Week 5 Reading Response 3

Each category appeals to exactly what their names imply. The courage category appeals to the individual who views the ad to have the courage to do what it takes to help someone they know get help with drug or alcohol abuse. The regret category obviously appeals to feelings of empathy. The image of the tire and the text remind the viewer of something that happened in their life that they really regretted doing and the way they felt after doing the regretful act. The viewer would not want to repeat such a regretful act or feel like that again. The I am category appeals to the image of well rounded people (young people) that the viewer will most likely want to identify with and strive to be. The appeals in the courage category are linked to the subject of a girlfriend feeling the need to confront her boyfriend about his drug abuse. The image that is used shows a young, average looking couple that many teens can relate to. The subject is talking to someone you care about about their drug abuse. The text of the courage add states two of the negative possible outcomes of the girls conversation about drug abuse with her boyfriend but ties it all together by stating that by doing so, she really does care about him. The regret add uses the image of a bent bike tire which ties in with the text and subject of hitting a small child while being under the influence of marijuana. The I am category uses the subject and images of people that may be stereotyped as drug users, specifically marijuana. The texts aims to show that these stereotypes are often false and appeals to the viewers desire to be a well rounded individual.

Week 5 Lead Sentences

http://www.grist.org/advice/daughter/2009/02/26/index.html

This is the lead sentence I liked the best. It is a delayed lead sentence. The main reason I liked it is because I wanted to find out more of what was meant by "gumbo z'herbes".

Week 5 Reading Response 2

Zwier's assumption that wearing a button that states god is not a democrat or a republican is not divisive maybe holds true at a Christian college, but could be considered divisive elsewhere. It is a good way of making clear that the students want to show that they make a distinction between a religion and politics. Because the school is a Christian university, it is only fair to assume that the students attending are Christian so talking about god in a commencement speech might not seem unfair. The real problem they have is making assumptions about where people stand politically based on their religion. It is also important that Zwier points out that the use to the visual argument is to show that all students don't associate being Christian with being republican and that political alignments have nothing to do with religious ones in most cases. Wearing the buttons does not have nearly the same implications that boycotting the whole graduation would. Boycotting the graduation sends a strong statement that the students are very offended by the idea that George Bush would associate Christianity with the republican party. That statement is much stronger then the comparatively quiet yet strong statement that the buttons make. By boycotting the whole ceremony all together the students would be implying that it is so deeply offensive that Bush makes the connection between the republican party, his administration, and Christianity that they want nothing to do with either Bush or the graduation ceremony. The buttons are a good way of letting people know that they don't want to draw the same connection, but are not so offended by it that they are not willing to participate in anything having to do with said connection.

Week 5 Reading Response 1

Tannen's account of mother/daughter relationships can be summed up by saying that comments, questions, or actions coming from someone who is held in such high regard can have much stronger effects on the receiver (the receiver being the daughter). I agree with Tannen's article mostly out of personal experience. I feel that these strong types of feelings arise not just in mother/daughter relationships, but also in conversations with either parent, be it son/mother, father/daughter, etc.. As a kid, we look to our parents to teach us right and wrong. By doing this, we look to our parents as being almost all-knowing when it comes to how we should act. As we grow older and more independent of our parents, we begin to decide for ourselves what is right or wrong based on our life experience and build confidence of our own knowledge of said right and wrong. When parents question this knowledge or reassure it, it is easy to react with strong feelings that either you've done right or resentment towards your parents for criticizing your decisions made as an independent adult. As far as mother/son relationships go, there is no difference. I react the same way to my mother and father when it comes to the issue of the way they view who I am, positive or negative. The only case where there is a possibility for a difference is if there is a noticeably stronger connection to either of the two parents, or the lack of a father or mother figure, in which case, it being mother or father wouldn't matter at all.

