So, on this endless post-grad job search I've been on, I've come across some interesting things on the editorial side of magazine publishing.
First, I found a job listing for Weight Watchers, which I am a member of. As we learned a couple of weeks ago, WW is heavily immersed in Plato's objective to "help me use the weight loss plan that has worked for millions."
And while I've honestly been slacking in the weight loss department for a while, my job search has continued to be constant; almost obsessive. After hours of sifting through job ads, I found that Weight Watchers Magazine was looking for an intern for their offices in New York.
Since I'm a member and familiar with the program, I clicked on the entry to read the job description. It was mostly the standard description of duties I had been used to seeing for all the others such as: must be proficient in AP style, must pitch story ideas and work closely with the editor, must have a strong writing background with communication skills, etc.
But one job description that struck me was, "must be a self-starter with an ability to write impeccably on deadline."
Let's think about this for a second. First off, what does, "write impeccably" even mean? What i consider as impeccable writing may not be what WW considers as impeccable, so, what scale should we measure this definition on? It technically means, "behavior, performance, or appearance to the highest standards of propriety; faultless." But who gets to decide what the "highest standard" is? And no one writes faultless upon the first draft.
And second, why is our culture so oriented towards deadlines? Is it because we know at the end of that final crunch before time runs out, we have to turn in something as they would say, "impeccable" and that's where our inspiration comes from? Or are we just that lazy that if no deadlines existed, we would never be motivated enough to get through the writing?
I wonder what Peter Elbow would say about these requirements. Because like him, I wish I could find a job where I could write in a style and time frame that worked for me and not just by any magazine's rules and standards. Where do our rules and standards as writers come into play here?
Oh well, if following their specific writing rules gets me a job, that's exactly what I'll do!
Sunday, March 21, 2010
Sunday, March 7, 2010
Say It Aint So, Tiger! Or Perhaps, Say It Like Cicero...
Ok, so, I’m late. I know the whole world already knows that, well, to put it nicely, Tiger Woods is a dog. I guess I just wanted to bask in my ignorance and believe that he was as great a father and husband as he was a golfer. And while his golfing and fathering skills may have not diminished, he sure had some ‘splaining to do to his wife Elin, for the many, ahem, sexual partners he cheated on her with over the years.
Like I said, I know I’m a little late, but, I just recently read the public apology he made in February, and boy did he borrow from the book of Cicero! He opened his speech with a little licentia, or “frankness of speech,” saying, “I want to say to each of you simply and directly: I am deeply sorry for my irresponsible, selfish behavior.”
He then went into commoratio, or, “dwelling on the point” by explaining, “I know people want to find out how I could be so selfish and so foolish. People want to know how I could have done these things to my wife Elin and to my children. And while I have always tried to be a private person, there are some things I want to say.” After this, he placed “emphasis” or significatio, on his current relationship with his wife, saying, “Elin and I have started the process of discussing the damage caused by my behavior. My real apology will not come in the form of words, but my behavior over time. We have a lot to discuss. What we say to each other will remain between the two of us.”
He then makes the bold, “mock surrender” or, permissio, telling his mother and the press, “I had a lot of time to think of what I have done. My failures have made me look at myself in a way I never wanted to before. I have a lot to atone for.”
But he comes back with definitio, or defining his actions, by saying, “The issue involved here was my repeated irresponsible behavior. I was unfaithful. I had affairs. I cheated. What I did is not acceptable – and I am the only person to blame. I stopped living by the core values that I was taught to believe in. I knew my actions were wrong, but I convinced myself that normal rules didn’t apply. Instead, I thought only about myself. I ran straight through the boundaries a married couple should live by. I thought I could get away with whatever I wanted to. I felt that I had worked hard my entire life and deserved to enjoy all the temptations around me.”
Finally, he “refines his idea” with expolitio and tells his fans and supporters his plan of action to return to their good graces, “I recognize I have brought this on myself. And I know above all, I am the one who needs to change. I owe it to my family to become a better person.”
Good luck, Tiger.
