"Rose" QDJ 1,2, & 4

1. Create a list of all the rules that, according to Rose, interfere with “the blockers” writing. What rules, if any, do you find yourself forced to follow that seem to get in the way of your writing?

List of rules:

1.  A good essay will always grab the reader or reader’s attention immediately.
2. If sentences aren't grammatically ‘correct,’ they aren’t useful.
3. If the first paragraph is good, then the rest of the essay will be good
4. Always have at least three or more points in an essay.\
5. Elements of a story or poem must have some sort of linear structure and clarity, or bringing people closer to the issue.
6. The analysis of a story or poem must provide clarity that may appear to be absent in the writing.
7.  Humanities papers must scintillate with insight, must present images, ideas, ironies gleaned from the literature under examination.
8. The writer must have a plan, a strategy of some sort in order to solve a problem, when the plan is created, it becomes an exact structural and substantive blueprint that cannot be violated.
9. Somebody who achieves some sort of “flow” in one’s writing through by using adequate transition.
10.  Someone who achieves substance to someone’s writing through the use of evidence.

Rules I’m forced to follow:

1.  An essay will always grab the reader’s attention immediately
2.  If the first paragraph is good, then the rest of the essay will be good
3. Always have at least three or more points
4. The writer must have a plan or some sort of strategy
5. Someone who achieves some sort of flow
6. Someone who achieves substance to someone’s writing through the use of evidence

2. Describe the difference between the rules that blockers in Rose’s study were following and those that non-blockers were following. What accounts for the difference?

Non-blockers

1. Use as many ideas or reasons in your thesis paragraph as you can and then create paragraphs for each idea.
2. Always try to keep audience your intended audience in mind.
3. If a rule conflicts with what is sensible or with experience, reject it.
4. Whenever you’re stuck, just write.
5. If your original thought will not work, then try something different.

4. Based on Rose’s study and descriptions of writers and their rules, write a “rule” explaining what makes a rule good for writers, and what makes a rule bad for writers. You’ll get bonus points if you can tell whether your rule is algorithm or a heuristic.

                One of many good rules for the writer or writers is to have correct grammar and punctuation and correct structure throughout their entire paper and out of algorithm and heuristic, the good rule is algorithm.  A bad rule is whenever you’re writing, make sure to take out or remove points so the audience will get a full and detailed picture of the outcome of what is being explained rather than being confused and this is an example of heuristic.

"Writing Process of Famous Author"

Most authors have rather interesting writing processes or habits. Some do some weird things but the outcome be great novels, stories, books, and other things in that group. An author I found that has an interesting writing process was Maya Angelou. She had a quite interesting way of how she wrote and it does involve hotels…. Well not hotels in that sort of way. She can go to a hotel to clear her mind and think more clearly and vent. She’d be inside the hotel room with her head scarf, or head tie she calls it, on. She was married a couple of times and she had a husband that was some sort of jealous of her writing. She says he was jealous of her writing because when they were at the hotel, he’d accuse her of writing as if it was some sort of bad thing.

When Maya Angelou write, she’d tend to twist her hair and that is something her and I have I common. Her husband at the time could tell she had been writing because of the way her hair was. She learned to hide or cover her hair with some sort of turban. She always had kept a hotel room in her hometown and she’ll pay for it by the month. She’ll go by 6:30 in the morning and the room would consist of a bed, table, and a bath. Also, she would have a Roget’s Thesaurus, a dictionary, along with the King James edition bible.

On the desk she’ll have a deck of cards and some crossword puzzles to occupy her. She would work crossword puzzles out or play Solitaire to get deep into the subjects she wanted to write about. As time passed, she’ll keep the room. She’d have all the paintings and any decoration taken out of the room and she would ask the management and house-keeping not to enter the room, just in case she had thrown a piece of paper on the floor, she don’t want it discarded because she may go back to it and get more ideas from it. She would leave the hotel by 2 then go home and read over what she had wrote that morning, and try to revise or edit it, tweak it or critique it. Her writing process is different because not everyone is the same. She had to get a room in order to write, other people sit at desks, some lie down, some write, and some type. Everybody has different writing habits and that’s what makes us all different. 

"Sommers"

1. Sommers says that the language students use to describe revision is about vocabulary, suggesting that they “understand the revision process as a rewording activity” (para. 9). How is that different from the way she argues that revision should be understood?

            Sommers says that the students tend to revise by asking themselves can they find a better word or phrase, a more impressive, not so clichéd, or less hum-drum word, and are they repeating the same word or phrases too often. She says that the students consider the thesaurus a harvest of lexical substitutions and that majority of problems in students essays can be solved by simply rewording. She feels that the students should discover using a thesaurus to have more word choices.