Evaluation Essay Final Draft: Hardcore Dancing Blues

It can been seen at almost every show that has bands that play music categorized as metal core, hardcore, screamo, and many other obscure genre names that end in core or mo. People standing in the middle of the crowd doing a performance of their own. Wild punches, roundhouse kicks, jumps, all done remotely in rhythm with the music being performed by the band. Dancing in this style is often referred to as hardcore dancing. Although modern hardcore music has become popular amongst many people, the hardcore dancing style is a nuisance because people look silly while doing it, it is more fun to watch the band than the audience dancing, and it can be dangerous for other people .
Dancing to music should be expressive and no one should feel silly while doing it if it makes them feel good. What is so interesting about hardcore dancing, is that even though people consider it a dance, to an outside observer it appears to be some sort of strange martial arts demonstration. Most people can recognize certain movements as dance even out of context. Jumping around doing roundhouse kicks and throwing punches have their place in a proper setting, but at a concert and out of context it makes the person look crazy. Take a move known as windmilling for example. It involves swinging ones arms around in big circles very fast. Even at a show (let alone not at a show) it looks ridiculous and invokes the image of siblings trying to hit each other seemingly without doing it on purpose by swinging their arms and walking towards each other. The acts described above are just some aspects of hardcore dancing, and all of them look ridiculous, and barely represent any form of dancing, in or out of a concert setting.
When people go to the concert, it is not unheard of that they would like to dance to the band's music. At the same time, many people attend concerts to watch the band and enjoy the band's performance. Normally a happy medium results, with people being able to dance and or watch the show without interfering with each other. At hardcore shows hardcore dancers generally take up much of the space right in the middle of the dance floor. Dancers on the dance floor may seem to make sense, but generally hardcore/metalcore bands play in smaller venues where the dance floor is really just the open space in front of the stage where everyone who wants to watch, dancing or not, has to stand. When hardcore dancers occupy this space, it is very distracting and takes away from the bands performance. It is hard to enjoy yourself and the band when you have to be worried about getting clocked in the head by an errant roundhouse kick or flying fist. Hardcore dancing takes up such a large area due to the nature of the dancers movements and the dancers desire not to hit each other; therefore it is hard to get in the area in front of the stage to watch. The occupation of this space leads to the people who just want to watch having to form a large perimeter around the sides of the venue, sometimes a very small group of people in the front of the stage, and the area in the back behind the hardcore dancers. The perimeter effectively forms a circle, and the center of this circle (most of the space in the venue) is occupied by people hardcore dancing. The effect of this is that unless you are in the middle of the hardcore dancing madness, you don't get a very good spot to watch the show.
The violent nature of hardcore dancing is troubling. Granted the music itself is very aggressive, but that is why people listen to it. That being said, no one wants to attend a concert and leave with a black eye, concussion, or worse. Hardcore dancers doing flying kicks and throwing random punches in every direction frequently hit innocent bystanders. No one should have to worry about their personal health or safety when attending the show. Even the dancers themselves should worry about hitting the wrong person who might be much bigger and not so happy about being struck. Even though hardcore dancers generally don't intend to hurt anyone, more often then not, someone does get hurt, and the result isn't good for anybody.
Hardcore music is fun and exciting. While people should have the right to express themselves any way they want to the music (which is admittedly aggressive in nature), hardcore dancers should take into account that hardcore dancing does have an impact on other people. The dancers don't need to be doing karate type moves in the middle of a crowd. Hardcore dancing also takes much away from the bands performance and sometimes can make a normally enjoyable experience miserable. Hardcore dancers need to realize that they are putting other people in danger of getting hurt when they are not paying attention. Hardcore dancing doesn't need to be abolished, but perhaps the dancers should start taking other concertgoers into consideration and come up with a solution that works for everyone.

