The Ratio of Twitter

In the article “The Ratio Establishes Itself on Twitter” by Mike Isaac, a formula is introduced for figuring out how well a tweet has been received. The way the ratio works is to “Divide the number of replies you get to a tweet by the number of likes and retweets. If the former category is much larger than the latter, you probably tweeted something awful” (Isaac). This ratio was first used for political tweets as a way for candidates to track how well received they were by the public for their views on tough issues. To prove the ratio with an example, Isaac used Chris Cillizza who is a CNN political commentator and the most ratioed man on Twitter. On most occasions, the replies far outway the number of likes and retweets he gets, proving that his tweets are very controversial and “probably awful.”

After looking at the ratio difference of Chris Cillizza’s tweets, I decided to look at the ratio of tweets for Joe Berlinger over his film “Extremely Wicked Shockingly Evil And Vile.” This film starred Zac Efron and Lily Collins as they depicted Ted Bundy’s life from the view of his girlfriend Liz Kloepfer. From the initial release at Sundance Film Festival, the replies and tweets were negative and questioned the moral of the film. Yet, now with an actual ratio, I wanted to check and see if Berlinger’s tweets about the film were actually “awful” or if the media just picked up on a few tweeters who disliked the film.

On January 26th, 2019 at 8:24pm, Joe Berlinger tweets “Just two hours to go for #worldpremiere of #extremelywickedshockinglyevilandvile!! Sh*tting a Brick! But excited... @ Park City, Utah.” This tweet was Berlinger’s reaction to the first premier of the film at Sundance Film Festival and had 7 replies, 20 retweets, and 81 likes, creating a ratio of 7:101. With this ratio, this tweet is considered great! Plus, with a further investigation, all of the replies are wishing Berlinger luck, so this is an example of a great tweet and interaction at the film’s beginning.

As the showings for this film went on, the tweets started to become popular with interaction and opinions. On January 29, 2019 at 12:51pm Berlinger tweets, “Thank you for your kind and generous perspective: ‘Ted Bundy Survivor praises Zac Efron, says everyone should see 'Extremely Wicked, Shockingly Evil and Vile’” with a link to an article. This tweet received more interaction than the last one with 69 replies, 846 retweets, and 6,000 likes. That creates a ratio of 69:6,846, confirming its positivity. By this time, people not at Sundance had watched the trailer and it set tweeters off on tangents, angry that Berlinger was glorifying Ted Bundy. Berlinger was pushing positive press to offset these uninformed tweeters.

Overall, using the ratio to check the quality of Berlinger’s tweets proved that he was tweeting out great content. Even though the press was focused on the negative side, his tweets by themselves showed the true story of positive interaction.

Designers vs. Coders

In an excerpt from the ebook Interaction Design Best Practices: Mastering the Tangibles by Jerry Cao, Kamil Zieba and Matt Ellis of UXPin, the question of coders versus designers is raised. In a perfect world, every business would be able to hire someone who has excessive, equal knowledge in coding and designing and would be able to take on both jobs without needing additional help, yet in reality, the best designers only know the basics of code and coders can only see the basics of design. Instead of trying to find a “unicorn,” coders and designers need to focus on communicating effectively and also have brief knowledge in the other’s content in order to know how to communicate what they want or need. They also state that empathy is a huge quality the coders and designers need to possess to be successful.

To create a diverse platform that will engage with users productively, a business needs a team of people, not just an individual. Cao, Zieba, and Ellis all believe the key to success is to not work alone and instead “specialists need to know what others are capable of, even if they don’t understand the precise techniques.” It is important to have strong knowledge in one's field, but in order for a team to prosper and work efficiently, they have to understand each members field to communicate. A strain in communication only leads to upset businesses and disappointed or frustrated viewers which creates the war of designers versus coders. Businesses and companies need to take time to create a cohesive staff that is able to work together to produce quality work. Without this effort, there will be a war between the two fields that will result in unusable content.

To help with this quick divide of talent between coders and designers, a top trait Cao, Zieba, and Ellis look for when hiring is empathy and humility. They state that “designers need to relate to both their clients and the rest of their team to understand not just what they’re saying, but what they really mean. And that calls for a little humility.” This trait seems to be focused on designers only as they hold the vision of the project. A strong designer is able to communicate with her team because she/he understands their team. A simple understanding of tasks, traits, and skills can help to ease the divide between the two most important people on the team.

Designers and coders are essential to every creative team. Without the vision of the designer or the technology skills of the coder, webpages, interfaces, or new sources would never function, or at least be easily usable by consumers. This battle over who is more important and who has the best skills does not matter if they do not have the other to back up the vision or create the page. Instead of arguing over who is more beneficial, companies should focus on finding two people that match and empathetically understand the others field of work.

