At and Through | CBS--not ideal.

Looking at is when only the eyes are used to interpret things like novels, paintings, music, etc. The art form is taken for its face value, and the there isn't much investigation to deeper meaning and interpretation. This style of reading is limiting. Looking through m however, is when you "Look. Listen. Receive. Get yourself out of the way" (149). The act of looking through allows the piece to do something to you. I think the reason that this style of reading is less popular is because it takes more work! Allowing yourself to get away, and then motivating yourself to explore the broader meaning of a piece, takes more time and motivation. When I read something that is extremely engaging to my interest, I try hard to your through the text, exploring the deeper and broader meaning. When I read something that doesn't interest me, I tend to fall into the habit of just looking at the text, uninterested in pulling our any other meaning than what pops out to me initially.

The C-B-S model is an interesting theory, and it seems that it would be ideal if we were all robots without any since of persuasive zest or emotional side in our communication. With that said, it would be extremely interesting if this theory played itself out in reality—it reminds me of the movie Liar Liar. I know for myself that it would be impossible to try and communicate within this model. I Like the way the author puts it:"It is a wonderful theory to avow but less useful in practice. Imagine what would happen if you lived your life according to such precepts, stripping away the rhetorical mask...of ordinary life...after a day or two of this you'd lose your job and your family, and the next day your mind, too" (140). We are communicative beings, and on top of that we are given some measure of sensitivity and persuasive skills to enhance our communication skills; limiting communication to the C-B-S model, at least from what I can see, is impossible.

Blog #6

I'm a little bit frustrated with this read. I understand how hyperreading hypertexts is a valuable skill while reading online. The way in which hypertexts use tropes as a rhetorical strategy also makes sense, and I am intrigued by the fact that I have never thought of it in that way before, yet have spent a lot of time reading on the World Wide Web. The reason I find myself frustrated is because I am confused about how links conceal and reveal. Maybe I am just getting caught up on the words. With that said, here is my shot at explaining it. Links, "conceal as they reveal" (120 Burbles) in that the link reveals the rhetorical decision—the linked page—but at the same time is concealing possible rhetorical strategies that aren't explicit but are instead to be carefully considered like, "the dog that does not bark" (119). A good hyperreader explores the possibility that there is more being communicated than just the revelation of the link. At least that is what I gathered from Burbles.

Example #1 - Foxnews.com

This article is claiming that President Obama ordered secret reports on political unrest in Egypt this past summer. There are tons of hyperlink strewn about this article. One in particular stood out to me as a type of metaphor. At the end of the article the word "United", which precedes the word "States" is a link. What's funny is that it's linked to United Airlines and an Australian Petroleum company. Is there any correlation to President Obama? Not that I can figure out. If the link is clicked, it will take you to one of the websites mentioned. Now this is extremely far-fetched, and maybe not even worth chasing down, but I muse at the possibility that the petroleum linkage has an underlying meaning. If it were an article about George Bush then I would be more certain (ha!), but I'm not sure with Obama. Anwyay, this link, when thought about as information "concealed", it might be a possibility that Fox News is a sell out and is hyper-linking their posts to companies as a way to make money. A long shot, but maybe there is truth to it.

Example #2 - New York Times

This article is about Planned Parenthood funding feud, hence the title. What I found odd was the fact that there was a link to a Valentine's day page with roses and articles about the lovely Valentine's day. This link was placed on the word "Valentine's" which was one word out of the following sentence: In an e-mailed Valentine's appeal. This e-mail had nothing to do with the literal Valentines Day and its true meaning but was merely an e-mail written on Valentines day. An interesting connection? Yes. One reason for this link might be that the Valentine's Day page puts people in a happy mood when they're reading the article—or maybe that's a terrible assumption. This could be the revealed information.

That's all I've got.

TEXTING. Is that even a legit word?

Man, there are a few different ideas that came to mind when I was thinking about chapters that could be added to Kalmbach's article. A ton of new writing technology has come out since the invention of xeroxogrpahy, the last technology listed in this article. I decided to focus this discussion on the invention of text messaging--quite possibly the most used writing technology today. Maybe. I like to make up my own statistics, so be aware that the incredible numbers you are about to see are completely arbitrary, but I think they at least will prove a point. 90% of kids these days (kids meaning 8+) know how to text message on a phone. From what I've seen, an 8 year old typically teaches the adult how to operate a phone. 95% of teens and young adults would rather communicate over text message than talking on the phone, emailing, or using the postal service to deliver a message that takes two days minimum. Not only would 95% rather communicate over text, but 95% do communicate over text. I don't want to be obnoxious so I'll stop with the statistics. But do you at least agree with me that text messaging is the preferred communication these days for young people?