Wednesday, March 3, 2010
Learning the Ropes
Well, Rebekah beat me to it - perfect timing on this post! Since today’s class discussion and Perry’s study have given us a new vocabulary to hash this out, I’d like to blend a response and some thoughts of my own here (bear with me). Let’s take a look at the other side of this issue:
We know that writing, like painting or playing a musical instrument, is a complex act – there’s more happening than what meets the eye when a pen crawls across a page or fingers hammer s keyboard. Like art or musicianship, the process of learning to write is also complex. It involves (at least) two important elements- skill and creativity. I think looking at the relationship between these two might help explain why we’re taught in ways that, looking back, seem silly or useless.
The creative side of any discipline is deeply personal, and is grounded in the passion and experience of the artist. To realize one’s creative potential, however, one needs to have the core skills that make it possible. Building up these skills is a process that involves time, effort, and learning from mistakes. We learned from Piaget and Perry that development occurs in stages. At each successive stage, we are capable of understanding more.
Young writers are taught simplistically, and in black-and-white terms, because to do otherwise would be to confuse them needlessly – as anyone currently studying a foreign language knows, learning a general rule and then gradually becoming familiar with exceptions is much easier than simply being told that there is no rule. College students may be able to cope with the latter method, but for young writers with highly limited proficiency, this kind of teaching would be paralyzing. Someone who hasn’t mastered the construction of a coherent argument (most easily explained in that dreaded 5 paragraph theme) isn’t ready for a stage 3 Perryite freakout.
Picasso painted simple portraits before rocking the world with Cubism. Bird played standards before he showed us what it means to improvise. Writers learn the rules – the basics – so they can do the same, well, later on. Whether or not these skills are always taught effectively is another question entirely. Maybe we could do a study of our own to find out, and get Harvard to foot the bill.
We know that writing, like painting or playing a musical instrument, is a complex act – there’s more happening than what meets the eye when a pen crawls across a page or fingers hammer s keyboard. Like art or musicianship, the process of learning to write is also complex. It involves (at least) two important elements- skill and creativity. I think looking at the relationship between these two might help explain why we’re taught in ways that, looking back, seem silly or useless.
The creative side of any discipline is deeply personal, and is grounded in the passion and experience of the artist. To realize one’s creative potential, however, one needs to have the core skills that make it possible. Building up these skills is a process that involves time, effort, and learning from mistakes. We learned from Piaget and Perry that development occurs in stages. At each successive stage, we are capable of understanding more.
Young writers are taught simplistically, and in black-and-white terms, because to do otherwise would be to confuse them needlessly – as anyone currently studying a foreign language knows, learning a general rule and then gradually becoming familiar with exceptions is much easier than simply being told that there is no rule. College students may be able to cope with the latter method, but for young writers with highly limited proficiency, this kind of teaching would be paralyzing. Someone who hasn’t mastered the construction of a coherent argument (most easily explained in that dreaded 5 paragraph theme) isn’t ready for a stage 3 Perryite freakout.
Picasso painted simple portraits before rocking the world with Cubism. Bird played standards before he showed us what it means to improvise. Writers learn the rules – the basics – so they can do the same, well, later on. Whether or not these skills are always taught effectively is another question entirely. Maybe we could do a study of our own to find out, and get Harvard to foot the bill.
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
Breakin' da Rules
As we’ve been talking about our early writing and how we learned to write, I’ve been thinking about all of the so-called rules I, and I’m guess most of you, were taught in elementary, junior high, and high school. These are the rules that we were taught never to break, such as never start a sentence with and, but, or it, don’t use I when writing essays or research papers, make sure that all paragraphs are five sentences or more, and, of course, never split an infinitive. Certain words, such as fun and nice were “garbage can words,” and when talking about an author you are to use the present tense. As I grew up, though, I began to learn exceptions to these rules. Sometimes a paragraph can be two or three sentences. There are quite a few times when splitting an infinite is ok. And it’s not a capital offense to begin a sentence with and. I still find myself stumbling over these “rules,” though, even when I’ve re-learned them time and time again. I’m weary about using I in formal writing, and I cringe at the thought of using garbage can words (a good reason to keep my thesaurus handy).
