Portfolio magazine

Writer’s Digest The only Magazine that doesn’t flood you with advertisements.

Table of Contents: The Elaboration Elusion……………………………….. Pg. 3-6 South Park: A Fight between Comedy and Morals….Pg. 7-15 A Review of the Fabulous-Ware Knife Set……………Pg. 16-19 Digital Assignment Reading Response………………..Pg. 20-22 Op-Ed Reading Response……………………………..…Pg. 23-24 Substantial Revision Reading Response………………Pg. 25-26

The Elaboration Elusion Dear Readers, When writing papers for this class during the semester, I strongly believe that the greatest issue I had was supporting my arguments with enough contextual evidence. I could get just enough from the text, that I could be able to formulate any argument at all, but looking back I realize that if I had gone deeper, and maybe even cross reference other works, I could have made my papers much stronger.

Actually rereading the papers, and then putting myself in place of the reader, showed me just how lacking in textual support I had been. When reading, I used a method where I essentially removed myself from my writing, attempting to look at it in an unbiased fashion;

I had realized that because I wrote the paper I knew exactly what I meant whenever I used a certain phrase or quote, but to the unknowing reader these ideas are lost unless I flesh it out carefully.

Anytime I came upon any ambiguous phrasing or wording I would question myself as to why I had used those particular phrases, and if I couldn’t come to a satisfying answer, I would tell myself that they would have to be reworked or refined until the ambiguity is gone. Less severe problems I see in my writing would be organization, syntax, and diction. I believe that my word choice tends to be rough due to my overuse of larger more complex words, where smaller less complicated words would work.

I think this weakness stems from the fact that I tend not to like repeating myself, especially when it comes to English papers. Using words repetitively is a personal issue of mine, and it transfers over to writing papers.

On a similar note, my sentence structure is also a bit problematic.

Some of my sentences tend to be far too long, where it goes to the point that the original meaning of the sentence is lost due to my habit of extending onto other points of interest. When writing in the future, I should train myself to “mix it up” by having sentences of varying length succeeding one another.

I feel as though if sentences are always too short or long then the reader may become disinterested or read too passively.

The organization of my writing is definitely the second largest issue following my lack of elaboration. If there isn’t a discernable “flow” in the writing, then it would become very easy for readers to become lost or confused when attempting to understand what I’m saying.

For example, in one sentence I could be discussing the moral displacement of America in terms of their interest in the pseudo-starlet Honey Boo Boo, and then jump to talk about a somewhat unrelated incident involving James Cameron physically searching for a metaphorical concept, and what it means satirically. If I’m going to “jump” around like that, I should probably look for a means to connect the two ideas, forming a bridge of concepts that would make the next topic seem more pertinent and less random.

The Elaboration Elusion On a more positive note, one thing I find in my writing process that I do like is my use of interpreting symbolism and ambiguities in others’ works. I feel as though when it comes to writing, that that may be my greatest strength. Sitting and trying to come up with reasons why a particular character says something, or why the writer uses a certain type of rhetorical technique over another, is probably my favorite aspect of English, which would explain why it comes naturally and allows me to write my own ideas. The aforementioned elaboration issue could be readily remedied if I just pull more information from the text, and expand more on my own positions.

Looking particularly at the rhetorical analysis paper, I suppose that the reason I hadn’t bothered to put too much support on the argument was because I had mistakenly believed that taking too much from the episode I had been analyzing would just be needless summarizing. Like I had mentioned before, I hadn’t given too much thought on the fact that because I had watched the entire episode I had much more contextual background than any unknowing reader. It’s very likely that in the back of my mind I had just assumed that giving the barest of information would have been enough, but that was erred thinking. Without enough information to go off of, the audience would not be able to make a complete decision as to whether or not my argument was valid.

