Lethem

Reading Lethem there was one line that struck me as oddly familiar and for a while I could not figure out why. I thought maybe it was Placebo effect... since I'm reading about how everything's a copy, maybe that's what I'm seeing in this work. However, once I got to the end I realized it was not the case and in fact there was a number of references and stolen idea Lethem had. The one that struck me was "I'm a cork on the ocean of a story, a lead on a windy day. Pretty soon I'll be blown away" (Lethem 225) since it is from a Beach Boys song, music that I listen to relatively often. Lethem uses it to describe himself as a novelist and how temporary he is in the long run. He is only in the game for a limited period of time, the game being writing, however what he writes will remain forever. He then condones the usage of his ideas by others in a different context as he claims that these ideas were never his in the first place. I chose this passage primarily because it struck me as oddly familiar the second I read, and secondarily because I see it as part of a powerful message to the reader. It takes the idea of his essay and then turns it into a personal paragraph, a personal message. Something taken from a light and simple song from 1971 is turned into a message from writer to reader saying, I'm not here for a long time, but my work is here, and feel free to use it as they were never truly mine.

Lethem post response

Thanks for trying out this experimental blog post assignment with me. I wasn’t sure what you might find, but some of you had very insightful things to say about the differences between Lethem’s concerns and those of his sources. Of course, the purpose of this assignment was twofold: one, I wanted you to begin to familiarize yourselves with library research tools, and two I wanted you to continue to work on your close reading skills, particularly your ability to make connections while simultaneously drawing distinctions. I hope that, in addition to looking for the title of the source that Lethem used, you spent a bit of time trying to figure out where you might locate that source. It sounds like some of you were able to find books and articles online, but I’d also encourage you to find out where you can go in the library to get physical copies of such things, since not everything you’ll want to research will be available online. We’ll work on that more when we hear a Rutgers research librarian’s guest lecture in October. Regarding close reading, I think you all would benefit from even greater specificity when you explain the significance of a quotation. Matt does an excellent job of explaining how Lethem’s use of President Truman’s speech turns Truman’s advocacy for preserving natural resources into a metaphor about treating ideas as resources. One could go even further to think about the distinctions between natural resources (which are finite) and ideas (which can be shared without risking depletion). Pointing out such distinctions puts you into a better position when you’re trying to explain the significance of a connection. In your blog posts and your papers, you should be answering the question “so what?” Why does this point matter? For instance, is Lethem pointing out the absurdity of treating ideas as property by drawing a comparison between ideas and physical objects? What does it mean to “own” an idea? Is it even possible to be original, according to Lethem?

Lethem Assignment

Jonathan Lethem introduces plagiarism in a new light to readers in his "The Ecstacy of Influence". In fact to bolster his opinion Lethem cites various examples of plagiarism. Many of these examples are "borrowed" by Lethem in a way that strengthens his argument. In fact he takes a quote from Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. The quote is from the verdict O'Connor delivers in Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co. The quote reads, "The primary objective of copyright is not to reward the labor of authors, but to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts. To this end, copyright assures authors the right to their original expression, but encourages others to build freely upon the ideas and information conveyed by a work. This result is neither unfair nor unfortunate. It is the means by which copyright advances the progress of science and art." O'Connor definitely believed in the merits of copyright for the reasons she listed, but Lethem uses this "snippet" to show how copyright law is antiquated and restrictive. Up till this section the essay took on a tone in favor of the free exchange of ideas and against "usemonopolies", such as those exercised by Disney and recording associations. When I read this short portion, I was confused as to why Lethem would be trying to weaken his point. In fact I read the section again to make sure I hadn't misread. Then I continued on and realized that the O'Connor section was being used as an example to show how that the initial purpose of copyright is "presently corrupted".

Lethem Research Assignment

In the final section, "Give All," Lethem existentially describes his career in writing: "As a novelist, I'm a cork on the ocean of story, a leaf on a windy day. Pretty soon I'll be blown away" (Lethem 225). This description, while intriguing and unique-seeming in context, is not of Lethem's own creation, rather Brian Wilson's of the Beach Boys. The original source is a song called "'Til I Die," which introspectively explores Wilson's ideas of personal mortality in terms of the immensity and infiniteness of nature. Wilson is essentially saying that his life is insignificant in comparison to the world's eternity, and that while he is present in the current chaos of life, he will soon be forgotten as a small detail in the bigger picture. Similarly, Lethem feels that his role as a writer, while it is currently relevant, will soon pass as more writers publish and others' prevalence fades. He deepens the connection to his own writing, and gives it a contrastingly more optimistic tone, by explaining that he is grateful for this part in the larger community of creativity, regardless of how small, because it allows others to potentially draw influence from his work and develop innovative "second-lives" for his pieces, just as an artist did with his novel (Lethem 219). Beyond this example, the use of "plagiarism" in Lethem's essay gave me a new outlook on the meaning of the word, as well as the connotations placed on it. From a young age, students are taught that plaigarims is awful and should never be done, but Lethem's piece shows other uses and examples of the act that present it in a creative and collective light. The adaptation of Wilson's lyrics to describe Lethem's own purpose is written smoothly, as if the function of a song's lyrics are to intertwine the author's ideas with one's own to produce a sense of connection. Plagiarism in Lethem's piece, as well as in the aforementioned example, is portrayed as a necessary evil in cultural and artistic creativity, appreciation, and understanding.

