**************
Quiz#4: in class on 4/24/18 -- Terms/Concepts of (Re)Presentation
Folks, on Tuesday of next week, I will administer our final quiz near the beginning of class (~15 minutes in length), to help concretize our knowledge of some of the concepts we've been learning in this unit. Ahead of class, please study your notes on the following critical terms, considering how they have been demonstrated or discussed throughout our course texts and case studies so far. If it has been awhile, feel free to look up these terms in the online resources (see our "Discussion Leading" page):
- Alterity (in the OED Online; see also the entry on "Cultural Criticism" in the Glossary)
- Diaspora
- écriture féminine
- Erasure (see also the "Concepts of (Anti)Signification" handout)
- Gynocriticism
- Hegemony
- Postcolonialism
- Race, or critical race theory
In addition to these terms, there will likely be a question about the film (Up the Yangtze), primarily to help us synthesize the terms with what we watched or discussed from the film.
Feel free to bring your Bedford Glossary to class, along with your Hayles handout, and your 2 supplemental "Concepts" handouts (concepts of (anti)signification and concepts of agen(t)cy). You'll be able to use those for the quiz.
**************
HW#8: For
Hi Folks. As you have done for HW#2, HW#5, and HW #6, I'll ask you to write in advance of our class discussion on April 12. However, I'll ask you to write it in such a way that you synthesize our readings for April 10 and April 12. In preparation for that day, please compose a post for our course blog that does the following:
Possible Starting Points (in case you get stuck)
How do "design" and "race" intersect for Hum, and what definitions does she hold in common with Gates? What are some similarities or differences between how "race" serves as a meaningful category in literary study (for Gates) and how it serves as an element of design consciousness (in Hum)? What is the importance of distance, immediacy, or history to Hum's and Gates's arguments? How does Cooper's complaint reflect arguments made by either Hum or Gates? How do all three essays complicate the notions of "diaspora," "postcolonialism," or "hybridity" (check out these definitions in our Bedford Glossary of Critical Terms)? For all three of these writers, why does "race" need to be more than a metaphor? Any of these questions could be good starting points to help you think about what you read, but only if you need them.
Due on this course blog by 11:00 a.m. on Thursday, 4/12/18. (You'll make a New Post, and it will appear on the home page of the blog.)
-Prof. G
- makes a critical offering (a.k.a., teaches us some non-obvious, critical discovery) based on how you are synthesizing the claims from Hum AND Gates. Here, "critical" means you are applying the terms, concepts, and theories in one essay to another essay or to another question or dilemma in order to understand it more fully;
- communicates how some ideas within one essay complicate or illuminate other ideas within another essay (or other sources), i.e., Hum complicates Gates, or Gates complicates Hum;
- foregrounds your discovery by articulating it early on in your blog post (rather than making us wait to the end to know what you have discovered);
- is well developed, ideally ~3-4 full screens' worth in length; however, you may need to exceed this in order to fully articulate and demonstrate your critical offering;
- is smartly and thoughtfully composed, where you make specific claims from the text (not vague generalizations), and where you offer context and details so that an unfamiliar reader would know what you're discussing or describing;
- is polished, where paragraphing, spelling, and accuracy all matter;
- is titled creatively and formatted well. Please review the "using our blog" handout in Canvas for formatting tips. Also, the best titles forecast your argument, rather than merely repeat the content of your post;
- shows academic integrity. Please refer clearly to the texts you are discussing, be accurate with names and titles, and include page numbers where relevant. You don't need a works cited list, but if you refer to someone else's (published) reading of a text, you should mention this outside source.
Possible Starting Points (in case you get stuck)
How do "design" and "race" intersect for Hum, and what definitions does she hold in common with Gates? What are some similarities or differences between how "race" serves as a meaningful category in literary study (for Gates) and how it serves as an element of design consciousness (in Hum)? What is the importance of distance, immediacy, or history to Hum's and Gates's arguments? How does Cooper's complaint reflect arguments made by either Hum or Gates? How do all three essays complicate the notions of "diaspora," "postcolonialism," or "hybridity" (check out these definitions in our Bedford Glossary of Critical Terms)? For all three of these writers, why does "race" need to be more than a metaphor? Any of these questions could be good starting points to help you think about what you read, but only if you need them.
