midterm-answer-key

Midterm Answer Key Spring 2012

toc =PART I: STYLE= (50%)

Section A
Style Analysis

EXAMPLE #1: The following paragraph is taken from Malcolm Gladwell’s October 4, 2010 //New Yorker// article, “Small Change: Why the Revolution Will Not Be Tweeted”

> **So one crucial fact** about the four freshmen at the Greensboro lunch counter — David Richmond, Franklin McCain, Ezell Blair, and Joseph McNeil — was their relationship with one another. **McNeil was a roommate** of Blair’s in A. & T.’s Scott Hall dormitory. **Richmond roomed with McCain** one floor up, and **Blair, Richmond, and McCain** had all gone to Dudley High School. **The four would smuggle** beer into the dorm and talk late into the night in Blair and McNeil’s room. **They would all have** remembered the murder of Emmett Till in 1955, the Montgomery bus boycott that same year, and the showdown in Little Rock in 1957. **It was McNeil who** brought up the idea of a sit-in at Woolworth’s. **They’d discussed it for** nearly a month. **Then McNeil came into** the dorm room and asked the others if they were ready. **There was a pause**, and **McCain said, in a** way that works only with people who talk late into the night with one another, “Are you guys chicken or not?” **Ezell Blair worked up** the courage the next day to ask for a cup of coffee because he was flanked by his roommate and two good friends from high school.

In terms of this passage’s stylistic use of character – how and where its characters appear in its sentences – it does not follow Colomb and Williams’s rules to the letter. But, of course, Colomb and Williams would say that //Style//’s advice is not meant as a collection of prescriptive “rules”: rather, //Style// offers a descriptive account of how readers read. Writers, then, can take advantage of that knowledge in a range of ways, balancing different stylistic goals. So...

Q&A #1
QUESTION #1 (5 pts.) Draw a line under the first four words of each sentence or independent clause in the Gladwell passage above. (I won’t collect this part – this is for your own benefit.) Then, in your blue book, describe one place where this passage departs from //Style//’s “rules” about character, and explain (in one sentence or bullet point) the rule that it breaks.

ANSWER #1 You'll see that I've boldfaced the first four words of each sentence and independent clause in the passage above, and you'll notice that all but two of these sentence or clause openings very prominently feature as characters all, some, or one of the four students who led the lunch counter protests in Greensboro: David Richmond, Franklin McCain, Ezell Blair, and Joseph McNeil. There are two instances in which none of these four are featured as characters in the opening four words of a sentence or independent clause:


 * **No character:** One of the last sentences starts without a real character: "There was a pause." Williams and Colomb suggest that all other things being equal, readers are more clearly grounded in a sentence when it begins in its first few words with a human character.
 * **Abstraction as character:** The first sentence starts with an abstraction ("one crucial fact") rather than a human character in the subject slot, and Williams and Colomb suggest that all other things being equal, readers are more clearly grounded in a sentence when it begins in its first few words with a human character rather than an abstraction.

Q&A #2
QUESTION #2 (5 pts.) In no more than one sentence, make the case that it may be effective for Gladwell to break the rule in the instance given above: that doing so serves the larger purposes of style.

ANSWER #2
 * **Abstraction as character:** It's true that the first sentence starts with an abstraction ("one crucial fact") rather than a human character in the subject slot. But because this is a transition, we can apply other considerations here. Specifically, we would need to consider how this sentence makes a transition from the previous paragraph and introduces the topic of the current paragraph (which, as Williams and Colomb point out, is often introduced in what they call the "stress" position -- basically the end -- of the first sentence). Given that the paragraph has been about exactly the kinds of "crucial facts" that Gladwell points to here, the use of that phrase at the beginning of the sentence would count as "old" information to the reader -- i.e., old because it would be familiar from the previous paragraph. Williams and Colomb argue that the "old before new" suggestion trumps the others (that, in fact, "character" is a subcategory of old information); and so the first sentence here works to transition to the characters it introduces at the end of the sentence (the four freshman and their relationship) and who will make up the characters at the beginning of the sentences to follow in the rest of the paragraph.
 * **No character:** One of the last sentences starts without a character: "There was a pause." This works effectively here //because// it breaks the pattern of the four freshman as the characters in the previous sentences. It's as though time stopped, the air was sucked out of the room, and the "characters" experienced this "pause" as a significant moment. In other words, the description of the pause also creates a pause in the paragraph that we are meant to notice and experience along with the characters.