3. In her introduction and in analyzing students’ descriptions of revising, Sommers focuses quite a lot on the difference between speech and writing. In your words, what is she saying that difference is between the two, and why is the difference relevant to how we understand revision.

            The difference between the two is because speech constantly repeats because spoken words are expendable in the cause of communication and unlike writing, writing can be reread over and over. I feel that writing is the best because you can go back and critique but when you’re speaking, you tend to say the same thing over and over not switching or repeating the words over and over again.

5. What do you think Sommers means when she says that for experienced writers, revision is based on non-linear theory in which a sense of the whole writing both precedes and grows out of an explanation of the parts? What does she mean by “the whole writing”? What does it mean for writing processes to be non-linear (not a straight line of progress from beginning to end)? And why do you think that experienced writers see writing as non-linear but students see writing as linear (pre-write à write à edit)?

            When Sommers says that for experienced writers, revision is based on non-linear theory, I think she means that it’s not an easy or simple process and that the sorts of composition are based on the structures experienced what writers seek in their own writing. When she says “whole writing”, I think she mean by every detail, such as the flow or structure of the paper being written. For a writing process to be non-linear means to add or delete or reorder words or phrases. I think experienced writers see writing as noon-linear because they seek to discover and research or create meaning in the engagement with their revision and they seek to emphasize the differences of meanings and the dissonance.  

7.Sommers’s research says, makes her believe that a student revision practices don’t reflect a lack of engagement, “but rather that they do what they have been taught to do in a consistently narrow and predictable way.” Where do you think students got the idea that they should see writing transcribing and revising as changing words? Does this match what you have been taught about writing and revising? If not, what has been different in your experience?

            I think students got the idea from the ones who have taught them in the past. Students wouldn’t do it if they weren’t never taught it by that way. No, this doesn’t match what I’ve been taught about writing and revising. I was taught to reread over what I’ve done and edit it as well and critique it and rewrite my work all over. I’ll rewrite and brainstorm more ideas and rewrite again until I have enough detail and have my paper with something that makes it stand out  

"Murray & Strasser"

Pg. 75

2. In what ways, according to Murray, is writing autobiography? Can you categorize the ways that Murray believes writing is autobiography?

            Writing is autobiography because it lets a person show off their voice to the world and to also to show off things you’ve been through or experienced. Your writing is produced from who you are and what you’re going through. Murray says that all writing, in many different ways, is autobiographical and he has no categories on the ways that he believes writing is autobiographical.

5. Consider the implications of Murray’s arguments: If he’s right, how do his ideas change the way you think about writing? Would they encourage you to write any differently than you currently do?

            I really agreed with Murray ‘s argument and his ideas encourage me to try harder and be more open about experiences in my life. Yes, his writing has encouraged me to be more autobiographical in me writing.

6. Consider the last few texts that you have written, whether for school, work, or personal reasons. Consider the ways that these texts are – or are not – autobiography in the sense Murray describes

            Majority of the texts I write about are somewhat autobiography. When I’m writing, I break down and go through the topic, I talk about my experiences. Also, sometimes, I write, depending on what type of writing I’m doing, it still can be autobiography in some sort of way.

Pg. 205

1. Strasser writes that “The devices of grammar and rhetoric remain superficial skills until a writer employs them to express important and powerful feelings, thoughts, and ideas” (para. 1) Why? And do you agree?

            Strasser says that if the devices of grammar and rhetoric remain superficial skills, people would not love their writing and that peoples abilities to construct complicated grammatical structures will not put any meaningful purposes and she’s absolutely correct. I agree because with that happening, the paper wouldn’t be a meaningful thing to read because the writer doesn’t love it and a person don’t put full effort to something they don’t love.

2.What seems to be at issue for Strasser is creating “personally meaningful writing” in response to school assignments. Is there actually anything in Stanley Fish’s advocacy of a writing course that teaches reasoning which would seem to rule out such personally meaningful writing? In other words, is Strasser right to assume that Fish’s insistence on writing in order to exercise one’s grammar will actually lead to meaningless writing?

            Me personally, I don’t think one’s grammar determines if their writing is meaningless because someone’s grammar can be totally off but you can still understand where their coming from and it’s the same way with talk to people, they may don’t speak English in the proper manner, but you can understand where their coming from.

3. In your experience, does school create a separation of mind, body and spirit that Strasser quotes bell hooks as identifying (para. 4)?

            Yes because in school, you have to make sacrifices and some of those are endless nights of studying for quizzes and doing homework, working, and to also juggle your social life. It can be a lot on a person but we just have to try and balance it all out to be good academically. 

"Childhood Reading"

My favorite book to read as a child had to be any of the books written by Dr. Seuss. When I began learning to read, that’s all I really read to be honest. His books taught me lots of things as well as my teachers did. His books had certain sections with rhyming and helping you learn the different colors as well as having manners. Majority of the children along with me first started off reading Dr. Seuss books.

