Devon Yanvary: 2013

Thursday, May 9, 2013

Blog 28

I
40
40
20
25
4
_______
129

II
145, because there were a few checkpoint blogs I had missed. But I did feel I had enough data, as I conducted a follow-up interview. Instead of "categorize" I often used "factor" in my paper, indicating that good characteristics of movies were good factors. I did not explicitly say "categorize." I did come across a new idea. that the oder of experince may play a part in the acceptance level of viewers/readers.
_______________
247

III

138

Blog 29

Devon Yanvary
Eng 3029-01
Professor Chandler
5/9/2013
Book v. Movie

Introduction

For as long as movies have been made, they have used books as their inspiration. This has caused a great debate between readers and viewers as to which is the superior medium. It is also a question that has yet to be answered despite all the research and discussions conducted by others, as each medium has its own strengths and weaknesses. Perhaps, instead of asking which is better, we should ask what makes one better than the other. Through my research I hope to determine the factors of a successful book, the factors of a successful movie and if any of these factors overlap to appease both readers and viewers.

Literature Review

In the book Remediation: Understanding New Media, writers Jay David Bolter and Richard Grusin explore the different aspects as media in society. In the section regarding movies, they identify key features that can improve or deteriorate the quality of a movie, and what makes people want to see movies in the first place.

They claim that viewers see movies because they want to “experience the oscillations between immediacy and hypermediacy produced by the special effects” (157) Hypermediacy, then, is defined as the software being used within the movie. What this means is audiences realize that the movie is fictional, fake, but they want to be fooled so well into thinking that the movie has become reality. Logically, a factor of a good movie, according to Bolter and Grusin include the ability to “create so authentic an illusion” (155) that they are temporarily unable to distinguish reality from cinema. This is why people will go see a movie version of a book—they want to see the story they loved come to life and become real.

Factors of a bad movie include when the “camera offers a distorted view that makes us aware of the film as a medium” (152) as opposed to creating that convincing illusion. This means that the movie has failed to feel authentic or sincere enough that the viewers will become disillusioned or separated from the viewing experience. Simply put, the movie is not relatable to viewers.

With these factors in mind, I will interview J, who has read the book Silver Linings Playbook and also seen the movie. From this I hope to discover what makes each piece either successful or unsuccessful.

Research and Data

Interviewee J talks about his experiences with reading a book in addition to watching the movie version of that book. In the discussion he talks specifically about the novel, and recent movie production, Silver Linings Playbook. J takes an interesting stance on this topic and states that he found both the movie and book enjoyable, despite their differences. I have found this to be of the unpopular opinion in regard to others who have both read the book and seen the movie, based off of Conversations I have been a part of regarding this topic.

J felt so positively towards the movie it inspired him to follow up with the book. This is atypical, as this study is done primarily on those who have read the book first. However, despite the unusual order, J claims that, though the two mediums differ, they are “both so incredibly good for their own reasons.” He draws many similarities between the two, but overall conveys that he believes (a) the book is good because it allows for plot and character development, and (b) the movie is good because it is well executed (acting, directing, writing, etc.).

J describes the movie as having both “good acting” and a “good story,” signifying that these are key factors in a successful movie. Without good acting the audience loses touch with the characters, which causes the movie to feel insincere—in other words, bad.

He praises the story of the movie for being an “honest portrayal of mental disorders,” as opposed to being a movie that is full of “over the top melodrama.” This is J’s classification of a good story. Outside this context, “over the top” is a phrase used in situations where there is too much of something, so much of it that it becomes overwhelming for audiences, and “melodrama” is used to refer to a play, an act or a farce, (although it is not always used with negative connotations). In this context, by describing the melodrama as over the top, J insinuates that if the movie were any more melodramatic than it already is, it would be ridiculous to watch. Over-exaggerating emotions or events is a problem actors face when filming a movie. If an actor overplays his part in a movie, it becomes ‘over the top’ and unrealistic. If an actor underplays a part, the movie begins to feel forced or unbelievable. This suggests that there is a delicate balance involved in movies that is not present in novels. In a novel a character can act dramatically without repercussions. The book can take more liberties, as the narration often times takes place in the character’s mind. This means that, while the actual even is not as dramatic as the characters makes it out to be, it can still be told overdramatically because that is how the character is interpreting the situation. Because Silver Linings Playbook was not full of over the top melodrama, is realistically reflected normal life and meets J’s criteria of a good movie.

This over focus on drama makes the movie less relatable. In addition to being melodramatic, he says that the directors could have created a movie that was “over the top.” This “over the top” is generally used in a negative context. J uses “over the top” to suggest that

J says that the director “could have” created an overdramatized production, but ultimately did not. These characterizations of cinema can play a large part in what makes a movie distasteful to viewers. While the movie was a “bit of a crowd pleaser,” Silver Linings Playbook, J says, is a movie that takes real problems (mental disorders) and neither “trivializes” them nor glorifies them (melodrama). Instead, J describes the characters as “flawed” which makes them more “human” and “relatable.” In other words, the movie has created an “authentic” (Jay David Bolter and Richard Grusin) representation for viewers. This is where the movie succeeded.

When describing the perks of the book, J mentions “development.” Here he uses development to refer to both the characters and the storylines. His praise of both character and plot development reaffirms what many articles, as well as personal experience, suggests—readers enjoy books because of the additional details. J claims to have enjoyed the year-long development involved in the book, as opposed to the month-long development shown in the movie. He claims that the character development in particular is a great aspect of the book not completely captured in the movie. J mentions that, in the book, readers are given more insight to what characters are thinking and feeling, which helps readers better understand their motives, or “why they do what they do.” J extends this to include supporting characters as well. In many movies, supporting characters are neglected, and Silver Linings Playbook is no exception. While supporting characters were not completely ignored, there were certain characteristics about them that were never quite explained and, as a viewer of the movie, I wish they had been. This is most evident in the supporting character of Pat Sr., the main character’s father. In the movie, the father is shown as a caring, compassionate, and at times overbearing, parent. However in the book, J describes Pat’s father as actually “very cold” in the novel. In the movie, Pat Sr. is always seen making an effort to see his son: Pat Sr. wants to spend time with Pat Jr. But in the book, it is revealed that Pat Sr. is “the exact opposite of how he is in the movie.” J indicates that this extra knowledge, or character development, into the minds of both main and supporting characters greatly improves the overall quality of the book. As the book is “more involved” with the characters, it gives readers better perspective and understanding of them. This creates a more personalized feeling towards the story.

This difference, however, does not dissatisfy J. In fact, he prefers the changes made to the book. J says that De Nero “plays a cool dad” and that he “would like to have him as a dad.” It is interesting that J finds the representation of a fictional character realistic enough to connect it to his own life. By not dismissing the character as fictional, it shows a successful transition from paper-based character to cinematic-based character. This again goes back to when J described the characters as “relatable” and “human.”

Additional terminology used by J that alludes to personalization includes when he says readers “spend a year” with the characters when reading the book. The use of “spend” is a particularly powerful verb here, as it indicates a more intimate relationship with the novel than just fictional character/nonfictional reader. ‘Spending’ time with the characters suggests that there is a momentary pause in the distinction between reality and imagination, as ‘spending time’ is traditionally used to describe human interactions. The use of “spend time,” here reasserts J’s description of the characters being “human” and “relatable.” Additionally, when J describes the characters as “human,” he says it is because we, as readers, all know someone who resembles the characters in some way. This furthers the personalization of the reading experience: these characters become ‘human’ to us as we associate what we’re reading to what’s familiar. J’s use of “human” and “relatable” are words that often appear in reasons why people like reading books, as discussed in The New York Times article “A Good Mystery: Why We Read,” so it is interesting that J uses them in reference to the movie. This shows that the relation between book and movie was not lost in the translation from paper to screen.