By and large I have to consciously keep in mind of things that would make reading my paper more difficult or uninteresting. Putting my feet in the shoes of my audience is the surefire method for becoming more effective writer. The portfolio is a good means to measure my change in writing. I can look honestly and see past mistakes and attempt to avoid them for the next assignment. This exercise in selfreflecting was definitely needed. I fully intend to use this method on future assignments in future classes. It’s one thing to have someone else point out the faults and flaws in your writing, but to then have yourself look at your own errors makes them stand out much more obviously.

On the topic of best and worst paper, I would have to choose the rhetorical analysis as my least favorite and worst paper, and the Op-Ed as my favorite and best paper. My reasoning for the choices is largely due to all the points I had made earlier; all the problems and weaknesses of that paper were more apparent than they were in the Op-Ed, especially the way I structured my main points and thesis. I chose to use the knife review for the genre change because I thought it would be funny, and therefore easier to write. I chose the rhetorical analysis for the substantial revision because I saw an opportunity to use another argument which conflicts with my original thesis, which would allow me to see the writing from another perspective.

South Park: A Fight Between Comedy and Morals Currently it’s debated whether or not American societal standards have become lowered; some people argue that there haven’t been any significant changes to said standards, while others think that the standards have become so low we need to instigate change. South Park is an animated comedy show that satirizes American society through the exaggerated incidents in the eponymous town. The central characters of the show are four boys; Stan Marsh who functions as the show’s voice of reason, Kyle Broflovski who acts as the conscience of the group, Eric Cartman who serves as both Kyle’s foil and antithesis, as a sociopathic delinquent, and lastly Kenny McCormic who balances the other four as the everyman.

The show follows their adventures and in the process satirizes some of the pressing social concerns of contemporary American life. The episode I choose to analyze is the “Raising the Bar” episode. During the episode the creators try to get the point across that currently American standards have been degenerated and trivialized. They show this through one of the main characters Cartman, and the focus of the story which revolves around his attempt at manipulating the system through the exploitation of a physical disability (i.e. obesity).

Simultaneously, the South Park writers use a recent television “star,” in the form of “Honey Boo Boo,” as a means to emphasize just how low the standards have become.

Lastly, using juxtaposition, the writers introduce the situation of James Cameron, who believes the “bar” (a metaphor for standards) to be a physical object located somewhere in the depths of the ocean. The mishaps between Cartman, Honey Boo Boo, and James Cameron were formed as a means for the writers to convey their message. However, I ultimately concluded that the message the writers of South Park had attempted to convey was overridden and marred by their over-usage of comedic plots and dark humor.

Because of South Park’s lighthearted comedic nature, the episode lacked any real sense of seriousness. The actual rhetorical strategy employed by the writers in this case came mostly from coarse language and shocking humor. In this particular episode, the characters themselves acted as allegorical figures; Cartman represented the mass of people who use the inherent flaws of a system for their own personal benefit, James Cameron represented the sanctimonious group who believe that they have the power to establish where standards (the metaphorical “bar”) should be kept, and finally the supposed starlet Honey Boo Boo represented the general crassness and emptiness of modern media and entertainment.

Throughout the episode, Cartman attempts to gain benefits from an otherwise unwanted condition (obesity inhibits normal mobility) by using a “rascal” (a mobility scooter), and whenever he met with any form of resistance, he would often resort to using nonsensical, non-sequitur arguments to promote his supposed “rights”. During a heated debate between himself and Kyle, this episode’s conscience and voice of reason, Cartman attempts to defend the reasoning behind having the rascal have a design that will allow them to be re-erected, in the case that someone would knock them down.

Kyle retorts,

“We should not be wasting time and money to make sure Cartman’s fat scooter can’t be tipped over,” (Stone & Parker, 2013) in this way Kyle can be seen as stooping to Cartman’s level by using belligerent, insulting language in his arguments; despite this not being the writers’ intention, this allows the audience to make certain comparisons between Cartman and Kyle. In this case, both are using ad hominem when dealing with their opposition. Kyle’s arguments revolve around attacking Cartman based on his fatness and general terrible personality as opposed to confronting the direct issue. Whereas Cartman uses Kyle’s apparent apathy towards obesity to make him appear callous.

