EDUCATIONAL
MATERIALS
West Chester University
West Chester University
Home Course Syllabi and Announcements Notebook for Topics in Literature: Imaginary Worlds (Spring 2008) Notebook for Topics in Literature: Rites of Passage (Spring 2006) Notebook for Effective Writing I (Spring 2006) Go Exploring Notebook for Topics in Literature: Imaginary Worlds (Fall 2005) Notebook for Effective Writing I (Fall 2005) Go Exploring
LIT 165 Syllabus
LIT 165 Announcements and Assignments
WRT 120 Syllabus
WRT 120 Announcements and Assignments
A Reading of THE TEMPEST
Goals of the Course
Fundamental Questions about Literature
Valuing Literature
Critical Thinking and Reading Literature
Critical Approaches to Literature
Literature as ART
Ambiguity
Approaching the Art of Fiction
Defining the Short Story
Evaluating Short Fiction
Craft of Fiction: PLOT
Craft of Fiction: CHARACTER
Small Group Exercise
ARABY by James Joyce
WHERE ARE YOU GOING, WHERE HAVE YOU BEEN? by Joyce Carol Oates
Our RITES OF PASSAGE Theme
A note about GIRL
POE and the art of STORY OF A HOUR
THE YELLOW WALLPAPER
YOUNG MAN ON SIXTH AVENUE
Notes on Innovative Fiction
Assignment Sheet for Paper #1
Fiction and Ambiguity - Your Questions
Writing Workshop - Short Fiction
Poetry Journal Project Assignment Sheet
LITERARY SYNTHESIS PROJECT
Defining Poetry
Reading Poetry
The Craft of Poetry
Drama and Tragedy
Study Questions: DEATH OF A SALESMAN
Paper #4 Assignment Sheet
Critical Thinking and Commentary
Casebook: Evaluating Sources Worksheet
Selecting Information
Evaluating Arguments
CASEBOOK PROJECT Assignment Sheet
Approaching Persuasive Writing
Topic Development - Profile Essay
Generating Ideas for the Profile Essay
Paper #2 Assignment Sheet
Profile Exercise
Analyzing THE FIVE BEDROOM, SIX FIGURE ROOTLESS LIFE
Objective Writing: Selected Readings
Writing Workshop: Paper #1
Expressive Writing in the NYTimes
Writing Effective Introductions and Conclusions
Paper #1: IDENTITY
Expressive Writing
Open Letter Exercise and Examples
EMERSON on Individuality vs. Conformity
Literature related to IDENTITY
Understanding the 'Rhetorical Situation'
Weblog for WRT 120
Writing Assistance on the Web
Blackboard at WCU
WCU Homepage
WCU's Francis Harvey Green Library
One Last Look at Imaginary Worlds
Franz Kafka's BEFORE THE LAW
Analyzing WAITING FOR GODOT
Approaching WAITING FOR GODOT
Paper #3: Assignment Sheet
Paper #4: Independent Project
The Problem of Stability in BRAVE NEW WORLD
UTOPIA/DYSTOPIA Links
Analyzing Huxley's BRAVE NEW WORLD
Defining Utopia
Embarking on Huxley's BRAVE NEW WORLD
A Reading of Shakespeare's THE TEMPEST
From today's news (11/3/05)
Assignment Sheet for Paper #2
Goodbye to Dante's Imaginary World
Stepping Through Dante's Inferno: Cantos 10-34
Stepping Through Dante's Inferno: Cantos 1-10
INFERNO: Questions/Analysis: Cantos 32-34
INFERNO: Questions/Analysis: Cantos 18-31
INFERNO: Questions for Analysis: Cantos 12-17
INFERNO: Structure
INFERNO: Questions for Analysis: Cantos 1-5
INFERNO: Analyzing Canto 1
Relating to Dante's Inferno
Approaching Dante's DIVINE COMEDY
A Little Help with Dante's INFERNO
Assignment Sheet for Paper #1
Notes on LEAF BY NIGGLE
Responses to LEAF BY NIGGLE
ON FAIRY STORIES: An Essay by Tolkien
Notes on Axolotl
Reading Ovid's Tales
From Myth to Literature: Approaching Ovid's Tales
Notes on THE EYE OF THE GIANT
Functions of the Genesis Tales
Analyzing Mythic Tales
Defining Mythology
Filtering the Introduction to FANTASTIC WORLDS
Commentary on LA BELLE DAME SANS MERCI by Keats
Commentary on DARKNESS by Byron
Handout: Imagination Poems Set
What is Imagination?