For Further Reading see: https://www.fastcompany.com/3050675/designers-should-design-coders-should-code

Company Website Comparison: Southwest vs. Continental (United)

For one of our homework assignments, we were asked to compare two companies with similar products and see how they set up their website. Below are my findings...

 VS.     

 https://www.southwest.com/     vs.    https://www.united.com/en/us

Verbal

Southwest: 

• “Points take you places” clear verbal signal on what they want you to do
• BOOK is clearly stated by the table to lead you to book a flight 

United:

• “Your next trip starts now” clearly edging the viewer on to book a flight

Structural

Southwest:

• Vibrant colors with numbers created from photos draw the viewer into their promotional credit card.
• This is the first thing viewers see
• Top of page is clearly defined by what they offer: flight, hotel, car, and vacations; special offers; rapid rewards
• The structure for booking flights is clearly defined with boxes and large font 

United:

• The first thing the viewer sees is a table with flight booking info and check in info. It is located in the left-hand corner, simple viewing as people read left to right.

Visual

Southwest:

• All tables/sections are clearly labeled in large white font
• Opening page is vibrant with an array of colors, clearly leading the viewer through each section 

United:

• Main page has changing background photos to showcase different destinations and travelers
• Font is upper, lowercased for easy reading and not too aggressive. 
• Changing background does not interfere visually with the booking table 
• Background colors change with each section

Cyber Aggression

On Tuesday, March 19th, Professor invited us to attend a STEM presentation over Cyber Aggression, where the presenters focused on trolling attacks on specific women for no true reason other than to troll them. This presentation included examples with crude language and depressing content, statistics on women who are assaulted online, and ended with four options to help combat online aggression. This presentation was definitely hard to listen to because of the truth the presenters were sharing. "Trolls" were creating fake accounts just to harass women- tweeting death and rape threats. The language used was terrifying, demoralizing, and meant to shame the women into hiding. Even reading them, I felt scared for the women.

As the presenters started, they wanted to define the differences between "online aggression," "cyberbullying," and "trolling." At first, I was confused. I was surprised that there was a true difference between each term, as I have heard each term used interchangeably. They defined each as such:

• Online Aggression: hostile and/or violent content that may or may not be directed at a specific individual 
• Cyberbullying: Targeted attacks by a known individual 
• Trolling: Baiting someone to get an emotional rise out of them 

In the examples the presenters gave, most tweets included all three of these definitions, and when you look at each definition individually, they all land on a common purpose: Shame. As the presenters focused on the aggression, I noticed they never mentioned why the trolls/cyberbullies were doing this. I recently read "So You've Been Publicly Shamed?" by Jon Ronson, and all I could think about were the examples Ronson gave, where normal people made one false tweet and became the new campaign for online aggression, cyberbullying, and trolling. The idea of publicly shaming someone is so enticing to some because it gives them the power they cannot get anywhere else. Plus, being behind a screen gives others a double life, allowing them to tarnish and ruin people they do not know without ruining their own reputation. 

While the presentation tried to give examples to correct the situation, there really is no correct answer. As long as people allow others to shame them, there will always be bullying and trolling online or in person. Shame is what drives those to bully and what continues others to keep bullying.

“The Rhetoric of Reach” By Elise Verzosa Hurley and Amy C. Kimme Hea- Response and Reflection

Elise Verzosa Hurley and Amy C. Kimme Hea inform audiences to use social media for professional success, by outlining the key to students’ lives as technical communicators and future professionals in “The Rhetoric of Reach.” Both Hurley and Kimme are professors who teach a course titled “Introduction to Professional and Technical Writing.” Through this course, students are asked to track their experiences with social media and to engage with audiences, focusing on the reach and crowdsourcing that is possible and hopefully positive to their work. Hurley and Kimme’s main focus is to “examine the effect of the pedagogical heuristic of reach and crowdsourcing as a means to foster students’ critical deployment of social media” as they engage and create a voice (56).

The beginning task for students in Hurley and Kimme’s classes is to disrupt the assumptions students have about social media and their connection and understanding of its effects at a personal and professional level. Many students find social media to take away professionalism and key grammatical expectations of writers as they try to get their ideas out as fast as possible. Other students noted a “carelessness about the craft of writing” by taking away the correctness or care associated with most forms of writing (60). Many students agreed that social media gives everyone a chance to have a voice, but then on the opposing side, with everyone having a voice “great ideas can get buried by so many opinions” (60). This initial breakdown of common thoughts surrounding social media is not surprising nor new. Educated people across all platforms are fighting for a voice, and at the same time, diminishing the very platform that is allowing them to speak. After the students were able to voice their grievances, they were given another project that would change their view to a more positive, constructive understanding of social media.