Evaluation Essay 1st Draft

It can been seen at almost every show that has bands that play music categorized as metal core, hardcore, screamo, and many other obscure genre names that end in core. People in the middle of the crowd doing all sorts of wild punches, kicks, jumps, all in rhythm with the music that is being played by the band. Dancing such as this has earned the moniker hardcore dancing. Although modern hardcore music has become popular amongst many people, the hardcore dancing style is a nuisance because people look silly while doing it, it is more fun to watch the band than the audience dancing, and it can be dangerous for other people .
Dancing to music should be expressive and no one should feel silly while doing it, but do people really think that showing off their karate moves to a crowd of people makes them look cool? Self expression is one thing, but punching at the floor to loud music just looks silly. Is the floor the target of said dancers aggression? Did the floor wrong this person in some way? The answer of course is not likely. Jumping around doing roundhouse kicks and throwing punches has its place in a proper setting, but at a concert it more or less makes the person look crazy. Windmilling (the act of swinging ones arms around in a big circle) only evokes the image of a four year old walking towards their sibling and saying “If I hit you, its your own fault because it is obvious I am swinging my arms around, so get out of my way or you will get hit”. All of the acts described above are just some aspects of hardcore dancing, and all of them look ridiculous in a concert setting.
When people go to the concert, it is not unheard of that they would like to dance to the bands music. At the same time though, many people would like to watch the band and enjoy the bands performance. At hardcore shows, hardcore dancers generally take up a lot of space right in the middle of the dance floor. Now seeing as it is a dance floor, this may seem OK, but generally these bands are playing in smaller venues where the dance floor is really just the open space in front of the stage where everyone who wants to watch, dancing or not, has to stand. When hardcore dancers occupy this space, it is very distracting and takes away from the bands performance. It is hard to enjoy yourself and the band when you have to be worried about getting clocked in the head by an errant roundhouse kick or flying fist. Also because they occupy such a large area, it is hard to get in the area in front of the stage, leading to people who just want to watch to form a large perimeter around the sides of the venue, sometimes the front, and the area in the back behind the hardcore dancers. By doing this, unless you are in the middle of the hardcore dancing madness, you don't get a very good spot to watch the show.
The violent nature of hardcore dancing is also quite troubling. No one wants to attend a concert and leave with a black eye, concussion, or worse. Hardcore dancers doing flying kicks and throwing random punches in every direction frequently hit innocent bystanders. No one should have to worry about their personal health or safety when attending the show. Even though hardcore dancers generally don't intend to hurt anyone, more often then not, someone does get hurt.
Hardcore music is fun and exciting. While people should have the right to express themselves any way they want to the music (which admittedly is aggressive in nature), hardcore dancers should take into account that hardcore dancing does affect other people. The dancers look silly when they dance this way. Hardcore dancing distracts from the bands performance and sometimes can make a normally enjoyable experience miserable. Hardcore dancers also need to realize that they are putting other people in danger of getting hurt when they are not paying attention. Also, if an errant kick lands on someone with little patience, the dancers themselves may end up getting more then a dirty look from the person they hit. Hardcore dancing doesn't need to be abolished, but perhaps the dancers should start taking other concertgoers into consideration.

Week 3 Response

Lamott uses a very casual writing style to ease the reader into a subject that can be stressful or even downright frightening. Lamott makes the reader feel comfortable by using an informal and personal style of writing. The reader can feel Lamott's stress about writing first drafts which allows them to feel better about his or her own first draft. Lamott also makes the reader feel comfortable with writing their own first draft by showing how hard and nerve racking it can be for her to write a first draft, even though she is a professional writer. Lamott relaxes the reader which allows her point of not being too nervous about how bad a first draft can be, and that it is all right for first drafts to be bad, to come across quite clearly.
The best suggestions that Lamott makes about first drafts are to sit down and just write it, and to let it sit for awhile and then come back and make changes. Her suggestion of just writing the draft is definitely my favorite and most helpful. I find that it is much harder to sit and think about writing a first draft than it is to just sit down and go for it. It can be surprising how well a first draft can start flowing once it has been started. Lamott's other suggestion of leaving the draft alone for a while is one that I had never really thought about. It makes sense that by letting the draft sit in your sub-conscious for a little wile, it allows you to look at it from a different state of mind than the one you were in when you wrote it. It gives your brain a chance to settle down so you can go back and look it over and make the necessary changes without driving yourself crazy trying to do everything at once.

Week 2 Response

Gender policing is a practice that takes place in advertising with or without the target of the advertisement even realizing that it is happening. Gender policing perpetuates stereotypes quite simply by reinforcing ideas of what it means to be a man, women, but may even expand into other types of policing such as what it means to be African American, environmentalist, etc.. These stereotypes are reinforced in almost all aspects of advertising including television commercials, print, internet ads, and more. By repetitive bombardment of stereotypes, it is easy for one to get caught up in the ideas put forth by advertisements and shape their individual role, consciously or sub-consciously, based around the ideas of what those roles are, which is decided not by society, but by advertising agencies. Whether or not one should live up to these roles is ultimately up to the individual, but because of the increasing amount of advertising viewed by people every day, it is easy for one to feel that they must act out these stereotypes to become a true man, woman, etc.. Other examples of this type of this type of advertising is easily seen in cigarette ads. Rugged men should smoke Marlboro cigarettes. Women should smoke Virginia Slims. African Americans should smoke Kool brand cigarettes. Rich people smoke only Nat Sherman brand cigarettes. These are all examples of gender policing, race policing, and even status in society policing. Companies use this form of advertising in a very clever fashion to sell their product. The policing type of ads make people feel that they need to use a certain product to reinforce who they think they are or even to portray an image of who they want to be seen as. Most people will feel the need to buy a product that best fits the self-image they would like to portray. That is how these ads succeed. The disadvantages of this type of advertising is the alienation factor. The policing ads alienate many who feel that they don't fit into the target demographic for the product. Men generally won't buy products that are targeted to females and vice versa. What the companies don't realize is they would probably sell more of the product if the ads were geared towards the general population and not simply specific groups.