Chelsie+Myers

Assignments

__ A 1.2 __ In Edgar E. Schuster’s article entitled “The Core Standards for Writing: Another Failure of Imagination”, he discusses many problems with the current writing system in the United States. In his article, Schuster brings to light the “Common Core State Standards Initiative”: a set of eighteen writing standards that the National Governors Association and the Council of Chief of State School Officers is trying to implement in school across the United States. Through reading the article, one can conclude that Schuster is clearly opposed to these writing standards. Schuster presents many arguments against the implementation of these writing standards; however, the main reasons can be summarized in three arguments. First, the writing standards would provide no room for imagination or creativity. Second, some of the best writing in history would not meet the proposed writing standards. Finally, the some of the proposed writing standards are worthwhile; however, some are not realistic or practical in everyday writing. Schuster’s first argument is supported by logos. The fact that the writing standards would provide no room for imagination or creativity is made evident when Schuster references the “Common Core State Standards Initiative” document. Nowhere in the entire document is imagination or creativity referenced. Instead, the focus of the document is for writers “to ‘demonstrate command of the conventions of standard English, including grammar, usage, and mechanics.’ “. In his article, Schuster contemplates what standard English is. This contemplation brings readers to Schuster’s second argument: some of the best writing in history would not meet the proposed writing standards. Again, Schuster uses ones logos to persuade them. Schuster points out that some of the best known writers in history would not be able to achieve the proposed writing standards. These famous writers used fragmented sentences, used personal pronouns, an a sundry of conjunctions- the list goes on and on. These writers had freedom, imagination, and creativity available to them while writing. For centuries, people have found this type of writing to be the most enjoyable to read. Schuster argues that when these writing standards are implemented, this freedom in writing will be lost. Although Schuster is against the implementation of the writing standards, he still acknowledges that some of the standards have merit. Using basic grammar rules when writing are important; however, this type of writing is not always the “best” way to write. Schuster believes that some of the proposed writing standards are not realistic or practical in everyday writing. Probing at our logos **// The term LOGOS means "an appeal to the reader's logic" so it doesn't make sense to say "probing at our appeal to our logic" //**again, Schuster reminds readers of the impracticality of the proposed writing standards in situations such as argumentative letters or essays sent to a newspaper editor. Schuster believes that every mode of writing has its time and place; not one form is “better” than another.

When considering Schuster’s appeals, I find myself relying predominately on his appeal to my logic; however I have found myself being appealed at the emotional level in slight ways. For example, when Schuster concludes his article by mentioning that freedom in writing is in jeopardy, I find myself wanting to oppose the writing standards due to a feeling of injustice. When dealing with ethos, I find myself to trust Schuster due to the credible website that his article is found on; but furthermore, I continue to rely on logos as the main form of persuasion. In my opinion, Schuster’s appeal to logic works so well because of all of his credible sources. Schuster references the “Core State Standards Initiative” multiple times which gives me a sense of logic about the subject matter and prompts me to think. Another reason for his success in persuasion is that Schuster promotes thinking on several levels. He asks readers what “standard written english” is, do great writers in history even meet these proposed writing standard, and are these proposed standards too “narrow and unrealistic”? These types of questions have me thinking about the logic of the issues at hand; they have me analyzing what Schuster is really saying and what effect the writing standards would have.

Due to the fact that the article is found on an Education website, I believe that the main audience would be teachers and those people involved in education. Schuster’s last plea in his article urges the makers of the core writing standards to re-evaluate the “excessively narrow and unrealistic standards they have proposed” due to the fact that they would “diminish the role of imagination” in writing. Readers might feel a sudden sense of injustice when reading Schuster’s article, and begin to speak out against the proposed writing standards. Although Schuster is very persuasive in his arguments, more detail and more ethos would have made his arguments even stronger. The article is found on a website entitled Education Week; a website compiled of numerous education related issues. Due to the sophisticated qualities of the website that this article is found on, subconsciously, Schuster’s arguments became more reliable to me as a reader.


 * // Chelsea - A very solid summary and analysis. Some great critical thinking and response to the argument. Nice work. CHECK PLUS ~ Prof. Wendt //**

__ ﻿A 2.1 __ __ ﻿ __ I n Richard Selzer’s essay, “Brute”, an interesting question is subtly proposed: What is the definition of a brute? What is a brute - what does it look like? In his essay, Selzer presents two characters: a patient and a doctor. While reading, one starts to form opinions about which character is a brute. Concluding which character is a brute is clearly subjective; it depends on ones definition of a brute. I define a brute to be one who is out of control and in certain situations lacks the ability to reason. I have concluded that both men in this essay are brutes; however, I believe the doctor to be more of a brute due to his ability to reason in the situation.