When rethinking the effects of social media, the growth of people with internet access and media usage cannot be ignored. In 2011 “81 billion minutes were spent on social networks/blogs, 64% of mobile phone time was driven by app use” (57). People around the world are connecting with others using the internet and mobile apps, increasing their social interaction. This statistic by itself is astounding to see, on top of the realization that every person you know, including yourself, helped add to that number. Social media touches everyone personally or professionally whether they want it to or not. Because of this intense consumption, there is a clear understanding by all that while social media positively influences connections with people you know, it can negatively influence connections with those you do not. The horror stories are perfect cautionary tales about poor use of social media and have created a dark cloud that looms over users, reminding them that it could happen to anyone with one false click of a button. This negative, fear-driven thinking is why Hurley and Kimme’s survey of students thoughts over social media is important to dispel if they plan on becoming technical editors and communicators.

HTML Tutorial

After reading the chapters for class, and feeling very confused about all of the lingo, I decided to find a video that would explain one of the most basic concepts. While this video is lengthy, it does a great job of starting from the beginning and walking the viewer through working with HTML and how to create an HTML web source.

Check it out for more info!

Social Media Rebranding Project Reflection

On Tuesday I presented over “Extremely Wicked, Shocking Evil, and Vile” social media presence. I had a blast preparing for this presentation and analyzing the social effects of this film. My initial interest in Ted Bundy and his effect on the world exploded into the interest of publicizing parallel stories, such as his ex-girlfriend Liz in the film by Joe Berlinger.

Through completing the research for this presentation, it gave me a deeper insight into the depths social media can go to. It also showed me how much effort and work it would be to maintain a solid social media presence while also creating a film. While Sundance is a huge honor, it can be very closed off from the rest of the world. Filmmakers need to consider the effects poor social media presence can have on the popularity of their film after Sundance.

As I looked over “Extremely Wicked, Shocking Evil, and Vile” social media presence, I was disappointed. So I decided to create steps that would help them stay relevant and publish positive press. The first step I suggested seemed very obvious to me, which was to create social media accounts for the website and then post on them regularly. I think this in itself would build a large following and answer questions of the public. Initially, this will feel like a small push but then will become the main center for communicating with viewers and pushing out information they want populated, instead of allowing other news sources to create a negative narrative of the film.

Overall, this project gave me true insight into what it would take to change the narrative or increase the views of a film. I believe my presentation itself went well. The class seemed very receptive of what I was trying to communicate and I am proud of what I was able to create.

Frye Festival

Dr. K posted a link to Fyre Festival's business packet, outlining all of the interesting, cool, hip, and up-and-coming aspects to this new music festival. It was to be hosted on an island in the Bahamas and they had gotten some of the top models in the world to advertise for it. At the same time that I saw this posted in our Blackboard site, I had also just finished watching the documentary on Netflix that explained everything they were trying to do, got away with, and failed at.

Initially, I had no idea what this event was. I heard a buzz about it on social media, but I'm not really into music festivals, nor can I afford to attend one as lavish as this seemed to be. Yet, I was intrigued to learn about their downfall and what was expected to be created. From the film, I learned that Billy (the head of the entire operation) had created a music festival concept, got the top models to advertise it, and got people to pay and sign up to attend, without ever actually planning the festival. Once Billy and the team realized that people were coming, they began to plan for the festival but quickly realized that it was going to cost them billions of more dollars than they expected and they were short on funds, plus they only had 6-8 weeks to put it together, which was not enough time. Furthermore, they had promised people lodging, yachts, and food and because they were on an island, they were unable to actually create what they had intended or thought they could create. These men were so focused on the social media presence and the press that they never actually thought through planning the entire festival (set for several thousand people) and ended up hurting their customers (who actually showed up to mud pit lodging), the Bahamians (who helped them night and day to create everything and never got paid), and the other business people (who had no idea what was actually going on and worked every day to put this festival on). It was the definition of a train wreck and honestly, sad to watch because so many good people were hurt.