-Prof. G
**************
Quiz#3: in class on 4/3/18 -- Terms/Concepts of Text(uality)
Folks, on Tuesday of next week, I will administer a brief quiz at the beginning of class (~15 minutes in length), to help concretize our knowledge of some of the concepts we've been learning in this unit. Ahead of class, please study the following critical terms, considering how they have been demonstrated or discussed throughout our course texts and case studies so far:
- classicism and neo-classicism
- dialectical criticism
- dialectical materialism
- genre
- hybrid text
- hypertext
- kairos
- new criticism
- new media
- phenomenology
- socialist realism
- structuralism
- stylistics
Feel free to bring your Bedford Glossary to class, along with your Hayles handout, and your 2 supplemental "Concepts" handouts (concepts of anti/signification and concepts of agen(t)cy). You'll be able to use those for the quiz.
-Prof. G
**************
HW #7: For 3/27/18 -- Buskirk "Commodification as Censor" and Sheridan, et al "Kairos"
SCHEMA of "Copyright (Law)" OR of "Kairos"
Folks, as you did for your very first practice assignment of the semester, I invite you to construct a schema (or schematic) of EITHER "Copyright (Law)" OR of "kairos" from the point of view of one of the essays you are reading for today's class.
(NB: I'm asking you to read both essays, but you only need to use one of them for your schema.)
A “schema” is more commonly known as a formal structure, which shows how things are organized in relation to one another or are arranged in relation to the world. Try visualizing "copyright" or "kairos" as a detailed network of people or places, things, activities, objects, ideas or ideologies, rules, properties, and relationships. Try showing on paper (or in space) what you understand to be the hierarchy of concepts presented in the essay you choose to schematize. How does the writer of your essay present and organize "copyright" or "kairos" (i.e., by events, by historical moments, by schools of thought, by disciplinary problems, by rhetorical questions, by theoretical approaches, by something else) and what led him/her to do so? What are the intricate contours of the "copyright" or "kairos" landscape in detail? What are its principal divisions or landmarks? How does power flow into and out of it? Who or what are all the agents involved?
Most schemas innovatively combine the visual and the textual, employing images/shapes alongside words. You have creative license in terms of how you will compose your schema (including using freeshare tools such as draw.io, SmartDraw, StormBoard, or drawing it out on paper and then scanning it, or etc.). In fact, you may make the schema as layered as you would like. Your schema will likely need some prose explanation (perhaps even selective quoting), as well as a symbol key or a guide. As such, please use in-text (parenthetical) citations where needed directly on the schema to help us see its intertextuality at a glance.
Please upload your completed schema to Canvas by 11:00 a.m. on Tuesday, March 27.
This is work, but have fun with it!
-Prof. G
**************
HW#6: For
Hi Folks. As you did for HW#2 and HW#5, I'll ask you to write in advance of our case study on "hybrid texts" on March 8.
In preparation for that day, please compose a post for our course blog that does the following:
Possible Case Studies (select one)
Due on this course blog by 11:00 a.m. on Thursday, 3/8/18. (You'll make a New Post, and it will appear on the home page of the blog.)
-Prof. G
- makes a critical offering (a.k.a., teaches us some non-obvious, critical discovery) based on how you are synthesizing the claims from Longinus and Bawarshi (or Devitt). Here, "critical" means you are applying the terms, concepts, and theories in one essay to another essay or to another question or dilemma in order to understand it more fully;
- demonstrates your critical offering by applying it to one (1) of several case studies (see possible "case studies" below). Be sure to embed links or images into your post where you think we need to see the intertextuality;
- communicates how some ideas within one essay complicate or illuminate other ideas within another essay (or other sources);
- foregrounds your discovery by articulating it early on in your blog post (rather than making us wait to the end to know what you have discovered);
- is well developed, ideally ~3-4 full screens' worth in length; however, you may need to exceed this in order to fully articulate and demonstrate your critical offering;
- is smartly and thoughtfully composed, where you make specific claims from the text (not vague generalizations), and where you offer context and details so that an unfamiliar reader would know what you're discussing or describing;
- is polished, where paragraphing, spelling, and accuracy all matter;
- is titled creatively and formatted well. Please review the "using our blog" handout in Canvas for formatting tips. Also, the best titles forecast your argument, rather than merely repeat the content of your post;
- shows academic integrity. Please refer clearly to the texts you are discussing, be accurate with names and titles, and include page numbers where relevant. You don't need a works cited list, but if you refer to someone else's (published) reading of a text, you should mention this outside source.
Possible Case Studies (select one)
- One of the installations that you saw in the exhibit by Edouard Duval-Carrié. How would you draw on Longinus and either Bawarshi or Devitt in order to discuss how that installation reflects "the sublime"? Or how it challenges or complicates the idea of "genre"?