However, not everything was translated perfectly from page to screen. While J expresses the essence of the book was captured well, he points out that there were some significant differences. Of these changes, character portrayal again plays a large role in J’s interview, as well as event placement.

There is a large difference in the way the movie portrays Pat Sr. (the main character’s father). Additionally, J mentions some changes in the main character, Pat Jr., as well. J expresses more of a liking for Pat in the movie as well, saying that Cooper makes it easier to understand what is happening in Pat’s mind than it was in the book. He describes Pat’s thought process as “annoying” in the book. This is a contrast to when he is watching the movie and is able to “sympathize” with Pat, having a visual demonstration of Pat’s emotions. In this way, it is atypical for a reader to enjoy the movie more than the book. Also, he states that Pat has a better grasp on reality in the movie. This has to do with a plot change made by directors. J reveals that, while the movie states Pat has been in the hospital for only eight months, in the book it has “actually been for four years and he just thinks it’s been eight months.”

Furthermore, he states that events were moved around in the movie and that it does not accurately represent the chronological order of events in novel. He explains that while “some things happen in both the book and the movie…they switched the order of things.” But despite all this, he still claims that he “loved it.” Silver Linings Playbook still maintained enough elements of the original story as to not dilute it into something unrecognizable. It is interesting of J to say that the movie still manages to be successful, as many viewers dislike the fact that the plots of books are changed in order to fit into Hollywood’s formula for a ‘good movie.’ Plot changes would include generic tactics like re-writing an ending of a story. But he makes it a point to say “watch the movie first. Otherwise you'll probably spend the entire movie telling the person next to you "in the book he does this instead of this and they cut that out, and this character isn't in there at all…both are great though."

Conclusion

This interview proves that not all readers are dissatisfied with the movie adaptation of a book they enjoyed. It has proven that both can be enjoyable, despite any differences. Also, it says a lot about personal opinion, which also plays a large part in viewer feedback. Furthermore, J’s suggestion to “watch the movie first” proposes a new question: does seeing the movie first better the reading experience? Is it, in fact, high viewer expectations that cause bad feedback in book-to-movie productions? Does watching the movie first allow more openness to any plot divergences? Or does it depend completely on execution, despite the order of experience? I believe that I have determined that a good book has significant plot development that helps readers better understand the story, and a good movie entertains viewers while making the movie feel realistic and relatable.

Works Cited

Bolter, David Jay and Richard Grusin. Remediation: Understanding New Media. Graphic Comparison, Inc.1999 Print.

Tuesday, May 7, 2013

Data So Far--Checkpoint Info

Questions to address based off of my most recent draft:

Have I stayed on the same track as my original thesis?
What do I say when the data does not match my thesis?
Am I focusing too much on J's language?
Have I focused enough on the content of his answers?

Updated interview data:

(original information):

D: You read "Silver Linings Playbook" after you saw the movie? Which did you like better?

J: I buffered the movie online first, not expecting much but I loved it, so I got a copy of the book and I loved that too. You're not the first to ask which is better and I still can't choose one over the other. They're both so incredibly good for their own reasons. If you want good acting, good story, that is tightly paced and is a bit of a crowd pleaser, go with the movie. Cooper, Lawrence and Deniro are superb. If you want more, if you want to spend a year with these characters instead of a month, go with the book. Its more involved, lots of character development. You can see what the characters are thinking and why they do what they do. Not to mention there is far more development and time spent with the supporting characters as well. I tell everyone though, watch the movie first. Otherwise you'll probably spend the entire movie telling the person next to you "in the book he does this instead of this and they cut that out, and this character isn't in there at all," etc. Both are great though.

D: So what did you like about the movie version of Silver Linings Playbook?

J: Jenifer Lawrence. Just kidding-- I like its honest portrayal of mental disorders. It didn't try to trivialize or hide the fact these characters were flawed, if anything it made them more human and incredibly relate-able if only because we all have met people like these characters. It was also incredibly motivational and moving for a movie that could have been over the top melodrama.

Additional Information:

D: Now did they explain why the father is so fidigety in the book?

J: Well he has OCD. And he's superstitious.

D: Is superstitious classified as a mental disorder?

J: It's a grey area. Some people accept it, some don't.

D: Okay, so how accurately did the movie portray the characters? Was that the only difference?

J: The father was really different in the book actually. He was very cold, he wouldn't even talk to pat (the main character). He didn't want anything to do with him, the exact opposite of how he is in the movie.

D: Do you like it better that way?

J: I like it this way, I think he plays a cool dad. I'd like to have him as a dad.

D: So was the whole movie different than the book?

J: Yeah. Like certain events happened in both, but the order of things is off. In the book, pat doesn't have a good sense of time. In the movie they say he's been away for 8 months, but the book says its actually been 4 years and he just thinks its been 8 months. and they try to tip-toe around that, like they don't want to tell him it's been 4 years. But I've noticed he's more relatable in the movie. In the book he gets lost in his head, and its just...ehhh.... annoying. But when I watch it I get what he's feeling and I feel bad for him. I sympathize with him.

D: So did they add things that didnt happen, or...?

J: I mean, there are some things happen in both the book and the movie, but the order is wrong.Like the dance isnt thr climax of the book. Like they make a big deal of it in the movie, but in the book it just sort of happens. Its a side plot. They switched the order of things in the movie.

Monday, May 6, 2013

Blog 27

J felt so positively towards the movie it inspired him to follow up with the book. This is atypical, as this study is done primarily on those who have read the book first. However, despite the unusual order, J does not share the unfriendly feelings many others do when he compares the two. J claims that, though the two mediums are so different, they are “both so incredibly good for their own reasons.” It is the differences, he says, that makes each version of the same story good in its own respect.

J mentions that he had initially low expectations for the movie before watching it, but was pleasantly surprised, describing the movie as having both “good acting” and a “good story.” He praises the movie for being an “honest portrayal” of the topics covered in the text, as opposed to being a movie that is full of “over the top melodrama.” The word “melodrama,” outside of this context, is used to refer to a play, and act or a farce, although it is not always used with negative connotations. In this context, however, J uses “melodrama” negatively, insinuating that if the movie were more melodramatic, it would be insincere to the topics being explored in the film—namely, mental disorders. This insincerity, or over focus on drama, translates into a misrepresentation of the book and a misrepresentation of real life, thus making the movie less relatable. In addition to being melodramatic, he says that the directors could have created a movie that was “over the top.” This is a phrase used in situations where there is too much of something, so much of it that it becomes overwhelming for audiences; “over the top” is generally used in a negative context. J uses “over the top” to suggest that the level of melodrama shown in the movie would be unrealistic to the level of melodrama that the audience, as regular people, might experience in their own lives. J says that the director “could have” done this, but ultimately did not. It is for this lack of over exaggeration that J believes the movie made a successful transformation from page to screen. J believes that Silver Linings Playbook still maintained enough elements of the original story as to not dilute it into something unrecognizable. It is interesting of J to say that the movie still manages to be successful, as many viewers dislike the fact that the plots of books are changed in order to fit into Hollywood’s formula for a ‘good movie.’ Plot changes would include generic tactics like re-writing an ending of a story.

