Recomposing Multimodality

I felt as though the Wikipedia Project was a fantastic, summative way to end this grueling, but extremely insightful semester of Advanced Editing and Writing.  Every critical text and editing or writing skill that we learned from that text was used for this project, especially intertextuality, rhetorical velocity, and the stasis levels.

The most important thing we had to remember in this project was to draw from other texts and recompose them, but not plagiarize them, to create a Wikipedia article discussing “Multimodality,” but we could not make a new claim.    

According to Bazerman, intertextuality is “not just a matter of which other texts you refer to, but how you use them, and what you use them for” (94).  “Multimodality” is a term Editing, Writing, and Media students at Florida State University are familiar with, but we realize that the rest of the world probably isn’t.  With the technology and digital age that the world is in, multimodality may be a useful concept to know.  Intertextuality played a major role in this Wikipedia article; we drew from other Wikipedia articles, our critical texts from this semester, and even texts from other classes, to create this article.  This compilation created a definition and explanation for “Multimodality” without stating anything new.  

How we, as a group, situated and compiled “what texts [we] recomposed” into a certain perspective was to reach a specific goal: rhetorical velocity.  The context of each section of the article had to launch the reader into the next section of the article.  After the audience has read the article, he or she should have “interpreted” what “Multimodality” is and be able to “manipulate [the article] in the future” for his or her purpose (Ridolfo).  

For this project, my two group members and I were given the task of writing the Lead.  Although we did not have to do as much research on the concept of “Multimodality” as the other groups did, we were the glue that held this article together and made all the different sections come together.  We first researched other Leads to see how they were composed and how much information they included; we needed to give a stable definition of “Multimodality” and the components that accompanied it, as well as a summary of what was to come in the article, but we couldn’t give too much away.  Also, we had to keep in mind that most Wikipedia readers only read the Lead, so we did want the reader to have a gist of what “Multimodality” was and grab his or her attention.  

Something I found very valuable and interesting in this group project was how others write and edit.  I find it very fascinating that despite each individual’s writing and editing style, we were able to collaboratively create an actual Wikipedia article.

Works Cited

Bazerman, Charles. “Intertextuality.” What Writing Does and How It Does It: An Introduction to Analyzing Texts and Textual Practices, Ed. Charles Bazerman and Paul Prior. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 2004. 83-96.

Ridolfo, Jim, and Danielle Nicole DeVoss. “Composing for Recomposition: Rhetorical Velocity and Delivery.” Kairos 13.2 (2008).  

Go with the Flow

The two tasks I chose to participate in for the shorter task and longer task are very different, but each for a specific reason.  

For the shorter task I chose an article which needed editing in the spelling and grammar department, because that is my forte, I believe, when it comes to editing. I edited an article about an annual rap competition in Tanzania.  The misspelled words weren’t of any discriminate abundance, but the flow of the article was awful.  After rewording, rearranging, and re-punctuating almost every sentence, I realized how important it is to have “graceful movements” in an article, essay, or any composition in order to bring “order and coherence to writing and…guide the reader from one idea to the next” (Kessler 97).

For the longer task, I chose an article out of the category of articles that needed a stronger lead, because that is my task for our Wikipedia project, so I figured this could only benefit me.  I wrote a lead for an article about the characters of “Ned’s Declassified School Survival Guide.”  Although it is not as sophisticated or difficult to write about as our topic of “multimodality” is, it was interesting in the lengths it took to write a lead for even a topic as simple as a Nickelodeon television show.  Like the shorter assignment, it was very important that the lead have “cohesion and coherence.”  An important factor in holding a reader’s attention, which is the very purpose of a lead, is to establish familiarity.  The great thing about this lead was that I could “start with characters [from the television show],” so the names automatically “became familiar to the reader” (Williams 39).