- Susan Delagrange's "Wunderkammer, Cornell, and the Visual Canon of Arrangement" (in Kairos 13.2). [You may need to install or update Adobe Flash to read this.] Read the Introduction and try to skim enough of the essay just to understand how it works. Take note of where she explains why she uses the framework of a "wunderkammer" (a cabinet of curiosities) to organize her essay. Drawing on Bawarshi or Devitt (and Burroughs, if you'd like), how would you explain the Wunderkammer as a "hybrid genre"? What genre principles does it seem to mix or juxtapose?
- Ye Mimi's "Was Being Moved?" [Scroll down to find the link and read more about the project.] Watch the project in full -- around 11 minutes. Drawing on Longinus and either Bawarshi or Devitt, how would you explain how this project "erase[s] the border between poetry and image making" (Rhizome.org)? Could we justify this project as sublime?
Due on this course blog by 11:00 a.m. on Thursday, 3/8/18. (You'll make a New Post, and it will appear on the home page of the blog.)
-Prof. G
**************
Quiz#2: in class on 3/1/18 -- Terms/Concepts of (Anti)Signification
On Thursday of next week, I will administer a brief quiz (about 10-15 minutes in length), to help concretize our knowledge of some of the concepts we've been learning in this unit. Ahead of class, please study the following critical terms, considering how they have been demonstrated or discussed throughout our course texts and case studies so far:
- Class
- Deconstruction
- Dialogic Criticism
- Heteroglossia
- Langue and Parole
- Logocentrism
- Marxist Criticism
- Sign
- Speech Act Theory
- Symbolic Action
- Symbolicity
Feel free to bring your Bedford Glossary to class, as well as the handout called “Concepts for (Anti)Signification” that I distributed on 2/22, and your copy of Persepolis. You will be able to use those during the quiz.
-Prof. G
**************
HW#5: For 2/20/18 -- McCloud (comic essay); Sousanis (comic essay); Mitchell
Hi Folks. As you did for HW#2, I'll ask you to write in advance of our case study on Feb. 20. In preparation for our discussion of McCloud, Sousanis, and Mitchell, I want to give you all another opportunity to show off your critical chops by composing a blog post for our course blog that does the following:
- makes a critical offering (a.k.a., teaches us some non-obvious, critical discovery) based on how you are synthesizing the claims of at least 2 of the 3 pieces we are reading/viewing for class. Here, "critical" means you are applying the terms, concepts, and theories in one essay to another essay or to another question or dilemma in order to understand it more fully;
- demonstrates your critical offering by applying it to one (1) of several case studies (see possible "case studies" below). Be sure to embed links or images into your post where you think we need to see the intertextuality;
- communicates how some ideas within one essay complicate or illuminate other ideas within another essay (or other sources, given how many sources have influenced Mitchell and McCloud);
- foregrounds your discovery by articulating it early on in your blog post (rather than making us wait to the end to know what you have discovered);
- is well developed, ideally ~3-4 full screens' worth in length; however, you may need to exceed this in order to fully articulate and demonstrate your critical offering;
- is smartly and thoughtfully composed, where you make specific claims from the text (not vague generalizations), and where you offer context and details so that an unfamiliar reader would know what you're discussing or describing;
- is polished, where paragraphing, spelling, and accuracy all matter;
- is titled creatively and formatted well. Check out the "using our blog" handout in Canvas for formatting tips on working in blogger. Also, the best titles forecast your argument, rather than merely repeat the content of your post;
- shows academic integrity. Please refer clearly to the texts you are discussing, be accurate with names and titles, and include page numbers where relevant. You don't need a works cited list, but if you refer to someone else's (published) reading of a text, you should mention this outside source.
Possible Case Studies (select one)
- Cartoon cards from the FSU Postcard Archive -- after linking to the "cartoon" category, select any 5 of the 41 cartoon cards (be sure to select 5 "items" and not 5 "exhibits"), and use 2 of our 3 readings for today to discuss how a critical viewer might go from a "good" eye to a "curious" eye in examining this set of cards. Someone with a "good" eye might notice details and form pictorial or topical relationships between the cards; someone with a "curious" eye might be theoretically equipped to notice so much more, and might even discuss what questions the cards should raise when we think about them as comics, as metapictures, or as forms of anti/signification.