From Billy and the team's initial advertising, they did an amazing job. Their video editing, Instagram feed, and business plan were impressive, intellectual, and clean. They had really thought through the image they wanted to portray and they nailed it on the head. This was proven by the fact that they sold out of the festival in a few days, even the $250,000 yacht spots were sold out. People went wild over their advertising. Their video made others want to be there and want to have an experience like they saw. This clearly shows the huge impact social media has on society and society's reaction to clear-cut, enticing products. If anything is to be learned from this experience (besides the obvious failure of the actual festival) it is that people respond positively to platforms that give them what they want to hear and see. People want a life they can edit on social media and giving them chances like Fyre festival is the perfect window to creating the perfect social media life most people are trying to conceive on their own. While I do not condone the heartache and career breaking actions of Billy and his team, I do congratulate him on a well done social media endeavor. He got what he wanted... and also what he did not (he's in jail).

Advertised: 

Reality: 

“Situational Editing: A Rhetorical Approach for the Technical Editor” by Mary Fran Buehler

“Situational Editing: A Rhetorical Approach for the Technical Editor” by Mary Fran Buehler, focuses on the argument of whether to edit something grammatically or situationally. As an editor works with a writer, they begin to bridge the gap from writer to reader. The editor is also considered a reader during this stage and has to consider what edit will best represent the work and its meaning. Going against the grammatical edit, Buehler gives examples when rhythm and significance play a more important role than a straightforward, direct sentence. She notes how the best editors work with writers in real time to help with the conciseness of the piece. Overall, Buehler confirms that the situation of the writing is the most important editing viewpoint to deliver the best content, while grammar comes second.

Listening to Beuhler’s argument really struck me because as a high school teacher, I have to teach the grammar component, but then while I am conferencing or grading student work I consider the situation they are in. I also consider their ability and compare that with their product. Buehler gives strong examples, including writing/editing an acknowledgment, that prove how situational editing is more important than grammatical editing. That example really stuck with me because in some senses, I feel that Buehler focuses on situational tone. It is always important to remember what section one is writing or to whom they are writing for. That in itself creates a situation where the editor can “loosen” up or put proper grammar to the side. While in opposition, a technical document needs grammatical structure to be taken seriously.

When defining the two sides, Buehler outlines, “‘Follow these rules,’ says Grammar, ‘and you will always be correct.’” while the other side states, “‘Consider the individual situation,’ says Rhetoric, ‘and you may be able to communicate effectively’” (459). Not only do I agree with these relaxed definitions, but they are the two sides my head argues every time I am writing or editing. Following rules is important when it comes to equalizing your work to a readable level, but if it does not fit the scenario it is meant for, what is its purpose? There is a fine line between these two mediums that if crossed too far to one side can ruin the intention, meaning, or readability. At the very beginning of this discussion, Buehler notes how the word “rhetoric” is used as a synonym for language in the news. Misunderstanding the definition of rhetoric from “solid achievement” to just “language” hints at how many times writers have crossed the grammar vs. rhetoric line (458). This is where editors need to step in and gracefully correct writers to equalize their grammar usage without forgoing their situation.

Buehler defined writing using two important sides: grammar and rhetoric. As editors evolve, they must learn to follow the thin line between the two and help writers become successful at both.

"Conversations with a Killer: The Ted Bundy Tapes" on Netflix

As I was researching information about "Extremely Wicked, Shockingly Evil and Vile" for the Media project, the Netflix docuseries about Ted Bundy also kept popping up. This docuseries was also produced by Joe Berlinger but instead of following people close to Ted, it actually follows and catalogs Ted Bundy. I decided to watch the series because I've been so interested in everything surrounding the Bundy controversy and found the series to be creepy, real, and informative.

This series begins with interviews from Ted Bundy while he was on death row, hoping that Ted would describe what he had done and who he really was. Before I watched this series, I did not understand the length of Ted's crimes. I understood that he was a serial killer and said to look "normal." While watching the series I was shocked and flabbergasted at what he was able to accomplish so easily, sneakily, and cruelly. It seemed so impossible that he was able to carry out all of these murders in different states, escape prison twice, and still have people love him. From watching the series I gained a greater understanding of the lack of technology and resources during this time and the use of the new descriptor: serial killer.

From watching these tapes, I was able to see why there was such an outroar from the public over "Extremely Wicked, Shockingly Evil and Vile." From first glance, the media does not need to mortalize Ted Bundy's name any further, he does not deserve to be remembered- those girls and woman do. But what I think these two films are positively doing is to inform audiences how unsafe people can be and to be careful and watchful of who you let into your life. After watching the Ted Bundy tapes on Netflix, I am more excited than ever to see "Extremely Wicked, Shockingly Evil and Vile." While the idea of Bundy scares me and has made me even more aware of my surroundings, I am intrigued to see how Zac Efron portrays him and the other facts I will learn.

"Conversations with a Killer: The Ted Bundy Tapes" on Netflix Trailer

Homework Activity- "What is 'Open Heart Surgery'?"

