pb3a: genre creation proposal??

For my scholarly, peer-reviewed text is a scientific breakdown of “streak shooting” in basketball. It was published by professors from Cornell and Stanford. It explores the independence of every shot and proves that there is little to no correlation between either a successful or unsuccessful first shot and a successful next shot. The researchers were prompted to end the myth of a “hot hand” in basketball by fans and announcers using these phrases to describe a player who has scored on their last couple field goal attempts.

I think that this is an interesting topic to explore and great genres for because the audience for massive, televised sports is so diverse. This should make the task of representing the given information in a more interesting manor worthwhile. The intended audience of the scholarly article is probably a peer review board, but the people that could best use this information are the people watching these basketball games. This is a case of research being published that will never reach the light of the mainstream media, even though kids reading about their favorite players and parents checking the sports news at work should, in my opinion be the original intended audience of such a piece. Making this set of newly found data and statistics more readable or understandable for a less scholarly audience could mean for the public debunking of a sports myth: that momentum plays a great deal in the outcome of a player’s shot.

As for the young audience, I’ll probably create a factual graphic with a simple colorway and clean design. I’ll provide the statistics in a way that is visually appealing so that someone without an extensive understanding of the principles of statistics can understand the point being made by the researchers. When I was a kid, my eyes were always drawn to the images in newspapers (I know, reading newspapers is crazy, but I have always been a sports journalism geek), whether they be informational graphics or the pictures alongside articles. From first hand experience, these are the most efficient and easiest to understand when trying to reach the younger demographics of an audience.

As for the older audience, I might write a fictional newspaper article including quotes from the researchers (drawn from the essay) and present the new discoveries as breaking news in the sports world. Every so often, news outlets like ESPN or Sports Illustrated will publish articles regarding some new study that changes the outlook of athletics in one way or another, and even though this essay was published in 1985, the idea of “streak shooting” is still ever present. It still gets mentioned in almost every game broadcast and it seems that every game has a “hot hand” at one point or another.

I’m interested in looking more into this topic because it seems fascinating to a. learn more about [possibly] one of the most incorrect of sports myths and b. present it in a way that is helpful and more legible for unintended audiences of the researchers’ discoveries.

pb2b: some title or some shit or something

Moves are the tactics deployed by writers to enhance their argument. A strong move can be as simple as leading off an essay with an anecdote, to something more complicated such as creating parallels in sentence structure that stay consistent from paragraph to paragraph. Both of these two moves can be equally effective when practiced in useful places within an essay. Authors such as Lamott and Boyd in particular seem to focus the practical purpose of their styles on creating relatable pieces that are easy reads as well as informative. Through the use of either bold or conservative moves in proper situations, writers create the styles that make one different from the next, keeping their writings interesting and individual.

Anne Lamott, in her essay “Shitty Rough Drafts,” a piece in which her moves’ successes derive from their more relatable approach to explaining the importance of rough drafts. By using the word “shitty” in the title, the author immediately steps away from traditional writing techniques and customs, which can provide a source of intrigue before the written text even begins. Additionally, Lamott writes in with a more conversational style and her words and phrases flow as if they were spoken, such as the natural pauses created by the commas: “all right, one of them does” (22). This keeps the reader engaged and personal tone makes the content more easily absorbed, such as when Lamott outlines the common image of a successful writer—“enthusiastic and confident” (21). She does this only to quickly strike down this vision by providing a more realistic depiction of a writer. They write ‘shitty’ first drafts, only to tear those preliminary versions apart on their way to a more polished second or third draft. After efficiently explaining why the drafting process is necessary for ‘good’ writing, Lamott smoothly transitions into instructions for a constructive revision process, listing the major steps in her writing process such as writing too much, cutting it down, and marking up hard copies (24-25). The author is able to stress the importance of putting ideas on paper in an unofficial, unfinished manor because approaches a, frankly, rather mundane subject from an unorthodox angle, making it more effective in conveying her purpose.