EXAMPLE #2: The following paragraph is taken from Clay Shirky’s book, //Here Comes Everybody: The Power of Organizing without Organizations// (p. 21-22).

> For most of modern life, our strong talents and desires for group effort **have been filtered** through relatively rigid institutional structures because of the complexity of managing groups. We **haven’t had** all the groups we’ve wanted, **we’ve simply had** all the groups we could afford. The old limits of what unmanaged and unpaid groups can do **are** no longer in operation ; the difficulties that kept self-assembled groups from working together **are shrinking**, meaning that the number and kinds of things groups can get done without financial motivation or managerial oversight **are growing**. The current change, in one sentence, **is** this: most of the barriers to group action **have collapsed**, and without those barriers, we **are free to explore** new ways of gathering together and getting things done.

In terms of this passage's stylistic use of action – how and where its actions are expressed in its sentences – it does not follow Colomb and Williams’s rules to the letter. But, of course, Colomb and Williams would say that //Style//’s advice is not meant to be taken as a collection of prescriptive “rules”: rather, //Style// offers a descriptive account of how readers read. Writers, then, can take advantage of that knowledge in a range of ways, balancing different stylistic goals. So...

Q&A #3
QUESTION #3 (5 pts.) Draw a line under the actual grammatical verb of each sentence or independent clause in the Shirky passage above. (I won’t collect this part – this is for your own benefit.) Then, in your blue book, describe one place where this passage departs from //Style//’s “rules” about action, and explain (in one sentence or bullet point) the rule that it breaks.

ANSWER #3 You'll see that I've boldfaced the actual grammatical verb of each sentence and independent clause in the passage above, and you'll notice that I've highlighted what I consider to be the crucial actions of sentences or clauses. There are many instances in which the two do not line up:


 * **Nominalizations:** There are several key instances of crucial actions being expressed as something other than verbs, particularly in nominalizations such as //managing//, //limits//, //operation//, //difficulties//, //motivation//, //oversight//, //change//, and //action//. Williams and Colomb argue that nominalizations force readers to work harder to understand the key actions of a sentence since they have to unpack the words mentally and turn them into their original verb form.
 * **Actions at end:** There are several sentences in which the key action of the sentence and the verb through which it is expressed is, as in the sentence you are currently reading, buried at the end of their sentence or clause: "are no longer in operation," "are growing," "have collapsed." Williams and Colomb argue that readers have to work harder to understand such sentences and that, all other things being equal, the key action of a sentence is most clearly understood when expressed in verb form near the beginning of a sentence or clause: "We haven't had," "we've simply had," "we are free to explore."

Q&A #4
QUESTION #4 (5 pts.)

In no more than one sentence, make the case that it may be effective for Shirky to break the rule in the instance given above: that doing so serves the larger purposes of style.

ANSWER #4
 * **Nominalizations:** What's happening in this passage is that Shirky is trying to tell a kind of story about a clear and human protagonist ("We") that is struggling to move from a position of lack ("we haven't had") to a position of greater mobility and effective ("gathering together and getting things done"). The story he wants to tell makes this a struggle of humanity against what he wants to present as faceless and inhuman antagonists: its a story about humanity triumphing over money, bureacracy, and the structural limits structural limits of historical processes. So the nominalizations in many of these sentence are then made to play the roles of these faceless characters (//limits//, //difficulties//, //financial motivation//, //managerial oversight//) against which human characters are struggling.
 * **Actions at end:** Frankly, thought Shirky is generally a lively and clear writer, I think most of the buried actions in this passage are just bad decisions on Shirky's part. But it could be argued that the passive constructions here are what allow Shirky to do what I described in the bullet point above this one: to move faceless, monstrous antagonists into the character slots at the beginning of many of the sentences.