Analysis of a Medical Document 

What is the origin of the document?

To inform people what open heart surgery really is and answer the question without having to ask the doctor.

What impact should the document have?

The impact of this document should be informational and define, in simple terms, what open heart surgery is as quickly as possible. After reading this, people should feel comfortable about the information and feel informed.

Who are the readers of the document? What is their previous knowledge? What is their emotional state?

The readers of this document are patients and family members of patients. Most of these readers will have little to no previous knowledge of open heart surgery, unless they themselves have gone through it. They will have a high emotional state and want to be calmed through information.

What will the readers use the document for?

The readers will use the document to make sense of the procedure they are going through and to help them understand what the doctor is talking about.

What cultures might the readers belong to that might affect the document’s interpretation?

Cultures that do not think asking questions is respectful would find this document aggravating because it does not truly inform the reader of anything and then they would get frustrated because they would not understand the doctor.

What accessibility issues might the document have?

The document is not very large font for people that wear glasses or cannot see very well. Because it is also written, the blind cannot be informed. For readers who are not proficient in reading, they would struggle with the vocabulary and back and forth between professional and relaxed tone.

What constraints do you think there are on development and production?

I think it would be hard to always print out the most up to date information because of cost and time. It would also be hard to print this on a smaller scale because there’s a lot of information.

If you were the document’s editor, how would you revise it? Could you cut it down to one sentence?

If I were the editor, I would bullet point the information and bold the terms with unbolded definitions to follow. I would use a list format for easy reading and while one sentence would not be enough, I would cut this 2 page document down to postcard size.

Social Media Re-branding Project Update

IMDb:

   -7.7/10 rating by 406 IMDb users

   -notes the length of film, director, writer, actors, summary

   -shows videos of interviews and trailer

Analysis: Overall this is a basic IMDb overview of the movie and will help most people who want quick information.

Instagram:

   -no specific profile for the film

   -other news reporters are posting about it and created a hashtag or tagging the actors/director

   -actors and director

Analysis: The film should create a personal instagram account to post videos, photos, and information so that people are properly informed. This would also help to correct information bias and miscommunication currently surrounding the film.

Twitter:

   -no specific twitter profile for the film

   -actors and director post information, links, photos, videos to promote the movie for sundance

   -they do not use the hashtag when talking about the film

   -popular hashtag: #extremelywickedshockinglyevilandvile

Analysis: **same as instagram**  It should also be mentioned that Joe Berlinger, the director, does a wonderful job of updating his twitter feed with correct information by reposting articles, positive tweets, and videos.

Facebook Account:

   -all posts are in 2018 with a few in January

   -very random postings, most up to date posts tag the netflix docuseries

   -9,368 people like this

   -9,537 people follow this

   -most comments show excitement and want information on when and where they can view the film

Analysis: There is no up-to-date information regarding the film. They need to start posting again to inform the audience of what is going on and what has occured since sundance film festival.

Articles Related to Extremely Wicked Shockingly Evil and Vile:

News about viewing:
Zac Efron's New Ted Bundy Film Was Just Purchased By Netflix for $9 Million

Zac Efron's Ted Bundy Film Headed To Theaters In Fall


Review:
Extremely Wicked, Shockingly Evil And Vile Review

The Ted Bundy movie starring Zac Efron sure does love Ted Bundy

Sundance 2019: 'Extremely Wicked, Shockingly Evil and Vile' glorifies serial killer Ted Bundy

Why Zac Efron is exactly the right Ted Bundy

I Saw Zac Efron's Ted Bundy Movie—It's Not What You Think


Sundance Film Festival Buzz:

The Best Movies To Emerge From Sundance 2019

Sundance Film Review: Zac Efron in ‘Extremely Wicked, Shockingly Evil and Vile’


Analysis: Most of the buzz is focused around Zac Efron as an actor. They should use this by reposting articles through social media sites to keep the public engaged.

Changing Roles Editors Play

As I've previously mentioned, the initial image of an editor for most people includes a person editing copy text or articles, red pen in hand. Yet, as society evolves, so does the mundane definition of an editor. Currently, we live in an age where technology rules everything we do. Most people get their news, media, and information from an online source, using their phone for the information. Computers and cell phones now come equipped with spell check and grammar notifications. There are even websites and apps devoted to giving corrections in real time, my favorite being Grammarly. With all of this smart, editorial technology, who really needs a human copy editor to scrutinize punctuation and sentence structure? Instead, most writers can rely on their tech to catch the big stuff. 