Cartman sways the conversation by attacking the ethics of his opponent’s suggestion; “Do you condone rascal scooter tippings? Do you know all over the country people are being victimized?”(Stone & Parker, 2013) Sensibly Kyle responds, “Then get off your fucking scooter and pick them up.”(Stone & Parker, 2013) Here is where Cartman devolves the conversation through nonsensical statements, in an effort to denounce Kyle’s suggestions: “This is exactly what Adele is talking about. Our culture celebrates anorexia, and tries to make us ashamed. Just because we don’t have slim stomachs and perfect little tits like Kyle; well I for one am going to stop feeling ashamed.

Just because Kyle throws up in the bathroom six times a day, just because he wants to look good on his magazine cover…”(Stone & Parker, 2013) Though the audience can quickly note that at no point during this episode had the issue of anorexia or bulimia ever crop up, some of the seriousness of the debate had been sabotaged by both the ridiculousness of the debate, and by actual retorts used by Kyle. Despite being the episode’s mouthpiece in condemning the celebration of laziness and crassness, Kyle’s actual dialogue in the episode is fairly weak. He antagonizes Cartman, and notes the stupidity of his plot, yet he never seems able to give a substantial reason for why Cartman’s actions are corrupt.

He gives only bare criticism, and seems to undermine himself whenever he is opposed. He undermines himself because whenever another character points out the fact that the bar is not a concrete, distinct thing, he simply becomes silent, finding himself dumbstruck. Overall, despite being the voice of reason, he fails at delivering any real message, and because of such his arguments cannot be taken very seriously by the audience. Instead Kyle comes across as a frustrated, complaining whiner, instead of any model of virtuous thought.

Furthermore, Cartman, the character who the writers use as a caricature for American culture, despite having terrible, non-sequitur arguments, constantly trounces anything Kyle can deliver as proof against his actions.

He gives only bare criticism, and seems to undermine himself whenever he is opposed. He undermines himself because whenever another character points out the fact that the bar is not a concrete, distinct thing, he simply becomes silent, finding himself dumbstruck. Overall, despite being the voice of reason, he fails at delivering any real message, and because of such his arguments cannot be taken very seriously by the audience. Instead Kyle comes across as a frustrated, complaining whiner, instead of any model of virtuous thought.

Furthermore, Cartman, the character who the writers use as a caricature for American culture, despite having terrible, non-sequitur arguments, constantly trounces anything Kyle can deliver as proof against his actions.

This just acts to make the debate between him and Kyle inherently pointless, especially with Kyle remaining a passive voice against Cartman’s more aggressive claims. Despite the obviousness of the fact that Cartman is attempting to slander Kyle, and garner sympathy from the surrounding characters, because Kyle doesn’t get any dialogue that would otherwise actively prove the stupidity of the rascal, the writers’ message is lost, or at the very least weakened. Continuing this later, he also argues, “Wherever you go you’re treated differently… You’re made to feel different…I get reminded of my weight” (Stone & Parker 2013), yet despite his claims, Cartman is never actually reminded of his weight, and is always instigating trouble for the purpose of easier access to more

favorable conditions, such as being placed in the front of lines, or having doors specifically modeled so that he may be able to go through them with his (unnecessary) mobile apparatus.

The actual logic Cartman uses to defend himself when any other character questions the necessity of the scooter is made purposefully sporadic and absurd by the writers to demonstrate the ridiculousness of the situation. However, because the writers fail to balance this approach with intelligent counterarguments, the Comments from Cartman like, “People with mobility scooters are being victimized”(Stone & Parker, 2013), show a profound lapse selfconsciousness when it’s coupled

with actions such as loudly proclaiming his presence as an obese person, all the while attempting to cut in front of others and denouncing an actually crippled person as being a fraud when using the same device and waiting in line. At one point, Cartman even goes to claim that society is accommodating to anorexia, something not even alluded to at any point in the story, in an effort to gain some sense of sympathy for his struggle.