Janet Boyd’s “Murder! (Rhetorically Speaking)” showcases a different set of moves, one with several obvious differences. The most prominent, perhaps, is Boyd’s ability to further her argument on the importance of purpose, audience, and context awareness through an extended example of the analysis of a crime investigation (88). She then goes on to explain how the list of facts of this imaginary crime can be read within the scope of a multitude of genres. By leading with a list of provocative details, Boyd plants an idea in her reader’s head, allows them to think over said idea, and then points them into the direction she intended. This move, stylistically organizing her argument so that the reader is allowed time to mull over the reading, improves the logical structure of the essay as well as maintains a strong level of reader interest. The author also periodically takes a break in argumentation to present the audience with bullet points containing questions that lead the reader to better understand genre (88, 94). This strategy, like Lamott's approach to the task of teaching writing, emphasizes relatability as a key path to reader attention. Boyd leads the reader to the conclusion she wants them to make, and the reader, in turn, develops a more comprehensive understanding through the step by step process provided by the writer.

Lamott and Boyd, as mentioned above, share one glaring similarity: they both try to connect with the reader by appropriating their linguistic and organizational style. These unique approaches to writing instruction offer a new-look way of capturing the reader and then delivering the information. This style, in contrast to dry textbooks, are more likely to keep a student turning pages. Lamar and Boyd are both interestingly driven by creating this casual relationship with their audience through their respective rhetorical devices. These two writers successfully shape their arguments in an understandable and intriguing ways, and through their moves are able to inform students more effectively and enjoyably than a normal course text.

PB2A

When an author is forming his or her argument, they must form it in a way that can be understood by the intended audience, but it also needs to convince, and convincing the reader that the argument is realistic and purposeful through organization, content, tone, etc…

The scholarly articles being discussed are a SCIgen article from the genre generating website and an article observing cultural effects of the 2010 World Cup in South Africa by Steven C. Dubin published in the African Arts magazine and found in the "Newspapers" guide of the list of UCSB's discipline catalogues.

The two authors build their argument’s pathos by writing to their audiences’ expectations for the publications. In a scientific theater, the author has to use technical terms, proper organizational structure, credit all who assisted in the research, among an endless list of other norms associated with any given genre. The soccer article, published in a journalistic publication, is presented in a way so that it belongs in the journal. It’s formatting is what one would expect when someone is reading a magazine, providing the reader with a sense of familiarity with the topic before it is even read. This sense of familiarity stems from reading other pieces within a genre, and when the reader jumps from one source to another, he or she will see similarities that group the sources under a single umbrella, but also will be presented with differences that make every work its own.

Both writers present their arguments so that they are tailored to the readers, so both are written using scholarly vocabulary. The structure of the two pieces develop strong senses of ethos by offering reliable sources presented in an organized fashion. This helps build an aura of reliability around the author and his or her writing that makes their argument far more appealing to its audience. In the SCIgen scholarly source generator, the organization is formally separated into subsections. In contrast, Dubin’s article is formatted much like a newspaper article, with paragraphs serving the primary and lone-standing function for categorizing thoughts within the authors’ arguments. As for more technical conventions, the SCIgen scholarly publication cites its sources with footnotes leading to an extensive, fourty-three-source works cited pages, while the soccer piece credited its quotes and/or evidence in text, with parenthetical citations listing the author of the quote followed by the year it was said or written, proper APA format. The SCIgen article, by citing other papers, which seem to be other research discoveries based on title and layout of listing on the work cited page, gives the reader a sense that this essay has been peer-reviewed by fellow scholars. Peer-review is preached and enforced by the research community allowing a sort of approval system for proposed research or new findings (De Piero). These formats are deeply related to the pieces’ forms, as the research essay follows a very academic layout; likewise, the news-like article follows a strict set of professional patterns, but seems a bit more casual.

Both writers are able to create their texts’ logos by including their claim followed by reliable evidence, capped off with the authors’ input and analysis. In order to support the purpose and claim in the “Introduction” of the SCIgen article, the author provides graphs, scientific discoveries, and general explanations of the findings and their importance. By gathering a multitude of sources into one research essay, the writer creates a clear message of what they are actually saying. Similarly, Dubin argues the cultural importance of the 2010 World Cup for South Africa by offering several professional observations of the culture of the even, then linking them back to his claim that “the World Cup generated a profusion of cultural expression.” Providing sound evidence in an order that makes sense to the audience builds the writer’s argument by offering the reader a sense of comfort with the subject material and the logic that moves the argument along.

Building an argument lies in building credibility and reliability in the reader’s eyes. By providing good textual, presentational support, a work becomes more attractive to read and understanding the purpose and argument becomes easier.