When I think about technology taking over for a grammatical editor, it actually makes me excited for the future of editorial jobs because editors get to blossom into something bigger. They can stop fussing over sentence structure and focus on the big ideas, the template of the page, or the visual and emotional appeal of the piece. Taking away the need to check for simple typing mistakes allows for the editorial role to evolve into a writers paradise where the delivery is at the forefront, not the actual writing (by writing I mean the grammar and spelling nuances, obviously if any of those are glaringly wrong the editor should step in, but hopefully that writer is using editing software to solve those concerns.) The editor can push the writer to deliver a clear message and in essence, build the writers brand. 

Coming back to technology's role, as a writer, you have to do more than just write to be relevant nowadays. Simply put, you must create a brand. You must be present on social media- twitter, instagram, facebook; you must create a website; you must travel and meet fans; you must respond to fans on social media; you must do tours and readings and..... I think you get the point. You have to be more than just your writing. Your writing will need to be good enough to get you to that level, but once you get there, you will need an editor to help you keep building your brand to remain relevant. While an editor's role has changed from copy text editing to helping individual authors create a brand, the skill of brand building can also do the same thing for a website, a company, a store, a news source, an artist, or a social media platform. Technology has changed editing from looking at the text to looking at web functionality and usability. Editors have become the architects of textual design. 

Even though the editor's role is changing, I will always hear "editor" and picture a writer with a stack of papers and a red pen in their hand. Maybe that will still be the staple of their work, but with the rush of technology and the discard of paper, editors have evolved to not only design textual works but to help build them. 

Extremely Wicked, Shocking Evil and Vile... a film by Joe Berlinger

As I ventured into the Twittersphere of the Sundance Film Festival, one particular film (and person) kept catching my eye: Ted Bundy. People were going insane over him! Some were gushing over Zac Efron (because I mean who wouldn't? every girl that grew up with Zac-better known as Troy Bolton- has since been in love with him secretly and openly), others were questioning the glorification of the serial killer, some were defending Zac and Joe, and most were just intrigued by what the film really has to say.

In today's world, it still shocks me how a large number of people feel safe enough to get behind their phones and tweet mean, cruel, and incorrect facts, emotions, and responses to something they have no information or understanding of. Most of the negative tweets immediately focused on the trailer's depiction of the film, not remembering that a trailer's main marketing ploy is to get people talking and to intrigue viewers. From a marketing standpoint, the trailer has been successful, but not in the positive filmmaking conversational space and way it was probably intended.

As I scoped out the #ExtremelyWickedShockinglyEvilAndVile on Twitter there was a strong half and half intrigue into the film. The well-informed news sources were publishing insightful and informational articles, while the bashers were ranting about how this movie will make serial killers become the new role models for society. The two sides are clearly defined and quite obvious, and also very very intriguing. While this movie is yet to come out on the big screen, I am excited to see the societal buzz from people who have watched the movie. I think the filmmaker, artist, and director, Joe Berlinger will surprise everyone with his portrayal and his film will quiet the bashers that are loudly proclaiming false facts.

If you would like to partake in the conversation about Joe Berlinger's trailer... see you for yourself:
Extremely Wicked, Shockingly Evil and Vile Trailer #1 (2019) | Movieclips Trailers

Free Write: Chapter Two from Technical Editing Thoughts

For this week’s reading, we were asked to read chapter two from “Technical Editing” by Carolyn Rude and Angela Eaton called “Readers, Users, Browers, Problem Solvers…” I wanted to focus on this chapter for my free write this week because I was amazed at the array of situations and concerns an editor has to think about when it comes to usability. As I previously mentioned in my first free write about my view of an editor, I saw editors as a job that works specifically with words and nothing else; yet this chapter is defying every notion of that thinking.

The first line of this chapter struck me “as an editor, you have two major responsibilities - to your reader and to your writer” (16). This is obvious to me. Of course you are editing someone else's work to make them sound clear, which benefits the reader and the writer. The next part is what surprised me “your responsibility to your reader should always come first” (16). At first I thought, hmmm… that makes sense, but then as it sunk in I questioned that statement. Isn’t the editor’s main focus supposed to be on the work that the writer created? Shouldn’t we work hard to please the writer and make their work shine? While a simple yes can be answered for these questions, it becomes clear that without the reader, there is no need for a writer or an editor. Harsh… but very true. So yes, I do agree that the reader should always come first.

As Rude and Eaton describe the many areas of editorial concern, the one that struck me the most was the physical features that will work best for the reader. They note that as an editor, we need to anticipate how the reader will interact with the physical document before they even begin to read it. They give examples including: a restaurant with low lighting will need a menu with larger text, an outdoor reading would require weatherproofing to ensure it’s able to hold up during the task, the size of the product will matter based on how it’s stored- in a pocket, on a shelf, in a file cabinet, and so on. These are all such small aspects to the overall document, but they matter immensely. As a reader, if I get distracted, the font or size is too big or small, or the document is messy with mistakes or ads then I will not use it. Even if that document has all of the secrets to the world and is the best writing ever, I need it to be properly usable in order for me to read it.