Section B: Q5
Style Revision (30 pts.)

This question asked you to: Revise one of the passages on the attached sheet (your choice) so that it demonstrates your mastery of style as Colomb and Williams describe it. In your revision, make //Style//’s principles of cohesion and coherence your first priority, with character and action your second and third priorities, respectively. You may need to reorder parts within the sentences, but all sentences should be retained and should remain, roughly, in their original order.

Following your revision, briefly explain (in no more than 2 or 3 sentences or bullet points) any choices that you think need explaining: why you left certain nominalizations as you found them, why you chose the characters you did, what concepts you could expect to be familiar enough to this particular audience to count as old information.

Generic examples: law
From Simon J. Frankel, Laura Brookover, and Stephen Satterfield, “Famous for Fifteen People: Celebrity, Newsworthiness, and //Fraley v. Facebook//,” //Stanford Law Review Online// 64 (February 10, 2012), p. 87

ORIGINAL (Old information is bolded, including characters I would presume to be familiar to this audience) > **Under this approach, the judge or jury** would not have to examine the precise milieu of the publication (be it blog or Twitter feed) and its audience (whether 10 individuals or 10,000), but rather whether **the subject’s** own actions exposed him or her to the attention in an inquiry akin to a determination of consent or waiver. Warren and Brandeis and the First Restatement contemplated **this kind of exception**, referring to instances in which **individuals** placed themselves in the public eye. Moreover, **the exception** may be particularly appropriate in the social media context, in which **people** participate //because// **they** want to share information about themselves with others in their communities and can exercise control over this sharing (that is, **they** can choose not to share). Granted it would still be incumbent upon the **services** that enable this sharing to honor **users’** affirmative choices intended to limit the dissemination of their information, but where no affirmative choice has been exercised, the presumption would be that the matter is public and, therefore, unprotected. **This approach** may place a greater burden on the individual. But if **the law** is going to recognize greater economic rights in information about a person — if, as **the //Fraley// decision** suggests, **everyone** is now a celebrity, at least to some extent — it may be appropriate to require **individuals** to exercise greater responsibilities with respect to the information about themselves they might later seek to protect.

REVISED (Old information is bolded, including characters I would presume to be familiar to this audience)

> **Under this approach, the judge or jury** would not have to examine the precise milieu (be it blog or Twitter feed) in which the writer has published. Nor would **they** have to consider the size of the audience (whether 10 individuals or 10,000). Instead, **they** would need to ask whether the writer exposed themselves to attention through what and how they posted. **Such an inquiry** would closely resemble what a judge or jury does when determining a subject's consent or waiver. **This kind of exception** was contemplated by Warren and Brandeis in the First Restatement, in which **they** referred to instances in which individuals had placed themselves in the public eye. Moreover, **this exception** may be regarded as particularly appropriate in the social media context, **a context** in which **people** participate //because// **they** want to share information about themselves with others in their communities and **they** can control what they share (that is to say, **they** can choose not to share). Granted, when **users** affirm that they intend to limit what they disseminate through social media, the social media services would still be obliged to honor those affirmative choices. But where **users** do not exercise **this affirmative choice**, **social media services** could safely presume that the **user** considers the matter to be public and, therefore, unprotected. **This approach** may place a greater burden on the individual. But if **the law** is going to recognize social media users' greater economic rights in information about a person — if, as **the //Fraley// decision** suggests, **everyone** is now to some extent a celebrity — then **we** should also recognize that it may be appropriate to require **individuals** to exercise greater responsibility in sharing information about themselves that they might later seek to protect.

