ToW #27 - Reflection: A Faux Conference

After facing much trepidation when trying to tackle this ToW, I have found that it is much easier and more useful for me to structure it as a conference between you, Ms. Pronko and Mr. Yost, and me, your student. I do this because I find it more effective to write as I speak and fabricating a normally vocal situation will help me be more honest and eloquent in my answers. So, please excuse any un-prose-like text in my response.

How have your ToWs progressed throughout this school year?

I notice, simply by skimming my first few ToWs, that my analytical writing has become much more subtle; nowadays, you'll hardly ever find me writing about "this article", "its author", or "the audience". Before I began to refine my writing, I had no other way to communicate than through the rather blatant, single-sentence "The author of this article, Jane Journalist, is an expert, making her very credible" or "As this article was published by OnlineNews.com, it is intended for some kind of audience". My writing became more fluid, with much more of a voice and less consciousness of fulfilling the ToW requirements. My more recent ToWs would probably be better suited to be read as speeches rather than blog posts, as they contain so much of my own voice. While the initial, more stressful ToWs served some purpose, I feel that my voice in writing could have been developed better by assigning me to structure a short oral presentation about my text of the week.

What do you think you mastered?

Quite honestly, absolutely nothing. Mastery is a strong notion and I am surprised to see it used in this context; this was our very first class dealing with complex, free-form writing and to observe any aspect of rhetoric as mastered would be short of miraculous. That said, I have improved in many aspects of my writing, but that was covered in my previous response.

What could you still strive to improve?

Again, given that I have yet to "master" anything to do with writing, I can still strive to improve all aspects of my rhetoric. I see the intent of this question, though: in what aspect is my skill still lacking? While I have performed at least adequately in all prosaic challenges that have met me this year, I find that I still struggle with pre-writing -- forming my argument efficiently and effectively. This is especially difficult when I have time constraints on my writing and when I am unfamiliar with what I am tasked with writing about (see: Sartre). It would almost help me to be impetuous in this regard, hastily choosing one argument so I can dedicate more time to supporting it.

Did you benefit from the ToWs?

I hope that my previous answers have already helped to answer this question: I find that they have brought my writing from a crude-ish state of raw meaning to a more refined, smooth powder of content. They have brought my writing more style and voice, coherence, and avenues for deeper thinking. For this, I am grateful, but these ToWs have still brought me considerable strife. At critical times in the school year, when projects converged, I found the ToWs a burden, diverting my attention from my greater goals. At normal times in the school year, when streams of homework were stable, I found the ToWs a chore, offsetting my natural pace and timing. At lax times in the school year, when workloads trickled, I found the ToWs an obstacle, keeping me bound to the screen despite the beckoning of a life to be lived. Keep in mind that I am a hugely involved writer, one who must stop everything else to focus on his rhetoric and who worries about the engrossing experience of working even when at play. This may only apply to me, but know that, throughout the working year (and even in the summer), ToWs were the enemy -- assignments to be tackled rather than cherished. Only in review do I see the benefit of them and it often took much gut-wrenching and teeth grinding to get me to write the ToWs that you've read. This may be resolved by mixing up the purpose of the blog posts -- maybe nix a few ToWs and assign them as writing times for an extra year-long essay.

If you'd like to talk more about how I feel about the ToWs, I'm always available for a chat. Thank you for this opportunity to provide useful information through my venting.

ToW #26 - Entry in the Ancient History Ency.: Herodotus

Reading Goal: Read a scholarly source about a completely unknown topic.

Writing Goal: Identify a logical purpose of the source and analyze its success.

    Where human history dates back hundreds of thousands of years, the study of it has but one limitation: it must be observed and recorded. With the title of "The Father of History" bestowed upon him, the Ancient Greek Herodotus was the man to first devise the study of history. In his entry in the Ancient History Encyclopedia, modern historian and professor Joshua Mark presents all known aspects of Herodotus' work and life. Writing to an audience of fellow academics, Mark analyzes Herodotus' ultimate credibility as a historian through the use of historical examples, both about his process of cataloguing and his accuracy describing history.
    When it comes to Herodotus' practices of gathering information, Joshua Mark proves that, though revolutionary his efforts were, they were inadequate. Mark proves Herodotus' reliance on faulty translators with a descriptive example: Herodotus once wrote about fox-sized ants in the Himalayas. For centuries, this aspect of his text was evidence of Herodotus' knack for storytelling until it was realized that the Persian word for "mountain ant" was very similar to the word for "marmot". This mistake, though understandable, reveals that Herodotus left something to be desired in translation. Likewise, it is likely that Herodotus wrote about ancient cities that he never visited. Mark proves this with another example: where Herodotus described the Walls of Babylon as having "a hundred gates made of bronze", archeological evidence reveals that there were, in fact, only eight. As this is a wild exaggeration, Mark concludes, "this account was based on hearsay, rather than a personal visit", further defying Herodotus' ancient credibility and revealing that he was often inaccurate. Mark's extensive use of examples may seem misplaced here, but as he wrote a completely historical and objective account, only examples could be used. None of his conclusions about Herodotus' life and credibility go without logical backing and analysis. Like a true scholar, Mark reveals to his readers that, where Herodotus' work may be used to gain an understanding of ancient rumors and approximations, Herodotus is ultimately more story teller and orator than what we imagine as a modern historian. Where Herodotus was a man who helped to originate the study that Mark engages in today, it is concluded that he was not as dedicated to academic honesty as are scholars of the current day.

For reference, a marmot.