TOW #10: "Up on the Roof"

Flourishing rooftop gardens (like this one) vastly improve the quality of city life in Philadelphia.

http://blog.gardenmediagroup.com/2012/08/roof-top-gardens-flourish-from-hong.html

In a world where cities blossom rapidly every day at the sacrifice of the environment, it is not uncommon to feel overwhelmed and depressed by the lack of nature. By destroying preexisting habitats only to create environmentally-deprecating centers for pollution, not only are we (being citizens of cities and inhabitants of Earth) helping to cause a (potential) global crisis, but we are making the world an arguably more depressing space. Verlyn Klinkenborg proposes a solution to an urban-environmental conflict through his investigation of rooftop gardens, called “living roofs,” that are present in forward-looking cities such as Vancouver. These garden are quickly taking root on the roofs of progressive cities across the world. Klinkenborg’s purpose in writing “Up on the Roof” is to inform the readers of the benefits of rooftop gardens in large cities. To demonstrate the pros of “living roofs” (with the idea that anything other than a roof with a garden is a “dead roof’) Klinkenborg uses examples to demonstrate how specific instances of these rooftop gardens work and improve city life. Also, Klinkenborg lays out his essay chronologically, moving through logos-generating reasons that explain, for example, how rooftop gardens “enhance the urban soundscape”, or how they are environmentally beneficial. Klinkenborg proposes an interesting concept in the form of a systematic argument in which he addresses both his side of the concept of green rooftops and the counterargument. For this reason, I believe he accomplished his purpose. I now see that cities don’t have to be epicenters of pollution; maybe natural environments and urban environments can actually coexist. City goers and environment lovers would constitute this article’s audience. This article is only of interest to a very specific type of audience, although the actual number of people it would interest (since cities are enormous) is much larger.

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/print/2009/05/green-roofs/klinkenborg-text

TOW #9: We Are All Plagiarists

With such a massive amount of information on the internet, what happens when two ideas are a little too similar?

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/cartoonists/2013/11/we-are-all-plagiarists.html

Plagiarism is a feared word. It implies something very sinister. How can everyone be a plagiarist? Robert Mankoff explores what plagiarism means, particularly in a world where so much has already been said. Mankoff believes that the difference between plagiarism and coincidence is intent. In a world with an infinite number of ideas spinning around the internet, how does one effectively avoid plagiarism? Unless, like an unfortunate cartoon editor described in Mankoff's essay, "We Are All Plagiarists," you sort through every last publication within a certain range, it's hard to be sure if you're plagiarizing. Mankoff's purpose is to highlight a gray area that has arisen. What qualifies as intent to do something, not just in terms of plagiarism, is sometimes indiscernible from coincidence. Although he doesn't quite make any remarks regarding how to deal with this confusion, Mankoff does use his essay to at least highlight its importance. Robert Mankoff is an author, editor, and has worked as a cartoonist for The New Yorker for twenty years. In addition to his memoir which is set to come out in 2014, Mankoff has written a book about cartooning. Between his experience and dedication, Mankoff is considerably credible. The audience of "We Are All Plagiarists" is explicitly "we"; Mankoff meant to reach readers of The New Yorker and possibly even readers and writers in general. Anyone who reads or creates content would fall into Mankoff's intended audience. Mankoff highlights the importance of intent versus coincidence using a very effective anecdote. It worked because he wasn't telling the reader why this one aspect is important, but rather he shows the reader. Also, the author uses an interesting strategy in which he used a google search of the title of his essay, "We Are All Plagiarists," to prove his point. Not surprisingly, Mankoff hasn't written the only "We Are All Plagiarists," although he uses that idea to make a point that the only reason why he technically wasn't plagiarizing was because he didn't do so purposefully.

TOW #8: IRB Post

School of the Art Institute of Chicago, where David Sedaris graduated from and taught a writing workshop at.

http://www.artandeducation.net/announcement/school-of-the-art-institute-of-chicago’s-saic-call-for-applications/

The next three story-like chapters in David Sedaris's Me Talk Pretty One Day dealt primarily with Sedaris's early adulthood and the adjustments he did (or didn't) make. The purpose of the last two of the three chapters was primarily to show that change can be difficult by showing two (of his own) reactions to change: one in which he adapts and one in which he doesn't. Sedaris uses his own perspective to help him achieve his purpose. Had he written Me Talk Pretty One Day from anything perspective other than first person, he would not have been able to adequately demonstrate his reaction to, for example, the death of his beloved cat. Only he could make the audience understand his feelings. In addition, Sedaris makes blatant allusions in his appropriately-named chapter "The Learning Curve," in which he describes his attempt as a new teacher to teach a writing class through the show One Life to Live. Although I wasn't familiar with the show, his reference worked well enough since I understood at the very least that it wasn't related to writing. This part of Me Talk Pretty One Day was directed at readers who were either fresh out of college or entering into their first "real" job. In both cases, the audience has to be in the process of adjusting to some huge change. Although David Sedaris is in fact credible (as established in previous posts), his credibility as a teacher rather than an author falters in these chapters. He struggles to properly teach a college course on writing. This matters little overall, though, since Sedaris is previously proved to be credible. Sedaris definitely accomplished his purpose if only because I could relate to several of his experiences and feelings, such as his love for his cat. The main reason Sedaris was able to show that change is all about how you react and adjust to it is because he references and draws on so many familiar feelings and cultural aspects, such as the loss of a pet.