J explicitly says that he finds the movie to be a success by describing it as “good” despite it being a “bit of a crowd pleaser.” This indicates that he feels the movie has taken on certain cinematic features that are commonly used in order to please audiences. Such cinematic features would include elements such as slightly playing-up dramatic situations (while still keeping the movie from becoming too “melodramatic”). J does not feel that the movie misrepresented the message of the book; he feels that Bradley Cooper, Jennifer Lawrence and Robert De Nero played the parts of their (respective) characters well and feels that the acting was genuine and accurately portrayed the struggles the characters in the novel go through. Silver Linings Playbook, J says, is a movie that takes real problems (mental disorders) and neither “trivializes” them nor turns them into “over the top melodrama.” Instead, J describes the characters as “flawed” which makes them more “human” and “relatable.”

When describing the perks of the book, J mentions “development.” Here he uses development to refer to both the characters and the storylines. His praise of both character and plot development reaffirms what many articles, as well as personal experience, suggests—readers enjoy books because of the additional details. J clams to have enjoyed the year-long development involved in the book, as opposed to the month-long development shown in the movie. He claims that the character development in particular is a great aspect of the book not completely captured in the movie. J mentions that, in the book, readers are given more insight to what characters are thinking and feeling, which helps readers better understand their motives, or “why they do what they do.” J extends this to include supporting characters as well. In many movies, supporting characters are neglected, and Silver Linings Playbook is no exception. While supporting characters were not completely ignored, there were certain characteristics about them that were never quite explained and, as a viewer of the movie I can tell you, I wish they had been. In his interview, J indicates that this extra knowledge, or character development, into the minds of both main and supporting characters greatly improves the overall quality of the book. As the book is “more involved” with the characters, it gives readers better perspective and understanding of them. This creates a more personalized feeling towards the story.

There is a large difference in the way the movie portrays Pat Sr. (the main character’s father). In the movie, the father is shown as a caring, compassionate, and at times overbearing, parent. However in the book, J describes Pat’s father as actually “very cold” in the novel. In the movie, Pat Sr. is always seen making an effort to see his son, always asking him to sit down and watch football: Pat Sr. wants to spend time with Pat Jr. But in the book, it is revealed that Pat Sr. “didn’t want anything to do” with his son. He doesn’t talk to him, look at him or even acknowledge that his son is home, “the exact opposite of how he is in the movie.” This difference, however, does not dissatisfy J. In fact, he prefers the changes made to the book. J says that De Nero “plays a cool dad” and that he “would like to have him as a dad.” It is interesting that J finds the representation of a fictional character realistic enough to connect it to his own life. By not dismissing the character as fictional, it shows a successful transition from paper-based character to cinematic-based character. This again goes back to when J described the characters as “relatable” and “human.”

Additionally, J mentions some changes in the main character, Pat Jr., as well. J expresses more of a liking for Pat in the movie as well, saying that Cooper makes it easier to understand what is happening in Pat’s mind than it was in the book. He describes Pat’s thought process as “annoying” in the book. This is a contrast to when he is watching the movie and is able to “sympathize” with Pat, having a visual demonstration of Pat’s emotions. In this way, it is atypical for a reader to enjoy the movie more than the book. Also, he states that Pat has a better grasp on reality in the movie. This has to do with a plot change made by directors. J reveals that, while the movie states Pat has been in the hospital for only eight months, in the book it has “actually been for four years and he just thinks it’s been eight months.”

Monday, April 22, 2013

Blog 23

Analysis so far:

(based off the interview posted in blog 22)

Interviewee J talks about his experiences with reading a book in addition to watching the movie version of that book. In the discussion he talks specifically about the novel, and recent movie production, Silver Linings Playbook. J takes an interesting stance on this topic and states that he found both the movie and book enjoyable despite their differences. I have found this to be of the unpopular opinion in regard to others who have both read the book and seen the movie.

J felt so positively towards the movie it inspired him to follow up with the book. This is atypical, as this study is done primarily on those who have read the book first. However, despite the unusual order, J does not share the unfriendly feelings many others do when he compares the two. J claims that, though the two mediums are so different, they are both good in their own respects. It is their differences, he says, that makes each version of the same story good.

J mentions that he had low expectations for the movie before watching it, but was pleasantly surprised by the quality of its storyline, acting and pace despite having been based on a book. J indicates that he feels that the movie was still successful, although he describes it as a “bit of a crowd pleaser”. This is interesting, as many viewers dislike the fact that the plots of books are changed in order to fit into the formula for a ‘good movie.’ However, J does not feel that the movie misrepresented the message of the book; he feels that Bradley Cooper, Jennifer Lawrence and Robert De Nero played the parts of their (respective) characters well. Whereas many readers often worry about actors being miscast in movie versions of books, J feels that the acting was genuine and accurately portrayed the struggles the characters in the novel go through. Silver Linings Playbook, J says, is a movie that takes real problems—mental disorders— and neither plays them down nor glorifies them. He claims that the movie did not make use of the mental disorder stereotype to create a movie that was overly dramatic. J describes the movie as “honest,” “human,” and “incredibly relate-able.” These descriptions often appear in book reviews and among reasons people like to read, as discussed in The New York Times article, , so it is interesting that J uses them in reference to the movie.

When describing the perks of the book, J mentions “development.” Here he uses development to refer to both the characters and the storylines. This, I have found, is in accordance to what other research suggests—readers enjoy the books because of the additional details. J says the book is “move involved” with the characters, and readers “spend a year” with the characters. The use of “spend” is a particularly powerful verb here, as it indicates a more intimate relationship with the novel than just fictional character/nonfictional reader. ‘Spending’ time with the characters suggests a momentary pause in the distinction with reality and imagination, and this, I find, is in accordance to Farland’s article Why People Read. “Spend” significantly personalizes the reading experience.

David Farland is an author who has a personal blog that I plan on using in my lit review, but I haven't analyzed it yet. I have only read his thoughts on it. I'm probably going to work on my lit review in tomorrow's class.

Debate: http://www.debate.org/debates/Movies-are-better-than-books/1/

Farland: http://www.davidfarland.com/writing_tips/?a=37

Article: http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/culturebox/2009/02/great_book_bad_movie.html

Blog 22

Data so far (interview transcript):

D: You read "Silver Linings Playbook" after you saw the movie? Which did you like better?

J: I buffered the movie online first, not expecting much but I loved it, so I got a copy of the book and I loved that too. You're not the first to ask which is better and I still can't choose one over the other. They're both so incredibly good for their own reasons. If you want good acting, good story, that is tightly paced and is a bit of a crowd pleaser, go with the movie. Cooper, Lawrence and Deniro are superb. If you want more, if you want to spend a year with these characters instead of a month, go with the book. Its more involved, lots of character development. You can see what the characters are thinking and why they do what they do. Not to mention there is far more development and time spent with the supporting characters as well. I tell everyone though, watch the movie first. Otherwise you'll probably spend the entire movie telling the person next to you "in the book he does this instead of this and they cut that out, and this character isn't in there at all," etc. Both are great though.

D: So what did you like about the movie version of Silver Linings Playbook?

J: Jenifer Lawrence. Just kidding-- I like its honest portrayal of mental disorders. It didn't try to trivialize or hide the fact these characters were flawed, if anything it made them more human and incredibly relate-able if only because we all have met people like these characters. It was also incredibly motivational and moving for a movie that could have been over the top melodrama.

