Video Response

Sean Demme
11.28.12

      In class we watched a documentary of how Medusa came to be. We learned how she was a victim of rape and how SHE was punished for it. This is very strange because in our time rape is very sensitive and would never have been treated in such a way. Her punishment was to be turned into a gorgon.
       Perseus was later born. He was the son of Zeus - so the god helped Perseus on his journey. His quest was to kill Medusa. Perseus was equipped with a shield and sword from the gods.
       One thing I noticed was that punishment was very important to the time period. It was about being responsible for something and being punished for something. The strange thing is the way that values drive different things. I noticed that some of my classmates mentioned that the victim is usually the one being punished. The idea of the ways that values change means that we see punishment as it should be put on another person not who is being punished in the myth. Interesting really.
       Lastly I like the way that Jim Henson mentions how the myth is told so many different ways that there is no one ending. Myths are myths and have been told for so long that there are so many "alternate endings" so to speak. He then says, "who has not been petrified by fear?" eluding to the fact that though it is just a myth it refers to real stories.

Delpit and Smitherman

            I think that both of these article had a great deal of information - but I wanted to focus on just one part. The way that Delpit agrees with Gee for the most part. I think it's great the way he goes through gee's argument and agree's with him, it was a really nice way to quickly see the way he saw. But Delpit brought in a great idea - the idea of discomfort. I love that - I think that discomfort is the hardest human emotion to overcome and we never even talk about it - the way that Delpit brought that into his argument was stellar.

Peer Review practice for DC

Sean Demme

11/9/12

Eng. 1510

Sean Branick Peer review

               I think that, after reading Sean’s paper, I, myself, have a better understanding of the discourse community paper. He does a good job of bringing in a lot of other sources into his paper and still uses the very solid Swales evidence too. So, overall, Sean’s really off to a good start.

               I like the idea, too, in the way that you define every part of a coach being part of a discourse community. I don’t, however, like that you have the paper sectioned off – this strategy seems weak to me. It isn’t a very effective way of showing what you want to your readers. The paper is absolutely fine if you were to just go in paragraph from – and would seem less like I’m reading facts and more of an argument.

               You do a very good job at continuing to go back to your main idea throughout the paper. This is a VERY effective thing to do well because it keeps your ideas relevant to the whole paper. This makes for a stronger set of evidence.

               Now, usually, I hate it when people end papers with a question, but I really do like this one. The conclusion is effective in the way that you take all of the readers new knowledge and put it up against the common knowledge question, “what was that coach thinking” this really brings the paper to a close well.

               I think your paper is solid where it is, no spelling or grammar mistakes really – keep it up.

Gee DJ

Sean Demme

11/9/12

Gee DJ

“A discourse is a sort of ‘defining kit’…”

Gee believes that when somebody is associated with a discourse that is something they use to identify 

themselves and what makes them different from other people.

“Not all discourses involve writing or reading”

I’ve quoted Gee here because this is relevant to my DC topic in that A family doesn’t necessarily read and 

write so explicitly but they still use various sources of communication.

“Beyond changing the social structure is there much hope? No, there is not.”

Gee refers to a contradiction in our school system that will inevitably fail . this is one of the main points that sticks out at me because it is so relevant to me.

Intro and Synth for DC

Sean Demme

11/9/12

DC synthesis and outline

               Our human instinct is family. Family is something that varies with different people. To some family isn’t so special and they’re not a huge part of their lives. And on the other hand, family for some people means the world – they are their everything. Now taking a look at a family as a discourse community also holds a varying response. All families are different. No two families are so similar – so how can we define whether or not they really are a discourse community. John Swales (writer in our Writing About Writing college reader book) gives us six characteristics of a discourse community – but will a family follow these six guidelines? And If a family isn’t defined as one then who’s to say Swales is right?

               My first source is from another student from University of Toledo of El Paso who seemed to have been doing a similar project to mine. She made a website that gives three examples of a four tiered definition of a discourse community. The categories are goals and values, typical genres, norms for genres, and writers’ task and roles. She goes on to explain an example each category. Under these four rules, then, a family is most certainly a discourse community. They hold all the right requirements, but, are those really all of the requirements?

               Next I’ll take a look at my book Writing About Writing where Swales tells us that there are, in fact, six characteristics that makes a discourse community what it is. Not ALL families have some of the six characteristics including “having goals” or having “Mechanisms of intercommunication.” So, what then, is the medium to describe a family – if not ALL families are discourse communities then can you say that families, in general, are?

This is what I plan to look into in my DC paper. I have a couple more sources. Thanks!