Letham Assignment

Finding the original passage from David McNair’s and Jayson Whitehead’s article on Bob Dylan was as simple as a five second Google search and clicking the first link. Apart from making minor paraphrasing changes here and there to make the passage flow better in his paper, Lethem doesn’t really change the argument of the original or how it presents Bob Dylan as an artist. What Letham does change, however, is the way he uses the passage afterwards. While McNair and Whitehead uses the original as an exposition of who Bob Dylan is as an artist, Letham uses the passage to claim that Bob Dylan’s antics “might be said of all art” (212). His usage of the content in the passage is completely different and demonstrates that being original does not necessarily have to use original content; rather, it’s the way to use the content that matters. In fact, it could be said that it is necessary to recognize and absorb the quality content of others in order to build yourself and be “original”.

Siva Valdhyanathan and "Contamination Anxiety" : a Study of Lethem

Lethem quotes Siva Valdhyanathan in the section of “Contamination Anxiety”. His book Copyrights and Copywrongs: The Rise of Intellectual Property and How It Threatens Creativity is about how copyrights can limit the creativity and how fair use is more complicated than just what the law says, especially as modern technology disperses ideas into the culture of the internet much faster than ever before in history. He and Lethem take similar stances, in that they both agree ideas can and should propagate through culture and by including snippets of works of predecessors, artists are not stealing from them, but paying tribute to them. Valdhyanathan is trying to make case using his quote that all music takes something from others. He is raising the question of whether ideas passed down through generation are owned by someone or not. He is challenging the Anglo-Saxon belief of ownership of thoughts. Lethem is also using the quote in a similar way. He is saying that just because the music is reused from others and is not 100% original, does not make it not new. He is saying that Watters is passing on the old song for the new generation. Just because these two ways of using this quote are similar, does not Lethem did not change the meaning. Lethem is focused on the passing on of ideas and validating his point that a new rendition is not stealing at all. Valdhyanathan is concerned with explaining how songs are passed down through a kind of master-apprentice line, which extends to the beginning of civilization. These show that while ideas can be similar, they can also provide new insight to the world by changing the way they are framed.

Lethem Assignment

In the section titled, "The Beauty of Second Use," Lethem states "In the first life of creative property, if the creator is lucky, the content is sold. After the commercial life has ended, our tradition supports a second life as well. A newspaper is delivered to a doorstep, and the next day wraps fish or builds an archive" (Lethem 219). This is not a statement originating from Lethem's own mind, however. This quote actually spawned from Lawrence Lessig's book, Free Culture, which studies the history of copyright and its impact on the world today. Lethem blended this plagiarism into his writing seamlessly; it was originally impossible to tell this idea was not his own. As a result, he proves his point perfectly. Words and ideas are often recycled and used in new ways or for new purposes. This taught me about appropriation and plagiarism because it showed me how easily unoriginal ideas can be worked into a piece and fit perfectly, and without the reader ever noticing. Words and ideas can take on new meanings and benefit others when they are repurposed. In the original work, Lessig talks about creative property while analyzing patents piracy, or using the creative property of others without their permission (Lessig 53). This context gave a new meaning to the passage because Lethem originally had a good argument for repurposing ideas, but Lessig's work reveals that repurposing ideas in a such a way is a crime, and while it may be beneficial to the general public, it hurts the original author.

Mini Research Blog Post

The passage I selected is in "Usemonopoly" in the fifth paragraph from "When old laws..." to "had been invaded." I looked it up in the key and chose these few sentences specifically because they are the ones Lethem says comes from Jessica Litman's Digital Copyright. Naturally I looked up Digital Copyright and found it to be a book from 2001 on how copyright laws were made and whether or not they are practical. The book is in fact present in law school libraries around the country.
It seems to me that Litman's point of view lines up with that of Lethem, yet her work is more of a scholarly critique of copyright than "The Ecstasy of Influence: a Plagiarism" is. Lethem  makes use of Digital Copyright in talking about how copyright laws were clear-cut and easily managed when they were first put in place yet today in the digital era it is near impossible to decide when an owners right has been invaded and when it hasn't. Thereby he stays true to Litman's original intentions and draws influence from her without changing her vision or direction. It doesn't seem to me like this would violate and copyright laws because he is building on her idea in a larger context and Lethem therefore exemplifies the ideas he presents in the text in his own use of another authors work.

Lethem Passage Research

The passage I selected appears at the conclusion of Lethem’s section entitled “The Commons.” Lethem writes, “We have to remain constantly vigilant to prevent raids by those who would selfishly exploit our common heritage for their private gain. Such raids on our natural resources are not examples of enterprise and initiative. They are attempts to take from all the people just for the benefit of a few” (223). This was a passage that stuck with me in my initial reading of the essay, and as I surveyed Lethem’s key, I was surprised to see that even these were not his own words. Instead, they belonged to President Truman, appearing in his address at the opening of the Everglades National Park. In the case of this quote, the key was a very useful research tool. The limited synapsis that Lethem provides gave me a lot of information regarding the context of the quote. Despite its length, it was one of the few instances when Lethem did not abridge his quote at all. About his choice to not alter the quote, he references a quote by poet Marianne Moore in his key. She had said, “If a thing has been said in the best way, how can you say it better?” (230). This is high praise for Truman’s words.

