Harry's Site

Link to the Interview

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1q7Bu5msq_Nr5hT1nWlbG22FL7nK83QbS

Link to the paper 

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1jstIAD0rV3yYOs6stoK5hNiZ05lb4uiAhx37fkVjDvY/edit?usp=sharing

How did switching genres from academic paper to podcast allow you to think in a different way about the subject of your paper?  How did it allow you to use language differently?

Language must be presented differently based on the context in which it is used. This means that writing for a person who is listening to you is much different than writing for a person who is reading your work. A person listening requires less complicated sentences than a reader, because they do not have the opportunity to pause for a moment while attempting to understand what the speaker is saying. A person speaking also has to think about their presentation of the material being discussed. The quality of their voice now matters as it hadn’t before while their words were on a flat sheet of paper. Vocalization comes with depth. Inflection, speed, and tone all come into play.

The reader is typically paying more attention than the listener, and this is not a fault of their own, it’s one of the medium. This isn’t to say that a reader could gleam over a page and miss loads of relevant information, just that they are able to take their time and consume new information at their chosen pace. To rectify this you must keep what is said relevant, short, and interesting. Any media that relies on the voice often is more about how it’s being said than what information is actually being shared. People like a certain style and they like to be entertained, so I must make an effort to keep them entertained.

I was able to think in a different way during this assignment because most of my focus was on how what was written down would sound if it was spoken out loud. Because of this I maintained a much more casual tone, and put more emphasis than I typically would on certain points. Subtlety is much harder to put across in a spoken medium than in a written one, so it pays to be to the point.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1JTPrGUTlE86qGSK8wRicV-be4JuaQsYOwJxxuhsrpXc/edit?usp=sharing

A lively discussion between Kenji Yoshino, author of the book “Covering,” and Kwame Anthony Appiah, who wrote “Go Ahead, Speak for Yourself” for the New York Times.

In Appiah’s article the reader is informed speaks about a phrase that calls back stereotypes and certain ways that people are forced to act. This phrase is “as an X” X represents an identity. Like a black person saying “As an African American” to inform the people they are speaking to that they are making a point relative to an expertise that comes from their heritage or experiences. This statement implies that every person from these groups have similar experiences are expected to act in certain ways: This calls back stereotypes that are harmful. The biggest fault of this phrase is that it forgets about something called intersectionality.

Intersectionality is the belief that there are many ways that different identities interact, so no one person can be fully characterized by one trait.  Appiah believes that “While identity affects your experiences, there’s no guarantee that what you’ve learned from them is going to be the same as what other people of the same identity have learned.” Everybody is different, regardless of one identity and “As an X” completely forgets this and blocks the conversation in a way. It asks the listener to see the person how they see every other sharing that identity. Don’t let others skew your viewpoint because of their often negative assumptions.

Yoshino starts his essay by informing the reader of the idea he’s about to introduce; covering. He begins stating “Everyone covers. To cover is to tone down a disfavored identity to fit into the mainstream.” (Yoshino 539.)  He uses a personal definition to define this word, one that he created himself for the sake of the argument.  This method could have been problematic,  but instead he keeps his definition non-emotional and precise yet incredibly inclusive.  Assimilation is introduced through the line “I recognize the value of assimilation, which is often necessary to fluid social interaction, to peaceful coexistence, and even to the dialogue through which difference is valued.” (Yoshino 540.) Rather than defining it, Yoshino shares with the reader his view of assimilation. Instead of giving a definition he offers a new perspective, allowing the reader to see better from his point of view.  The third word defined is Authenticity.  Authenticity is introduced by Yoshino as “our common human wish to express ourselves without being impeded by unreasoning demands for conformity.” (Yoshino 540.) In the next sentence, he expresses how rather than using tones of “legal impersonality” and “political terms” he decided to write in a more intimate voice, so that he would maintain his own authenticity as a gay man and an Asian-American. Thus he personally reflects the own meanings that he presents in these writings. It’s important to hold onto yourself, and Yoshino does a great job with this. These definitions are to the point, deliberately worded, and quite easily understandable.

Question: Is this piece of writing part of a conversation? Does it encourage conversation?

In this article that my group read, we hear the story of a freshman who survived a school shooting in Parkland, Florida. Christine Yared calls for more gun control, sparking a discussion from where the parkland students stand. This article is a part of a conversation, it’s an attempt to become a spark in it. Christine experienced first hand what gun violence can do to people, even in a place where she felt safe. A place where her family felt safe, and now there is something new for all to worry about. This article is a very important part of the gun violence conversation because it is actively calling for people to start discussing the ideas that are brought up and the points that Yared raises.