Wan Jin's paper

Wan Jin’s paper stood out most when he described images, and describes reactions. The soft river is comforting and the graphic disturbing images are graphic and disturbing. He does a very good job of projecting these feelings; and helping to explain why Gore does such good work with them too.  The drafts introduction was very weak, and there is no reference to the actual science in the paper, so he edits the first couple of tidbits about carbon emissions out to completely focus on Gore’s dynamic rhetoric, which is a good thing. If a paper is a Jenga tower, the intro is the very crucial foundation that either holds it up or sends it toppling down.  His final includes much more references back to the research, so he doesn’t seem to rely only on his primary source for his rhetorical analysis.

I found the parts about Gore’s own personal suffering strengthening his resolve to be the weakest part of the paper. I was under the impression that maybe that section could fall under the lonely leader caption, because most of that seemed less to strengthen his resolve and more to induce sympathy, but that’s probably just me.  He also seems to overanalyze his body movements at one point, when describing Gore’s mobilization. Maybe Gore was just trying to make eye contact, he didn’t have to be acting out mobilization like a game of charades, that would make less people take him seriously.

so here's the deal

g.clemson.edu wasn't supported by blogger, so I had to figure out what gmail account I hooked up to the g.clemson, so I'm finally back.

I just figured out how to get back onto my blogger, and it was kind of a mess to deal with. I will commence with the latest three blogs, in reverse order.

I really hope this abnormality doesn't affect my grade. not too much anyways.

Synthesis on drafting and outlining and revision.

The reading that is being synthesized currently focuses on organizing and drafting a research argument paper, with a tad of information on how to revise it.

Outlines can help you organize your paper by deciding where you want to put what points, and then making it easy to switch them around as you figure out how to transition from point to point. It also helps with how you want to incorporate the sources that you have cited, and pairing articles with the points you are making. Eventually you will figure out how you are going to tack on your own opinion and add your own twist to the facts you are presenting. This skeleton provides the springboard that will be the research paper soon.

In drafting you have to remember not to just regurgitate your sources, but provide your own original voice to the issue.  Learn how to paraphrase the sources and don’t use too many quotations. Most of the meat of the paper will be in summarizing your own points, and the main idea of the sources.

After drafting, revision is critical. Your first draft is going to be far from perfect. Sometimes it will be a big problem, such as a thesis that’s too broad, but sometimes it’s a quick fix like removing quotations. More than likely, there will be an overbearing problem that will have to be taken care of in the next drafts. You can either identify these yourself or get a peer or fresh set of eyes to analyze it for you, but one things for certain, there’s always something to be fixed.  

interviews

These interviews are on two very different subjects. I think it's safe to start by pointing out the most fundamental differences and then branch out from there

First off, there is very little to say about embedding journalists because it seems they have little to report. Anytime things get overly exciting, the reports get blurry, so many of the questions can just be answered with an "I can't answer that." There's also the problem of operational security. There are problems with the restrictions that the interview has. The most I got out of it was "Journalists are put in danger and experience maybe too much excitement" We can't make any conclusive statements from this interview.


The McDonalds interview, on the other hand, is very in depth. Ritzer doesn't have any restrictions constricting him from voicing all of the information he has on the subject. The interviewer constructs his questions in a way to either tear down or reinforce Ritzer's points, depending on his ability to answer the questions. His "Iron cages" analogy works well for him when he is challenged with "Do you eat at McDonald's?" I feel like this interview was much better constructed than the previous one and helped provide much more information.

Analyzing research sources

In the reading, we learned very specific things about the daunting task of researching prior to writing a paper.
There are two types of sources: Primary- which we analyze independently, and are usually in the context of our topics, and Secondary- which provide their own professional analyses to the aforementioned primary sources.

In searching for a source, the library is probably a good place to start, and Google is something to be wary of.
There are a number of questions to ask in analyzing an online source
1. Who is the author, and what authority does s/he have on the topic?
2. is the site affiliated with some organization?
3. Does the site cite its own sources?
4. What is the purpose of the site and who is the audience?
among others.
 Primary research is also an option, interviewing knowledgeable people on the subject.

A dialogue of sources allows you to identify how your paper will flow, and what sources will provide what points, a generally useful tool in helping format the paper.
Another tool to help with this is the annotated bibliography, which contains your works cited and annotations for every source, where you discuss the usefulness and applications of each source and how it will apply to your topic. You discuss pros and cons of the source, and how reliable the source is.