As I continued my research, I googled the first line of the quote. This led me to a page on trumanlibrary.org containing the entire transcript of the speech. In its original context, the quote was used to urge the preservation of public lands, parks, forests and mineral reserves. Johnson uses the same, exact words to urge the preservation of ideas in the public commons. In its new context, the references to natural resources serve as a metaphor for what Lethem believes that words and ideas should be. In fact, Lethem’s use of the quote out of context actually makes for a more persuasive argument as a result of this metaphor. The fact that I was clueless that these were not the original words of Lethem, and were not even the original context, demonstrates the effectiveness of appropriation in writing. In regards to plagiarism, Lethem makes a strong case in his essay, but this singular quote really does not indicate much about the morality of plagiarism, only its effectiveness.

Lethem Assignment

Jonathan Lethem quotes Robert Boynton’s article, “The Tyranny of Copyright?”, in the “Usemonopoly” (217) section (“... everything from attempts…” to “... defendants as young as twelve”) to describe how oppressive copyright laws can be. The quoted article describes the specific example of Swarthmore College Students who sought to expose the flaws in election machines created by Diebold Elections Systems. In this example, Swarthmore originally took down all the leaked files that the students uploaded, but enough bad publicity for Diebold stopped them from further pursuing a lawsuit. This situation revealed how copyright laws essentially allow corporations to take anything down from the internet since service providers and internet users alike are unwilling to enter legal battles with such corporations. While Lethem and Boynton use the shared examples similarly, Lethem points out the flaws in a copyright culture while Boynton points out flaws with the copyright laws specifically. Furthermore, Boynton reveals how copyright laws are problems for consumers who wish to share pertinent information. Lethem differs because he analyzes how the copyright culture hurts the artists and content creators specifically. Lethem’s interpretation of copyright culture is a more relevant interpretation today because it addresses a type of culture which has persisted. Should that culture be abolished, Lethem’s analysis is still relevant because it is meant to say how art is reliant on copyright. On the other hand, by analyzing specific laws and copyright regulation, Boynton’s article written in 2004 is not as relevant today because it does not account for the changing legal environment. For the most part, Boynton and Lethem agree and use the quoted passage in similar ways.

Lethem Assignment

I chose the passage on page 220 and 221 about how you can’t steal a gift. Naturally the first place I checked was the key, which led me to the musician, Dizzy Gillespie. A Google search of the name and the quote gave me the book “You can’t steal a gift” by Gene Lees, documenting the similarities between musicians and their craft, including race. The book takes a “colorblind” approach, documenting both the positives and negatives of racism in the industry, but at its core, the author writes to celebrate the characters of four musicians in particular, including Dizzy Gillespie.

The passage and its source are drastically different: one is a quote from a musician, the other delineates the hard economics of a “gift economy.” At first, I found this exceedingly odd, how Lethem transforms a heartwarming mentality into concrete cause and effect market economics. Moreover, the original topic, music, has been changed to the aforementioned market economics, the two of which could be any more unlike. However, what I soon realized was that the target audiences for both were drastically different, and therefore the argument had to be framed drastically differently. Though Gillespie says his quote to reporters on the subject of music, an innately free art, Lethem has to argue this point to businessmen, the people who withhold their “gifts” from the market. Once this frame of reference is taken into account, the transformation is much more understandable. Personally, I couldn’t recognize this passage as plagiarism by any stretch of the imagination. In a university setting, the passage wouldn’t be flagged as being plagiarized at the very least. What I understood from this exercise is that quotes and sources need to be properly synthesized into your own writing. Lethem does this so skillfully that citing a source in the midst of his writing would feel jarring. Ultimately, Lethem’s writing supports his own point in saying that eventually, writing tends to mesh together until you can’t tell if it’s one author’s ar another’s.

Esctasy of Influence Blog Post

On page 214, Jonathan Lethem quotes the cartoon The Simpsons. In an episode where the ownership of fictional cartoon characters Itchy and Scratchy (the show`s modified version of Tom and Jerry), the writer of the cartoon-within-a-cartoon declares "Animation is built on plagiarism! You take away our right to steal ideas, where are they going to come from?" (kinda funny that my summary`s taken from Lethem`s essay, right?) In the context of The Simpsons, when Rodger Meyers Jr. makes this declaration, the cartoonists are using him to mock the animation industry since many shows, movies and films all have similar ideas, outcomes, plot lines and stories, like how West Side Story is effectively Romeo and Juliet set in the 20th century and High School Musical is very similar to Greece. In the context of the essay The Ecstasy of Influence: A Plagiarism, however, the quote from Meyers is used as a way of making a point about plagiarism and the arts. Lethem takes the quote in a literal sense; in the Simpsons, the quote is used like every other line in the show, to make fun of something or someone, as that cartoon is essentially an animated political cartoon.

By taking the quote and completely reassigning the meaning of it, Lethem makes an interesting point about he use of other`s ideas in literary work: the quotes themselves can be taken and used, but have the whole meaning and reason for usage behind them change with how they are deployed in a piece. Likewise, ideas can be plagiarized without being obvious about it, by changing the conditions the idea is used in or the way it is brought up. It also makes plagiarism seem not very bad, compared to the way we have been taught to view it in school, as many famous authors seem to do it.