NOTES In the law example above, I've left in some nominalizations that took form as legal terms that I would expect this readership to know and to even consider "characters" (i.e., very familiar concepts): "inquiry," "exception," "affirmative choices," "rights in information." But even in those cases, I worked to earned the right to those nominalizations by introducing them in verb form in the previous sentence (e.g., "they would need to ask," "when users affirm").

Generic examples: psychology
From Charlan J. Nemeth, Bernard Personnaz, Marie Personnaz, and Jack A Goncalo, “The Liberating Role of Conflict in Group Creativity: A Study in Two Countries,” //European Journal of Social Psychology// 34 (2004), p. 372

ORIGINAL (The big problem in the original passage was actions not expressed as verbs: I've boldfaced actions and italicized verbs) > Perhaps even more surprising //is// the **evidence suggesting** that Debate //is// even more conducive to **idea generation** than traditional Brainstorming **instructions**. Such **findings //make us question//** one of the basic **premises** of the brainstorming technique, namely that an **admonition** “not to criticize” //is// both an appropriate and an effective goal, one which //**frees**// ideas. While this **assumption** //has not received// empirical **support**, it has **//remained unexamined//**. The present study //calls// that **assumption** into **question** in that the **encouragement** to debate and even criticize, not only **//does not inhibit//** idea **generation**, it //appears// to //**enhance**// it even more than the traditional Brainstorming **instructions**.

> The current study, especially in light of the fact that two distinct cultures //are showing// the same pattern of **findings**, //raises// the **question** as to whether the **emphasis** on politeness and non-evaluation //may be// counter-productive. Perhaps, freedom — even freedom to //**debate**// and //**criticize**// — //is better suited// to the **generation** of creative solutions. The **question** //remains//: Why //is// Debate — an actual **encouragement** of **criticism** — even more **effective** in //**stimulating**// idea **generation** in groups and in total **production**?

REVISED (The big problem in the original passage was actions not expressed as verbs: I've boldfaced actions and italicized verbs) > Perhaps even more surprising, we //**find**// that subjects //**can better**// //**generate**// ideas when they //**are given**// Debate **instructions** than when they //**are given**// traditional Brainstorming **instructions**. Such **findings** //**make us question**// what researchers //**have long assumed**// about the brainstorming technique: namely, that instructors //**need to admonish**// subjects “not to criticize” because this non-critical approach //is// an appropriate and effective way to //**free**// ideas. Researchers rarely //**question**// this **assumption** even though no empirical research //**supports**// it. Our present study //**questions**// that **assumption**, and our **results** //**suggest**// that when subjects are //**encouraged**// to //**debate**// and even //**criticize**//, they //**are not inhibited**// from //**generating**// ideas; indeed, the Debate instructions //**appear to enhance**// their ability to //**generate**// ideas even more than the traditional Brainstorming **instructions**.

> Our current **study** thus //**suggests**// that it //may be// **counter-productive** for instructors to //**emphasize**// politeness and non-evaluation in subjects -- a suggestion furthered //**strengthened**// by the fact that we //**found**// the same pattern in two distinct cultures. Perhaps creative solutions //**are best generated**// when subjects //**are given**// freedom — even freedom to //**debate**// and //**criticize**//. We //**might still ask**//: Why //is// Debate — actually //**encouraging**// subjects to //**criticize**// one another's ideas — even more **effective** than traditional Brainstorming in //**stimulating**// groups to //**generate**// and //**produce**// ideas?

NOTES In the psychology example above, I've left in some nominalizations that took form as research terms that I would expect this readership to know and to even consider "characters" (i.e., very familiar concepts): "findings," "assumptions," "results," "study." But even in those cases, I worked to earned the right to those nominalizations by introducing them in verb form in the previous sentence (e.g., "we find," "researchers have long assumed"). The one major exception to this is the word "instructions" in reference to how the experimental researchers instructed subjects on whether to Debate or Brainstorm. But since the whole article is about the different effect of these different sets of instructions, I am assuming that this is very familiar, old information by this point in the article.

