Introducing

Prezi AI.

Your new presentation assistant.

Refine, enhance, and tailor your content, source relevant images, and edit visuals quicker than ever before.

Workflow

Abigail Mann

Updated Jan. 11, 2017

Transcript

Friday Writes: practice skills in noting interesting patterns, asking focused questions about them, creating arguments about ideas

Group Projects: Practice skills in finding, understanding, summarizing, and using secondary sources

Workflow

Stommel also goes on to say that "Dear Student" is not effective satire and not just a basic rant but plays into the insecurities of the audience. He also infers that Dear Students is an opportunity to oppress students.

rosen on audience confusion about satirst's goals

Rosen summary

Booth Summary

In The Rhetoric of Irony,Wayne Booth argues that irony develops an emotional relationship that

connects the reader and the writer. Booth focuses on the significance of stressing the emotional

bonds that form from understanding irony to change our initial understanding of the end result

of irony as creating emotion rather than logic and knowledge. Additionally, he points out that

the writer is forcing the audience to feel a certain way to suggest that the audience has less

power in interpreting than it might seem. He warns, however, that without a bond between

reader and writer there is no irony, stressing the need for similarity between reader and

author. Booth adds that the reader must enjoy the process of recognition of irony in order to

follow the writer’s intentions thus the reader and writer interact to form a community through

emotional bonds. Booth adds that the pleasure of the speed of understanding and being part of

the elite group who gets the irony is “why irony is such a powerful weapon” (17). Ultimately,

Booth seeks to reassess ideas about the power of irony.

Annotated Bibliography

What next?

would make sense here?

What

digidex's focus on mff and their responsibilties

The process of creating an "amiable community," as Booth terms it (28), depends on understanding the intent of the writer by the reader who "is expected to catch what some would consider external clues" (10). This is very different than what happens in the examples in "Dear Student," in which the obvious sarcasm of the writers about being a "soulless life suck," for instance, suggests that the writers assume that the audience should be told what values they are judging. This may be part of why some audiences fail to catch the satire. If the process of satire depends upon the author trusting the audience to some extent to see how what they say is not what they mean, the writers in "Dear Student" do not allow this process to happen because they are so obvious in their meaning. This collation of directing the reader changes

the analysis of why the satire fails by suggesting that telling the reader too much can prevent them from wanting to work with you.

The collation of responses in "Dear Student" focusing on how objects of satire have left communal norms, in conjunction with Booth's argument that satirists define their object of satire through what they are not, suggests that the process of creating satirical objects depends upon defining what exceeds the acceptable. That is, in both cases, satirists are assuming we all agree on what is normal, or acceptable--not lying about traumatic life events, for instance-- and, having assumed everyone agrees with this norm, base their satire on exceeding this norm. Booth's point that readers understand satirical objects by what they are not suggests that this process is important not just in terms of what the satirist chooses to focus on, but in terms of if the audience will also participate in defining what is not acceptable in the object of satire. Thus, Booth claims, while not everyone might be willing to go the "far end of the scale of blame," in naming an object of satire, starting from what someone is not "can be accepted and enjoyed by anyone who is in any degree suspicious" (29).But this process can go wrong if the audience is focusing on different communal norms than the satirist. This pattern of defining satire as that which exceeds the communally acceptable changes the analysis of why it might fail by focusing us on the communal norms the audience is woring from as opposed to the satirist.

[

_Booth's argument that satire creates "amiable communities" by stressing the ways in which the readers and writers assume shared values__ is surprisingly different than __responses such as Lewis Giggets argument that invoking death to get out of responsibility is done by a "soulless, life-suck" of a person and Heffernan's stressing the ways communities help people in genuine times of grief suggest that students willingly violate communal expectations of sympathy_ in terms of _reasoning____.

By this, I mean _____the reasoning__ is __focused on how the readers interpret the communal norms __ in __Booth's argument___ while there is a striking difference in ___the responses in "Dear Student"___ in terms of ____focusing on the way in which the objects of satire have left communal norms__. Noticing this pattern of ___defining satire by the actions of its audience versus the violations of its objects ___ suggests that ____Booth's argument about satire working by broadening the definition of what the larger community is not ____ is also a part of this collation because it _____ fits the idea of satire building readerly community, but argues that this community requires understanding the violations of the objects of satire as outside the most basic communal norms __.

App you wrote for homework

How does understanding various theories of satire, as well as the context of this issue help to develop a claim about why this satire is misunderstood in the way it is?”

What next?

So What?: Explaining the payoff of your thinking/ writing

Looking at Ralph Rosen's claims about audience confusion about satirical purposes and Wayne Booth's claims about relationships between the reader and the satirist as well as satirical objects and the larger community changes our analysis of why "Dear Students" might be misunderstood

by audience's rejecting the social problem identified by "Dear Students" and replacing it with their own communal concerns.

While many were amused by the responses, others missed the satire. Blogger Dexdigital, for instance, pointed out the data used in Patton's introduction was false, and questioned the motives for teaching in those who were "snarky," terming them "childish, petty, and just downright mean." Jesse Stommel, too, objects to the satire, though he is more focused on the object of the satire--the students, who he suggests are not the powerful ones in the relationship-- as well as the appropriateness of publishing such responses to a general audience.

Responses Cited: https://medium.com/@dexdigi/if-your-grandmother-dies-dont-tell-your-professors-61fd9447ef88

http://www.jessestommel.com/blog/files/dear-chronicle.html

collate these 2, use data collation template

choose a Q from app template, answer it (purpose--satire addresses social issue)

Critical Introduction: Practice skills of analysis that makes original claims and integrates quality research