Blog 21

Group project;

Questions
1. state your focus (what you are studying)
2. state your research questions (what you hope to find)
3. state why your project/questions are important to writing studies
4. tell/talk about the reference (research essay) you will include in your literature review
5. say what your reference(s) show about 1, 2, & 3

Amy's answers:
1. Blogging- What makes a successful blogger interesting to readers?
2. Features- What are the key features of a successful blog?
3. Media- What kind of role does the media play in society?
4. Sources- interview and book; "Thinking of Blogging," and "Creative Blogging."
5. Research- not yet analyzed.

Tuesday, April 2, 2013

Blog 16

Lead: The purpose of this interview is to determine what causes a person to like or dislike a movie adaptation of a book.

Questions:
Did you read the book?
Did you see the movie?
Which did you experience first?
What did you like about the book?
What did you like about the movie?
What did you dislike about the movie?
What did you dislike about the book?
How accurate do you think the movie adaptation was?
Was there something in the book the movie excluded? Did you like or dislike that?
Was there something the movie added that wasn't in the book? Did you like or dislike that?
Why did you like or dislike any differences between the book and movie?

Monday, April 1, 2013

Blog 15

1. What age were you when it happened?
"12, or so. I think I was in 8th grade."
2. How did you react?
"I was in school, the teachers turned on TV's in classrooms...I was in social studies class but I wasn't very concerned... I didn't understand what was happening. They moved us into gym."
3. What did you do after school?
"I just went home after school."
4. How did your family react?
"My family didn't really seem to react...we didn't know anybody who would be in NY, so there was no reason for us to be worried. I'm sure they were upset but they seemed normal to me."

Thursday, March 21, 2013

Blog 14

Devon Yanvary

3/18/2013

Dr. Chandler

Good Interviews Gone Bad

Interviews are one of the classic ways of gathering information. As the name suggests, interviews provide a person’s view on a topic, their personal stance and any insight they may possess. With such a beneficial tool available, why wouldn’t every researcher make use of interviews? Simply put, interviewees are not always a source of quality information. There are many factors that can contort an interviewee’s responses. Both participants possess the potential to skew the results. Interviewers can use unclear wording, leading, and implying that there is a ‘correct,’ or expected answer and can influence how successful an interview actually is. In addition to these factors, interviewees can give unclear or incomplete responses, be unprofessional, or let the desire to project a certain image of them change their responses. With so many obstacles, is it possible to make good use of a bad interview? By looking at the interview entitled “Adult Learner and New Literacies,” we will see how an interviewee’s casual language use can deteriorate the quality of their answer. Furthermore we will determine if the interviewer can still use the information gathered during the interview, despite any faulty answers, and how.

Categories for this interview include “indecisive” and “unprofessional.” These categories are based off of M’s mannerisms and generally short or circular ways of speaking. Codes constituting these categories will include ‘one-word answers,’ ‘phrases’ and ‘repetition.’

Interviewee “M” talks about learning to use a computer and exploring unfamiliar computer programs. M’s responses are generally kept short. A mixture of one-word answers, phrases, and repetitiveness implies that she is not overly expressive, and therefore makes it difficult to use her responses in research. However I believe a researcher can turn any interview into a good source of reference when the information is approached the right way.

Many times M answered unprofessionally when she used one-word answers (code one) even when there was room to elaborate. When CH asks her if taking a course in computer programming helped her overcome her fear M only responds with “yeah.” “Yeah” is a very casual word. Whereas a “yes” is more serious and conveys a note of finality, “yeah” often falls flat when not followed by anything. Here, to seem more personable, M could have elaborated and said, “Yeah it helped me feel…” or “Yeah, I learned that…” to help CH and readers see where she might have been coming from, or where her head had been at the time of her class. In Excerpt 1 readers of the interview were informed that M distrusted technology when she stated that she didn’t believe the computer would “represent what [she] wanted it to represent,” and in Excerpt 2 she explains that she was not an experienced computer user; while it may be inferable that these insecurities are the stem of her fear of computers, it is not explicitly stated and therefore we do not know exactly what it was about new computer programs that scared M into not wanting to associate with them. Despite this, however, CH makes good use of M’s answer and asks what helped M overcome her fear. While we do not know what specifically made M fear technology, CH does not look at the issue with tunnel vision and decides to move onto other topics. This not only makes good use of time but also is more useful when gathering information. By focusing in on just one, slightly underdeveloped idea interviewers can lose sight of their goal. While more explanation is preferable, M has said enough for readers to understand her basic mindset about computer programming and CH has used enough sense to remember there are more topics that can be covered to help explain M’s experiences.

M also has a few key phrases (code two) that she repeats, making her answers both indecisive and unprofessional. M’s two most used phrases are “you know,” which she says twelve times throughout the interview, and “I guess,” which she says nine times. These phrases lessen the impact and perceived credibility of the speaker. When a speaker compromises his or her own beliefs or statements with “I guess” it invalidates what he or she is saying. “I guess” conveys a lack of confidence in what is being said. This uncertainty diminishes the impact M’s statement could otherwise give. In addition to seeming confused, repeatedly saying “I guess” makes the speaker seem as though they have no authority in their field whatsoever (or unprofessional). When M says “I guess…I didn’t trust myself, I didn’t trust the computer, I was afraid,” it sounds more like a rationalization than a statement; “I guess…I was afraid” makes it seem like M doesn’t know what she was feeling. All throughout the interview, M reinforces the idea of new programming making her nervous or anxious. There is no doubt that she truly disliked using unfamiliar computer programs. But by saying, “I guess,” M undermines her own feelings. Furthermore when M follows a statement with, “You know” she puts onus on the interviewer and readers to be able to figure out what she is trying to convey; as the interviewee, it is her job to tell us. Good interviewers and researchers, however, can bypass these lingual slurs and pick out what the main idea is, according to the information the interviewee has given. Also, this teaches researchers to not rely solely on a single source. Also, as researchers and audience alike, it is important to take the situation into consideration and remember that some settings are more casual than others. In reality, M’s casual way of speaking could misrepresent her true potential and intellect. Remembering this is another way researchers can use what may seem like inarticulate responses.

Finally is the issue of repetitiveness (code three). M often either repeats something she has already said or something CH has said to her, which portrays her as indecisive. In Excerpt 2, M says “…I guess what could happen, you know? You know, what could happen, you put your work in you press a button and you just—what’s going to happen?” This is bad interview form because it is both confusing to read and confusing to listen to. M’s circular way of talking again enforces the feeling that she does not have a good grasp on the topic. It would be sufficient to say, “I didn’t know what would happen,” which could leave CH room to ask another question. Repeating oneself gives the impression that, as an interviewee, you do not possess much knowledge about the question you are answering. Similar to saying “yeah” or “I guess” it lessens the listener or reader’s confidence in your knowledge of the topic. However, mistakes like this are easily fixed: repeating yourself can be perceived as a way of stressing an idea that is important to you. As a researcher or interviewer, this is another strategy for making use of information that you have already received.

Despite M’s occasional blunder, she did make his points clear enough that CH could be able to make use of them in a paper. Also, M did technically answer each question with some degree of definition, so her view of the topic can be found with relative ease. M’s interview, in my opinion, would be best used as an example to use alongside another source as opposed to the interview being used as a source by itself. If I were writing a paper on adult learners, I would find an article explaining why adults are apprehensive when dealing with computers, and use M as an example to back the article up. Overall, the interview does have consistent thoughts, and substantial feedback, and contains enough information to be useful. I believe CH would be able to use this interview in a paper by not getting stuck on details, reading between the lines for main points and stressing points the interviewee feels strongly about. I believe I have proven my thesis correct: even though an interviewee might provide the utmost quality material, their input can still be valuable and usable.