Our Course Theme: Imaginary Worlds
LIT 165 Assignments: Fall 2005
LIT 165 Announcements: Fall 2005
Imaginary Worlds: Course Syllabus
Paper #4: Independent Thinking/Reading/Writing
Casebook Preparation Checklist
Casebook Assignment Schedule
Evaluating Sources for the Casebook
Casebook Project Assignment Sheet
Notes on Rational Argument
Argument
Assignment Sheet: Objective Writing
Reviewing Elements of the Profile Essay
Writing the Profile Essay
Readings: Objective Writing
Assignment Sheet: Expressive Writing
Rubric for Evaluation of Writing
About SKIN DEEP
Emerson on Individuality vs. Conformity
Mind-map: Identity
Understanding the 'Rhetorical Situation'
Assignments Page
Announcements Page
WRT 120 Course Syllabus for Fall 2005
Weblog for WRT 120
Writing Assistance on the Web
Blackboard at WCU
WCU Homepage
WCU's Francis Harvey Green Library
Look closely at the two candid pictures on the handout (“Argument”) or the posed one above. Among the things you could notice about these pictures is that there seems to be an INTENSITY OF FEELING being displayed. I’m imagining that the people who are shouting probably have an absolute certainty that they are “right.” So for them, the argument is a matter of making their voice the loudest. It’s a shouting match. These people are trying to muscle their point across (“might makes right”). We know by now that this only works imperfectly. You can victimize someone into agreeing with you, but it’s a pyrrhic victory at best. So what do you do with your intense feelings and your conviction that you’re right? Should try to be as unemotional as possible, or can you channel those feelings productively in an argument?
That you are willing to argue about a subject, that your goal is to be persuasive about this subject, implies already that you have some level of emotion, sometimes even intense feelings, about the subject—that you have conviction, that you care, and that you can rise, if necessary, to a certain level of intensity in your writing. This passion (or your lack of it) is communicated to your readers by the tone of your argument, the tone of your words. So it’s important not to go overboard. The characters in the picture have gone past the point of no return; they’re yelling at each other. What are the odds that they will succeed in persuading their opponents when an argument gets to this point? Will the ump change his mind? Will the girl change hers? How about the argument that’s getting underway below?
Let’s face it, when people’s beliefs clash, the results are often disastrous. The ump and the party girl may seem like insignificant examples, but they represent what happens elsewhere. On a microcosmic level, this kind of arguing results in stormy, sometimes broken relationships. On the macrocosmic level you get civil war, religious war, preemptive war. Arguments can easily escalate to high intensity and high stakes when neither party is trying to keep a cool head.
But what makes these high intensity arguments so unsuccessful is that the opponents in each case have more than likely stopped listening to one another. There’s no communication, no give and take anymore. There’s just isolated points of view banging up against one another. These people are trying so hard to be heard, but the irony is that they are more than likely being completely tuned out. Yelling makes people scared and defensive and a typical response is to shut down or fight back—once the volume goes up, open-mindedness shuts down. Furthermore, logical reasoning requires a cool head. To engage the thinking part of your brain, that glorious human cerebral cortex, we need to temporarily silence the hotheaded, intensely emotional middle brain for as long as we can. Noisy emotions can drown out your ability to think, to be fair, to consider facts, sort facts, etc. The pictures on this handout are really pictures of futility. Like the new Ben Harper song says, “I believe in a better way.”
Even when we are trying to be coolheaded, our attempts to argue and persuade can seem like an exercise in futility. In Chapter 3 of The Call to Write, John Trimbur comments that the exchange of letters between Darcy Peters and Marcus Boldt fails because neither side is likely to be convinced by the other. What reasons do you think Trimbur would name if he were pressed to explain the reason for that failure further? Why isn’t Boldt persuaded by Peters’ letter, and why isn’t Peters likely to be persuaded by Boldt’s?
- Darcy Peters wants to write on behalf of all the families in her area, but her attention never wavers from her own situation. She has no objective information that would help Boldt, who as an elected official needs to act on behalf of an entire community, see the larger picture. She has only her personal case as evidence that this is a useful program. It’s not convincing. She assumes that Boldt should care about her, when his responsibility is to consider the needs of everyone in his community, not just her individual family.
- Boldt claims
to be speaking on behalf of “all taxpayers” while at the same time he
makes it clear he only has the concerns of the people who voted for him
in mind. Other times he seems to hide his own views behind the
anonymous mask of “the taxpayer.” Both of these evasions make him
seem disingenuous. He floats seamlessly back and forth between
speaking for the “taxpayers” and for his “constituency” (which aren’t
exactly the same group). Worse, Boldt’s assumptions about Peters
and her family are offensive; his tone is insulting and
degrading.