Jonathan Lethem Post

   The passage I chose is on page 215 and it is on a quote by Andre Breton. The quote is "beautiful as the chance encounter of a sewing machine and an umbrella on an operating table." To research this I first went onto google scholar to try and find a biography of Breton. I did not have much luck with this. I then went straight onto google itself and found some information about Breton and even found where the quote Lethem used was from. The quote actually comes from a 19th century French poet, Comte de Lautréamont, in his work Les Chant de Maldoror. Breton, who found the quote, used it as an example of how to link two seemingly different ideas together in order to challenge a viewers preconceived idea of the two ideas. Lethem took the maxim to mean that a person can place objects, that mean one thing, in strange places and create a new type of meaning for them. This new background context displays how Lethem made this conclusion. It is not exactly the same meaning that Breton was going for, but it is similar enough and eventually plays into Lethem's claims about plagiarism. The quote that Lethem took from Breton, was actually appropriated by Breton from the poet, Comte de Lautréamont. So this is just another example of how plagiarism helped lead to some great works. Without Breton's ideas spinning off of Comte de Lautréamont, many surrealists would lose the basis of most of their works. This example pervades the point that in order for there to be new ideas, old ideas need to be taken from and improved.  

Lethem Writing

The passage I chose is on page 219 when Lethem uses the example of The Velveteen Rabbit to demonstrate the perspective of second use in the eyes of the maker and the consumer. After a simple Google search, I was able to find a PDF of the short story. In the short story, the excerpt Lethem quotes is in the context of Rabbit questioning Skin Horse on what it means to be “Real,” or loved (the characters are stuffed animals or toys of some sort). Rabbit perceives being Real as being shabby, worn out, and a sort of magic, only happening to a select few toys. The toys that are Real end up being used and remembered for years, In sum, this short story uses this conversation to discuss the meaning of love. Lethem applies this central idea to plagiarism and the use of others’ works. When literary works, or other kinds of art, are used over and over again, society’s love for those works is strengthened. The way Lethem manipulates this passage is quite natural. Substituting the toys for literary works still keeps the central idea of the passage, and it expands its meaning to the new subject, literature.

From this analysis, I found that appropriation can be used to apply central ideas to new subjects in unpredictable ways. Toys and literature are very unrelated, but after applying the idea of love and appreciation to them, they become connected. In order to establish this connection, however, plagiarism is necessary. Making connections like this requires one to take from others’ works and manipulate the ideas to create something new and refreshing just as Lethem does.

My Reflections on Peer Review

Peer review, as an activity is extremely useful in improving the quality of work not only in English class, but also in the scientific community where it acts as a sieve preventing papers of shoddy quality from passing through. Peer review relies on the sort of crowdsourcing and collective learning that Davidson focuses on in her essay. In our peer reviewing exercise, I found that while some of the comments and critiques made by my peers was in fact helpful, the majority of it focused on my grammar and word choice. This criticism will definitely improve my paper, but these are also mistakes I could have identified after proofreading. The value that is really gained from peer review is when a classmate identifies how a certain example could be used, or how a series of thoughts could be strung together(i.e. close read and critique). Honestly, I feel that I am not a good enough writer to peer reviews others work to this caliber. Therein lies the main shortcoming of the peer review process, the quality of it depends on the quality of the readers/writers involved in it. Despite this I do feel that my peers caught onto mistakes and major shortfalls that I would have likely overlooked because I forgot to read the prompt correctly or am simply habituated with writing in a certain, incorrect way.

Response to Peer Editing

Response to Peer Editing

The peer reviewing exercise not only provided criticisms of my own paper, but also broadened my perspective of the two texts. By receiving edits on my own paper, I was able to reflect on my errors and correct what I wasn't able to spot before. This was vital to the improvement of the essay, as it is often difficult to spot one's own errors. When I read the constructive criticism of 2 individuals, I was able to add depth to my paper, remove excess, and spot even more errors that went unnoticed before.

I also learned about ideas that my peers were able to extract from the two passages we were analyzing. While I was not pulling directly from their papers, their unique insights opened my eyes to elements of the essays that I did not interpret beforehand. I was able to use these revelations in relation to my own arguments in order to add depth to my paper. Seeing as the peer review process was so helpful, I will definitely use this process in future papers that I write. 

Peer Review Experience

Overall, I felt that the Peer Review was a beneficial activity for developing a better essay. Through my classmates reading my essay, I found that I used a significant amount of unnecessary summary that sounded nice (aka how I wrote in my high school's advanced English courses), rather than really delving into my own ideas and expanding on them. It was also pointed out to me that my use of quotes, sentence structure, and general organization could be more effective. Through reading my classmates' essays, I was given a new perspective of how they processed the assignment mentally, and how they went about executing it. Another thing that stood out to me in this process is what naturally appears to me as a flaw when I am reading a paper. During high school, the significance of word variation, grammar, and spelling was extremely prominent in the perceived quality of a paper, rather than truly excavating the text and molding new ideas and connections from it. This experience, along with the reviewing of the sample papers and comments, helped me get a better sense of the quality of my essay, and the areas where it needs more work.