Overall, this chapter was insightful and has made me think through all of the documents that I use and appreciate. The first that comes to mind is my planner. An editor had to sit down and think about all the physical components of this planner to make it useful, engaging, attractive, and organized. They had to think through the tabs, colors, layout, size, thickness of pages, and so on. From now on, I will be more aware of the physicality of documents that I come into contact with and when I come across a well-produced document, I will mentally thank that editor for their eye for detail and thoughtfulness.

Technical Editing Reading Reflection David Foster Wallace "Tense Present"

1. What was your initial response to the text? Think about how it resonated in the body. What sensations did you experience?


My initial response to the text was of shock and intrigue. At first, I did not want to believe the accusations he was making about the dictionary and the way we accept definitions of words. I almost felt kind of stupid because I naively trusted the sources who wrote the dictionary and told me what to believe about a word. It also made me question myself and the overwhelming, immediate trust I give to authors. In terms of body sensation, it made me feel like I needed to get up and do something. It made my back straighten and my brain buzz with questions and the need to explore other texts and societal norms I trusted without question. It was an invigorating sensation that really made me aware of the texts surrounding me.


2. How do you usually respond to challenging texts that seem to defy convention?


My initial response to challenging texts that seem to defy convention is to at first, be hesitant. I always want to trust myself over a new source’s opinion because I have believed one way for so long. Yet, I make myself stay open to other possibilities as they unfold to allow new perspectives to enhance my view or actually show me a difference. That is the way I approached DFW “Tense Present.” I was not actually aware of all the conventions he was going to defy, as I went into the reading blind, so at first it did catch me off guard. But then I read and listened and tried to decipher what I could about his view versus mine and realized that there are more features to writing than I had originally believed.


3. To what extent is Wallace defying convention? Amplifying convention? What are some of the effects of his style?


Wallace is defying convention by making us question norms we thought we knew. He begins with the most trusted word source in society: the dictionary, and makes the reader wonder why they immediately trusted that source without anything real to back it up. From a young age, teachers, parents, and peers have told us that if we have a question about a word, our first stop should be the dictionary. Yet now DFW is asking us why we trust that as our first place of resource instead of the society around us which is constantly changing and evolving with language. In terms of amplifying convention, he goes back and forth between having a meaningful sentence versus a grammatically correct one. He amplifies that “there exists a Universal Grammar beneath and common to all languages” which while most know to be true, it’s important to be reminded. When people talk orally, they do not need to use every correct grammatical rule to be understood, yet when it comes to written discussion, grammar can be everything and can change the intention immediately. This is clear through the effects of his style. He travels in-between a clear, academic voice to an informal friend, bluntly telling you how it is. These two styles merge together to give the blunt truth he wants his reader to question and hopefully believe in the end.


4. How do you imagine Wallace’s relationship with his editors? Do some quick searches to see what you can find out about these relationships.


Without researching and just using this article to infer, I believe his relationship with his editors was difficult and they were at odds. He mentions in the footnotes how his editors will probably remove or delete parts of what he says. He is a very blunt, brutally honest writer about the topics he wants to inform people over. His editors would have to work with him to dial that back to an acceptable tone in order to not aggravate and estrange an audience while still teaching them what DFW wanted the reader to know.


When I looked it up, there was an interview with Deborah Treisman his editor of 15 years. She seems very fond of DFW mentioning that the work he would send her would have been edited and cleaned up 5 or so times before she even saw it. Then they would communicate through voicemail on corrections. DFW did not like to communicate via email and instead would use the phone. I can see DFW as having a strict view of grammar and sentence structure. I think he is a very polished writer and knows that it takes many drafts before even an editor should see it. This dedication is what made him a good writer.


5. How do you think you might manage working with a stylistically idiosyncratic writer like Wallace? Have you in the past? Are YOU an idiosyncratic writer? How can you begin to forecast working with editors who are helping you publish your work?





Personally, I don’t think I would do very well working with someone like DFW. My strong suit is NOT grammar or sentence structure so I would have to do a lot of learning, research, and practice before I even tried to edit something of his. He is also very blunt with his criticism which I appreciate as a reader, but I do not know how I would handle it as his editor. I would not call myself an idiosyncratic writer. I do like papers to look a certain way aesthetically, but I don’t have a specific style I always try to emulate. When it comes to working with editors over my work, I always try to remember that they are there to help me become a better writer and to get my writing to it’s best. It is always hard to hear when you did not do well, but I know that it has to happen in order for me to grow as a writer.

