I see as a way to appeal to his audience. What is funny, well I wouldn’t say funny, but ironic is that the hashtag he is using has become a meme now among younger culture. Many people are not using it the way he is anymore, and thus it loses its original meaning and value. Take for example this picture to the right I found on a “funny pics” Instagram page. I also see the hashtag pop up on the Spongebob memes from time to time.The author uses titles to get his main ideas across, but for some reason I feel like he is trying to hard. I understand his argument and can feel the emotion, but he is so passionate that he may deter some readers.

“HOW DOES THE LANGUAGE OF HEADLINES WORK? THE ANSWER MAY SURPRISE YOU.” I just want to say that I found this article and the writer to be pretty clever. The way she writes is inviting and non-threatening. You don’t feel intimidated by the words and you don’t feel like something is being pushed on you. She writes about something I am sure we are all familiar with...you’ll have to read the article to find out. It’s a clever piece backed with historical evidence, and relevant examples. She does not establish credibility in who she is, but rather in how relatable the subject she is talking about is to the reader. It was nice article to end all that reading.

Blog #2 - Devitt Reading

Well, that took some time to get through, but hey I did it. We all did. It has been a few semesters since I have read something like that. I am a marketing major, so all my classes focus on business, and stats, and charts, and formulas. Maybe that’s why it took so long for me to get through it. It could be that by taking all of these classes I have become accustomed to a certain genre.

I should start by saying that I did not know “genre” meant something or than a type of movie or music. This idea that there are genres in everyday life is something new to me. But it makes sense. Devitt talks about how genre awareness is important. After reading everything I can easily talk as if I had known this, but that is not the case. So I’ll talk about what I thought as I was reading.

Devitt makes a good point in showing the importance of genre awareness. It is something that I, and I am sure many of you, have never even thought of. Just think about. We all know about music genres and movie genres, and yeah we know when we are listening a certain type of song and a certain type of movie. Yet, we never really think about how we are writing, unless we are given some sort of instructions or guideline. Being aware of genres allows us to know a few things. First of all, we actually begin to think about whether or not we know the particular genre we are using. Sure, we may know of it, but what is it really? Devitt claims, “Our critical awareness of any particular genre or even discipline can be as limited and incomplete as our knowledge and teaching of a particular genre.”

How can we even think about what we don’t know if we don’t know that we know it?

Yeah, it sounds pretty trippy, but it makes sense.

The way I see it is, “How can you attempt to make Chicken Tetrazzini if you don’t even know what Chicken Tetrazzini is?” (I suck at analogies, go easy)

Just getting an understanding of which genre we are using will let us get to that next level and analyze the actual genre. We can take a look at its ideology. (<-- A+ transition)

Think about what Devitt says, “When teachers select genres to use in the classroom, then, they are selecting ideologies that those genres will instill in students…” She goes on to provide examples, including how the 5-paragraph essay has shaped students. The ideologies that genres carry seem to be a reflection of what people think the genres are. It’s not that the genres actually have ideologies, it’s that we attach some sort of connotation to them. When we think of the 5-paragraph essay we think of structure, and order, something incredibly boring, but something we are all used to. We feel restricted, but at least we have familiarity.

When I write an (5-paragraph) essay, I know that it is something I am going to put off until the last minute and get done just because I know I am familiar with the format and expect nothing new. When I write a piece of rhetoric I know that I am going to pick at the author’s brain and attempt to sound like I know exactly what they thought. When I write a memo, I try to make myself sound professional and organized. These are all things I associate with those particular genres. They come from what I feel people expect of those genres. Why though? Well, everyone kind of associates similar things to those genres. And why do they do that? Well, those seem to be ideologies, the general beliefs we have about something. So, that’s what I feel Devitt means when she says that genres have ideologies.

I feel bad going down the list that Professor Flewelling mentioned at the bottom of her blog, but I can’t help it. It’s in that Q&A format that is just another genre I have been exposed to. So, I may as well answer the final question about “power structure and dynamics.”

To save you guys some time, I’ll keep this short. Let’s take this back to the Chicken Tetrazzini analogy. So, you have an awareness of Chicken Tetrazzini, you know what it is, what it supposed to look like. You cook it and like it. You cook it more and more, to the point where you’re an expert at it. There are other chicken recipes out there, but none like the one you know. But, you want to branch out. You want to experiment. You try other chicken recipes, because you already have experience with chicken. Why stop there? You know how to make Tetrazzini, so why not Seafood Tetrazzini, or Turkey Tetrazzini. You have the power to make a variety of dishes. All this comes from your initial awareness of Chicken Tetrazzini. Chicken Tetrazzini, in a way, had a power, one that made you branch out and learn about other dishes and their recipes. You may have been hesitant at first, but you saw what you could learn. The same is true for genres, as they have a power that we must not fear, and learn to embrace.