Ethnography Proposal

I plan to write my ethnography on the discourse community of screenwriters. Screenwriting is a creative art, where writers create the world of the movie out of thin air. Every screenwriter begins the process as a mere novice in the world of screenwriting. They must research anything and everything to make their script credible. They must take advantage of every opportunity to network or communicate with those with their foot already in the door in this tough business.  Aspiring screenwriters are always trying to improve their work by communication with industry professionals and events such as specialized conferences and festivals where they are given the opportunity to network with those in the industry and potential suitors.

It is easily a discourse community, with the first reason being that everyone involved has a common set of goals: to sell their screenplay, get paid, and eventually see their work come to life on screen. The second reason is that aspiring screenwriters are always intercommunicating with each other. Whether it be two aspiring screenwriters communicating with each other and possibly collaborating on a project, or a hopeful writer receiving coverage and feedback on their script from someone in the business. The third characteristic of a discourse community that this meets is that it uses participatory mechanisms primarily to provide information and feedback. There are always informational opportunities for aspiring screenwriters to improve the possibility of their goals in the form of conferences and script coverage.

This community has multiple genres to further develop its goals because there are so many different ways an aspiring screenwriter can break into the industry. From winning competitions, to knowing someone in the industry, to just getting lucky, the different genres of opportunity are endless. Those who can write screenplays and are involved with the creative art have highly technical language and speech communities that the common person would not understand. For example the art of screenwriting is a long and arduous process with inner workings that many would find impossible to even begin.

Lastly, aspiring screenwriters are always changing memberships, which is the final qualification of a discourse community. Screenwriters with many years of experience and many movies under their belt are viewed as experts in the field. Every one of those successful screenwriters was once merely an aspiring screenwriter, trying to gain any advantage they could possibly get.

I would love to study this particular discourse community because I have a passion for writing. I've been screenwriting for about two years now and I continue to learn something new everyday.  It is my dream to be amongst the elite in Hollywood and this is a golden opportunity for me to further investigate this creative art that I love. I could potentially interview a number of people who are involved with screenwriting and film. My professor of screenwriting from earlier this year has written several movies and has even directed her own scripts. My cousin has been a professional script reader for 10 years and offers screenwriters feedback or coverage on their scripts. There are newsletters sent to me every week from the ISA, or International Screenwriters Association with the sole purpose of enhancing aspiring screenwriters chances on optioning their script or to improve their script. It has opened the doors for numerous Hollywood screenwriters today, and the information provided by the ISA is a first-hand look at the challenges facing screenwriters today.

Post 10

I belong to a discourse community involving aspiring screenwriters. Aspiring screenwriters are always trying to improve their work by communication with industry professionals and events such as specialized conferences and festivals where they are given the opportunity to network with those in the industry and potential suitors. It is easily a discourse community, with the first reason being that everyone involved has a common set of goals: to sell their screenplay, get paid, and eventually see their work come to life on screen. The second reason is that aspiring screenwriters are always intercommunicating with each other. Whether it be two aspiring screenwriters communicating with each other and possibly collaborating on a project, or a hopeful writer receiving coverage and feedback on their script from someone in the business. The third characteristic of a discourse community that this meets is that it uses participatory mechanisms primarily to provide information and feedback. There are always informational opportunities for aspiring screenwriters to improve the possibility of their goals in the form of conferences and script coverage. This community has multiple genres to further develop its goals because there are so many different ways an aspiring screenwriter can break into the industry. From winning competitions, to knowing someone in the industry, to just getting lucky, the different genres of opportunity are endless. Those who can write screenplays and are involved with the creative art have highly technical language and speech communities that the common person would not understand. For example the art of screenwriting is a long and arduous process with innerworkings that many would find impossible to even begin. Lastly, aspiring screenwriters are always changing memberships. Some give-up, others succeed, while others remain always trying to accomplish their goal. It is the exact balance needed to make a discourse community. 

Post 9

I don't agree that Baron's message is that he can't imagine new technology changing the shape of writing. First and foremost, Baron reminds us that writing itself is TECHNOLOGY, engineered to have a beginning and an end (37). Baron argues that whenever newer technologies arise they all go through the same steps. First it's only available to those who can afford it. It is at this time that some writing constituents of simpler, older, and more reliable writing practices rebel against it. This will always happen whenever new technology arises, making it more difficult to completely change the shape of writing. Also newer technology then always go through concerns over it's authenticity and fraudulent possibility, as did the computer. But Baron convinces me this is not his argument when he compares the pencil to the keyboard and says the pencil too and says, "although the pencil has fewer parts, it too is an advanced technology." (39).  If the pencil is an advancement of technology, then didn't that change the shape of writing? And if writing itself is a technology, then aren't all of these new advanced portals of writing (computer, IPad, cell phone, etc.) aren't those changing the shape of writing today? Baron said himself that he's been ruined for writing by hand because of the computer. He says he realized he is so used to writing on a keyboard, that he could not "draft anything coherently on a piece of paper". Baron's message is that he is not sure what final impact all this new technology will have on literacy, but as far as changing the shape of writing, it is hard to ignore the movement.

Reflection Esay

           There are many constructs involved with editing existing Wikipedia articles. After being weary of these constructs before my editing began, I was honestly a bit nervous about indulging into the “highly criticized” Wikipedia world. But after completing this assignment in which I was extremely hesitant about doing, I feel as if Wikipedia can help us understand the research writing process and the proper way to go about it.

