Thlog 4

This week in Writing 2, we began to explore perspectives in reading, writing, and analysis. On the surface level of this concept, since that is all we have explored so far, we have practiced analyzing and writing in the perspectives of different sorts of people—in particular, people in the three different disciplines of academia—hard and soft/social sciences and the humanities—in the situation of questioning beachgoers about a melting alcohol bottle in the middle of a fire, and through the perspectives of different sorts of writers in the practical world—facebooking colleagues, detectives, coroners, local-and-national-newspaper writers, etc—in the situation of writing about the violent death of a university man in a parking garage. In these exercises, I was not only formally enlightened that these different perspectives exist in the reading, writing, and analysis of topics in writing, but also that conventions of genre—a concept that I learned and practiced extensively over the past couple of weeks in this course—are ever-present in different perspectives of writing. For instance, an example that was brought up in class involves comparing a writing from the perspective of a parking lot customer about the death of the university man—for the sake of expressing personal concerns—and writing from the perspective of a coroner analyzing the body of the university man—for the sake of providing a coroner’s report: a parking lot customer may typically introduce his or her name and address his or herself as a parking lot customer when writing a letter to the operators of the parking garage, while the coroner may not provide his or her name and his or her title as a coroner in the coroner’s report. These conventions have everything to do with genre, a concept I am feeling will be continuingly considered throughout the rest of the course.