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.

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?

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."

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. 

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.