I found this particular quote found in Kalmbach's article to be quite fitting: "[typewriting] requires no especial skill in it's manipulation. A child knowing its letter may use it after an hour's instruction, and indeed any one, after short practice, can easily become able to write from 60 to 80 words per minute (quotes in Blanchard, 1981, p. E-26)." This totally relates to text messaging as well. People can learn it quickly and will be texting their fingers off in no time--probably while operating a vehicle, or maybe even walking across the cross-walk. Their is no hiding the fact that people these days communicate written language through the text messaging medium. There is no need for print, no need for good hand writing, no need for the postal service, and no need for grammatical skill. All you need is enough money to pay At&t $125 bucks for a basic cell-phone plan--what a steal.

The downside? People's writing and communication skills are declining! There is little attention paid to sentence structure, punctuation, grammar, spelling, etc. People use emoticons like they are vowels. And most irritatingly, people just plain out don't pay attention to whether or not their text even makes sense. Don't get me wrong, texting is great. I'm just not convinced that it is the best for maintaining good habits in written language.

FOUR!

My team presented our rhetoric card yesterday, so this is my extended by one day blog post.

What can capital letters do?
Capital letters can be very helpful at times. When you want to scream at someone over text message, simply use all-caps, and nine times out of ten the receiving end will act wounded and wonder why you are yelling at them. What really used to annoy me was when my high school science teachers would use all caps for any piece of writing he or she did. A) It was hard to read, and B) I didn't like the fact that it looked like the teacher was screaming at me. It's almost like all-caps takes the place of the exclamation mark.

Do I think any punctuation marks should be made?
I had never thought of this until class yesterday. Who ever takes the liberty to say, "we need more punctuation marks?" Well we did in class, and I was intrigued with the amount of ideas that came to my mind! There are so many times that I wish there was a specific punctuation mark to express what I am trying to convey in that moment. Sometimes confusion, maybe another time tiredness. Solomon drops the following definition for punctuation: "The use of standard marks and signs in writing and printing to separate works into sentences, clauses, and phrases in order to clarify meaning" (Solomon). Notice that I bolded the last two words. In an era where sarcasm is normal in everyday language, a punctuation mark that could clarify when a smart remark or sarcastic reply is being communicated would be awesome. A question mark tells the reader that the words are forming a question. All caps communicates—sometimes—screaming. Exclamation mark conveys excitement. A semi-colon—that is when it is used correctly—communicates, "Hey, I'm a good writer". We need a punctuation mark to let the reader know that sarcasm is taking place. I suggest the funny bone (which I can't seem to type on this blog) as the said punctuation mark, as well as the winner of the 10 extra credit points.

Thanks for stopping by.


Solomon, Martin. "The Power of Punctuation." Design Issues Spring VI.2 (1990): 28-32. Print.

Built Ford Tough.

Lets lets talk about affect transfer. I found an image on google that is quite simple, but I think it exemplifies this concept.

What American doesn't like the Ford Mustang? Well, to be honest, they aren't as awesome as the typical home-grown American kid thinks they are, but that's beside the point. Kind of. What is interesting about this picture is the gigantic flag in the back. I understand that Ford is an American brand, but that is not enough to explain the use of the oversized flag. I think you will agree with me that there is at least more going on with the use of the flag than that, right? I'm trusting that you are. With that said, the flag is being used to transfer the concept of patriotism to the car itself. If that didn't make sense, maybe this simpler wording will make it easier to understand: the Ford guys are using the patriotic emotion of the flag to persuade people to buy their car. Now, we all know that buying a Mustang isn't patriotic. If you want to be patriotic, buy an American made car that gets at least twenty-five mpg and help conserve American resources for the future—that won't be a Mustang.

What I'm getting at is this: realistically, the flag is out of place. In another sense, the flag is perfectly in place because the "affect transfer" is taking place. Ford's scheme is much like one of Hill's descriptions: "an insurance company may include the famous picture of marines raising the flag on Iwo Jima in its promotional literature, in hope that the image and the emotion that it evokes in the viewer will be associated with the insurance company" (36). Ford is doing the same thing by draping the gigantic flag behind the Mustang. Ya, there is some correlation between the car and the flag, but not enough to explain the size of the flag. Ford isn't doing anything terrible, but I do think it is a perfect example of a company including a seemingly unrelated emotional symbol into their advertisement in order to attach the buyer to the product.

Thanks for reading.