Peer Review Review

Given that an essay is already bad, peer review is the highlighter that scribbles over the already glaringly obvious flaws. While it doesn’t hurt to emphasize the parts the paper is already lacking in, I find that in the peer review process there’s not enough time to not only identify the problems, but also to suggest cohesive solutions to them. In my experience, the kinds of problems I find most revelatory in the process are the small nitpicky stylistic and grammar errors that dot every rough draft. While these errors are still important to fix, they certainly do not take priority over the argument of the paper, the logic behind the argument and the flow between thoughts and ideas. Peer review does help, but with the given time constraints of the process, it doesn’t help with the most important parts of writing.

In contrast, the time constraints are beneficial in the sense that in order to review the essay properly, quick analytical thinking is required. Reading through other people’s essays and decomposing their argument and logic is a good way to improve analytical skills similar to the close readings we are assigned. In the end, peer review develops different skills depending on the way the activity is implemented.

Both of my classmates agree that my thesis needs to be improved upon. Overall I do understand that my introduction needs to improved. I went too quickly into the “meat” of the essay rather than explain my thesis well. Alana pointed out a couple places where I missed connections that I could have made as well. I could have connected predictability and organized complexity better, as well as improved my connections between organized complexity and the classroom, which were not clear. She pointed out the question to think about, which makes me realize that though I thought the connection I made between them was clear, to the reader it was not clear at all. Also I need to be clear with my quotes and explain them fully. I did not spend enough time explaining connections that I believed were evident. Also Aakansha pointed out places where I repeated myself without meaning to. I need to go back to those places and add new ideas and connections instead of relying on other thoughts I had expanded upon elsewhere in the paper. Also not only did I repeat ideas, I also repeated connecting phrases and word choices, rather than vary my sentence structure. Also, an off-handed comment of how I forgot to contradict Davidson at one point in my paper lead me to a whole new topic as well, which I have used to build my paper further. Finally, I was also surprised that my classmates did not remove more of my paper through deletions. Going through my paper again, I removed even more of repeated thoughts and making other arguments more concise. Perhaps they were more lenient on sentence length, but I feel like my paper had too much fluff that even my classmates missed some.

Paper 1 Rough Draft & Sample Paper Response

Thank you all for both your reflections on the peer review process and your comments on the sample papers, which I found very insightful. Judging from the survey results, there was definitely clustering around the assigned grades, which is exactly as it should be. As a number of you mentioned, the grading criteria is pretty nuanced in the distinctions between things like a B and a B+, so there’s definitely room for discretion. I actually think that a number of you were right to point out that Paper X/C seemed like a C+ more than a C—looking back at my records, it seems that it received the lower grade because it was handed in late. So, good job for pointing out that discrepancy!

As you can see, Paper Z/A does something quite different from the other two, in part because it’s dealing with three texts instead of two. This example, not from my own class, shows the way that working with multiple texts forces you to move beyond comparison and contrast between others’ arguments and instead makes you place emphasis on using the texts as support for your own independent, original argument. I particularly like the way the example of the yogurt, for instance, doesn’t seem connected to the writer’s topic sentence except in the way that the author interprets its significance. It’s not an obvious connection, in other words, and is all the more interesting because of that.

Hopefully this exercise, along with peer review, has given you some direction for your own paper revisions. I’d also like to offer you a few suggestions based on what I’ve noticed from reading your rough drafts. Judging from your blog posts, it seems that a number of you have noticed a need to cut down on summary—I agree wholeheartedly. In many cases, students were summarizing the arguments of Johnson and Davidson before turning to their own claims, which is unnecessary. As someone pointed out in their comments on the sample papers, the A paper has a “captivating” argument, whereas the B paper’s thesis is somewhat obvious and/or broad. Given the amount of prefatory material that was in some papers, you might find it most effective to take the claims at the end of your paper and make them the starting point for a new, more specific thesis.

Another area that needs work in many of your papers is organization. As you can see from the sample papers, strong papers make connections within the paragraphs organized around a particular topic. As you go through your rough drafts, you should be isolating each paragraph and asking yourself, “what is my claim here?” If it’s a claim you develop in another paragraph, consider linking those paragraphs together. You can also try isolating your topic sentences and quotations from each paragraph in a separate document. Then, in a few sentences, explain why you need those quotations to support your topic sentence. Both of these techniques are a version of what’s called the “Post-Draft Outline.” We’ll have time to talk about it more in the future, but feel free to try it on your own for this paper.

peer review

My experience with peer review was overall positive. After finishing my paper, the message of it to the writer, me, is very clear and subjective because I knew exactly what I mean to say. Even proofreading, a writer has the tendency to not notice certain errors or awkward phrasing because in his or her head is already the idea of what its supposed to sound like, so it is a biased reading. With peer review, it allows someone who is in a more objective position to read and review the paper, so awkward phrasing and grammar error stand out more. In this way, it was helpful. It helped me see some flaws I would not have otherwise noticed as well as offered a varied perspective. Looking at the paper from only your own perspective can shuts you out from all the other opinions and views people have to offer who might have interpreted the text in a different way. By doing this, I could change certain phrasing and ideas in order to make it more universal, or add a new paragraph or two to address a point I otherwise would never have thought of. Having a second opinion will get you thinking about expanding your own ideas and makes for a more elaborate and well rounded paper overall. Peer review was helpful by introducing a couple other perspectives that can notice imperfections I tend to look over and offering a second opinion. 

