Aghhh…..ughhhh…..ohhh yeahhhh… see that!? Uhh just pumped those words up on to the screen, like a manly man man man. So I would be a little untrustworthy if I said that I was completely enveloped by those articles and video. Wysocki's Sticky Embrace of Beauty was interesting in context, but felt like more of a continued expounding of previous articles that we have read that deal with "the original" writer, yet focuses more inherently on the question of discourse viewed with an aspect of beauty that transcends analogous discourse, warping it closer to a digital canvas of limitless possibilities.
OH but Jamieson's article was a touch more in sync to help add a new element to the role of discourse that we have covered over the semester. The tin stereotypes that are labeled upon gender roles are current and hold some semblance of sway nearly every where in the world, yet as far as writing and the community of discourse is concerned should women have a more diverse and nonlinear approach to completing a piece of discourse? Well of course, and they do, and they write some freaking amazing things… the rationalization that women are "delicate, emotional, noncompetitive, and nurturing," at least to me, seems completely true--minus the "noncompetitive" haha thats just funny. But women are delicate…in semblance to men mind you, they are emotional and nurturing… and hell thats part of the reason we (men) love them. Now wait.. I am not being sexist. I argue that these attributes lend to women creating a more complex pieces of discourse, not the opposite. Now when it does come to tone and speech deliverance of a written discourse, men perhaps hold an edge with deeper and heavier speech delivery...yet as ying and yang, men and women hold a varied set of rhetorical weapons. Each have socially assigned roles that permit, encapsulate, and deny certain wants and expected deliverances.
Jamieson talks of the evolving discourse of women and how it is more acceptable for a woman to show her true intelligence, of course if I was a woman reading his article, whew, I would be pissed at the examples of male ignorance and engorged egos. Great writers come in all shapes and sizes, some are kids, some are old people, some are men, and some are women....neat but real stuff. It's the human nature of jealousy to degrade and disavow that which we fear will upset a "normal" balance of social conformation.
Difference between:
Stopping and holding the sight- I believe what Wysocki was getting at in her essay, the difference between stopping and holding the sight, has to do with her idea of "naturalized text" holding it's true identity. When what is contained within the text, the pure raw form of what is trying to be expressed through discourse will stop the reader in their tracks and hold them with a distinctly relevant or "beautiful" piece of text, yet while they understand the use of, or theory of use of, eye pleasing aesthetics, arrangements, the reason that it has stopped them is because it is deemed to be "disembodied" from the text, providing a jarring halt for the reader. As for holding the reader, it is close to opposite of stopping the reader, it shows visually beautiful aesthetics that embody the text's voice and hold the reader to true form of the "naturalized text".....and never mind I totally missed the jist of these differences.... reciprocal text allows the reader to employ and inject their own form of beauty into the form of the text. "Just another step into the bullshit theory of textual analysis" (Aaron Plowman) which I hold dear to my heart.
No comments:
Post a Comment