Saturday, February 5, 2011
Journal 5
Using what you learned about introductions from The Curious Researcher reading, check out the feature article in Beyond Words on page 50, "Watching TV Makes You Smarter." Think about how the opening of the piece is structured. How does the author include a hook? How does the author address the context and background information? What is the thesis? Where is it located? In your response to this journal, I want you to give some thought to the first several paragraphs of this piece. It's a short article, so you may want to read the whole thing, but you will at least need to read up to subheading "Revised Intelligence" to answer this journal effectively. It is important, however, that you reference specifics from The Curious Researcher in your answer.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The article “Watching TV Makes You Smarter” shows an interesting way to start a paper. At first I didn’t understand where the author was coming from with the dialogue between the scientists until I read the following five paragraphs. The writer uses contrast to compare two unlike things that highlight the problem in the paper. The junk food is being compared to entertainment shows while healthy food resembles the more violent ones. Healthy foods have “life-preserving properties” like how violent tv shows teach you of different ways to think. The contrast is also dialogue which happens to be pulled from a credible source. Multiple leads are seen here to create an attention grabbing hook. The author next addresses background information using a “24” episode to prove just how complex these kinds of shows can be; viewers have to pay close attention, make inferences, and track shifting social relationships all while watching the screen. This kind of thinking you have to do to make sense of a show is referred to as the Sleeper Curve. It is not till after this term is brought up that the thesis is directly stated; television shows and video games have a positive impact on viewers because of the type of thinking performed to make sense of a cultural experience. Unlike your typical paper, this thesis isn’t present till the bottom of the fifth paragraph. I think the introduction of article is successful and I’m happy to have learned so many different ways I can start off a paper that I wasn’t aware of.
ReplyDeleteIn " watching TV Makes You smarter" the writer wrote his opening in the form of an annoucement like stated in the "Curious Research", where the opening explore the conflict of society interpetation of the media with the example of the series "24". The thesis was not clearly stated until the third paragraph when the writer states that " the most debased forms of mass diversion video games and violent television dramas and juvenile sitcoms- turn out to be nutritional after all". But nontheless the overall writing was effective because of the way the writer form his opening gain and kept my attention, while giving examples and support that lead to his thesis.
ReplyDeleteDemi, Omg I didn't realize that the dialogue was apart of the story, I totally over look that. But now that I have read it I argree that it is a little confusing , I think that probably it would have been better if the dialogue was cut out.
ReplyDeleteHaha Michelle I was so confused at first with the dialogue too. I wasn't sure if it was part of it and I read the lines about the scientists five times before I was able to find a connect between it and the article. I'm sure we aren't the only ones that found that odd at first. Once I understood why it was there I thought it was a nice lead in, but I'm not sure if it's obvious enough for every reader to understand why it is there.
ReplyDeleteIn “Watching TV Makes You Smarter” Johnson’s hook is the dialogue he uses between Scientist A and Scientist B, however, although this dialogue catches the audiences’ attention by making them curious of what they are talking about, I do not think it works. I’m not sure if the problem is that the hook doesn’t work or that I just don’t understand it. I think it would make more sense to start off with a dramatic gruesome scene from the TV show “24”, since that is what Johnson uses as an example of a show that exhibits “negative messages.” On page 186 in “The Curious Researcher” it states that you can effective use dialogue to begin your research paper but you should “open with dialogue between people involved in your topic,” which I think the author fails to do. Johnson does give the audience plenty of background information on the TV show “24” and what the “Sleeper Curve” is in paragraphs one through 4. The background information if effective because it is surprising in the fact that not many people know what the “Sleeper Curve” is, and according to “The Curious Researcher” ”You can begin by providing important and possibly surprising background information on your topic.” In the article “Watching TV Makes You Smarter” it is difficult for me to decide where the author placed his thesis statement. I believe that it is either in the four paragraph with the first sentence, “I believe that the Sleeper Curve is the single most important new force alternating the mental development of young people today, and I believe it is largely a force for good: enhancing our cognitive faculties, not dumbing them down.” I think this sentence has potential of being the thesis statement but I think it is more of a definition of what the “Sleeper Curve” is. Also, a thesis statement, from what I have seen, is rarely placed in the first sentence of a paragraph. Therefore, I think that the thesis statement could be located in the fifth paragraph after all of the background information, “There may indeed be more “negative messages” in the mediasphere today. But that’s not the only way to evaluate whether our television shows or video games are having a positive impact. Just as important- if not more important- is the kind of thinking you have to do to make sense of a cultural experience. That is where the Sleeper Curve becomes visible.” I think this sums up what Johnson is trying to get across to the audience although it is a very long and extended thesis statement.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Michelle, I think I could agree where you think the thesis statement is as well. However, the way Johnson writes that sentence is so nonchalantly that is doesn’t seem it would fit to be a good thesis statement. It also seems like Johnson is just introducing to us what the “Sleeper Curve” is but I can be mistaken.