- Animated clips of Hiroshima -- watch and comparatively view this anime version of the event with this segment from "Hiroshima Remembered." Draw on any 2 of our 3 readings for today (or, all 3 if you'd like) to discuss how McCloud, Sousanis, or Mitchell might theorize the difference in these visual depictions. What concepts or terms might help explain some of the differences? What ideas do these theorists present as somewhat "universal" notions of how images carry meaning? (If you can find any more clips online from Raymond Briggs' "When the Wind Blows," feel free to compare those, too. The nuclear attack scene is quite powerful, but I can no longer chase down any clips.)
- A set of portraits about reflection -- van Eyck's Arnolfini portrait and Velazquez's "Las Meninas". Draw on any 2 of our 3 readings for today (but especially Mitchell) to discuss how we might view these portraits as metacritical pictures, i.e., as pictures that theorize about pictures. Although these portraits are not cartoons, it is still possible that some of McCloud's and Sousanis's claims about viewers, iconicity, identification, and signification can apply to your analysis of these portraits. What different could their ideas about signification make in how these portraits communicate?
Due on this course blog by 11:00 a.m. on Tuesday, 2/20/18. (You'll make a New Post, and it will appear on the home page of the blog.)
-Prof. G
**************
HW#4: For 2/13/18 -- Bakhtin "Discourse in the Novel" (pp. 259-331, heavily excerpted)
Folks, for HW#4, I give you a choice of genres: (1) a dialogue; or (2) a "road map." Please select which one you'd like to complete, and use the guidelines below, accordingly.
Dialogue (option 1)
To help us contextualize Bakhtin, I'll invite you to put him into dialogue with either Locke or Lakoff & Johnson on one of the following problems:
- the risks involved in constructing a philosophy of language
- the limitations of language on the invention of new genres
- the possibilities of language for creating civic (everyday) discourse
- any other problem of your own choosing that you think is obvious in both texts.
Bakhtin argues for a particular way of thinking about "novel" and "discourse." Whether you choose to write this like a screenplay, a summarized dialogue, a scene from a novel, or etc., just know that I'll be looking for your ability to demonstrate some attempt at representing Bakhtin's argument, and at illustrating the nuances between Bakhtin and the other author. Feel free to use the background readings for context. You can even incorporate them into your dialogue if you wish!
Please submit to Canvas your dialogue (~2-3 pages, word-processed, single-spaced) but make sure you have a copy for yourself to use in class. Please refer to specific passages from each essay as part of your response. Please include the MLA citation for both essays and use in-text citations throughout your response where needed. In other words, in the dialogue, they can quote themselves!
Road Map (option 2)
Each section of Bakhtin's excerpt deals with (a.k.a., defines, unpacks, and exemplifies) one aspect of "discourse" that Bakhtin says is unique to the genre of novel. Another way to say this is, Bakhtin is arguing for the novel as discourse. To help us follow his argument, I'll ask you to create a road map of his essay. The format for a road map is quite open, as long as it involves your putting ideas into prose and citing passages from his essay to provide evidence.
Please submit to Canvas your road map (~2-3 pages, word-processed, single-spaced) but make sure you have a copy for yourself to use in class. You can do this much like I did in my road map of Burke's chapter on "Equipment for Living," or you can make it a fleshy outline, or you can construct a visual roadmap that is heavy with prose. Whatever you do, please refer to specific passages from his treatise as part of your response and mediate them accordingly. You may also incorporate passages from Schuster's background article or other backgrounders, if they will help you to organize your understanding of Bakhtin.
As you write your road map, consider how each of Bakhtin's aspects could be applied to a novel that you have read. You don't have to write this into your road map, but I'll probably ask you to discuss it in class. It's important for us to try on his theory to see if it describes our own experiences. Please include the MLA citation for "Discourse in the Novel" and use in-text citations throughout your response where needed. Your main goal is to understand each of his aspects, and to begin to understand his concept of heteroglossia.
Due to Canvas by 11 a.m. on Tuesday, 2/13/18. Please also bring a copy (digital or physical) to class so that you have it available to aid in our discussion.
-Prof. G.
**************-Prof. G.
HW#3: For 2/8/18 -- Locke "From Essay Concerning Human Understanding" (pp. 814-27)
As you have done before for Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics, please complete an in-depth trace of John Locke's An Essay Concerning Human Understanding for a single concept (below).
As you have done before for Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics, please complete an in-depth trace of John Locke's An Essay Concerning Human Understanding for a single concept (below).
