Wednesday, May 9, 2007

Self-Reflective..

I have always seen myself as a really bad writer. Part of the reason is that I always procrastinate. It's a shitty english reality. But it's slowly starting to change.

In this class I have been reintroduced to free-rights and more creative based writing. Usually I look back on the fourth grade free-writes and the free-writes I am currently doing in college. They are strikingly similar. " A story about everyday super stories. " And while you're there you can look at the post number. I just had too much freedom for some reason and it felt kind of good. I don't like writing but for some reason I like to write stuff that really only makes sense to me.

Thats usually how I wrote at first. I only wrote to entertain me then I would go back and change things. Then it usually comes out looking weird and jutting out bizarreness at some points in the papers. From now on I’m taking a baby step everyday. Three thousand baby steps can probably make a lap around any average size house. These are the things I like to look back and pick on.

To be honest I never really cared for the work shopping but I know it was well worth it. It's essential because you can't just get to your view point of writing or else you might start overlooking things.

I see kick ass writing in every single book I read. It's kind of cool, that everything is right there and if you took time to study how they write you can improve as a writer. So basically anything that is published in the real world I find to be pretty awesome and interesting. I wish my writing can sometimes be like that, but sometimes I just don't know how important it is to be a really good writer. I kind of want to be a scientist, but I guess there is no point really not improving your writing as you grow up.

The cool thing about writing is that I can always just look on what I write about like a random journal or something. http://jonathantranucd.blogspot.com/ A my own online journal, and it will probably be here for a long time. It's nuts to think about that it's going to stay here and be a relic in our own personal lives.

I have started learning a lot about becoming a better writer though. I know that it has to be thoughtful and most of all reviewed. It's hard to make a good paper on one write through, that's why I always got mediocre grades in high school. You've taught me to re-read and go through multiple times with anything you write.(I don't think I'll do that with this one though.) Reading through over and over makes it easier to enjoy what you're reading.

My greatest strength in writing? I guess I'm a pretty good typer, so if that counts. Other than that, I don't know. My greatest strength? Hmmm, I know. It's my ability to try and like anything I write, knowing that it might suck really bad. But somehow I manage to crack my own mouth at it.

My worse is rushing through my paper, or falling victim of trying to figure out where to start in my paper. If I am assigned a particular issue, it takes me a long time to start and do it. I just don't know where to start. Then it is the random tetris breaks and naps. But then when I get to the writing process I just kind of peck away at it without a clue. The next thing I know I have 600 words of just random stuff. Then I try and caught that random stuff in to something coherent.

But I know my grammar isn't so good either, also my flow is REALLY chopping. I can tell that. That is something I have had since fourth grade. There has always been kind of a robotic chopping, just sounds nothing what a human would say.

I am working on all of these. But it's dawning on me that I only have one more required english class. Is my writing going to be staying on this child-like level? I fear it will, but maybe perhaps if I start reading a lot of books again. By the time I'm 35 perhaps I will have become a better writer through osmosis.

Wednesday, May 2, 2007

Rhetoric



There are not many robots telling kids how to live a proper life, thankfully there is Robocop. His message is to keep away from drugs. The writers use a variety of rhetorical elements to that main “idea” to you from Robocop. This would be very parallel to an ad that is selling a product. Using elements of cultural resonance and various rhetorical appeals is a vital pivot for this short commercial to get their anti-drug message through thoroughly to the children of late eighties.

“What’s bugging you Murphy?” The weight on Murphy’s (Robocop’s) mind was drugs. There was a small segment of the actor that played Robocop was in action. This is a rhetorical appeal of ethos. This idea is mostly playing on the invention of cultural resonance by releasing a movie. Robocop had a character image of a smart, powerful, and fearless mechanical-man that did everything for the force of good. So right away at this scene, there is an instant reach from the unconscious that profiles Robocop as a benevolent entity.

By juxtaposing the scene with Murphy and the man who plays Murphy is a way for the audience to understand this is a very real message. Showing Robocop allows for people to be more interested in the message that is about to shown, and allow that message to be accepted more readily. The reason why they showed Robocop in the first place and not a regular cop is because Robocop is a cultural phenomenon. Everybody knows about Robocop. However, if Robocop never became a big figure, then this message would be harder to be received.

Then by switching to a movie studio with the actor who played Robocop, this allows for the message to be taken in a very serious manner. Receiving the same message from Robocop in character can be a little weird and might not be taken seriously.

The actor who played Robocop had a very authoritative and stern voice during the public service announcement. This is to convey seriousness and alert the people that this message is important. If the actor came on with a smile on his face talking in a light conversational tone the message would come out very confusing.

Another additional ethos appearance is at the very end of the commercial. Federal Bureau of Investigation is the white text above their logo. This is the ultimate authority in the context of our real lives. They solve crimes, protect people, and generally make the country a safer place. By them sponsoring this commercial, people can be sure that this is a legit source.



While they had their ethos showcase going, there seemed to be a small exaggeration of authority over evidence. There was no evidence citing that they were drugs everywhere, and also no evidence saying that Boys and Girls club has “no pot, no pills, no crack, no smack, no coke, and no exceptions.” The writers of the commercial believed that they could say a message and have it heard with positive feedback if they used their authoritative power exceptionally.


Their use of conveying pathos is very muddled. The actor behind Robocop starts off by saying, “How do you keep away from drugs?” This sentence starts assuming that that kids want to keep off drugs. Starting off with no reasons why children should keep up drugs can be very confusing. Perhaps it could also just make kids fear drugs for no reason, which isn’t a bad thing at all.

They are also relying on the fact that it is generally known that drugs are bad. This fear is what they capitalize on in the commercial. Starting out by saying that kids need to listen to this gets their attention. Then they say that drugs are everywhere can make the kid feel uneasy.

At the end they clip they tell kids where they can go if they want to be safe, which instills a beacon of hope in to their brains. There is a place where they can go to avoid the fear that had been recently instilled in their brain. Up until the very end, there are different meanings in the message to produce different emotions at different intervals. This is a very useful technique in terms of retention of the message. If a message has “tugged on their emotions in a variety of different ways, students are more likely to remember…” (Tamblin 89) it than if it just flat out told them the logic behind not doing drugs.

In a sense, they used the general knowledge that drugs are bad as logos. They didn’t really need to point out the cause and effect of drugs. That knowledge has been saturated in through other means like posters, educators, and parents. By avoiding this redundancy, they can avoid some patronization of the audience.

This movie came out over 20 years ago and appealed to the audience of the time period. Drugs are constantly growing in terms of quantity, availability, and potency. While drugs are getting more dangerous, anti-drugs are getting more effective. They are using more powerful pathos appeals and more influential speakers. Just last year the government spent two billion dollars on the anti-drug campaign. Hopefully they’re efforts were worth it.
















Tamblin, Louise. The Smart Study Guide: Psychological Techniques for Student Success. Malden: Blackwell Publishing, 2006