            Although it is often criticized for its lack of credibility, it is often forgot that contributors must back up their information with credible and reliable sources. Contributers aren’t just making up material for the sake of throwing into an existing Wikipedia article. They are simply relaying the information for an easy and more efficient way of gathering information. I began to look at Wikipedia as an “Info Tree” but with the necessary information already at your fingertips for retrieval. It’s not a terrifying and arduous process. It’s actually quite enjoyable to peruse a Wikipedia article.

            Anne Lamont put it best, “Very few writers know what they’re doing until they’ve done it.” I did not have a clue as to what I was doing when I started these edits. Research writing has not always been a strong suit of mine. I knew I had to somehow involve Porter’s “creative writer within” to get through it. But as I neared the end of my first drafts, I felt like I was able to grasp Lamont’s words. Staring at a no longer blank page, suddenly everything came to me. But the one thing that did not, was the question as to what is my purpose in writing this?

            When writing Wikipedia edits it is easy to take one of Porter’s constructs into consideration: heroism. What is the purpose of editing this article? It is because one wants to share their knowledge of a certain subject to better inform a potential audience. We almost view ourselves as heroes for being able to provide extensive information on a subject that no one else could. But are we really being “heroes” for simply taking the initiative to put someone else’s words in an online encyclopedia article?

            I think all of us believe ourselves to be creative writer’s when making these Wikipedia edits. We are simply forming something out of blank space. But in doing so, we are submitting to Porter’s ideology “the creative writer is the creative borrower” (Porter). In reference to this assignment, we are the creative borrower. We are the initiative finder, the creative borrower, and the submissive organizer. This is what makes a good Wikipedia edit.

            The most difficult part of the Wikipedia edit was definitely the organization. When editing an existing start-class article, it is easy to just throw in all the information you find into one jumbled mess and announce, “I have reached the minimum word count!” But one owes it to the projected audience to be able to correctly organize that information into a sensible and orderly manner. I am a Wikipedia fiend. It is where I get all my information for everything. But I won’t even bother with an article if it is poorly organized and therefore unappealing. When making my edits, I made sure that I put myself in the readers’ shoes and thought about how I would want the article organized. This was a great idea for the finalization of editing process.

            The Wikipedia tutorials on how to correctly site sources and report information was extremely helpful. Honestly it was much easier than I had originally thought it would be. I knew it wasn’t going to be just a “copy and paste” type of deal, but I thought it would have more curveballs than it actually did. It was fast and easy to start on my sandbox, which was my own personal editing bay without yet publishing my information. And when the time came to publish my work, it was simply a couple clicks of the buttons and my hard work was displayed for the world to see. I’ve admittedly checked out both my pages I edited more than a few times, proud of the work I’ve done.

            As I stated earlier, I thought of myself through the construct of heroism early on during my edits. But then I remembered my own words that I posted in a blog earlier this quarter; “to imagine writing as heroic is exceptionally dangerous because when one starts to write for heroic reasons, it is easy to become lost in the intertextuality of writing.”

            As I continued my edits I abandoned the heroic aspect of Wikipedia and focused on the individuality. It is impossible not to feel individuality when editing an article because it is just you working on it. There is no one constantly critiquing your work or questioning it. It is the most individual form of research writing I have ever come into contact with, and am already itching to continue my editing in the Wikipedia world!

Post 7

Deborah Brandt claims that sponsors always have something to gain from their sponsorships. This meaning that we can all learn from those who teach us in life. Brandt suggests that as writers, we look back at our first "teachers" of writing. By doing this we are exploring our past to better influence and enhance our literary future. Another way Brandt suggests sponsors learn from their sponsorships is simply the literary development that has occurred in the past quarter of a century.

She details "we have theorized, researched, critiqued, debated, and enhanced literate potentials of citizens."(4) This is meaning to say that sponsorships have made advancements for sponsors to better utilize in the literary world in the future. I know, personally, that I am a good writer. But I also know that my mother is a great writer in her own right, and I always listen to any advice she has for me. She proofreads most of my major writings and I don't think twice when applying her advice to my writing. My reasoning being she has 45-50 years of writing experience compared to my 10-15 years. Sponsorships are always useful and Brandt exemplifies that point in this piece.

Blog 6

Exigence: urgency based on preliminary factors with multiple potential outcomes. EX: forgetting to study for an exam until right before the class, then taking the exam.

Rhetor: someone who is uttering the message to make it clearer, sometimes better than the responsible party could do. EX: A celebrity's publicist talking to the media following a controversial arrest.

Audience: who is the message being communicated to? This is a specific group responsible for understanding the rhetor's purpose and relaying that understanding to each other. EX: Pet owners listening to an animal rights activist talk about protesting killings at a local pound.

Constraints: the multitude of obstacles in the way of the rhetor communicating the message to the audience. Something that could minimize the rhetor's effectiveness. EX: A presidential candidate giving a speech on a cable network, unable to reach the people without cable.

Blog 4: Autobiography

Murray wants us to reconsider our approach to writing as autobiographical. He believes that all writing is autobiographical and most of what is used from our lives, we learn in the first 20 years of our life, while the rest of our years are used for observation. Murray states, "those of us who write have few topics" (67) meaning that we take the few personal certainties from our first 20 years of life and we revolve around them. Murray says that most of his stories revolve around his family and his childhood. So he wants us to reconstruct our way of thinking when we write to make our writing as personal as possible. And the most personal way of thinking, is through an autobiographical sense.