David Foster Wallace’s “Tense Present” Reflection

David Foster Wallace’s “Tense Present” Reflection David Foster Wallace’s “Tense Present” begins by questioning the truth of the dictionary, democratic conversation, and arguing between “corruption” and “permissiveness.” Wallace uses Bryan Garner’s A Dictionary of Modern American Usage, to prove that individuality can be separated from the mainstream interpretation to create an unbiased understanding of language. Using ADMAU as the focus for this ideal, Wallace questions the snoot, five edicts, New Critics, differing dialects, and the ability to understand as many English dialects as possible. Wallace ends by confirming the “most attractive thing about ADMAU’s Ethical Appeal . . . is Garner’s scrupulous consideration of the reader’s concern about his (or her) own linguistic authority” (58).

 As Wallace introduces the importance of language, he confirms its necessity by reminding the reader “you can’t escape language; Language is everything and everywhere . . . it’s what separates us from the animals” (41). The emphasis that language is particularly human is a strong indication of its worth, and a warning to give language the respect it deserves. This is easily forgotten as society has grown to take advantage of language by throwing out the rules, and as Wallace mentions, stop teaching it all together in schools. Wallace seems to be smitten with the idea of the “snoot” in relation to this case because a snoot has care and respect for the rules of language. A snoot holds people in their place when they are speaking or writing and helps others (whether they want the help or not) become more clear in their intentions.

 On the other side as humans, we question everything we come across, yet we do not question the dictionary or ask who declared each definition to be justified. Words and definitions have been “deemed ‘substandard’ or ‘incorrect’” by a never elected body of people (43). Then there’s the question of who gets to decide when the dictionary and language are officially in need of an update. Obviously, updates have occurred over time, as Wallace gives the example that if it did not we would all still be speaking like Chaucer (43), yet who and what decides that official fact? The ebb and flow of change within language relies on the society that speaks it and without a true “ruler” the society itself sets the rules. ADMAU also addresses the authority dilemma, bluntly saying that people want “sound guidance. And that requires judgment” which is subjective (43). So while a true authority figure is self-chosen, society also chooses who they want to listen to, and Wallace is suggesting we all listen to ADMAU.

 Wallace also brings attention to the difference between meaningful and grammatical, noting that the rules grammar puts into place “serve clarity and precision” (48). Orally speaking to one another versus written conversation allows the speaker to convey themselves entirely differently instead of complicating their true meaning by the recipient. Speaking face to face allows for the recipient to process not only the words but the delivery and added meaning. Written language can do the same thing, but is only truly clear when written grammatically correct. This simple understanding is what creates an array of English vernacular. “People really do ‘judge’ one another according to their use of language” (50). How one is regarded is based solely on how they handle language and interaction. Language can come with acceptance or immediate denial. Wallace mentions this not only as information but as a view into how language grows and can evolve through different social classes and populations.

 As Wallace ends his probe of linguistic authority, the purposes of expert authority and reader authority become a question of which one to trust. ADMAU confirms that these two sides are identical and when used together can create a democratic experience that keeps changing with society.

Editors are...

The initial image of an editor that comes to mind is someone in a small space surrounded by stacks of paper, red pens and markings, and a beeping monitor reminding the editor of his/her due dates; maybe other writers are entering and exiting asking questions and getting ideas, sharing their skills. My take away from this image in my head proves to show me that I don't really understand the many facets of editing and the array of jobs that an editor could have. I have a very one-sided image in my mind.

On the other side, I associate one set of ideals to editors. The first is I assume that all editors are trustworthy and have taken the time to understand their topic, author, and meaning behind a task. I expect editors to do their homework, check on statistics and research to make sure that everything they edit and allow to be published is actually correct. As I reader, I am trusting the editor.

I also expect to see a beautiful publication. I want the font, spacing, and page format to be welcoming, symmetrical, clean, and easy to access. I don't want to struggle to find the article or have to click all over the page. I also don't want to see formatting differences or inconsitencies. If these do occur I question the realiablity of the author and the edtior. If they did not take the time to make their work "look pretty" then how do I know if they took the time to put real thought into their work.

I can guess that being an editor is tricky at times. I can imagine that you are trying to "please" everyone with your work (client included) and are trying to make someone else's thoughts coherent and clear. But I also see being an editor as being a rewarding career. You get to help others and see your corrections influence work.

While my initial image of an editor is narrow, my understanding of their worth is vast.