Writing Discussion

 Finding Inspiration

    There is something so frustrating about sitting down in front of a piece of paper and...nothing. There is not a single thought in your brain. Although you try straining yourself , it only is in vain. To be honest, it happens to me more time that I would like. So that then begs the question, how do I or even someone else just sit down and write something.

    I would say that there is a simple explanation but there really is not. I am more of an active writer and not passive (according to my mother). That means that I like to just go get ideas rather than ideas just come to me. It is a very good system until you realize that if you have no ideas in your head currently, then how do you know what to search? I find that one of the best ways to think about an idea is to start to play with something. Like with a string or to start a rhythm on your desk. It is a weird way to think, but it works and it gets my ideas down on the page and that's all I really want. I also think ideas are easier to come by when a specific prompt is presented in front of you. 

Writing Discussion

 What is an Argument

    Last week, we read a few essays to use as a template for our argumentative essays. While reading and reviewing those essays to better my draft, there were aspects of the essays that I think flowed really well and things that did not do so well in my eyes. 

    One of the things that stood out to be as a red flag was the structure. Now, I am not speaking for everyone but an excess of 7 paragraphs is too much. There was a saying my mother used to tell me when I was little and telling her about my day at school: "land the plane" or a more common term, "get to the point". For me, I like when essays get to the point, however they do not skip over key detail that leave the reader in an ambiguous state in the middle of the paper. To have someone read your paper, they are going to get exhausted when the reach the 8th paragraph and still have a couple more to go. Now, there were parts of the structure I did like in that the paper flowed really well via transitions and citation wise a very informative paper; that part I really did like. 

Now, the worst thing that I saw had nothing to do with the paper but with the author. Personally, when reading about a rational argument with two conflicting sides and both sides make valid points with the own sources; that is great. Why? Because the paper offers the freedom for the reader to chose their own side. When I read a paper about a valid and rational argument, I do not like to see the author interjecting and saying "well yes, x is right, by I have a source from y." That is not an argument, that is persuasion. It takes the reader out of the essay when the author starts rebutting every other paragraph and on the other ones they are providing sources that back up their own claim. It sounds just like a persuasive paper not an argument. 

Subject of Change

 Argumentative Essay 

    Over this weekend, I have thought a lot about what I want to write about and how I can find sources on both sides of the argument. As for this essay, the writer should remain neutral in the whole of the paper and share his/her opinion at the end. Kind of like a judge over seeing a court hearing. 

    From this, I have a subject that I would like to write about that would seem like an easy answer but is extremely convoluted for such a simple question. The proposition of lips on dinosaurs. For a long time, and have continued to publish, theropods with teeth uncovered and flashing all over pages of books and articles. Although, this hasn't been because it just looked cool, there was evidence to back it up. Evidence that I will not get into here but there is. In recent times however, there has been a push toward a new view of these creatures with lips. Like many things, it is up for interpretation based on old as well as new findings. I am excited to write about this as I have been looking into it for around two days now and it is incredibly in depth. 

Reading an Article

 Steps and Procedure 

    Originally, as I have said, I was not that big into science until high school so I never actually sat down and read a scientific article until then. I will say that reading an article and taking a quiz on it is not easy, however, like with everything, practice makes perfect. 

    What I like to start with is the results. This is because the results is the "heart" of the paper and should be able to stand alone while getting the objective, hypothesis and conclusion across. Also in the results section, there should be no "raw data". This means that there should be no baseline numbers in a table even if the table looks very nice. This is because for a majority of the time, you will be comparing two different things, something that you know about and know what the result will be and the other is what you are experimenting on. So, in a paper, the results for that comparison would look something like a bar graph with properly labeled x and y-axis. 

    Next, I look at the abstract and conclusion/discussion. This more or less gives me the same answer, but one is a more condensed version of the other with all of the other parts in there too. With reading the conclusion, you can gauge a sense of how well the author can interpret the data presented in from of them. this section will also reiterate what the introduction stated; which was why the experiment was performed in the first place. 
 