Friday, March 15, 2013

Blog 13

Devon Yanvary
3/18/2013

Dr. Chandler

Good Interviews Gone Bad

Interviews are one of the classic ways of gathering information. As the name suggests, interviews provide a person’s view on a topic, their personal stance and any insight the interviewee may possess. With such a beneficial tool available, why wouldn’t every researcher make use of interviews? Simply put, interviewees are not always a source of quality information. There are many factors that can contort an interviewee’s responses. Both participants possess the potential to skew the results. Interviewers can use unclear wording, leading, and implying that there is a ‘correct,’ or expected, answer can all influence how successful an interview actually is. In addition to these factors, interviewees can give unclear or incomplete responses, be unprofessional, or let the desire to project a certain image of them change their responses. With so many obstacles, is it possible to make good use of a bad interview? In the interview entitled “Adult Learner and New Literacies,” interviewee “M” talks about learning to use a computer.

M’s responses are generally kept short. A mixture of one-word answers, phrases, and repetitiveness implies that he is not overly expressive, and therefore makes it difficult to use his responses in research. However I believe a researcher can turn any interview into a good source of reference when the information is approached the right way.

Many times M used one-word answers when there was room to elaborate. When CH asks him if taking a course in computer programming helped him overcome his fear, M only responds with “yeah.” “Yeah” is a very casual word, very dissimilar to the formality that a “yes,” can carry. A “yes” is more serious and conveys a note of finality, whereas “yeah” often falls flat when not followed by anything. Here, to seem more personable, M could have elaborated and said, “Yeah it helped me feel…” or “Yeah, I learned that…” to help CH and readers see where M might have been coming from, or where his head had been at the time of his class. Readers know that M had expressed a distrust of technology in Excerpt 1, and in Excerpt 2 he describes that he was an inexperienced computer user; while it may be inferable that these insecurities are the stem of his fear of computers, it is not explicitly stated and therefore we do not know exactly what it was about new computer programs that scared M into not associating with them. Despite this, however, CH makes good use of M’s answer and asks what helped M overcome his fear. While we do not know what specifically made M fear technology, CH does not look at the issue with tunnel vision and decides to move onto other topics. This not only makes good use of time but also is more useful when gathering information. By focusing on just one, slightly cloudy idea interviewers can lose sight of their goal. While more explanation is preferable M has said enough for readers to understand his basic mindset about computer programming.

M also has a few key phrases that he repeats; his two most used phrases are “you know,” which he says twelve times throughout the interview, and “I guess,” which he says nine times. These phrases lessen the impact and perceived credibility of the speaker. When a speaker compromises his own beliefs or statements with “I guess” it invalidates what he or she is saying. “I guess” conveys a lack of confidence in what is being said. When being interviewed, it is implied that the interviewer is interested in your opinion—otherwise they would not take the time to ask you questions. Furthermore, to say it nine times in one interview makes a speaker look as though they have no authority in their field whatsoever. So much uncertainty diminishes the impact a statement could otherwise give. When M says “I guess…I didn’t trust myself, I didn’t trust the computer, I was afraid,” it sounds more like a rationalization that a statement; “I guess…I was afraid” makes it seem like M doesn’t know what he was feeling. All throughout the interview, M reinforces the idea of new programming making him nervous or anxious. There is no doubt that he truly disliked computer programs. By saying, “I guess,” M undermines his own feelings, although CH is obviously interested in his experiences. Furthermore, saying, “You know” puts onus on the interviewer and readers to be able to figure out what M is trying to convey; as the interviewee, it is his job to tell us. Good interviewers and researchers, however,

can bypass these lingual slurs and pick out what the main idea is, according to the information the interviewee

has given. Also, this teaches researchers to not rely solely on a single source.
Finally is the issue of repetitiveness. M makes a habit of wither repeating himself or repeating something CH has said to him. In Excerpt 2, M says “…I guess what could happen, you know? You know, what could happen, you put your work in you press a button and you just—what’s going to happen?” This is bad interview form because it is both confusing to read and confusing to listen to. M’s circular way of talking again enforces the feeling that he does not have a good grasp on the topic. It would be sufficient to say, “I didn’t know what would happen,” which could leave CH room to ask another question. Repeating oneself gives the impression that, as an interviewee, you do not possess much knowledge about the question you are answering. Like saying “yeah” or “I guess” it lessens the listener or reader’s confidence in your authority of the topic at hand. However, mistakes like this are easily enough fixed; repeating yourself can be perceived as a way of stressing an idea that is important to you. As a researcher or interviewer, this is how to make use of information that you have already received.

Despite M’s occasional blunder, he did make his points clear enough that CH would be able to make use of them in a paper. Also, M did technically answer each question with some definition, so his view of the topic can be found with relative ease. M’s interview, in my opinion, would make a better example to accompany another source. If I were writing a paper on adult learners, I would find an article explaining why adults are apprehensive when dealing with computers, and use M as an example to back the article up. I believe I have proven my thesis correct: even though an interviewee might provide the utmost quality material, their input can still be valuable and usable.

Saturday, March 2, 2013

Blog 11

I would like to address the topic of comments that aren't negative or misinterpret-able ('what different kinds of comments to teachers write that don't require students to revise their work, and what are the functions of those comments?')

Comments that don't require students to revise are the comments that provide positive feedback. These types of comments tell the student what they have done correctly. Comments like this set an example for students and helps them establish what style of writing works best for them and encourages students to continue writing in that style. It also shows students that teachers are actually taking time to look at their work. These comments also remind students that, while revision may be needed, they are not doing poorly. Revision is often viewed as being synonymous with failure. This is why too many negative comments from teachers end up discouraging students from trying. A positive comment acts as a reward or a compliment, showing the student that they are not failing to accomplish their goal.It also establishes a certain tone from the teacher that conveys something other than criticism. When a teacher expresses a liking to something a student has written, it makes them feel good (I can speak from experience) and makes them feel more confident about their writing. Positive reinforcement shows that a student's efforts are not going unnoticed.

Codes relating to this type of feedback would, in my opinion, include key words like "good", "nice", "excellent", etc. I believe this to be coding because it breaks down the essay into smaller components and accent what is being done correctly. These types of comments are like hints that help point the student in the direction they need to take their essay in.

Categories for positive feedback include phases like "this is well written", "i like this", "good focus", "well done" and any other comments that go into detail about what is working in the essay (generally that paragraph/overview/summary at the end of an essay). I believe phrases like these to be categories because they make use of the coding (key words) and develop them into fuller thoughts. Positive phrases build off of code/key words to produce a more personalized reaction from the teacher.

Patterns include repetitive enforcement.

Tuesday, February 26, 2013

Blog 10

When creating surveys, questionnaires, or any type of multi-answer testing mechanism, language use plays a key role in the usefulness of the results it produces. The biggest flaw in the Writing Option major survey is the language wasn’t as clear as it could have been. A lot of the questions were either repetitive or contradictory. Questions like 1, 5, 12, and 14 all relate to the revision process. Revision is a big factor in the success of a paper, so documenting the typical steps a student would take when editing a paper can provide useful and relevant information. However, the wording used in this survey made the questions seem like they contradicted each other. Key words like “typically,” and phrases like “spend most of my time” make it seem like there is only one possible answer. “Typically,” and “most” are words used as generalizations; “typically” is synonymous with other words like “usually” and “normally,” which imply that an action is repeated enough that it becomes atypical when it is not performed. The use of “typically” also implies that if one thing is done “typically” or “usually,” then another action cannot be performed at the same time and as often, because then the first action would not be “typical” anymore and the two would conflict with each other. A person who “typically” studies while listening to music cannot also “typically” study in silence. Likewise, if a person is described as spending “most of their time” reading, they cannot also be described as spending “most of their time” with friends, because the actions contradict each other—does the person read more, or go out more? So when this survey states that students typically spend most of their time working on grammar, organization and arrangement, it feels like we, as students, have to pick one as to not conflict with the others.