Regarding the structure of the opening article, Johnson attempts to hook his audience by providing conversation between two scientists from a movie. This proves to be an appropriate method for starting his article because he provides dialogue from a movie in order to have the audience make a stronger connection to his article. Bruce Ballenger from The Curious Researcher would say that Johnson is opening with dialogue between two people who are, to some extent, "involved with his topic". Johnson addresses the the background information for his article by discussing the "public controversies" that the television series "24" encountered. In his first paragraph, Johnson discusses the controversies due to the portrayal of Muslim terrorists. In the second paragraph, he talks about how television has made a drastic change over the span of 20 years. However, he drives his article in a different direction than most would would think. Instead of discussing how television has become useless, he discusses the "formal complexity" of television. He states that although many people believe that TV is making society dumber, shows such as "24" suggest the opposite. In the fifth paragraph, Johnson suggests a possible counter argument to his thesis and therefore suggests that society needs to look at media as mental stimulation rather than a useless form of entertainment. It can be inferred that if Ballenger were directly commenting on Johnson's article, he would say that Johnson's tone could be best described as "informal" while also presenting "few rules of evidence" because he doesn't talk about himself directly, but gives a subtle indication that he watches the television shows he mentions because he is able to provide detailed context of the shows.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Michelle, I felt that Johnson opened up his article with a dialogue rather than an announcement. An announcement would have been more direct rather with the dialogue which indicates that he was including people who were somehow apart of his article.
ReplyDeleteIn the article “Watching TV makes you smarter”, Johnson uses the dialogue before starting his paper as a hook to lure in the readers. This dialogue is comical and makes the reader’s curious of what is to come next in the paper. Unfortunately I felt the dialogue was not on topic with the rest of the paper and if anything threw off the readers of what the topic of the paper was. Following the dialogue Johnson begins to ease more into his paper by introducing the TV show “24” which also catches the reader attention and begins to show them what Johnson is arguing for. He describes the show as “gruesome” and “violence” which begins to trick the audience into believing that he is arguing against television, when he is actually going to be doing the opposite. As seen by “The Curious Researcher,” Johnson uses a catchy introduction instead of sticky to a bland one that only provides a “general landscape.” He provides a purpose and makes it compelling at the same time. The thesis appears in the third paragraph when Johnson explains that these shows are actually nutritional because they force viewers to pay attention, make inferences and track shifting social relationships. As seen from introduction choices in “The Curious Researcher,” you can see that Johnson chooses not to get personal in his paper. He avoids using the letter I, but does still puts forth his personal opinions on what is portrayed by television shows such as “24.”
ReplyDeleteKelly, I completly agree with you about the dialogue used in the introduction. If Johnson had began with a scene from an episode of 24 the audience would still have been hooked and would also have had a better idea of what is to come next in the paper.