Almost everything Cartman says throughout the episode is loaded with ironic, and sometimes even hypocritical, language, consequently destroying his credibility. The ethics of his character is challenged by his own insincerity and lack of self-awareness. This arguably causes the audience to examine his character with scrutiny,

and possibly to make comparisons to real life examples who possess such behavior.

Perhaps the best part of the episode which suits its general lighthearted nature would be the subplot of the episode focused on James Cameron’s undersea exploration for “the bar,” having believed that the bar’s lowering was caused by a decreased sense of values and standards. Throughout his role in the story, he’s presented as a complete joke, and his journey to find the bar, which itself is constantly reported as non-concrete object, but even when he actually manages to locate the aforementioned bar, he uses the finding as a source for selfaggrandizement, which is depicted with him constantly referring to his own name,

with a chorus also exclaiming his name. The dialogue appears to suggest his complete lack of caring for the actual situation, but nonetheless he takes credit for the discovery. Like Cartman he functions as a symbolic figure, acting as the proponents who believe that the standards are to be set at whatever level they deem appropriate, while not only ignoring the main problems, but acting for their own personal benefit. In this way the writers appear to suggest that Cartman and James Cameron (and their real world counterparts) are actually pretty similar. Lastly, because this particular aspect of the episode actually suited the mood of the rest of the episode, the subplot may be the only part which deliberately avoids delivering any real message to the story.

Finally, the parody of Honey Boo Boo was established as a mark to show just how terrible the values have become, where watching an overweight girl with a pig heart, was deemed as good entertaining television, best said by one character “…I couldn’t believe what I was seeing. A shameful, fat family eating white trash food to their deaths, and then I saw what network it was on, the learning channel.” (Stone & Parker, 2013) Though the use of exaggeration greatly helps get across the point that it’s the viewers who may be at fault for the lowering of the bar, the joke comes across as too mean-spirited and somewhat unnecessary. The actual characterization of Honey Boo Boo was nothing short of extreme hyperbole, and the acceptance of her behavior by the surrounding characters was simply too unrealistic.

The idea that such an obnoxious and inane personality would be deemed worthy of constant admiration and a viewing pleasure is beyond ludicrousness. “I’m a beauty queen bitches, I’m as fat as a whale and I don’t give two shits girl….I’m only six and I’ve only had six heart attacks, girlfriend.” (Stone,2013) Such a ridiculous statement delivered by Honey Boo Boo showcases the little respect some American’s have for themselves, but because of the massive exaggeration, the inclusion of Honey Boo Boo undermines any teachable moment of the show.

Because their argument is subtly placed in the midst of extremely dark comedy, the message is somewhat easy to miss. Placing more emphasis on making crude, insulting jokes in place of actual conversation, truly weakens their argument. Had the writers instead given more critical responses to their mouthpieces, and given more value in delivering exact and clear reasons for their message, they would have been more successful in making their point.

Instead we are given an episode that focuses almost exclusively on tiresome fat people jokes. Based on these themes, it would appear that the episode was tailored more to comedy than it was for didactic purposes.

A Review Of The Fabulous-ware Kitchen Knife Set After viewing a commercial for the Fabulousware Knife Set I was more than excited to order one for myself to increase my culinary skills in the kitchen. The ad depicts how much success and ease you will have using the set. The epic music being played during the ad, as well as the promises of cooking superior meals was quite deceitful. I had immediately purchased a knife set for myself only to be unpleasantly surprised. From the moment I removed the knife set from the packaging I knew it was too good to be true. It turned out to be just a mediocre knife set that was overadvertised. I believe it’s necessary to summarize my experience and feelings about this knife.

Starting my critique, I will now go knife by knife in the set. The bread knife worked as it was intended and is able to cut through standard bread, however I would not trust it to work for very long.

The knives handle doesn’t seem sturdy enough to last for a very long time and is made of mostly cheap plastic. I also seem to find that the knife dulls easily; the blade has had to be sharpened more than it should have for how new it is.