Surveys are useful for collecting general information. They can’t collect very detailed information; the questions would be intricate for short responses, and the answers given would require a lot more analysis. More analysis of answers would take up more time than necessary and would be hard to average together to get a general consensus. Surveys are best for quickly collecting data from the group in interest in order to establish a general feel for what the group thinks or feels.

Challenges include wording, specificity and bias. Wording, as previously discussed, plays a large role in the interpretability of the survey. Bad wording can result in skewed data, which is detrimental to the outcome of the study. It is also difficult to obtain specific data, as the questions must usually be concise so that more information can be gathered in less time. Researchers run the risk of asking questions that are too broad. This is what happened to the questions in the Writing Option survey. Because the questions were too generalized, the purpose of the survey was lost. Researchers must establish a focus—what are we trying to learn?—and stick to it. Questions must always relate back to this so good information can be obtained.

Finally, researchers need to avoid bias. Cullington’s essay is a good example of question bias; the way in which a question is asked determines the answer that is given. If a survey taker feels the researcher wants a specific answer, they are more likely to answer in accordance to their expectations. This also skews results and can lead to incorrect results. Researchers must make sure to be as neutral as possible when asking their questions; they must try to avoid revealing their stance on a topic and never lead the interviewee/survey taker to believe they should answer with a specific answer.

Thursday, February 21, 2013

Blog 9

(LO# = Learning Outcome #)

This question refers to the structural/grammatical progress a student will generally make throughout the writing process. This question is straight-forward so I categorized it under LO1.
As a writer, you will research multiple sources, so for this question i categorized it under LO3. "Two or more methodologies" is tricky wording, but I felt that the use of multiple sources, and therefore multiple source format, fit well enough in this category.
This question is nearly a word-for-word copy of the fifth learning outcome. It is also straight-forward, so I categorized this in LO5.
Textual analysis is being able to examine a text and pick out the main points, so I categorized this question under LO2.
This question refers to the understanding of a paper that develops during revision. Many papers start out in an unsure direction and become clearer and more precise with editing. Because of this, I categorized this under LO1.
Discourse analysis is also very contextual. The use of language can determine the entire meaning of a sentence, paragraph or an entire piece. Because of this, I categorized this question under LO2.
Because people all begin writing in different ways. A paper can start with an outline, a Venn DIagram, or a web diagram. BEcause of this diversity and different ways of unlocking creativity, I categorized this with LO3.
I categorized this with LO3 because discussion and differnt opinions are also good ways to get a paper started. It is another method.
This I categorized under LO5 because what you learn in other classes does not stay in other classes. Lessons learned in on eplace are applicable everywhere in life.
This obviously goes with LO4, becuase LO4 exclusively deals with presentations. A negative aspect to this question (information not provided) is why doesnt the student like to give presentations? This is an imporant factor and shouldnt be ignored in surveys.
LO2, becuase it is basically a word-for-word copy. They both refer to identifying central ideas through a source.
LO1, becuase, again, it is marking the progress a student will make due to revisions. This question marks grammatical progress.
This also refers to LO4, as it pertains exclusevly to presenting.
Also refers to LO1 as it marks more revision progression. This refers to organiational progress.
LO3 becuase it referes to creative ways to jump start an essay.

16--19 I found hard to categrize as they are based solely on opinion and, therefore, do not really mark a learning outcome. (At least none of the ones listen, in my opinion)

Analyzing the Survey

The audience: when analyzing the survey the audience seems to be English writing majors. Most of the statements gear towards the writing process a student experiences in their course.

The person giving the survey is collecting information on students and their writing process and/or classroom experience.

The Statements:
The statements about feelings I would take out or change because for example statement #10, someone might be able to give exceptional presentations but they may not feel confident. (Statement 2 & 8 as well)

The ranking I believe is useful because it tells the person, giving the survey, where the students’ strengths and weaknesses are and they can compare it from one class to another.

Statement 12- during the revising process, when if we also look for other writing issues and not just grammatical.

Answers:
When looking at the different answers that are available in the survey, I noticed that they didn’t add a “N/A” as an option. The reason I feel is to get an actual answer, they don’t want the student to have the ability/ option to put N/A instead.

If there was an N/A option, the professors may feel the students will not answer truthfully or take the survey seriously. Although this may not stop them from giving false answers, it may lessen the possibility of them doing so.

The students who are taking the survey must have experienced each of the statements in order to answer it accordingly.

I feel like the options that the students have to answer for each statement does not give enough information to the one giving the survey

Tuesday, February 19, 2013

Blog 8

I think I am on the right track as far as research methods are concerned. Other people I have spoken to are researching more hands-on topics than I am, so their methods might not be the best avenue for the direction I want my paper to go in. I will say, though, that they all have good ideas too, respectively.

Personal references would include the book Remediation: Understanding New Media. I do believe that this book would be immensely helpful when exploring the movie section of my paper. This book was suggested to me by professor Chandler, and I have been looking for a rent-able version of it online.

Other sources include a debate forum on whether books are better than movies (which I explained in blog 7), an article from the New York Times, and an article exploring the aspect of books as an "escape."

This "escape" article goes into great detail about how reading is similar to physical pain. Author Dave Farland writes on his blog a very long essay on why people read. His main focus is the idea of reading as a way to relax, or de-stress. He talks about the biology behind pain management (endorphin usage), and compares this to Feralt's Triangle. (In my opinion, the comparison is truly brilliant. Here's the link to the whole article: http://www.davidfarland.com/writing_tips/?a=37.) He goes on to explain how the brain reacts mentally to the story, and therefore the body reacts, in suit, with the mind. This is how people get so involved with books, he says, because at some point it stops being an action and becomes an experience. I strongly believe that this article will play a heavy roll in my explanation of why people begin to read. In fact, because there is so much information in this article alone, it may be the sole source in that section of the paper.

I still plan on mentioning the New York Times article I found, but it will not be a major contributer. The aspect I found truly useful was the idea of people being able to relate to the characters. This I feel is very important to the reading experience and will definitely include it.

A summary of intended sources:

1. Debate forum-- Debate.org (http://www.debate.org/debates/Movies-are-better-than-books/1/)

2. Reading is a physical experience/"escape": Davidfarland.com (http://www.davidfarland.com/writing_tips/?a=37)

3. Why We Read: NYtimes.com (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/25/weekinreview/25rich.html?_r=1&)

Wednesday, February 13, 2013

Blog 7

So far, I have researched various reasons what makes reading enjoyable, and what makes movies enjoyable.

I have discovered that it is a bit difficult to pinpoint why a person would begin to like reading, seeing as everybody is different. One popular answer that I have both found and heard many times is that reading is a way to "escape" life. (It seems a little on the dramatic side, although I'm sure I'd be lying if I claimed to have never said it). One article/blog/post I read was written by an author of multiple books, who called reading an "emotional vacation," which I thought was an appropriate description. I definitely plan to use this somewhere in my paper. Another article by the New York Times states that people love to read through many means; some people read to be "informed," or "enlightened," or to find a book so relate-able that they "find themselves" in it. Some people read out of habit (people in book clubs). My favorite line from this article was that some people love to read because they found "the right book at the right time." Since this happened to me, I will be using that in my paper (hopefully) as well.