ReplyDeleteThe opening of the piece to “Watching TV Makes You Smarter” is structured in a new and innovated way that catches the readers’ attention. The author includes a hook with the conversation between Scientist A and scientist B. this is a great example from “Curious researcher: writing multiple leads” giving this type of dialogue at first confused me but as I continued to read the entire article it showed like Demi said how it was discussing how television and food two very different things, yet in this paper work well together. The author goes into another grabber after the dialogue to even further engage the reader. After the “second” opening” the article goes into talking about the hit TV show drama “24”. This is where the author starts to address the context of the paper. Steven Johnson pumped the reader with different types of sources to explain “24”. For example: “post 9/11 terrorist”, “middlemarch”, and last Bonanza giving the background information needed. Than went on to discuss his idea of the “sleeper curve”. This is where the thesis begins “the most debased forms of mass diversion-video games and violent television dramas and juvenile sitcoms-turn out to be nutritional after all.” The thesis is located at the end of paragraph three. After the thesis is clearly stated the author brings up points like TV shows that promote smoking and violence are not good for the viewers yet teen pregnancy and intolerance have a fine place in our society. I found this article to use the leads in different places “Curious researcher” told us to “hold on to them” and now I see why, having them to plug into different papers and give it life really does help.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Michelle Edwards & Demi Rose : I was so confused with the scientist part! So don’t feel alone! I had to re-read that part and the first paragraph a few times and still didn’t understand what was happening till the end of paragraph three. But I think we can all agree it is unquestionably a hook we won’t forget any time soon so in a way the author did his job, and he executed it very well. Also Demi I feel that the dialogue plays an important role as a source as well, I think it is because it is what opens the article and the first thing the reader sees is “Scientist”.
Steven Johnson opened “Watching TV Makes You Smarter” by using a technique that contains dialogue between Scientist A and Scientist B. This dialogue can be considered the lead or beginning of the article. It is an interesting way to hook the audience because for a second it makes the readers stop and think as to what the article could be about. Also, it makes the reader want to know what exactly the purpose of the article is about since it is not directly stated. As “The Curious Researcher” stated, “How you begin your research paper will also have a subtle yet significant impact on the rest of it” which is what I think the authors intent was to do. He does not blandly state what he will write about but lures the readers in with the dialogue. Johnson addresses the context and background information first by giving a glance as to what the TV show “24” is about for people who have never seen it before. He then goes on to discuss how the “story arc” has evolved in the last 20 years and how the stories of all these characters are intertwined which has developed the complexity of the show. He makes a point that our “culture is getting more cognitively demanding, not less” which will somehow tie and lead into the thesis. I think that Johnson placed his thesis in the last half of paragraph 3 when he says “Beneath the violence and the ethnic stereotypes, another trend appears: to keep up with entertainment like ‘24,’ you have to pay attention, make references, track shifting social relationships. This is what I call the Sleeper Curve: the most debased form of mass diversion…” In the following paragraphs Johnson goes on to talk about how he thinks how good the Sleeper Curve is for altering the mental development of young people today. Also, he talks about a counterargument against how society views media today.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Demi, you are definitely not alone with not understanding the dialogue. I too had to re-read the Scientist part a couple of times to make sense of it. After reading the article the hook seems to make more sense of what the author was trying to get at.
Steve Johnson's article "Watching TV Makes You Smarter" begins with an expert of dialogue from Woody Allen's "Sleeper". This bit of dialogue is his hook. From the hook the article moves on into the introduction which describes controversy surrounding a specific episode of the television show "24" and offers a general profile of the show. From here, beginning with the third paragraph, Johnson begins to open up to his overall topic more and move away from his "24" anecdote- soon arriving at his thesis at the beginning of the fourth paragraph: "I believe that the Sleeper Curve is the single most important new force altering the mental development of young people today, and I believe it is largely a force for good: enhancing our cognitive faculties, not dumbing them down."
ReplyDeleteAt first, the dialogue hook is interesting and effective; it is humorous and thought provoking- the reader is left curious as to what will follow and how the peculiar dialogue will be elaborated upon. Unfortunately as we read along, we are left searching for a connection between the quote and the ideas in the article- it fails to significantly connect the the article as a whole as described on page 186 of the Curious Researcher. While a connection is eventually made, it is made too late and lacks clarity. The weakness of the dialogue distracts from other, more effective techniques Johnson uses such as his description and profile of "24". The "24" reference clearly relates to intelligence, violence, current events and cognitive demand; it gets the reader thinking of these issues and smoothly leads into the main ideas of the article.
I completely agree with Ashton and Kelly about the effectiveness of the dialogue and the idea that using a quote from "24" would be much more appropriate. I think that using a "24" quote would be a good change to make if the author were to edit because it already fits smoothly, little to no explanation would be necessary and the fact that it is a drama is sure to promise that the dialogue would be attention grabbing.