johnson

Reading Steven Johnson’s “Myth of the Ant Queen” after Davidson’s work is different and Johnson writes in a much more informative and factual fashion. However he does still introduce a theory or concept, that of organized complexity. He explains how things do not need a higher power in order for structure or organization to occur. This sort of self organization is explain in terms of the city of Manchester in the early 1800s where authorities could not keep up with the organization and everything feel into its place. This is present all around the world, everything has its niche that it eventually fits into and takes its form. He then uses the term emergent to explain how something becomes one unit from otherwise unrelated things. The method Johnson describes all of these things makes the topic very relatable and understandable. For instance, he has this concept of organized complexity and essentially describes it in terms of both something simple and more self explanatory to something slightly more complex. He starts out explaining it in terms of an ant colony, how every one within the colony always find his or her place, a seemingly simple and visible concept in terms of how colonies always seem to work together. He then expands it in terms of Manchester and the organized complexity of a city. This is something that is seen once he begins to explain it and elaborate, but is not something readily associated. Humans don’t think of Manchester and immediately see the organized complexity behind it, where it’s easier to see with the ants. Even more so slightly complicated is the organized complexity behind software and computer systems as it applies to the first complex computers designed by Alan Turing and Claude Shannon. Johnson did a good job in expanding and elaborating on an idea from something simpler to something slightly more complicated while explaining the same concept.

davidson

Cathy Davidson writes “Project Classroom Makeover” somewhat criticizing the modern education system. She sees it being much too similar to the way it was in the past and in relation to how fast our society is progressing, especially in terms of technology, the education system should catch up. Davidson also mentions crowdsourcing, which includes groups to collaborate on a certain mission or goal. Davidson brings up many good points, but in my personal experience, I’ve seen and been in classes where technologies utilized to a relatively high degree. With smart boards, tablets, and computers, i’ve seen all used in class for notes, activities and made easily available throughout the course of a lesson. A lot of schools simply can’t afford this type of in-class technology. However, closer to the end Davidson talks about an educational program that uses video games. I found this interesting and thought it had some value to it as it intertwines education with enjoyment. More of theses sorts of programs and teaching programs should be available because student attention and interest in education is dwindling and should be paid attention to. In this sense, I do believe the educational system is slightly outdated in terms of how strict and adhering to standards they tend to be. But there is more to it than technology. 

Reaction to Peer Review

The peer review process definitely helped me single in on how my essay needs to look when it is finished. I got to see how to make some aspects of my essay better by viewing others' papers, but I also got to see what I should avoid doing. Even though the papers we reviewed were rough drafts I could see that my 'rough' draft was developed anywhere near enough, lacking coherent topics in many of the paragraphs. Coherency and focus is definitely something that the peer review taught me to be more considerate of in my writing. Having someone annotate my paper was also very helpful because that way I was able to see exactly what needs improvement. For example, I had a lot of summary that disguised as analysis that I probably wouldn't have noticed unless someone had pointed out specifically where it appeared in the text. That also translates to which quotations are necessary and which aren't, as another person can give a better overhead view of my essay and was able to see what was unnecessary to the thesis.

Reaction to Peer Review

One of the most helpful things about reading my peers’ papers is seeing their stance and writing style on a similar topic. It’s really interesting seeing how another writer writes and how they argue a topic, but it’s especially intriguing when the topic in question is the same or similar to what you’re arguing. I found myself drawing new similarities and discovering new perspectives on pieces of text I had previously ignored. In the same vein, seeing others’ points also showed me places where my argument could be refuted, and therefore a place where I need to better develop my argument. Doing this peer review definitely helped me formulate a better argument just by reading other point of views in other papers.

On my paper in particular, the comments were quite helpful in pointing out little grammar mistakes I’ve missed and repetitive wording I may have forgotten to delete. However, the most helpful commentary comes from their perspective of my paper. I always try my hardest to write a paper that clearly and easily explains my point to a reader without much deciphering or confusion on the reader’s end, but this task isn’t always easy and I’m not the best at it. When reading my own paper, I can remember what was going through my head at the time and can easily make heads or tails of whatever sentence I may be reading, but to a reader, that sentence could be excessively confusing and vague. Just having a peer read my essay is useful since wherever they’re confused is wherever I need to edit.

Reaction to Grading

I thought the differences between my grades of the sample papers were not always easy to see, but almost like my reaction to them, more intuitive than thought out. When i read them, I almost decided what grade the essay should receive based on how well I understood the argument presented, how well the paper stayed on task and how well the quotes were analyzed than anything else. it was almost an extension to how much attention the essay held to me throughout and how well I felt it was written, based off my reactions to all the books I`ve read in my life.

The grades seem to be based mostly on how the quotes of the essay (how well quotes are integrated into the essays, analysis of the quotes, how well the quotes were chosen and connected to the topic of the paragraph) as well as connecting messages in the texts as opposed to the style of the writing and how well the thoughts are presented.

The second paper receiving a "C" surprised me, although when I read through the annotated version, I did agree by the end of the essay; I thought it at least a "C+" or "B-". The other essays I was very close on grading-wise.