As for movies, I found a debating forum that discussed the topics of "Are books better than movies?" (Interestingly, the opposing/pro-book side was declared the winner.) (Link for this: http://www.debate.org/debates/Movies-are-better-than-books/1/) And though I disagreed with literally everything the pro-movie side had to say (I tried to be as unbiased as I could, I really did) it was interesting to see what made her dislike books. The visual aspect played a large part of her dislike for books; so movies are enjoyable because they are aesthetically appealing, they are more fun because they create more "social opportunities," and are cheaper. Also, she claims movies are easier to understand, so it reaches out to a larger audience than a book would. Note, this girl is clearly not an expert, so this information is not scientifically reliable, but I do like that she has the "average person" perspective, and since this is such a personalized topic, I think that is an asset to my research. The opposing/pro-book view also made very good points about reading influencing writing abilities, enhanced imagination and plot points being explained more fully in books. However, for this source, I plan to cite the pro-movie argument more than the pro-book.

Interestingly, another article claimed that books-as-movies fail because there is not enough time to develop the plot. I hope to use this point in my paper as well.

While I disagreed with Branick's way of introducing his topic 5 pages into his essay, I liked that he presented a good amount of information before presenting his own research. So I am going to do this too and, hopefully, it will work out. I hope to structure my essay as such:

Intro: Introduce the topic.
Paragraph I: Why do people like books?

Expectations
Imagination, habit, enlightenment, other influences.
"Escape"
Physical aspects and benefits (related to "escape theory")

Paragraph II: Why do people like movies?

Expectations
Visual
Stereotypical "fun"
Easier to understand

Paragraph III

Audience

Paragraph IV:

Compare and contrast paragraphs I and II.

Tuesday, February 12, 2013

Blog 6

I definitely believe our class is a discourse community. Simply by definition, a 'discourse community' is a group of people that all share common vernacular (lexis), goals, behaviors and values. And what is a class? It is a group of students (people) that are all learning the same material (lexis) who want to get good grades (values), so they study and participate in the lessons (behaviors).

Our class shares a lexis, with terms like "discourse," "analysis," "shaggy dog story" "building tools," and so on. The things we've learned through the text book, class discussions and external readings have all been added to our class vocabulary; the more we learn in this course, the more connected our community becomes. In addition to the way we speak to each other, we also have a common set of goals. We all want to receive high grades and pass the class. Also, as a class, we wish to have stimulating and insightful discussions that promote idea circulation and alternative ways of thinking about a single problem. (Without this, it would be a very boring hour and fifteen minutes.) Because of the variety of personalities in our class, no two people will have the exact same opinions, thoughts or beliefs. This variety is what enriches the class. The more exposure to other sources there are, the more informed a person can become. Therefore, as far as "what counts as writing" could be literally anything.

This is true for any class, not just ours. Evidence for this comes from the fact that everybody's learning experience will be different, and not every person will end up taking the same classes (especially in college). Many times, I have overheard students talking to classmates about a particular lesson they had learned, and I felt confused. Why should I feel confused? Was this information beyond my intellectual level? No, it was because I was not a part of that discourse community. Their lesson-- their lexis--was very different than my own. As an English student listening to a biology conversation, this makes sense.

I think our class is part of the "Kean Community" as well as a larger discourse community simply because Kean is a college. As a college, Kean aims to reach a certain goal: to recruit students, and have them excel to give the college a good name while producing productive, influential members of society. This is true for all colleges. That is how Kean is a small discourse community as well as part of a larger one.

Thursday, February 7, 2013

Blog 5.5

Ethnographical Notes:

Mike talked about wanting to research comedians, specifically what made them funny and who thought they were funny. He talked about watching youtube videos, going to stand up clubs and watching comedians preform on tv to help him establish how the audiences reacted. His voice never fluctuated and he spoke at an even tone the whole time, but he seemed very interested in his topic and pretty secure in his methods of research.

Dee talked about writing a memoir. She stated that she has been writing it since senior year and wanted to compare hers to that of another author she liked. Prof. Chandler seemed proud and impressed and said it was a great way for Dee to learn things about herself. Dee is a soft speaker.

Chris talked about books vs. movies and commented that he was not the only one to have this idea. He spoke loudly and was very involved with the conversation, almost dominating it. He expressed an abundance of ideas, and Prof. Chandler noted that it was a great topic, and it could work. He just needed to get a more specific focus to work with.

Amy sat sideways with her notebook in her lap when she wrote things down.

Prof. Chandler walked to and from the board. She was constantly talking to the students one-on-one, giving them her full attention and enthusiasm. Most of the class remained silent during these exchanges, possibly as to not interrupt (as was the case with me).

It was difficult trying to write everything down, mostly because there didn't seem to be anything to write down. The exchanges were rather short, and it felt like there wasn't a lot of material to be worth further analysis.

Blog 5

The first projected research topic was to explore why movies change major plot points when adapting a book into cinematic form. However, this topic may be too general for a research paper. So I have been thinking of ways to narrow my focus and the topic has now become: Why are books turned into movies? I feel that this is a more specific question to answer, and it will allow a better flow of information, as opposed to my previous idea, which would probably result in a relatively disorganized paper. I think this new question will be easier on the reader and will be easier to prove (so to speak). And after answering why books are turned into movies, I can explore what makes a director want to change plot points if I feel it is still relevant and appropriate (because that is still a question I am personally interested in answering). In addition to this, I might even ask a third question: Why do people prefer movies? Either way, I feel I've chosen a pretty strong topic and look forward to getting started.

Materials will mos likely include a lot of articles. I might even skip the articles and make more use of viewer/reader reviews as a way of averaging public opinions. I plan to personally ask others of their opinions (not exactly in interview format) and I definitely plan to use auto-ethnography, as I've noticed that I share a lot of opinions as others on the subject of book vs. movie. Other materials will include any surveys and studies I can find.

Tuesday, February 5, 2013

Blog 4

Shaggy Dog stories are a series of jokes that are characterized by lengthy and complicated set-ups, contain repetitive patterns of speech and are ended by obvious--even obnoxious-- punch lines. In order to understand a Shaggy Dog story, the listener must not only pay close attention, but also be familiar with the vernacular. In many ways, Shaggy Dog stories are perfect examples of just how abstract language use can be, and likewise wonderful examples to help explain Gee's building tools.

In the "Giant Panda" joke, a panda escapes from a New York zoo, and goes to a restaurant for a meal. The maitre d' decides to seat the panda despite the fact that he's...well, a panda. After the panda eats, he pulls a gun, shoots other diners and makes to leave. When the maitre d' confronts him, the panda just says, "look it up." The maitre d' calls the police, who look up "giant pandas" in the encyclopedia. And in print it says: "Giant Pandas, eats shoots and leaves." This use of language relates to Gee's tools of 'significance,' 'connections,' and 'intertextuality.'

