PB3A - Genre Transformation

For this genre transformation, I picked a scholarly article by Iina Hellsten, Dolly: Scientific Breakthrough or Frankenstein’s Monster? Journalistic and Scientific Metaphors of Cloning.  This article uses the sheep cloning incident to highlight its different interpretations from the media.  Specifically, the author talks about certain metaphors associated with the cloning (for instance, “CLONES ARE MASS PRODUCTS”) and talks about how they can lead to opposing interpretations of the cloning incident.  The author then talks about each interpretation in detail (represented in different journals) and shows how the differences in these interpretations came to be. 

Since this is an article that highlights both sides of an argument, one possible genre transformation for an older audience would be to make a series of testimonies to be spoken in a court of law.  Looking at the interpretations of each metaphor, there is clear evidence from each journal for their respective interpretation, and clear logic that follows to explain their positions.  This can be modified to have a more persuasive tone, which would be more appropriate when presenting this information to a judge in court.  Since this logical thought process is present for both sides of the argument, they can be made similar to a plaintiff and defendant’s cases to the judge.  Also, since the topic of cloning is controversial (it brings up ideas about ethics in scientific research), it would be the perfect topic for a court case.  The background of this incident is given at the beginning of the article, which can possibly be incorporated somewhat into each side’s testimony.  Perhaps some of this information can be rewritten with a little bias as well, if it means that it would help the testimony seem more persuasive.  Also, some of the logic in the arguments presented in the scholarly article can be modified a bit in order to add extra drama, or to perhaps vilify the opposing case.  There are a lot of possibilities with this genre transformation, as the article itself seems to allow flexibility with ideas.

I feel like this transformation may be a little tougher in terms of genres for younger audiences, given the content of the academic publication.  However, one possible idea for this kind of transformation would be to turn the points and evidence of the article into some kind of short story for children (maybe similar to Aesop’s Fables).  I could give the story a moral or lesson at the end, such as “be careful what you wish for,” in a reference to difference in interpretations of cloning.  The story could be about someone who wants to bring cloning to the general public and use it to enhance society.  He would go about advocating for this using the vague slogan mentioned in the article, “CLONING IS MASS PRODUCTION.” The public would be intrigued by this idea, and give him the necessary support to implement cloning in society.  Once it started, however, he would realize the negative consequences of cloning (the opposing interpretation of the article would essentially oppose his ideals in the story).  After the situation is resolved, he would vow not to use cloning in such a manner again; this would cue the moral and end the story.  This idea is still a bit vague and not entirely filled out, but this could be a possibility, given the ideas from the article.  

Painting Trees

I feel like Bob Ross made decisions that were centered around the technical aspects of the painting as opposed to about the artistic vision he had.  In "Happy Trees" he only mentioned making "basic tree shapes" when referring to the painting itself, but he mentioned what to do with the brush more often.  Unlike Ross, the four Disney artists draw each of their oak trees differently based on how they view the tree in their mind.  Each artist's vision plays into how they set up their easel, what paints they use, and how they structure the tree on the canvas.

I think Bob Ross' style is characterized in a more technical manner; he seems more directly concerned with how objects are painted in terms of brush technique (and how to get to the final painting) as opposed to what the final result should look like.  In contrast, the Disney artists' style is more artistically driven, in the sense that their own perception of the tree directly affects what decisions they make in their drawing, and ultimately what their final result will look like.  As an audience member, I feel like an art student when watching one of Bob Ross' videos; as he focuses on the technical aspect of painting, he does so in an instructive manner.  On the other hand, the Disney artists make me feel more like someone attending an art showcase.  Watching each of the four artists paint the oak tree differently was inspiring, and it seemed to focus more on the diversity of each interpretation, as well the differences between each initial idea.

In describing his moves, Bob Ross once again refers a lot to technique and how the picture is painted.  At the start of "Happy Trees" he keeps mentioning to "bend the brush" when drawing the leaves on a tree, and one can physically see how he does this on his easel.  Similarly, he talks about scraping the knife hard across the canvas when drawing the tops of mountains.  On the other hand, as the Disney artists paint their trees, each artists talks about how they perceive the tree, and how it affects their design.  For instance, Walt Peregoy describes the tree as "a marvelous piece of engineering." He then attempts to reproduce it "graphically," focusing more on shapes and patterns that are commonly found in architecture.  In contrast to Walt, Josh Meador believes the tree is "a living thing, full of personality." In turn, Josh uses oil paint and lighter fluid (which dries quickly), and paints fast in order to capture the tree in the moment.

WP2 Journal Q&A

In the end, I think my WP2 paper went pretty well. I was definitely happy with the evidence I was able to use, both in terms of direct evidence from the sources and the tie-ins to the class readings. However, I still feel my writing was a bit too choppy and robotic, and it detracted from the flow of my argument.  I feel like if I could make my writing just a little more fluid and cohesive, then I would be able to form my arguments better.

The comments that were the most helpful for me were the ones that talked about flow. Getting a second perspective in those areas really helped me see how readers can get confused if my writing doesn't flow. Furthermore, they helped me see what I could do to fix these sections and make them more coherent for the reader.

I think Monday's peer reader session was much better than the old-school one from WP1. In this session, the review came entirely from a second person, whereas for WP1, part of the review came from your own judgement (the highlighting session). I feel more comfortable getting critique from another person as opposed to trying to see my own writing in a different way, which s why Monday's session was more successful for me.