Reaction to Peer Review

     My experience with the first peer review process was mostly positive. I would like to clarify that I am very appreciative of the criticism that my peers provided me with. With that being said, the time constraints provided by the limited class period resulted in me feeling like the peer review process was incomplete. One of the classmates who was reading my paper did not have time to complete his review. As a result, I am not able to take a whole lot away from his review. Additionally, to me it feels that much of the criticism received relates to things that I could see in my own paper when using the peer review sheet as I guide, though I suppose that this statement is actually a praise of the review sheet. The review sheet was well-made and very specific, which would allow the writer to use it to see his own shortcomings despite the nearsightedness that often comes with being the author. With that being said, I do feel like I walked out of that class period with a better capacity to finalize my paper. For that reason, I consider the peer review process to be a success. Having two more sets of eyes read over my paper is never something that I will take for granted. The pieces of advice related to things such as quotations are not something that I would have been able to spot on my own. My peers also reaffirmed the things that I have done right, which helps me to have confidence in my writing. Furthermore, the opportunity to read the papers written by my classmates has provided me a more comprehensive view of the Davidson and Johnson essays, as they point out things in it that I did not notice. I can use the knowledge I gathered from their papers to see flaws in my position and continue to improve upon my own essay. As a whole, this process went well and I am hopeful that we will continue to use it with papers to come.

Peer Review Reaction

For me, the peer review process was extremely helpful. When I came to class, my rough draft consisted of loosely related paragraphs with no real underlying thesis. Infact, I did not even come in with an introductory paragraph. As I wrote, I tried to use prospective writing and come up with my thesis as I went along, but I found out that without a real foundation it is not so easy. My essay was really just me writing on various topics and seeing what stuck with the reader. The feedback I received was mostly helpful because it gave me a direction to organize my essay when I work on the final draft. Furthermore, the distinction between summary and analysis became far more clear to me. Originally I considered much of what I wrote to be analysis, yet one of my reviewers in particular thought it was basically all summary. Though it may just be the way I vaguely worded my “analysis”, it was helpful to see how another reader would view my writing. While I did not get much from other people’s essays in the way of content, I did gain a better understanding of what good analysis should be and how to properly connect the two texts. I can better understand where my paper falls short and work around those areas accordingly. This assignment in particular is difficult for me because of my high school experience. Instead of arguing something on the writer’s behalf, I have to come up with an original argument that synthesizes the two texts. The peer review exercise is especially beneficial because it gives me a good idea of where I can potentially take my paper.

Peer Edit Reaction

Peer review sessions often help to strengthen my essays. There are a lot of times where having others edit my essays finds many little mistakes I make and any sentences that seem fine to me because I know what I want to say, but make absolutely no sense when others read them. In addition, they also help me to adjust my style of writing so it is easier to understand for others, since I tend to write with lots of run-on sentences and extensions, since that`s the way I think (point and case). I also have trouble with restating the same point sometimes in different ways when its not necessary. Also, I like having several different friends who all have different ideas on how to write read and edit my essay so the view points the writing is viewed from changes and gives me a better over-all perspective of the piece.

For this piece in particular, I was give a new point to argue to support my thesis I had not thought about before, since it was looking at the thesis from an angle I never thought to explore. In addition, there were several analysis's I thought were good and complete, covering everything I needed to with them, but there were parts of them that were redundant and unnecessary. When I was reading through others papers, I was also given new ideas on how to argue points in my essay, whether from how a point was made, the way it was argued, or the point itself. I also read several analysis`s where the message generated from the text was completely different from what I got from it, because of how differently I broke that part of the passage up in mind and analyzed it. I think adding these arguments to my essay will help me avoid redundancy since now I have more ways to argue my point, and more variation in the essay, keeping it from getting stale.

Reaction to Peer Review Session

Doing a peer review session always allows me to see my papers in new ways. Some of the comments that were made on my paper were mainly about sentences in my essay that I thought were contributing toward the argument, but they were really just a summary. I actually went through my essay myself, and I saw a few sentences that some of my peers did not spot that were redundant or summarizing as well. This is a problem I did not notice in my writing in the past, so I went back to my essays I wrote in high school, and I found that what made me write this way was the longer essay length that is required. I have a tendency to write filler in order to fulfill this requirement. One thing I will definitely look for in my own proofreading is this kind of writing since I will likely make the same mistake in the future.

A part of the peer reviewing session that I also appreciated was seeing some part of my argument in others’ papers. It was especially interesting to see slightly-tweaked points of view lead to completely different directions of others’ arguments. Some of these arguments are ones I have not ever considered to argue for, and I often felt like I could take a different point of view on an argument and apply it to the paper to make it more lengthy yet very well-developed.

Reaction to Peer Review

My experience with Thursday’s peer review was a good one. Not only did it allow me to see the flaws in my writing, but it also allowed me to get ideas from other people to help me change up my own essay’s style and formatting. It is always helpful to have another person look at your work, because it is often difficult to catch your own mistakes or be critical of yourself. By having two other people read and edit my essay did make me see my essay in a new light. It showed me that points I thought were analysis were actually more like summary, and highlighted areas that I needed to focus on and fix. I learned that no matter how many times you read over your essay, there will always be areas that need more work. I definitely did not think my essay was perfect, but I thought I was off to a good start. After the peer review, however, I realized that I need to spend a lot more time on connecting my quotes back to my thesis. I also need to focus on avoiding so much summary and replacing that with analysis. Finally, I need to try to make clearer connections between the two authors. Looking over my essay after other people read it, I realized that my argument was a bit fragmented. I compared the two authors, but there were not clear, smooth transitions and connections. Overall, the peer review was very helpful and made it clear to me what areas I need to focus on more before I turn in my final draft.