Click Here for the Knife Ad ďƒ

The chef knife is used to chop most vegetables, and if you have seen any professional chef chop vegetables you know that it can be done with a lot of ease. This knife does work fairly well when chopping such things as onions or tomatoes, things that are typically softer, but when it comes to such vegetables as carrots, I found that the blade dulls quickly. It does however have a nice serrated blade. The serrated edge adds extra utility to the knife.

The all-purpose knife, I have found to be the most effective or at least the least disappointing of the lot. I have found it the easiest to use and as its called can be used for almost anything. I found uses from dicing an onion to trimming the fat on a roast. This is why I like it, its diversity. However, this doesn’t completely excuse the shortcomings. The all-purpose knife doesn’t feel sturdy enough and I fear that I may in fact break it. The handle doesn’t seem sturdy enough for the amount of use that it will inevitably get.

The name should be changed to “AllPurpose (as long as you don’t use it too much)”.

The paring knife that comes with the set is a decently sharp blade. The blade is still a little too wide to be used properly however. You can cut fruit in intricate ways if you have the skill but just because you have the knife doesn’t mean you will suddenly have the ability to. The knife contains the same faulty, cheap plastic design the rest of the knives do and it just provides for overall dissatisfaction.

The steak knives are up next to plate. The set comes with a set of five steak knives which can suit most families. The knives have a cheap plastic handle, which is of course part of the knife and not just the handle. The knifes are sharp to begin with so cutting any of the steaks wasn’t difficult but I don’t have a clue as to when they will start to get dull. I did have a steak knife break on me during dinner which was quite an annoyance. This is how I discovered the knives defects.

The set also comes with a pair of shears that are the most durable piece from my kit. I believe it is the only piece that will last because it seems to be made of a stronger plastic. I use the shears to cut through chicken breasts very well, but failed to cleanly cut string to tie a roast. The shears also feature a bottle opener which has proven to be of use when you don’t feel like you have time to find the regular one.

The cutting block which came with the knife set is made of what seems to be maple block. I was happy to have the block until I realized there isn’t a slot to hold the paring knife and now I must keep it in a drawer. The block will eventually end up as kindling when I am finally fed up with the whole set.

As a side offer there were a couple extras added to “spice” up the offer.

Measuring cups were added which include the basic different portions of a cup. The basic plastic design is that of any other measuring cup which allows to simple measurement when needed.

There were three differently sized plastic spatulas that came with the kit which were of no real use. The spatula end is pure plastic that doesn’t have any rubber to properly scrape a bowl or pan. There is not much to say about the spatulas other than the fact that I could have bought a better set at a local dollar store. Lastly, the box also included a rubber brush that’s used to add sauce or brush other liquids onto cooking meat.

The brush was decent enough to use and will last as long as the knives will but still unneeded to be added to the box.

Digital Assignment Reading Response For the purpose of our assignment I will be showcasing and promoting a Fabulous-ware Kitchen Knife Set. The knife set is simple but essential in basically every household that cooks their own meals. It seems it would be an easy sell item and fun finding a way to advertise them. I mean who doesn't want to cut things up for a project? I'm interested in the kit and the ability to advertise to a wide range of users that can utilize all 22 pieces of the set which include kitchen scissors, a butchers knife, a bread knife, 5 steak knives, a few more odds and ends for knives, and it also comes with 3 spatulas measuring spoons and a wooden holster for everything.

In an advertisement for a 25 piece knife set the writers of the ad are clearly trying to demonstrate how effective their product is. They begin with the usage of simple word choice, repetitive use of positive adjectives, and finally emphasizing the multiple uses of their product through liberal use of the word "also". The whole tone of the ad is completely positive which is shown by the fact that they never make any reference to any problems with the knives. Throughout the ad they would continue with how great the knife is with positive adjectives. If I were a viewer who had never been exposed to these types of ads, I could honestly see myself believing that the knife was flawless, based on the absence

of any negative feedback. At some point in the ad the announcer introduces a bread and bagel knife, my main issue with the presentation of the knife was the unnecessary elaboration over the functions of the knife despite its name greatly implies it's function.