In “Watching TV Makes You Smarter”, Johnson starts his article with a dialogue from Woody Allen’s “Sleeper.” At first I didn’t know whether or not this dialogue had anything to do with the topic but reading on through the introduction and reading in “The Curious Researcher” I was able to identify the type of lead it was. Johnson used contrast to start his article. According to “The Curious Researcher” a contrast lead is one that compares two apparently unlike things that highlight the problem or dilemma the paper will explore. In this case the junk food is being compared to entertainment shows and the healthy foods stands for the more violent ones. The healthy foods are said to have “life-preserving properties” and the violent shows have more “cognitively demanding” content. This hook I think is effective and I really like the way he addresses background information by using an episode of “24”. He demonstrates how the episode, while having controversial stereotypes and violence, engages cognition in a beneficial way. He calls this kind of thinking the “Sleeper Curve.” After establishing the name of this cognition, way at the end of the fifth paragraph he states his thesis: “the kind of thinking you have to do to make sense of a cultural experience, which is where the Sleeper Curve becomes visible.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Yukita, I didn’t even think to include all of his references to culture and other shows as a way to establish background information. I think that it is a useful way to do so and hopefully, now that you’ve pointed it out, I can do something similar in my paper.
Steve Johnson, the author of "Watching TV Makes You Smarter", uses two hooks to get your attention to read further into his paper. He talks about "24" which was a very watched and highly rated TV show but he also talks about something that is still on our minds today, especially back in 2005, and that is 9-11 stereotypes that had become prominent. Once hooked on reading about the TV show and 9-11 Johnson hits you with his thesis, the fact that people who watch TV do want the dumbed down versions that everyone thinks but something that will actually make you think. He hits his thesis fast in the second paragraph using slight quotations and examples of "Hollywood Jargon" to explain what it is that people want. By placing his thesis in the second paragraph Johnson was able to captivate the reader and then snare them with his main idea in a longer than normal opener. It almost feels like Johnson used what the "Curious Researcher" advises, creating three leads to get your story going, and saved the leads he did not use as his opener and used them as the beginning of his body paragraphs. It feels this way because almost all of his paragraphs have something new to say that will get your attention very easily.
ReplyDeleteResponding to Ashton
I can see what you mean about the dialog seeming a little off topic but to me it was close to what he was actually going for. It says his entire idea in dust five sentences. I say this because in those five sentences you realize that someone, presumably a test subject, made a smart choice in food because he was watching TV. This is his main thesis "Watching TV Makes You Smarter." He just uses the rest of his article to explain in a more detailed way what he has already said in the dialog.
The curious researcher reading speaks about ways of making a presence in your essays as well as ways to create leads to start a paper. When tying in the curious researcher article into Steven Johnson's "Watching T.V Makes You Smarter" one can really notice how authors do these type of things. Steven Johnson begins his article with a not only awkward but also confusing dialogue of scientist talking about food as his hook. This starts to get readers thinking of what this article will be about. He then goes on to write about a scene from 24, not only making the reader interested but also giving him background of what he is going to begin speaking about. Then all of a sudden Johnson brings in both things together to create the purpose of his article. The purpose of his article, which is also his thesis in the third paragraph is how shows now a days, (like "24") make you pay attention, make inferences, and track shifting social relationships. He goes on to talk about how he calls this the "Sleeper Curve" and why it is nutritional. He then goes on to give examples and details to back up his thesis statement.
ReplyDeleteMichelle I also agree with what you say about the dialogue. I actually did not even read it and simply began reading the article. I did not read the dialogue until I read everyones blog talking about a dialogue about scientist and food and all that, and so I went back and had to read it lol. It does make sense as to how it ties into with Johnson's article, but at the same time a lot of people may find it pointless.
In the beginning of Johnson's article his intent is to draw the readers in by not stating specifically what he will be writing about, but rather by quoting Woody Allen's "Sleeper" The hook is over all effective in drawing you in, however his attempt to relate it to the topic at hand was difficult to follow and therefore unproductive in the development of the paper. His time may have been put to better use if he was to begin the paper with talking about the television show "24" which he moves on to in the second paragraph, leaving his thesis statements to the third paragraph where he makes his main point about how over the years our need for shows that require more thought has increased, enabling us to put more thought into the shows we watch.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Ashton and Kelly that he wasted his time by not using a quote from 24 which would have been much easier to tie into the article.