Significance is most prominent because the jokes relies heavily on the multiple meanings a word can have. Significance, according to Gee, is the meaning people assign to certain words, or the level of meaningfulness a word can have. This is especially true in the "Giant Panda" joke because both "shoots" and "leaves" have dual natures. "Shoots and leaves" is supposed to refer to the panda's dietary habits; however, the joke lies in the construed meaning oh "shoots" and "leaves." "Shoots," in this case, refers to an act of violence involving a gun and bullets, and "leaves" refers to the act of going from one location to another. This double meaning is just one example of how language is abstract, and the use of it can be extremely dynamic. This is why 'significance' plays such a huge role in Shaggy Dog stories; shaggy dog stories often have punch lines that are 'plays on words.' A 'play on words' is to use one meaning for a word in a contextually incorrect situation. This incorrectness is generally understood by listeners and that is what makes it funny. The significance a listener assigns to the words being used are crucial to the successful communication of the joke. This is why understanding this specific tool is so important when analyzing the structure of language in Shaggy Dog stories.

In addition to significance, 'connections' also plays a huge role in Shaggy Dog stories. The connections made between a listener's ideas, understandings and personal definition of words all influence how the joke will be received Connections are especially important when the punch line is a play on words, as in the "Giant Panda" joke, because the connections listeners make have to be between the meaning of a word, as well as how they operate in the story being told. The ability to make the connection between the multiple meanings of "shoots" and "leaves" is, therefore, not only a matter of significance, but also a matter of connection the dots (or in this case, words). If a listener cannot make the connections between meanings, the joke will not be funny, and the listener will not 'get it.'

Finally, the ability to make connections also lies in social and cultural norms. Unfamiliarity with local vernacular will create a disconnect between the meaningfulness of the jokes, and its components, which makes it difficult for listeners to understand. Gee describes 'intertextuality' as the use of texts to help assign meaning to other texts. Intertextuality also plays a large role in Shaggy Dog stories because a lot of the jokes rely on a listener's familiarity with the subject. This is true, specifically, in the "Florist Friars" joke, where the joke lies in the use of a common saying; intertextuality also lies in the "The Chez is in the Male" joke, where a listener must understand dislike of and discrimination against lawyers.

While intertextualitity is used more often in other jokes, it is also prevalent in the "Giant Panda" joke, as the encyclopedia reference sets up the punch line. The "Panda" joke works not only because of multiple meanings, but because of a use of grammar. In the encyclopedia, the sentence is read "eats shoots and leaves" No commas are used, indicating a connection between the two; it is making a list, whereas the maitre d' says "eats, shoots, and leaves." The commas indicate that 'eats,' 'shoots,' and 'leaves' are independent of each other, thus giving them duality. In the encyclopedia, "shoots and leaves" are used as nouns; in "shoots, and leaves" become verbs. A listener who is familiar with grammar and proper comma use substitutes this information. Without a familiarity (intertextuality) with the language, a listener would not understand the distinction between the list (nouns) and the actions (verbs).

The structure of Shaggy Dog stories often have lengthy set ups, over explanan the situation and slap the listener with simplistic punch lines.

Lengthy set ups are often used because, in oder for the joke to work, all the elements need to be in place. It is a specific formula that needs to be followed strictly. In the "Panda" joke, the teller takes time to explain that the panda (a) escaped from a zoo in New York, (b) the maitre d' has seen stranger things, since it is New York City, after all, (c) pulls a gun from"God knows where" and (d) taking extra time to describe police involvement. Becasue the punch line's success depends on the build-up of the joke ("Where is all this going?"), these jokes are often longer than the average "knock, knock" joke.

Furthermore, as to not prematurely give away the ending, there is a deliberate and often unorthodox way of speaking involved. To avoid using the words involved in the punch line the teller must use synonyms for the words about to be used. Listeners familiar with Shaggy Dog stories understand this. Because of the simplicity of the punch lines, the scenarios and vocabulary used to tell the joke are often used as to not prematurely give away the ending.

Thursday, January 31, 2013

Blog 3

Shaggy Dog stories:

In the “giant panda” joke, the concept of ‘significance’ is most prominent because the punch line is a play on words. In the joke, the panda eats a meal, shoots other dinners, and leaves. When the maître d’ asks why, the panda tells him to “look it up.” When the sheriff looks up “giant panda” the results say a panda “eats shoots and leaves.” The punch line is a play on words because the words used can have two different meanings. “Shoots” and “leaves” is supposed to refer to the types of plants the panda eats in the wild; however “shoots” can also refer to an act of violence involving a gun and bullets. Likewise, “leaves” refers to the act of moving from one location to another. Finally is the aspect of grammar. The giant panda “eats shoots and leaves” (describing its diet), while this panda “eats, shoots, and leaves” (has a meal, uses a gun and walks away). All this relates to ‘significance’ because of the multiple meanings that have been assigned to each word. Listeners are able to hear the words, determine their meanings and reapply them back to the given situation (the set-up of the joke). Because of this understood duality the joke is corny, but still manages to make sense.

Building tools are applicable in Shaggy Dog stories because they can all be exercised somehow.

Questions someone can ask to figure out how Gee’s tools apply include “what is so special about the punch line and “how does this relate to society?” Jokes like “only Hugh can prevent florist friars” is highly rooted in a certain social context (intertextuality) because only those who are familiar with Smokey the Bear’s catch phrase would understand the reference.

Many of these jokes have lengthy setups. This is probably because to make the punch line work just the right way, all the elements have to be put into place. The long setup is required for the panda joke, because the teller needs to go out of his/her way to avoid using the words “eats” “shoots” and “leaves” prematurely as to not spoil the punch line. So when we find out the panda “eats, shoots, and leaves” it doesn't seem redundant. This is true for the other jokes as well. The relationship between the teller and readers also relies heavily on intertextuality becasue of the use of grammar in the joke. People who understand the proper use of commas, and how comma usage can change the meaning of a sentence completely, will find the joke funnier and easier to understand than people who do not.

(Group partner: Amy G.)

Question: Why does the joke work?

When looking at the Knot joke and comparing it to Gee’s language tools I find that intertextuality is featured in the joke simply because of it being a bar joke. Social languages can also come into play because most have been in a bar environment so the language in that environment is familiar to most.

Characters:

The Knot: he’s a hard working string who feels he deserves a beer. His goal is to go to a bar that will serve him beer. After the third attempt he knew he had to do something different in order to see if he would be able to get a drink.

The Bartenders: the first three bartenders turned him down by telling the string “I’m sorry we don’t serve strings here”. He goes back into the last bar he went to and after being tied at a bow he attempted to get a beer. The bartender then asked, “Aren’t you the same string that came in here a few minutes ago?”

The Passerby: the passerby didn’t give him a hard time at all when he was asked by the string to tie him up into a bow. He didn't question the string as to why he wanted to be tied. He just simply did the string a favor of tying him into a bow.

Punch line: when the string says, “Nope, I’m a frayed knot”

Intertextually: I believe that this joke would fall in the intertextuality category because in today’s society everyone is familiar with bar jokes. When the beginning starts off with “So a ... walks into a bar” you automatically know it’s a joke. It’s set the mood and setting because most people are able to create their own bar setting in their minds. The beginning of the joke is a well know text that is known by many. It like Gee would say is a very recognizable quote.

Social Language: I think because of the setting being in a bar social language has a part in this joke as well. Most people have been in a bar environment so they can in a way envision their personal experiences with bar crowds. Some have their bar that they often go to and can walk up, grab a chair, and say, "hey bartender I need a beer". We have a certain way of speaking when we go to a bar depending on if its a new one or just a regular bar we go to.

I believe shaggy dog jokes work because majority of us are familiar with or understand the punch lines. So depending on the joke we can relate it to any of Gee's language tools. If its a big c conversation it will be a topic familiar to the public. If its intertextuality it will have a text that familiar to the public. If it has the social language feature the text will consist of a certain way we speak in certain environments.