Works Cited

Hill, Charles A. "The Psychology of Rhetorical Images."
Defining Visual Rhetorics. Ed. Charles A. Hill and Marguerite Helmers. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2004. 25-40

What Should've Been Post #2

My Embarrassing Moment
I made the mistake of trying to move in the middle of the mass amount of snow that unexpectedly came in mid-November. My wife was working night shifts at the hospital all week—lucky for her—meaning she was sleeping during the day. In her absence, I recruited my friend Dan to help with the quick move. Everything started like a piece of cake. I rented a U-Haul for the first time ever—I have never felt more like a man—, loaded everything up into two loads, situated the boxes into the new place, and was feeling pretty good about the accomplishment. I even set up the bed so my wife, who was sleeping at the old place, would be so incredibly impressed with me when she woke up and made it over to the new place to find that I had set up and made the bed. At this point I was convinced the hard work was done! Or so I thought.

Hard work brings about hunger, so Dan and I decided to hit up McDonald's on the way back to the U-haul place. We pulled into the McDonald's parking lot and of course there are no parking spots. I stopped the truck and looked around to evaluate my situation. In front of me is only thirty feet of empty space before curbing starts. On my immediate right is a building, and sitting parallel to my left is a slight dip with several cars parked. In a moment of panic—sweat rising to the surface of the skin on my arms— I decided to maneuver a u-turn; why I did not just back up, I’m not sure. But I will tell you two things: 1) The whole rear-wheel drive issue was foreign to me, and 2) Men subconsciously try to impress their friends with quick, whimsical decisions. I had almost completed the maneuver when I realized that my calculations were off by a few feet, putting me about two feet from the row of parked cars—on a slope. My first reaction was to try and back up the truck, which led to spinning tires. I'm imagining this truck slamming into the cars like a tree falling on a house during a windstorm—nothing you can do except watch it unfold. I tried that several times, but trying to back up an empty U-Haul on a slope proved to be impossible. At this point the McDonald’s crew is watching, as were the people driving by. Embarrassment and frustration was growing rapidly, the truck was inching closer to the parked cars, and de-icer wasn’t doing what it is supposed to do. I finally decided to ask the McDonald’s people if their cars happened to be the ones that the U-Haul was about to hit. Luckily the cars belonged to some of the crew and they were able to move them, allowing me to finish the maneuver without hitting anything. After thirty minutes of panic and several ounces of perspiration, I was able to enjoy a high-sodium content burger.

Last stop was the U-Haul place. I parked the truck, gathered my things, locked the doors, and headed to the after hours key drop-off. As I fumbled around for the keys it dawned on me that I had spaced grabbing the keys from the ignition—awesome. I checked the doors to see if maybe they were still unlocked, but they were not. I had officially proven to myself that I was incapable of operating a U-Haul.

And this is why you don’t do anything crazy, like moving and operating a U-Haul truck in the snow, without the presence of your wife's common sense!

Amp Thru Simp
Amplification through simplification can be dangerous because the creator of the image has the ability to break in to one’s mind and communicate on a very personal level. This is not dangerous in and of itself, but when the creator of the image desires to communicate something negative to an audience, it becomes way too easy of a task. The concept and practice is fascinating and very helpful for communication, but using it in a negative manner can lead to trouble.

Round 2: Visual Argument

The single thing I want to touch on in this blog entry is the reading from Birdsell and Groarke. I definitely did not find myself totally immersed in the reading, anxious to flip to the next page, but I did enjoy the argument that was being laid out. I immediately was in disagreement with David Flemming, the guy who says, "visual images cannot...be arguments".

His opinion seems foolish, especially after the authors lay out two visual images that surely state a point and pose an argument. The cigarette-smoking fish that is about to get "hooked" is without a doubt an image targeted at warning people that smoking is addictive. Another anti-smoking ad that came to mind—one that without a doubt proves an argument without any words having to be displayed—and it argues something a bit different than the fish. I am positive anyone can decipher the purpose and meaning of this ad:

This visual image is hilarious. To me, the image throws an abrupt statement in a smoker's face: you are what you smoke. Maybe a lame one-liner, but is that not what the visual image is arguing? A person that smokes for a long time better bet that their lungs are deteriorating—maybe not turning into literal cigarrettes—and are going to waste—or burning away, as the image communicates. I think Flemming is totally wrong; visual images CAN be arguments. Words can definitely express an argument, but I would argue that words are sometimes less instrumental than an image. Take this image for example:

It is likely that a caricature like this will carry the point across to just as many or more people than if a an opposing politician were to come right out and call Bush an ass.

I did not intend to waste blog time on this Flemming guy, but I couldn't help it. I agree with Birdsell and Groarke that visual images can in fact be arguments.

That is all.














From:Argumentation, Article. "Outlines of a Theory of Visual Argument.(Essay) - Argumentation and Advocacy | HighBeam Research - FREE Trial." Research - Articles - Journals | Find Research Fast at HighBeam Research. Web. 19 Jan. 2011. .