My question is why? Why were we taught all of these rules and regulations when we were just starting to write if we were only to disregard them later on? The amount of exceptions to these rules pretty much nullifies them in the first place. I suppose that concrete rules help young writers formulate skills, but I find that many people I talk to who struggle with writing are struggling with these very rules. Do these, guidelines, we might call them, still serve a viable function in today’s elementary school teachers’ lesson plans? Or should we crape them and teach kids the truth from the beginning. Or maybe it all comes back to the old saying that rules were meant to be broken. No matter what the answer, I still can’t help feeling like someone, somewhere down the line, lied to me.
My question is why? Why were we taught all of these rules and regulations when we were just starting to write if we were only to disregard them later on? The amount of exceptions to these rules pretty much nullifies them in the first place. I suppose that concrete rules help young writers formulate skills, but I find that many people I talk to who struggle with writing are struggling with these very rules. Do these, guidelines, we might call them, still serve a viable function in today’s elementary school teachers’ lesson plans? Or should we crape them and teach kids the truth from the beginning. Or maybe it all comes back to the old saying that rules were meant to be broken. No matter what the answer, I still can’t help feeling like someone, somewhere down the line, lied to me.
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
Parisian Ethos
As an advertising major, I find it interesting to dissect current advertisements for their persuasive abilities. The proper use of rhetoric can have a definate impact on the audience. As a consumer, I find ethos as an effective tool of motivation. The emotional appeals used in a recent Google advertisement were able to get the attention of an entire bar of crazed football fans. With this simple story, we were drawn in and touched by the story of an unknown study abroad student. In a simple 30 second spot, we were shown that the Google search engine can assistant you in your path to a better life. Google. I think it was successful in reaching both their male and female target. Has anyone else seen this commercial? What were your thoughts?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nnsSUqgkDwU&feature=pyv&ad=3910813733&kw=superbowl%20google%20ad
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nnsSUqgkDwU&feature=pyv&ad=3910813733&kw=superbowl%20google%20ad
Sunday, February 21, 2010
Thursday, February 11, 2010
Gimme Gimme MONEY!
For a night job, I work at the Broadway campus at the Phone-A-Thon. I'm not sure if any of you know about this gig, but its a average paying job for Loyola University students three nights a week. So, like a poor college student like myself, I need the money. Well, the job consists of calling up alumni from the particular colleges and asking them for a donation towards the one they received their degree in. Since I'm a English Literature major, I call graduates from the College of Humanities and Natural Sciences. The money goes towards new professors, updating course selections, and refurbishing buildings that relate to the college.
Now, the last thing I want to do is be that caller who bothers families in the middle of Wednesday night dinner. (But again, poor people need to eat too.) So I keep an open mind during training. During this weeks training session (all the while I'm wondering why they need a full week to train for this job), they had out scripts. AHAH! RHETORIC! There are scripts for every college. Each type of script is in relation to the type of person you'll be calling. If you are calling a Biology graduate your script will be differently worded than a Music Industry graduate. The general format of the scripts are the same, but there are tweaks in order to get your potential donor to give up the cash. The "personalized" script will direct the caller to topics that may inspire the potential donor.
This is an example of how one of my average calls to a former English Literature/Writing major may play out:
*I've colored the parts that are direct lines from the given script. The rest have been suggested topics for me to hit on.
PD: "Hello?"
Cait: "Hi! May I please speak to Mr. John Doe?"
PD: "Yes, this is he. Who is calling?"
Cait "My name is Cait and I'm an junior English Literature major at Loyola University New Orleans. How are you doing tonight?"
PD: *sighs "Fine."
Cait: "Great! Well, I am calling alumni from our College of Humanities and Natural Sciences to update you about the university, her some of your feedback on your programs, and tell you how you can get involved."
PD: "Okay. I don't really have time for this, I'm about to eat dinner."
Cait: "Ohh, I'm so sorry. I promise that it won't take much of your time and as a student, I'd really appreciate it."
PD: "Okay, fine."
Cait: "Now, I see that you graduated with a degree in English Writing? Are you still working in that field?"
PD: "Yeah, I'm in publishing for Penguin Books."
Cait: "Wow, that's great! I'm assuming you liked the English department here at Loyola, were there any teachers or classes that really stick out for you?"
PD: "Umm..well, yeah. I really enjoyed Dr. Adams Writing from Sources class. She still there?"