Editors Patricia Bizzell and Bruce Herzberg tell us that, although he was not widely thought of as a rhetorical theorist, Locke's discussions of how language related to knowledge were pervasive in seventeenth- and eighteenth-century thought--at least in England and Scotland and, by way of trans-Atlantic travel, in America (Bizzell and Herzberg 815). In this Essay, Locke tries to describe what he sees as one principal "problem" of language. I suppose our job is to figure out what makes the relationship between language and knowledge so complex for Locke.
For your trace, please pay attention to how Locke discusses, makes assumptions about, or illustrates one (1) of the following concepts:
For your trace, please pay attention to how Locke discusses, makes assumptions about, or illustrates one (1) of the following concepts:
- the origins of language (Does the mind precede language, or does it emerge with language? Do there seem to be other causes or predecessors of language? Does language have a mysterious origin?)
- the imperfections of language (In what ways does language or communication "fail"? What does Locke mean by "failure"? How is language limited or inadequate for doing certain things? What things?)
- the uses of language (What can language or communication achieve? Are there particular uses that are more moral/ethical, or less moral/ethical? What determines that?)
- the nature of ideas (What are "ideas" and how are they reached? What are their origins? Can they emerge without language? What other ways do they emerge?)
The format of your trace can vary, i.e., a chart, a table, a detailed outline, a set of annotations, a long list of occurrences of each term, etc., but it should be clear and it should be thorough. In other words, a reader should be able to look at it and understand what you did, why, and where in Locke's text your particular chosen concept appears or is implied.
Above all, a reader should be able to understand how "tracing" a single concept affected your reading of Locke's whole Essay.
Due to Canvas by 11 a.m. on Thursday, 2/8/18. Please also bring a copy (digital or physical) to class to aid in our discussion.
-Prof. G.
On
- Audience Construction
- Author Function
- Discourse
- Episteme/Epistemology
- Feminist Criticism
- Implied Audience and Reader
- Intertextuality
- Reader-Response Criticism
Bring your Bedford Glossary to class, as well as the handout called “Terms of Agent/cy” that I distributed on 1/18. You will be able to use those during the quiz.
-Prof. G
**************
There are two principal dimensions of "audience" that Ong discusses throughout his essay:
- one dimension of "audience" is where writers project audiences for their work by imagining the presumptive audiences of other pieces of writing;
- another dimension of "audience" is where readers seem willing to be fictionalized in this way—they seem willing to be the audience projected by the writer, so long as that projection is familiar or acceptable to them.
In preparation for our discussion of Ong and our in-class case study, I want to give you all an opportunity to show off your critical chops by composing a blog post for our course blog that does the following:
- makes a critical offering (a.k.a., teaches us some non-obvious, critical discovery) based on Ong's essay. Here, "critical" means you are applying the terms, concepts, and theories in Ong's essay to another essay or to another question or dilemma in order to understand it more fully (see possible "starting points" below, if you are absolutely stuck);
- communicates how some ideas within Ong's essay complicate or illuminate other ideas within the essay (or other sources, given how many sources have influence Ong's writing);
- foregrounds your discovery by articulating it early on in your blog post (rather than making us wait to the end to know what you have discovered);
- demonstrates your critical offering by applying it to one (1) of several case studies (see possible "case studies" below). Be sure to embed links or images into your post where you think we need to see the intertextuality;
- is well developed, ideally ~3-4 full screens' worth in length; however, you may need to exceed this in order to fully articulate and demonstrate your critical offering;
- is smartly and thoughtfully composed, where you make specific claims from the text (not vague generalizations), and where you offer context and details so that an unfamiliar reader would know what you're discussing or describing;
- is polished, where paragraphing, spelling, and accuracy all matter;
- is titled creatively and formatted well. Check out the "using our blog" handout in Canvas for formatting tips on working in blogger. Also, the best titles forecast your argument, rather than merely repeat the content of your post;
- shows academic integrity. Please refer clearly to the text you are discussing, be accurate with names and titles, and include page numbers where relevant. You don't need a works cited list, but if you refer to someone else's (published) reading of a text, you should mention this outside source.
Possible Starting Points (in case you get stuck)
What makes audience complicated for Ong? What is the importance of distance, immediacy, or intimacy to Ong’s argument? How does Ong's essay relate to other readings in the course so far? How does Ong's essay seem to complicate the schools of thought known as "Formalism" or "New Criticism," or how does Ong's essay seem to reflect the school of thought known as "Reader-Response Criticism" (check out these definitions in our Bedford Glossary of Critical Terms)? What does Ong’s fictional audience principle have to offer us as writers in academic circles (and also in the public sphere)? Any of these questions could be good starting points to help you think about what you read, but only if you need them.