Here is a video of the ad ďƒ

In the second ad the writer's start right out with rhetorical questions about the efficiency of the viewers' own skillets. The ad says "have no fear, the solution is here" this phrase is easy to remember because it's a rhyme. This is a common trick that many companies try to include in their ads. The video assures the audience that the pan is their new savior in cooking. This is similar to the knife commercial in the sense that its rhetorical approach relies on simple phrasing, positive language, and assurance of the viewers. I found this ad to be different in that unlike the knife ad which used the word "also" repetitively, this commercial is much more direct in the fact that it immediately lists out all of the functions of the pan.

I found this to be more effective due to the straightforwardness of the commercial. However, I did find a problem in the ad; it is that they made an unsubstantiated claim concerning how it their product will aid in cooking faster than ever before. My question is ‘how could they possibly know this for a fact?’ They also claim that the pan will last a lifetime but they fail to show proof of the possibility. Another unsupported claim was the idea that there is nothing else like it. Any savy consumer with previous experience to this kind of marketing would probably say otherwise.

Here is a video of the second Ad ďƒ

Op-Ed Reading Response The Show South Park has so many literary and rhetorical elements, which makes it a great example when you want to look at the use of stereotypes. The show uses its crude dark humor to show their own twist of events occurring around the country while also using strong stereotypes to showcase any character they have. The show uses many of the stories in the headlines and up to date pop culture fads to make their episodes. The main characters of the show are Kyle, Stan, Cartman, and Kenny. The kids are fourth graders in a small town in Colorado who experience all of the events with their own view of it.

Kyle is the stereotypical Jew, Cartman is the obese American, and Stan is the average American, while Kenny is the white trash poor kid. The show accurately represents these stereotypes.

All of the main characters have a distinct stereotype that the show uses to an extent in every episode but I will be focusing on Cartman. Cartman is the stereotypical obese American. He eats a lot of KFC, cheesy poofs, and snackey cakes. In a recent episode Cartman becomes so fat he needs to ride a rascal scooter to get around. Cartman will not exercise and whenever asked to do physical activity such as soccer practice he will not participate. He is the typical obese American who will not exercise to better himself. The only reason Cartman even went to practice was so that he can eat KFC afterwards. The show is good at showcasing how Cartman chooses not to better himself.

Op-Ed Reading Response But the show also adequately shows how most people who are obese try to deny it which is what Cartman does when he claims he is just big boned not fat. They show the strong stereotype in the show but it is warranted that it is primarily the obese persons fault for not eating healthy and choosing not to exercise.

Substantial Revision Reading Response I am choosing to revise my Rhetorical Analysis. I wrote the piece on the South Park episode "Raising the Bar" which detailed how America's social standards are on the decline. I decided to use this for my revision because I have had time to come back, and truly elaborate, and help substantiate my essay with more examples, evidence and support after given time to think about the information. This specific episode interests me on its contemporary commentary relative to what is happening in the U.S., and I believe the current issues with my paper include the fact that I didn't fully elaborate my true thoughts in the paper, and now I have the chance too.

This revision will give me a chance to review any major flaws or weaknesses in my writing, and a chance at selfcritiquing. I also need to better explain how effective the impact of the rhetoric has on the author’s message. I intend to talk about the global relations that occur between the writing and the real world, I will also add more examples I can evaluate and correctly elaborate on my current examples. Scholarly sources, especially from different areas of prose, will be used to allow for a stronger accreditation for my argument.

Substantial Revision Reading Response Different scholarly views from different types of writing will definitely give the paper more perspective, which will in turn make the paper's argument more valid. I will obviously proof read my writing to a great extent to find as many flaws as possible.

Looking back, I think my main problems from my earlier drafts were mainly organizational. My thoughts didn't flow as well as they could have when put on paper. My paragraphs also had some transitional problems in that sometimes the following paragraph wouldn't have any major relation to the previous one. One solution to offset this problem would be to draft the paper, and then switch the paragraphs around in order to have a better flow.