Your examples: education
ORIGINAL (Aside from the students [who are being acted upon], most of the characters in the original passage are metalanguage characters [i.e., the researchers and their publications]. I've boldfaced these characters below) > Throughout **my career**, **I** have focused on inequities in education, specifically gifted education, in terms of attitudes that affect and influence access, testing, and curriculum. In the same **volume** as **Grantham**, **my colleagues and I** argued that deficit thinking effectively hinders the representation of Black and other culturally different students in gifted education, even when they are not low-income (Ford, Harris, Tyson, & Trotman, 2002). **I** argue that increasing the representation of Black and Hispanic students in gifted and AP classes will do much to close the national achievement gap (between Black and Hispanic students compared to White students) and international achievement gap (between the U.S. and other nations or countries; Ford, 2006; Ford, Grantham, & Whiting, 2008).

REVISED (In the revised passage, I've added human characters to clarify who is responsible for the educational processes and decisions being described, boldfaced) > Throughout my career, I have focused on just such **cultural** attitudes as Frasier describes, and I've shown how such attitudes affect and influence how **we educators and administrators** approach matters of access, testing, and curriculum and, thus, lead **us** to create inequities in education, and specifically in gifted education. In the same volume as Grantham, my colleagues and I argue that such "deficit thinking" distorts how **schools** implement gifted education so that Black and other culturally different students are underrepresented, even when they are not low-income (Ford, Harris, Tyson, & Trotman, 2002). I argue that if **we** can overcome the distorting power of deficit thinking to increase the number of Black and Hispanic students represented in gifted and AP classes, then **we** can do much to close the national achievement gap (between Black and Hispanic students compared to White students) and even the international achievement gap (between the U.S. and other nations or countries; Ford, 2006; Ford, Grantham, & Whiting, 2008).

NOTES In the education example above, I've left in some nominalizations that took form as educations terms that I would expect this readership to know and to even consider "characters" (i.e., very familiar concepts): "access," "testing," "curriculum," "achievement gap." I've used the first sentence to create the concept of "deficit thinking" as a term that can be used as old information in the sentences to follow, and I've kept in in quotes the first time I used it to signal that I was introducing it as just such a concept.

Your examples: political economy
ORIGINAL (The problem in the original passage was actions not expressed as verbs or action verbs combined in non-parallel ways with actions in nouns: to illustrate I've boldfaced actions and italicized verbs)

> They //are// instead **//drawing//** on actual **current** societal conditions and //**saying**// "Look, **regardless** of what your philosophical **leanings** //might be// and the **purported** merits of free market competition and private property, the fact of the **matter** //is// bourgeoisie society //**has failed**// because it //**has failed**// to //**perpetuate**// itself by **failing //to provide//** enough //**to keep**// its slaves in slavery." Rough. But compelling. A **rationale** somewhat **different** from what I //**expected**//, the bourgeoisie lifestyle "//**cannot help letting**// [the proletariat] //**sink**// into such a state, that it //**has** **to feed**// him, instead of //**being fed**// by him," **meaning** that the system has **//reversed//**, and thus, //**failed**//.

REVISED

> Instead, they //**draw**// upon the actual conditions in which society //**finds**// itself at the moment. In response to what they //**see**//, they //**say**// "Look. It //**doesn't matter**// how you //**lean**//, philosophically, or where you //**stand**// on the **purported** merits of free market competition and private property. What //**does matter**// is that bourgeois society has, in fact, //**failed**//. It has //**failed**// to //**perpetuate**// itself because it has //**failed**// to //**provide**// enough to //**keep**// its slaves in slavery." Rough. But compelling. Their **rationale** //**differs**// from what I //**might have expecte****d**//, they //**argue**// that the bourgeois lifestyle "//**cannot help letting**// [the proletariat] //**sink**// into such a state, that it //**has to feed**// him, instead of //**being fed**// by him." And what they //**mean**// is that the system //**has failed**// as a result of //**being stood**// on its head.