            Dr. Seuss had a huge impact on not only my life, but numerous amounts of people in the world. Dr. Seuss's ABC: An Amazing Alphabet Book really had an impact on me because when I began reading that book, I started learning all of the alphabets. It’s a great book to start children off who is a kindergartener and to help them to learn more about the alphabets in a fun way.

            I really can’t pick just one particular book from Dr. Seuss that’s my favorite but I can say that one book I enjoyed reading and I still do till this day has to be One Fish, Two Fish, Red Fish, Blue Fish. I say this book is still enjoyable because I read this book the most out of the others because of all of the colors. You know as a child, when you see colors, it’s really exciting at the time and age. Another thing from the book I enjoyed had to be with the numbers. The numbers from the book helped me to improve my knowledge with counting.

            Majority of Dr. Seuss’s books are great learning tools to start a young child off with a bigger world full of great things to receive in a form of knowledge. I really encourage parents to use his books to improve their children skills and to teach and inform them as well. His books are very entertaining for both the parent and the child because the child enjoys the rhythmic patterns and silly things being said and the parent enjoy watching his or her child ready and look so excited to be learning to read. 

"Excerpt from the Bootstraps: From an Academic of Color" QDJ 1, 2, 3, and 4 (WaW 117)

QDJ 1, 2, 3, and 4 (WaW 117)

1. This account shifts back and forth between the first person ("I") and the third person ("Victor," "he"). What effects does that shifting create? Does it break any rules you've been taught?

The effect the shift create is not being clear on who the paper is written on and it can become a total disaster. Yes, it does break rules I've been taught because if you're writing in first person, your entire paper has to be in first person, if third person, then your whole paper should be written in third person to have your paper with some sort of flow.

2. How does Villanueva define rhetoric? What else does he say that studying rhetoric helps you study?

He defines rhetoric as the conscious use of language and as the conscious use of the language, rhetoric would include everything that is bought out through languages such as philosophy, history, anthropology, psychology, sociology, and more. Villanueva says studying rhetoric becomes a way of studying humans and for him a study of language.

3. Have you ever tried observing and imitating the writing move that other writers make, as Villanueva describes doing with his English teachers (“Professor Discourse Analysis”)? If so, what was your experience doing so? If not, what would you need to look for in order to do the kind of imitating Villanueva describes?

            In order to do the kind of imitating Villanueva did, I would have to go to a library or and try to do as or mimic the writer writing style, if they start off with a hook/grabber, I’d do as them and however else way they did in their writing. I would have my writing set up as the writer had theirs.

4. In paragraph 6, Villanueva his college writing process as, “The night before a paper was due, he’d rather pen and pad, and stare. Clean the dishes. Stare. Watch an ‘I Love Lucy’ rerun. Stare. Then sometime in the night the words would come.” (A few more sentences finish his description.) What elements of this process resemble your own? How is yours different?

            His process resembles not only mines, but a lot of student’s period. We’ll start but we’ll get to that point when we get stuck and we tend to start doing other things and it all of a sudden unravel ore thoughts and it helps us to get more ideas. I’d be writing a paper then all of sudden my mind will slip and I’d be doing something other than writing a paper. I say mines is different because I’d stop, listen to music or check my Twitter or Instagram and maybe text other people, but then I’d be writing my ideas on a sheet of paper and I’d brainstorm and well.

            

"Skills to be Learned"

From the document titled "Skills to be Learned" I'm familiar with majority of them. It can be a bit confusing trying to find out who the intended audience a writer is writing to is and the genre of a paper. I would think it's for a type of audience by what is being expressed and then I second guess myself. Certain kinds of papers I read have me confused on who the author is writing to or directing in his or her writing. I've gotten better at identifying the intended audience but I still have room for improvement.

            I’m very familiar with the writing process but I’m not familiar with adopting an appropriate voice, tone, and level of formality when writing. I’m not sure on how to identify the different voice and tone being used through writing and which is appropriate for a certain situation. When adopting a certain voice and tone, I know you have to stick it out throughout the entire paper and you can’t switch it up. When writing, sometimes at certain parts of the paper you will get stuck but it gives you time to brainstorm and come up with more ideas and make sure your paper has a nice flow as well.

            Some of the things I would like to improve will be to improve others paper better and give more details on what they could do to have a stronger paper. I want to be able to be clearer and help them to have a great paper and a great flow as well. I would want to understand what it mean to use and how to format a blocked quote because I’m not sure what that mean. I would also like to know how to properly use in-text citations. That’s a big problem because people may not be sure on how to use in-text citation so they chose to plagiarize instead. Another thing I would like to understand is the purpose and the structures of a citation. Once I improve these skills, my writing would be better than before and more structured.