Even after I finished Short Assignment #6, I did not know if I could make a connection between the two tasks in my analysis, but the answer was clear: cohesion and flow.  A reader can only make sense and retain their attention of what he or she is reading if they are familiar with what they are reading, which is why it is important to “start with the subject and make that subject the topic of the next sentence” (Williams 44).  Punctuation and arrangement of sentences is important, so an essay, or simply a lead, can avoid being “choppy” and make the reader feel comfortable and familiar with what he or she is reading.  

Works Cited 

Kessler, Lauren, and Duncan McDonald. When Words Collide: A Media Writerʼs Guide to Grammar and Style. Belmont: Wadworth Pub., 1996. Print.

Williams, Joseph Marek., and Gregory Gerard. Colomb. Style: The Basics of Clarity and Grace. Boston: Longman, 2012. Print.

Cry Me a River....or a Stream (Short Assignment # 5)

Before I even began reading the articles regarding Marshall McLuhan and Michelle Citron, the first difference I noticed was length then depth. Marshall McLuhan’s article was noticeably longer, not just longer than Michelle Citron’s but I am almost positive longer than any Wikipedia article I have ever read.  The author of his article goes into great depth with a very comprehensive and interested tone.  A reader unfamiliar with McLuhan would definitely get a great gist about who he was, so I think the author of this article definitely accomplished in writing a good Wikipedia article.

Michelle Citron’s article is incredibly short and doesn’t go into great depth at all about her accomplishments; her article is only accredited 7 citations, while McLuhan’s has 83.  At first glance, I thought the author of this article may have not have fully done his/her research or not have that much interest in the topic, but then after further reading, I realized that Michelle Citron is still alive, so she is still creating works, while Marshall McLuhan has been deceased, so his life works are being celebrated.

Before I chose a featured article, I wanted to know why an article would be chosen to be featured by Wikipedia.  It said they are “determined to be the best articles…[and] are used as examples” according to Wikipedia editors and they encompass “accuracy, neutrality, completeness, and style.”  The featured article I chose to analyze was “Cry Me a River (Justin Timberlake song).  At first glance I was astonished; the length and majority of content looked as if it would be an article about Justin Timberlake himself, not just one of his songs!  Its accuracy is amazing; it gives facts and information I never knew, such as that the song was written about his past relationship with Britney Spears, and Taylor Swift is one of the artists who covered his song.  I know this information is accurate, because it is cited.  The article definitely exercises neutrality and simply just states the facts about the song; it never compares it to another song to explain why “Cry Me a River” is better or worse.  The articles completeness is amazing; it goes into detail about “composition and lyrical interpretation,” “reception and accolades,” “commercial performance,” “music video,” “live performance and cover versions” (these serve as some of the sub-headers).   

Careful Arguments

After reading "Becoming a Citizen Critic: Where Rhetoric Meets the Road" and "Avoiding Oversimplification and Recognizing Complexity," I really like and also found it very interesting that both articles provide multiple key terms and concepts that act as their own individual sub-headers.  “Becoming a Citizen Critic” by Corbett and Eberly reminded me of Grant-Davie’s “Rhetorical Constraints,” because it discusses multiple rhetorical practices that can either help or hinder the rhetor, A.K.A a constraint, and discuss how these concepts will affect the audience.

The connection I made between both these articles is that we do need to be careful in the criticisms and/or arguments we make because a lot of readers will read along the lines of “what you see is what you get.”  Readers may interpret your argument differently than you intended simply because of the way it is constructed or delivered.

So after reading these articles and learning the different concepts on how a citizen critic will present his or her argument, Corbett and Eberly ask us “how can you assume to know what is inside the head or heart of another person…?” (124). I think this serves as a reminder of the overall concept of the connection between the articles.

 Sources:

Corbett, Edward P.M., and Rosa A. Eberly. “Becoming a Citizen Critic: Where Rhetoric Meets the Road.” In The Elements of Reasoning, 2^nd Edition, Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 2000. 121-136.

Lazare, Donald. “Avoiding Oversimplification and Recognizing Complexity” In Reading and Writing for Civic Literacy: The Critical Citizen’s Guide to Argumentative Rhetoric. Boulder, CO: Paradigm Publishers, 2005. 244-256