NOTES This is actually a pretty stylish passage already in its original form, and I especially like the way it alternates short, crisp conversational English that clarifies ("Look," "Rough.") with the more academic language ("the purported merits of free market competition and private property"). The original did suffer from too many working gerunds (i.e., all the "-ing" words) that occupy a sort of uncomfortable midway point between active verbs and nominalizations and from some non-parallel grammar resulting in some buried verbs. I revised the first quote, which I understood to be a kind of speculative paraphrase, but left the second quote as is since I took it to be a direct quote (and had strong verb style anyway). I changed "reversed" to "stood on its head" as a little inside joke, since standing Hegel on his head was what Marx always said his approach was doing.

Your examples: free speech
ORIGINAL (Old information is bolded, including characters I would presume to be familiar to this audience)

> **A similar case of online disaster** followed when a young woman refused to pick up her dog’s feces on a public bus. Although **the woman** may have committed a public faux-pas, the avalanche of unnecessary unleashing of technology was certainly uncalled for. Whereas an exercising of the “free speech” clause could have been effectively used **in this situation by onlookers**, **they** took pictures instead, plastering them all over the internet as though **the woman** was a criminal of a far more serious crime. Worse yet, **her** family became involved—a definite violation of personal privacy. **For this occasion,** the line between privacy and free speech should have been drawn when making the story much larger than it actually was by **posting the pictures online**. Was it really that important for the entire world to become involved, and **one woman’s life** nearly ruined, for the small amount of **anger a few people felt** when the **woman refused to clean up after her pet**? Hardly.

REVISED (Old information is bolded, including characters I would presume to be familiar to this audience)

> **A similar case of online disaster** followed when a young woman on a public bus refused to pick up her dog’s feces. **The woman** may have committed a public faux-pas, certainly. But **her actions** unleashed an avalanche of technological punishment that was just as certainly unnecessary and uncalled for. **In responding to the situation, onlookers** might have simply (and effectively) exercised their right to "free speech" and expressed themselves to the woman directly. **Instead, they** took pictures and plastering them all over the internet as though the woman had perpetrated a far more serious crime. Worse yet, **they** violated her personal privacy by involving her family. **Posting the pictures online** made the story much larger than it should have been on this occasion, and **the onlookers** should have been more careful about crossing the line from free speech into invading another person's privacy. Was **the situation** important enough to involve the entire world, and to nearly ruin **one woman’s life**, simply to assuage the small amount of **anger felt by a few people when the woman refused to clean up after her pet**? Hardly.

NOTES In the revision, I worked to make "onlookers" (and "they") a more consistent character at the start of the sentences to make it clear that this was a story about them. You'll notice that some sentences begin with nominalized phrases that the delay the entrance of the sentence's main action verb: "In responding to the situation," "Posting the pictures online." This is done in these cases to keep old information at the front of the sentence in order to move the reader from old to new, familiar to unfamiliar.

Your examples: large classes
ORIGINAL (The big problem in the original passage was actions not expressed as verbs and verbs buried too late in sentences: I've boldfaced actions and italicized verbs)

> Student's **learning experience** //can be affected// by large classes and the **continued growth** of classes in college. Two reasons //are// **the drop** in student's grade point averages and student **feeling** of inadequacy. **Effects** of the **growing** class environment //makes// any student **susceptible** to this **feeling**. Large classes //**can continually hinder**// a students' **ability** to //do well// because negative attitudes towards outsized classes //can carry over// from class to class. Its fair share of problems //makes// growing class sizes //**not easily solved**//.