Neither writer makes his/her assumptions clear, but they can be summed up as follows:
Boldt assumes, on behalf of the “taxpayers,” that Darcy Peters and her family have arrived at their situation by choice and because they have been irresponsible, obstinate, lazy, and maybe even stupid. He implies that she and her family have been freeloading. (“What arrangements have you made to repay this program at some future date?”) In the name of his “constituency” (not all the taxpayers, but just the ones who voted for him), he implies that tax dollars have been wasted and that his mandate from the voters is to slash programs that provide “no discernable return” on taxpayers’ investment. The Peters family may want the same educational opportunities that others have, but they don’t need the same educational opportunities that others have.
Not until these kinds of differences are acknowledged and clarified can either side begin to negotiate and find common ground. Once Darcy Peters becomes more aware that Boldt has to consider the whole picture, the whole community, she might find more effective ways to argue that the Readiness to Learn Family Learning Center is a worthwhile program that deserves continued funding because it benefits the whole community. She will realize she needs to provide evidence that other families have benefited, not just her own. She’ll see the need to present factual evidence that the families who do benefit are giving back to the community in various ways—that there is a “return on the investment.” Such a letter would have a much better chance of being persuasive.
I’m not sure if it’s possible for Boldt to change the kinds of assumptions he’s making about Darcy Peters and her family. The prejudices he expresses are probably deep-seated and difficult to budge. But that doesn’t mean one shouldn’t address them head on and refute them as best as one can. Is the Peters family an irresponsible, obstinate, lazy, stupid pack of freeloaders? Probably not. If you’re aware that your opposition is likely to prejudge you or your position in that harsh a way, if you see that coming, you can take some steps to fend it off, to acknowledge and refute those perceptions before they assemble themselves into an impenetrable barrier.
What image of Ms. Peters is created by her letter?
- Humble; politely asking rather than demanding. Makes her seem like a gentle, nice person.
- A mother of a struggling family who cares about her children’s educational opportunities; caring mother.
- Naïve; self-absorbed?
- She seems like a calm, rational person. She’s not hostile; she’s just expressing her belief in the goodness of this program and explaining how it positively impacted her family.
- She doesn’t seem authoritative in the sense that she doesn’t seem to know anything about the program beyond its effect on her family. Her credibility only extends to her own family, not the rest of the community. Since she only talks about her own experience, she doesn’t demonstrate any awareness beyond that limited scope. She can’t provide any information about how this program is beneficial for others, a good use of the community’s financial resources.
- Polite beginning; emphasizes his position of power: “my position…” and “I was elected…” This may be intimidating, or designed to intimidate.
- Capable of political spin. He rinses Darcy Peters’ comments about the value of the program and squeezes out the idea that they “go to the heart of the matter in the area of budgetary reform”—he’s not hearing what she’s saying; instead, he’s using it, spinning it to his own agenda.
- Mean-spirited and prejudiced in his assumptions about her family.
- He seems pretty mean (to me). Without knowing them personally, he is willing to accuse the Peters family of being irresponsible, obstinate, lazy, and maybe even stupid.
- His last line is condescending; he treats Darcy Peters, a grown woman trying to make a difference, like a child.
PATHOS
What emotions does Darcy Peters’ letter evoke? Marcus Boldt’s? Are these the emotions the writers intend, do you think?
- Peters seems completely unaware that Boldt is likely to be provoked by her declaration that she feels like a “victim.” His conservative sensibility goes into overdrive at a term like that. He’s probably beginning to form an image in his mind of a liberal “whiner and complainer,” someone who’s “looking for a handout.” Major prejudices and assumptions go into high gear. This “victim” pronouncement is a sore spot; it sends him into feeling like a victim himself, because “victim” means “taxpayer program.” Tax me and spend it on you. He’s already against it.
- Boldt seems completely unaware of how offensive his “expressed concerns” are; he seems completely unaware of the assumptions that underlie each one and how wrong they might be. He also seems unconcerned that his line about “no discernable return” completely negates everything Darcy Peters explained in her letter about the way the program improved her family’s situation. There’s no telling for sure how Darcy Peters feels about his letter, but if I were her, I’d be boiling mad.
How would you sum up Darcy Peters message to Boldt? Does she use a logical line of reasoning? What is Boldt’s message, and is he any more logical? Does either side successfully win over the other?
- Peters’ message is “Save this program. It’s been extremely valuable to my family, and I think other families will benefit by it, too.” Her line of reasoning is only half logical. She has evidence that it helped her family (her personal experience) but no evidence that it will help others.
- Boldt’s message is “This program is a luxury and the conservatives who voted for me don’t want to pay for it anymore; they put me in office to get rid of programs like this that don’t benefit them directly.”