The author includes a hook as a set up for the reader on a particular episode of Fox's hit drama "24". According to the Curious Researcher the author uses two leads,scene and background.He uses the background lead to inform the reader on how the show has caused controversy over an episode that is about a terrorist. He uses the scene lead in which he explains a scene where the terrorist enlist a hitman to kill his child for not fully supporting the jihadist cause and another scene involving the secretary of defense.The entire opening is meant to take the readers' attention away from the fact that the show is incredibly violent and to focus on how the show causes viewers to think critically in trying to follow the plot.The thesis is located in the last two paragraphs of the introduction section.The authors' thesis is that the sleep curve (the most debased form of massive diversion) is the single most important new force altering the mental development of young people today, enhancing our cognitive faculties with the kind of thinking required to make sense of a cultural experience.I agree with the authors' thesis that these shows do push viewers to connect all the dots and exercise our brain to make connections with characters and overlapping plots.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Asiah: I totally agree that the so called "hook" with the scientists in the dialogue box, had nothing to do with the article. That's why I didn't even state that it was the hook.I don't know, maybe I'm not as smart as the viewers of "24" and "the Sopranos" to make a connection between the article and the scientists.
In the article “Watching T.V. Makes You Smarter”, I also made the mistake of getting confused with the author’s dialogue in the beginning of the article. Using the two scientist “dialogue”, page 186 in “The Curious Researcher”, might’ve been a good idea as a hook if the author had not been so unclear with his point. The author moves forward to address the subject with a reference to the show “24” as background information. The author states that the show exhibits “negative messages” due the unkind portrayal of Muslims as terrorist. This leads to the author’s point that though society may think television makes you dumber, the media would protest just the opposite. The media believes that T.V. stimulates the brain and therefore enlightening people, and inadvertently making them smarter with more brain activity. I agree with Kelly that the author’s choice to use the two scientists for and introduction was poor choice. It may have been a good idea if executed properly, but it was not in this case. The only accomplishment in the author’s introduction was confusion of the reader.
ReplyDeleteSteven Johnson opens his article “Watching TV Makes You Smarter” with two separate hooks. The first being a quote from a Woody Allen film “Sleeper.” This quote is very vague and it is hard for the reader to understand its purpose. This draws readers in and makes them curious as to what the topic of the article could be. Johnson then opens his actual article with background information on the topic. The first paragraph discusses the recent public controversy over the complex and risqué themes portrayed in the television show “24.” Johnsons then goes on to explain the components of “24” that make is far more complex and advance than those of television shows from twenty years ago. In the third paragraph Johnson reveals the thesis of his article; the public is moving away from “dumb, simple” television and beginning to watch more “cognitively demanding” shows. This new “cognitive demand” developed in televisions shows is called the Sleeper Curve. Johnson then explains that he finds the Sleeper Curve highly beneficial as it works to “enhance our cognitive faculties.” This article was written with a serious, intelligent voice. It seems as though Johnson has written the article for people who are mature and knowledgeable about television, as he frequently mentions a number of different television shows but does not explain their theme (thus assuming the reader is already familiar with them). I like that Johnson addresses the counterargument that although television shows have lost a certain level of morality, they are far more real than ever before. This is a fact I too have noticed about today’s TV shows.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Rachel, I thought it was really interesting how you analyzed the opening quote. I was confused and unsure of its purpose, but your explanation helped me understand why it was used as the hook for this article.
The article “Watching TV Makes You Smarter” starts off with a hook that is dialogue between two unknown scientists. This is not used very effectively because it does not really relate to the article. In the Curious Researcher pg. 186 it is explained that you should only use dialogue to start your paper “if it is between people that are involved in your topic”. Next the writer fills us in on the info that we need to know in order to understand what “24” is and how it relates to the writers point. The show requires the use of current events knowledge in order to follow along. We can see Johnson’s thesis in the fourth paragraph as he explains that in today’s television you must incorporate far more background knowledge to fully understand the program and he explains his “Sleeper Curve” and that it ia the most debased forms of mass diversion. I thought that the writer did a poor job in making this article fit together and flow nicely.
ReplyDeleteI thought that Stephanie had an interesting argument that the entire opening is meant to take the readers' attention away from the fact that the show is incredibly violent and to focus on how the show causes viewers to think critically in trying to follow the plot. I thought that this was an interesting way of looking at it but it does make sense that the writer would want to take away from the violence.