The patient portrays a brute in it’s most animalistic way. In the essay, Selzer uses figurative language to portray the patient as a wild man: “The policemen ride him like a parasite. Had he horns he would gore them” (420). A clear wild and animalistic picture is drawn in the minds of readers: the patient is out of control and simply reacting on his instincts. In clear contrast to the patient is the doctor.

The doctor portrays a brute in it’s most cruel and unethical way. “I am tired. Also to the bone”: the doctor admits this before even beginning to treat the patient (Selzer 421). This quote seems to suggest that the doctor knows he should not be working on a patient at this time; regardlessly, he continues. As the doctor continues to treat the patient the situation escalates; the doctor begins to loose his composition. The doctor can sense that he is loosing his composition, yet he does not ask for help. A rude comment from the patient causes the doctor to completely loose control: “Suddenly, I am in fury with him. Somehow he has managed to capture me, to pull me into inside his cage. Now we are two brutes hissing and battling at each other” (Selzer 421). Those dramatic words portray the doctor leaving his composed state and reverting to an animalistic state knowing full well his actions. The doctor admits that he has the advantage over the tied down patient: “... I do not fight fairly” (Selzer 421). Now that the doctor is in a wild and animalistic state he restricts the patient by sewing down his ears, and with a cruel sense of victory he leans over and grins at the patient: “It is the cruelest grin of my life” (Selzer 422). The doctor lost his ability to reason after he lost his composition. The doctor could have prevented the situation by simply listening to his logical reasoning. The doctor was tired to the bone: he knew that his composition would be lax, yet he chose to treat the patient regardless.

Both the patient and the doctor are brutes. The patient is brought into the hospital already in a wild state: completely lacking reason. On the other hand, the doctor begins this situation with a full head of logical reasoning; however, he loses his composition knowing full well the possible ramifications of such an action. For that reason alone, I believe the doctor is more of a brute in this situation.

__ A 4.1 __ Group Outline

I. Example Presented A) The Foul Mouth of John F. Kennedy 1. "My father always told me that all business men were son of bitches, but I never believed it till now" 2. His comments stirred up a lot of attention--people were not happy with him B) There has been a clear shift in what is considered to be acceptable 1. This shift was paralleled with the standards of masculinity changing

II. Crud Language Acceptable to Certain Individuals A) DIck Cheney's use of obscenities in the professional setting - no one was disappointed or said they were offended B) Bono's use of obscenities on the television - FCC said his behavior was abhorrent C) John Kerry use of an obscenity in an interview - chief of staff said he was disappointed in him

III. Interesting Question Arises A) Who's next? 1. If the vice president is comfortable using obscenities in front of his peers, who is next? 2. Will this behavior trickle down to the school level? B) What passes for a guy?

IV. Macho Men A) Different Responses 1. If Senator Hillary Clinton had used the same obscene terms that Cheney used, the response would be much different... suggesting that it is less acceptable for a women to use obscene terms B) Republican hard guys 1. These men have re-defined the standards of manhood in elections 2. Foul language in an argument or debate makes a man a "real man" C) Current Political Climate 1. Sensitive guys are considered weak 2. Crude and rough behavior make men strong---"real men"

V. Author's Final Word A) Problems with the macho mentality 1. Teaching our kids the wrong language 2. Promoting obscene language B) Recommendation 1. Stop the crude language 2. Most other publications have higher regulations than the White House on issues of obscenities

__ A 4.2 __ Summary of "A Foul Mouth and Manhood"

In her article, "A Foul Mouth and Manhood", Anna Quidlen discusses the relationship between obscene language and perceived manhood. She begins with an example: John F. Kennedy's use of foul language in the 1960's sparked a controversy. Kennedy's use of an obscene term got him in trouble with the White House. As Quidlen points out, today using obscene terms in the political arena is a common--accepted---practice. There has been a dramatic shift in what is considered to be acceptable; this shift is paralleled with a shift in the standards of masculinity. Quidlen notes that Vice President Dick Cheney was not scolded for his use of obscene and vulgar terms; however, others such as Bono and John Kerry were both scolded for there use of obscenities in public. The author raises and interesting question: who is next? If the vice president uses obscenities in front of his peers and does not get scolded, who is next? As vulgar and obscene language becomes more and more passe, the more and more that sort of behavior will become normal: and as Quilden notes this type of language will define a political man. The author points out that the use of obscene language would receive a different response from a political woman: a woman would probably receive negative comments when using obscenities. Republican men have re-defined what it is to be a man in an election. In the current political climate sensitive men are considered weak; men that have a more rough behavior and use obscene or crude language are considered "real men". Being a "real man" is the norm in the current political climate. Quilden believes that political figures using obscene language sends the wrong message to the public: their use of obscenities--in essence--promotes the use of obscenities in the population. Quilden recommends the induction of higher regulations on such obscenities; therefore, preventing politicians from using crude language.