Peer Review Experience

I was having a little trouble figuring out what to write about next.The peer review gave me some ideas of how to improve my argument by giving me some more possible points to use. I now know I can and should expand upon Alan Turing and his achievements and possibly find some outside evidence of my claims surrounding him. Before the review, I had not considered looking at other sources besides the two essays by Davidson and Johnson. It is important to get some evidence outside of these works because some of my claims are based upon a specific time period. Neither essay really addresses the issues I'm specifically fighting for, so I need to find some proof outside of them. Another issue that was brought up, I have a tendency to summarize a little more than necessary. So I need to explain my ideas instead of simply restating someone else's. I was very surprised how my peers could be critical and yet respectful of my writing at the same time. Usually I associate criticism with a negative light, but my peers successfully showed me my flaws in a constructive manner. I believe I was able to do the same for them. Now that I realize my peers are not going to judge my views harshly, I feel more comfortable seeking them out for help or suggestions. Also, it was interesting to see other people's writing styles and ideas. In my peer's writing, they made some connections that I did not see before. It kind of helped me open my eyes a little more and make a few more connections myself. Overall, I found the peer review helpful and would not object to doing it again.

Steven Johnson Reading Assignment

Johnson's essay, The Myth of the Ant Queen revolves around the idea of systems that are self-organizing and "emergent". Johnson uses the word "emergent" throughout his essay as the basis for the various places his ideas and research take him. Johnson introduces this novel idea of emergent behavior with the example of ant colonies. He introduces Deborah Gordon and writes that she, "focuses on the connection between the microbehavior of individual ants and the overall behavior of the colonies themselves, and part of that research involves tracking the life cycles of individual colonies, following them year by year as they scour the desert floor for food, competing with other colonies for territory, and-once a year-mating with them. She is a student, in other words, of a particular kind of emergent, self-organizing system." From here on out, Johnson takes the role of the student and shows various kinds of emergent systems. Johnson then delves into an example of how Manchester is an example of an emergent system. He supports this by citing how Manchester had no real urban planning and by quoting Friedrich Engels, who finds that the separation of the classes in the city seems highly systematic, but at the same time natural. Engels, however does not believe that this organization is completely without "pacemaker". The pacemakers he believes are the "liberal industrialists, the Manchester 'bigwigs'". Johnson goes on to use the word emergent to introduce complexity. The one sentence which really resonated with me was, "The city is complex because it overwhelms, yes, but also because it has a coherent personality, a personality that self-organizes out of millions of individual decisions, a global order built out of local interactions." It succinctly described for me the charm of the great metropolises of the world, how the bustling energy of a bazaar in New Delhi lent to not only its complexity, but its rich and vibrant personality. The look into complexity continues with Alan Turing and his work on emergence with respect to computer science and mathematics. Patterns are at the core of understanding this complexity, whether it be for the "pattern-amplifying machine" Engels analyzed or the "information in noisy communication channels" that Shannon and Turing worked on. The emergence at the beginning of the passage shifted focus to complexity and then to organized complexity, which then draws a parallel with Davidson's iPod experiment. The paradigm shift mentioned in The Ant Queen, a focus on research shifting from top-down to bottom-up mirrors the educational approach Davidson takes by distributing iPods on Duke University's campus. The students take a more hands-on approach to learning through the iPod experiment instead of leaving their education solely in the hands of University superiors. As Johnson writes that "There is a world of difference between a computer that passively receives the information you supply and a computer that actively learns on its own.", I replace the word computer in my mind with student and the sentiment it echoes is suddenly the same as Davidson's Project Classroom Makeover. The essay used the word emergence as the underlying theme in each of the authors examples, from the relatively small ant colony to the machine learning world of computers. By using these examples Johnson shows us how emergence lies everywhere. The demons in his example of pandemonium are not limited to the world of computer science or artificial intelligence. He argues that such demons are the underlying force behind evolution and that "The world now swarms with millions of his [Selfridge's] demons." Johnson cleverly developed the seemingly narrow example of emergence in an ant colony and gave the us, the readers, ample food for thought when considering the seemingly abstruse concept of emergence.

Johnson Reading Assignment

When I first read this passage, I was quite confused as to what direction the author was leading it in. One moment, he was talking about the organization of a colony of ants. Then, he was talking about the origins of Manchester. After, he discussed Turing's theories. I realized later that the connecting theme was that of "complexity." The author uses complexity as a way to illustrate our innate habit of trying to understand systems that somehow come together. We sometimes have to figure out a line of order. Someone gave an order, and others followed in order to create organization. Our brains are not wired to immediately understand the process of collective collaboration.

This connects to the reading from last class, in which the author argues for an education system that depends on the work of the entire class in order to produce a superior result. If we were to switch to that style of education, we would be able to adjust and understand this system more. This would be useful, as we would be able to understand a process that seems to originate naturally in our world.