REVISED (The big problem in the original passage was actions not expressed as verbs and verbs buried too late in sentences: I've boldfaced actions and italicized verbs)

> [This revision presumes the previous paragraph has been about the trend toward larger class sizes in college.] We //**should be concerned**// about this **trend** --- college class sizes that are too large, and growing -- because this **development** //**may damage**// the //**learning experience**// that students //have// in college. This **damage** //**might appear**// in two forms: 1) we //**might expect to see**// a **drop** in the grade point averages that students //**earn**// and 2) we //**might expect to see**// a **rise** the sense of inadequacy that students //**feel**// when //**offered**// insufficient //support//. Any student //**might succumb**// to this feeling as class sizes //**grow**//. Moreover, students //**might carry over**// these negative attitudes from class to class, further //**hindering**// their **ability** to //do well//. Thus, growing class sizes //**create**// a whole host of problems that we //**may find difficult to solve**//.

NOTES In the interesting of carrying over familiar ("old") information from sentence to sentence, some sentences will begin with a nominalized form of an action described in the previous sentence: "this trend" and "this development" in the first sentence were presumably introduced in the preceding paragraph, "may damage" becomes "This damage," "students feel" becomes "this feeling." In addition, I've preserved two key nominalizations in the "damage" sentence: "drop" and "rise" are left as nouns because this allows me to make the sentence and its actions a story about us as observers noticing these phenomena: "we might expect to see."

Your examples: literature
ORIGINAL (The big problem in the original passage was actions not expressed as verbs and verbs buried too late in sentences: I've boldfaced actions and italicized verbs)

> In **opposition** to such a **statement** of Christianity, //there are// many points in the epic where paganism //becomes// a **dominant** theme. Fate //**is referred to**// throughout the epic. This idea of characters **having** destinies //**aligns**// with the ancient Greek polytheistic paganism. The idea of the epic **being** the **narration** of a hero and **fighting** battles in order to //**claim**// a sense of glory //**stresses**// the **belief** of paganism and the idea of **worshipping** any other person than the one God of Christianity. Heroic legends at the time //were// strictly pagan and Germanic. Beowulf's funeral //is// another prominent **example**. Fred C. Robinson //**writes**// in a critical essay that **the burying** of the treasure along with the ashes of Beowulf is "a pagan ritual following upon the pagan rite of cremation." Beowulf's funeral //is// one of three accounts of pagan rituals //**being performed**// at a funeral throughout the epic. Thus, it //is// clear that //Beowulf **seems to have**// elements of both Christianity and paganism.

REVISED (The big problem in the original passage was actions not expressed as verbs and verbs buried too late in sentences: I've boldfaced actions and italicized verbs)

> While //Beowulf// certainly //**states**// its Christianity at many moments, we //**could also point**// to many **contrasting** moments //**dominated**// by the theme of paganism. Paganism //**aligns**// with the ancient Greek polytheistic notion of characters living out a destiny: what the epic //**refers to**// throughout as fate. Likewise, a **belief** in paganism //**is implied**// in the very form of the epic: a story that //**narrates**// the exploits of an individual hero who //**fights**// battles to //**claim**// glory -- a glory that //**suggests**// the **worship** of a person and not the one God of Christianity. Such paganism //**defines**// Germanic heroic legends of the time [might move this sentence somewhere else?]. We //**might point**// to another prominent **example** in Beowulf's funeral. When Beowulf's ashes //**are buried**// along with his treasure, we //**are witnessing**// what Fred C. Robinson //**calls**// "a pagan ritual following upon the pagan rite of cremation." Indeed, Beowulf's funeral //is// one of three accounts of pagan rituals //**performed**// at funerals throughout the epic. Thus, clearly, elements of both Christianity and paganism //**co-exist**// in //Beowulf//.

NOTES

The character choices I've made here split the paragraph into two stories: the first is about paganism in general (and so note how three of the sentence have "paganism" in some form in its first few words); the second story is the transition to the specific piece of evidence of Beowulf's funeral, which gets moved to the front of the two sentences that follow its introduction. Because I wanted to keep this "old" information of character at the front of this part of the paragraph, you'll notice that it trumps the idea of the sentence's main verb being at the front of the sentence by default: instead, I start with the subordinate clause and its verb-action ("When Beowulf's ashes are buried") and only after that bring in "we are witnessing."