Possible Case Studies (select one)
- The September 11 Digital Archive -- give yourself at least 30 minutes to browse everything so that you have a very good sense of how it works, why it was created, how it is structured, and how it is used. This is a cool project, but it will take some time to really understand.
- The following set of media clips (Enchanted and Princess and the Frog; Mary Poppins Original and Remade; Mr. Rogers' Neighborhood Remix) -- give yourself some time to think about these as constructions of audience (i.e., as projections of audience). I'm not necessarily looking for you to compare/contrast them.
- The following set of advertisements (Nike’s Girl Effect Campaign vidoes “I Dare You” and “Ticking Clock” and “We Have a Situation”) -- again, give yourself some time to think about these as constructions of audience (i.e., as projections of audience) and not only as campaign advertisements to compare/contrast.
Due on this course blog by 11:00 a.m. on Tuesday, 1/23/18. (You'll make a New Post, and it will appear on the home page of the blog.)
-Prof. G.
**************
In preparation for our discussion of Aristotle, I offer you some insight into how to "trace" his text for certain themes -- something we will do together in class on Tuesday. Translator H. Rackham tells us that Aristotle's writings generally fell into two groups:
- philosophical (theoretical) dialogues, which have all been lost; and
- scientific (practical) treatises, which have been recovered and constitute what we now understand to be Aristotle's "systems of rhetoric."
Nicomachean Ethics falls in the second group: practical treatises (a.k.a., lecture notes). As a result, when I read Aristotle's treatises, I find that tracing the path of a specific concept throughout the treatise helps me to understand more about the whole of his argument, and it helps me to appreciate the various ways I can apply it.
In the Nicomachean Ethics, our challenge is to try to understand Aristotle's "Idea of the Good" and to begin thinking about what bearing that goodness has on acts of writing and reading. Is "goodness" inherent? Learned? Acquired through social or political activity? Does it represent a way of living or a way of being? Does it lead to opportunities for citizens, or does it serve to close them off from opportunities, or something else?
As you read the Ethics, please pay attention to how Aristotle discusses, defines, makes assumptions about, or illustrates one (1) of the following concepts:
- happiness
- character
- choice
- virtue
- "ends"
The format of your trace can vary, i.e., a chart, a table, a detailed outline, a set of annotations, a long list of occurrences of each term, etc., but it should be clear and it should be thorough. In other words, a reader should be able to look at it and understand what you did, why, and where in Aristotle's text your particular chosen concept appears or is implied. Above all, a reader should be able to understand how "tracing" a single concept affected your reading of Aristotle's whole chapter.
Due to Canvas by 11 a.m. on Tuesday, 1/16/18. Please also bring a copy (digital or physical) to class to aid in our discussion.
-Prof. G.
**************
for 1/11/18 -- Burke "Equipment for Living" and 1 Introductory Essay (your choice)
PRACTICE EXERCISE (Schema of Rhetorical Theory)
First, read Kenneth Burke's essay entitled "Equipment for Living" (which I think you will enjoy), then select only 1 of 3 options for introductory essays, all of which are located in our Canvas Course Library (CL):
- Brummett
- Herrick
- Kennedy
Bring to class a schema (or schematic) of rhetorical theory from the point of view of the introductory essay you have selected.
A "schema" is more commonly known as a formal structure, which shows how things are organized in relation to one another or are arranged in relation to the world. In other words, try showing on paper what you understand to be the hierarchy of concepts presented in the introductory essay you chose to read. What is the writer's logic? How does the writer of your essay present and organize "rhetorical theory" (i.e., by historical moments, by schools of thought, by disciplinary problems, by rhetorical questions, by theoretical approaches, by something else) and what led him/her to do so? Most schemas innovatively combine the visual and the textual, employing images/shapes alongside words. Sometimes they look like trees, database structures, venn diagrams, charts, or architectural drawings. Sometimes they use color to help organize different parts. You have creative license in terms of how you will compose your schema, and I am expecting you to put some effort into this assignment, but please also be thorough and detailed!
Somewhere in that schema, I need you to provide a concise but informative explanation of their hierarchy or organization in your own words, for an unfamiliar reader. I encourage you to think of your schema not as an outline, but as an intellectual map. Very complicated schemas often need a symbol key or a guide.
Please be prepared to explain your schema during Thursday's class, and to discuss how it does or does not intersect with Kenneth Burke's essay, "Equipment for Living."
Try to have fun with this,
-Prof. G