Analyzing the analysis

Writing Discussion

    Ever since I can remember, I have always struggled with the why portion of writing. For example, "why did that scene play out like that" or "why did the director use that shot"? I would either skip over the question entirely or write out a paragraph that was tangentially connected to the main question. So, while writing this analysis for the documentary project, I wanted to convey not only the specific reason of why the scene is playing out like that but also the emotion of the scene. 

    When I analyze a scene, I first like to start with what the scene is about. From there, I then pull out the shots and angles that heighten the emotion, logic or ethics that the director is trying to portray. Also known as pathos, ethos and logos. Normally, with what emotions the director is showing, you can gage what their stance is on the specifics in the scene. For example, if frustration is a key emotion in the scene, the director might give us a fraught battle with authority or something that was preventable that ended up happening. Of course the prefect scene blends all three and I would be here all day talking about all three (pathos, ethos and logos). 

 

Writing Discussion

 Writing for the Audience

    When thinking about a blog post for this week I could not get something off of my mind. What happens when conforming happens? What does that do to writing? And is this something good, bad or neutral? I honestly cannot tell you all of these answers but I can tell you one point of view from infinite points of view. 

    There has been a shift in popular culture in the past 5 years that has effected all sorts of media. Music, movies and news but more specifically, journalism. Although I am not that well versed in the journalism world, I can see that there is some hesitation to write or comment on stories but merely go along with the masses. Now, Let me tell you that just standing up and saying what you want is not an easy thing. But, it is not what you want to do or be even. I believe, it is the art of journalism to write about things that other people do not what to talk about or even discuss amongst themselves for fear of  someone getting offended or upset. However, when writing about stories I believe it hinders your creative freedom as a writer to not write about these things. If someone were to write all about how things are great (hypothetically speaking), people would think two things, that you are delusional or under pressure to write about things that you particularly disagree with. We all know writing or giving a speech on something you don't like means not much if any effort will go into what you are writing about. this lack of creativity if so frustrating to people.  

    With all of this negativity that comes from conformity with writing, is this good, bad or just neutral? Well is what good? is conforming good for a writer? In my opinion, no. There is just too much wrong for a writer to conform than there is right. Is conformity good for society? Well, that's more of a different question for a different day. However, what I will say is that some people do not like change and some do. And, in these changing times, conformity is seen as a good thing by societal standards. With all of this being said, overall, is conformity good bad or neutral? I think conformity is in the eye of the beholder. If they want to write about what they want to write about, that that's great. If not, then that is okay too. 

The Strange Situation of Sue

 Dinosaur 13

   In April of 2021, I traveled to the field museum with my parents during spring break. It was a very cool experience where I saw fossils of all kinds. Ranging from the Paleozoic to the Cenozoic and from animals like the eurypterids to the genus Ursus which contains modern day bears. But one of the most fascinating things that I witnessed while there was Sue; the female tyrannosaurus rex. 

 

To the left here, is sue herself in the flesh (I mean rock). Why rock? Well because these bones have been in the ground for so long, the minerals in bone have all but disappeared and rock has slowly began to form around these bones. Causing theirs brownish almost black color. But this is about Sue herself and how she got from the hell creek formation of the Cheyenne River Reservation in South Dakota to right in form of me in Chicago. Lets wind the clock back to 1990. Sue Hendrickson was the person how found this remarkable find. Then, a paleontologist named Peter Larson who led the excavation placed the dinosaurs remains in a museum in near Hill City, South Dakota. 

Although this was merely just the beginning of the documentary, I will save my summary and analysis for later. Watching this documentary, I was surprised how ruthless the FBI was. To sum it up, the FBI claim that the excavation of bones was done on federal land and thus was the property of the federal government. Larson and his colleagues were charged with numerous crimes during a 1995 trial and according to Larson himself "If you add up the time served for each of those counts, it comes to 353 years for me. . .which is longer than Jeffrey Dahmer was sentenced to prison for, and he killed and ate, like, 15 people." As someone who whishes to be a paleontologist with my degree, it certainly bring into perspective the risks that comes with digging up fossils. One minute you realize that this is one of the most complete and largest finds of the time and on the other, you are being indited for conspiracy and custom violations. I knew I was going to like this documentary as soon as I turned it on and I am glad I was able to gain a new perspective of the inherent dark side of this career.