=PART II: COLLABORATION & TECHNOLOGY= (50%)

Section A
Comprehension

Question #6
(5 pts.)

In //Here Comes Everybody// (p. 22), Clay Shirky argues that:

> [W]e are living in the middle of a remarkable increase in our ability to share, to cooperate with one another, and to take collective action, all outside the framework of traditional institutions and organizations. […] The effects are going to be far more widespread and momentous than just recovering lost phones.

What he means can be most closely restated as (correct answer is bolded):

> (a) The Arab Spring, Occupy, and viral creativity, etc. were directly caused by social media. > (b) Emerging technologies have created previously unimagined social desires to engage in large-group projects of sharing, collaboration, and collective action. > **(c) Emerging technologies have eliminated many of the barriers to performing the kind of large group sharing, collaboration, and collective action that we may have always wanted to do.** [Shirky believes that, as a social species, we have always valued and desired the opportunity to work and act collaboratively, but that we were limited in doing so by the realities of geographic distance, the concentrated ownership of media, and the costs of organizing and managing large groups. Emerging technologies have extended the "long tail" of the number of people that can easily involve themselves in a group project.] > (d) Emerging technologies have not only eliminated many of the barriers to recovering lost phones, but also many of the barriers to recovering lost tablet PCs, flash drives, umbrellas, and kittens.

Question #7
(5 pts.)

In Malcolm Gladwell’s “Small Change,” he writes:

> Shirky ends the story of the lost Sidekick by asking, portentously, “What happens next?” — no doubt imagining future waves of digital protesters. But he has already answered the question. What happens next is more of the same. A networked, weak-tie world is good at things like helping Wall Streeters get phones back from teen-age girls. Viva la revolución.

What he means can be most closely restated as:

> (a) The Arab Spring, Occupy, viral creativity, etc. had nothing to do with social media. > **(b) Although emerging technologies have eliminated many of the barriers to performing weak-tie social actions such as sharing information and “liking,” these technologies are less useful for strong-tie social actions such as organizing for collective action or creative collaboration.** [Compared to actions such bringing down the Berlin wall or ending segregation, Gladwell is unimpressed by the organizing power of social media, though he concedes it does allow for the faster, broader spread of "memes" from Joseph Kony 2012 to the zombie turtle kid (see below).] > (c) Emerging technologies have eliminated many of the barriers to performing weak-tie social actions such as sharing information and “liking,” and this trend promises revolutionary new tools for strong-tie social actions as well, such as organizing for collective action or creative collaboration. > (d) I like turtles.

media type="youtube" key="CMNry4PE93Y" height="480" width="640"

Section B
Essay

I graded these essays on the basis of 1) how well you demonstrated your understanding of Shirky/Gladwell's respective arguments, 2) how convincingly you applied those arguments to the examples provided by either the Lehrer or Schwartz articles, 3) how effectively you used this analysis to make a larger point about successful collaboration.

Question #8
(40 pts.)

In 3 to 5 paragraphs, write an essay that compares and evaluates Shirky and Gladwell’s ideas about the key professional communication issue of collaboration: how we think, create, and act in concert with other thinkers, creators, and social actors. Briefly summarize their arguments and their distinction from one another. Then, more extensively, show how their ideas are supported or challenged by the examples of collaboration provided by ONE of the following two articles. (You are welcome to bring in other relevant examples, but be sure to concentrate on one of the following.)


 * Jonah Lehrer’s “Groupthink: The Brainstorming Myth,” //New Yorker//, January 30, 2012.
 * Mattathias Schwartz, “Pre-Occupied: The Origins and Future of Occupy Wall Street,” //New Yorker//, November 28, 2011.

Whose analysis – Shirky’s or Gladwell’s – seems to best explain what the article you’ve chosen shows about how groups organize to get things done and about what works best, in our day and age, to meet the challenges of collaborating successfully?