Cait: "Haha, absolutely! I'm taking her right now for Rhetoric. That's actually another reason why I am calling. The college is going through a lot of changes; from updating course selections to hiring new professors, we are really trying to do many great things with the program. Also, the English department is offering study abroad opportunities. I myself am planning on going to Ireland this summer."
PD: "Congratulations, that's really great for you."
Cait: "Yes, it is. The only reason I can go though is through the scholarships that are offered by the university. Did you know that 80% of the student body is on some sort of financial aid? Its students like me that need the support of alumni like yourself, which brings me to my next point. I was hoping, that with all these amazing changes, you would want to be involved. Would you consider making a contribution with a gift of $50 tonight?"
PD: "Ohh, gee, yeah, I don't think so. I liked Loyola, but I just don't have the money."
Cait: "I completely understand, as a working student trying to make her way through college money is definitely tight."
PD: "Well, I guess I could. $50 you said?"
Cait: "Yes Mr. Doe."
PD: "Alright, put it on my Amex."
...and Loyola just got another one!
Did you see all that RHETORIC?!?! Talking about persuasion and hitting the nerves - and I haven't even posted about the scripts that tell you what to say when they refuse to donate. a good caller never quits!
Now, the last thing I want to do is be that caller who bothers families in the middle of Wednesday night dinner. (But again, poor people need to eat too.) So I keep an open mind during training. During this weeks training session (all the while I'm wondering why they need a full week to train for this job), they had out scripts. AHAH! RHETORIC! There are scripts for every college. Each type of script is in relation to the type of person you'll be calling. If you are calling a Biology graduate your script will be differently worded than a Music Industry graduate. The general format of the scripts are the same, but there are tweaks in order to get your potential donor to give up the cash. The "personalized" script will direct the caller to topics that may inspire the potential donor.
This is an example of how one of my average calls to a former English Literature/Writing major may play out:
*I've colored the parts that are direct lines from the given script. The rest have been suggested topics for me to hit on.
PD: "Hello?"
Cait: "Hi! May I please speak to Mr. John Doe?"
PD: "Yes, this is he. Who is calling?"
Cait "My name is Cait and I'm an junior English Literature major at Loyola University New Orleans. How are you doing tonight?"
PD: *sighs "Fine."
Cait: "Great! Well, I am calling alumni from our College of Humanities and Natural Sciences to update you about the university, her some of your feedback on your programs, and tell you how you can get involved."
PD: "Okay. I don't really have time for this, I'm about to eat dinner."
Cait: "Ohh, I'm so sorry. I promise that it won't take much of your time and as a student, I'd really appreciate it."
PD: "Okay, fine."
Cait: "Now, I see that you graduated with a degree in English Writing? Are you still working in that field?"
PD: "Yeah, I'm in publishing for Penguin Books."
Cait: "Wow, that's great! I'm assuming you liked the English department here at Loyola, were there any teachers or classes that really stick out for you?"
PD: "Umm..well, yeah. I really enjoyed Dr. Adams Writing from Sources class. She still there?"
Cait: "Haha, absolutely! I'm taking her right now for Rhetoric. That's actually another reason why I am calling. The college is going through a lot of changes; from updating course selections to hiring new professors, we are really trying to do many great things with the program. Also, the English department is offering study abroad opportunities. I myself am planning on going to Ireland this summer."
PD: "Congratulations, that's really great for you."
Cait: "Yes, it is. The only reason I can go though is through the scholarships that are offered by the university. Did you know that 80% of the student body is on some sort of financial aid? Its students like me that need the support of alumni like yourself, which brings me to my next point. I was hoping, that with all these amazing changes, you would want to be involved. Would you consider making a contribution with a gift of $50 tonight?"
PD: "Ohh, gee, yeah, I don't think so. I liked Loyola, but I just don't have the money."
Cait: "I completely understand, as a working student trying to make her way through college money is definitely tight."
PD: "Well, I guess I could. $50 you said?"
Cait: "Yes Mr. Doe."
PD: "Alright, put it on my Amex."
...and Loyola just got another one!
Did you see all that RHETORIC?!?! Talking about persuasion and hitting the nerves - and I haven't even posted about the scripts that tell you what to say when they refuse to donate. a good caller never quits!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)