A good introduction to any form of writing is one that grabs the readers’ attention and provides a glimpse into the paper’s topic. As the Curios Researcher claims, “… the beginning of your paper must also help establish your purpose in writing it, frame your focus, and perhaps even suggest your main point, or thesis.” Johnson begins his article with an intriguing but vague dialogue between two scientists who discuss healthy foods. This is a good hook because it is interesting to see where he leads the story from the speech and what it has to do with the subject. However, the author then jumps into using the television show 24 to address the background to his thesis, which is stated in the end of paragraph 3 as, “This is what I call the Sleeper Curve: the most debased forms of mass diversion – video games and violent television dramas and juvenile sitcoms – turn out to be nutritional after all.” The hook is definitely an attention grabber but it fails to really capture the essence of the paper; it doesn’t tie in with the matter that today’s media is more dramatized and contain deeper messages than the violence and obstruction that is directed toward viewers. The only relation the dialogue may have with the thesis is that it mentions food and then the thesis claims tv dramas as nutritional… otherwise, there’s no other connection between the two. Though the introduction to this article is rather lengthy at five paragraphs, it gets the point across about current media and Johnson does so with an informal tone and 24, Muslim terrorists, and teen pregnancies as examples.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Kelly, I agree with you that Johnson’s hook was interesting but ineffective in portraying the subject matter. It really would be better, like you said, to begin the article with a dramatic gruesome scene from 24 since the following intro paragraphs refer to that television show.
1)Reading “Watching TV Makes You Smarter” was a very interesting read. The author includes a hook kind of in two ways one, being the two scientists talking to each other and two, when he talks about the show “24”. He address his whole context and background information through the show “24”, he talks about the shows and how they would have not shown them twenty years ago because of the violence and the message it gives. His thesis is towards the end of the third paragraph, “This is what I call the Sleeper Curve: the most debased forms of mass diversion-video games and violent television dramas and juvenile sitcoms- turn out to be nutritional after all.” He is talking to an audience about our age and up or to anyone who watches “24”. Like in the Curious Researcher his way of picking a lead is almost like an anecdote, talking about a story, but putting it into a show that we can relate to. He knows just what his purpose is because he slides his thesis statement right in there. By picking a show and talking about it first makes it more interesting to read rather than just to go straight talking about ‘Sleeper-Curve’. Just like how the Curious Researcher should us different ways to start he too took the right way about of doing it. In the first paragraph he talks about the show and when they aired it, going into the second paragraph talking about the background of shows like that, that leads into the next paragraph where he talks about violence and takes all of that to lead up to his thesis statement.
ReplyDelete2)Demi I totally agree with you, I think you hit it right on. I didn’t quite understand the scientist s at first, but after reading your comment I see where it is coming from now. At first I thought it was just a joke of some sort, but now it all makes sense. You gave great points to the article and really good supporting evidence. I too feel like I have a door opening of new ideas on how to start my paper.
When reading "Watching TV Makes You Smarter", I realized that the author started the sentence off in a unique way. It was like the author was summarizing the show, without actually giving the reader a thesis. The author includes the hook in the first sentence of the paragraph to capture the attention of the reader s and to draw them into the paper. The author uses the hook to give the reader an overview of what the show is actually about. Another hook was also used in the third paragraph, to bring the reader farther along into the paper. He compares and contrast the show as a whole by telling the “pay attention, make inferences, and to track shifting social relationships while looking beneath the violence and ethnic stereotypes. The show “24” is idea to the paper because it serves as an example of the Sleeper curve and how it mentally alters the development of the youth. Overall, the author allows his/her piece of work to flow, one paragraph leading to another. It was similar to the method used in the curious researcher because it offers a statement of purpose and explains the thesis even though it took a while for him to get to the point. The author of “Watching TV Makes You Smarter” included an important fact towards the beginning of paragraph five, “The real world doesn’t come in nicely packaged public service announcements,…” I agree because if kids do not learn the difference between reality and fiction, they will be shocked when it comes to growing up.
ReplyDeleteNatascha, I totally agree with the fact that the author includes his whole context and background information through the show “24 He literally introduces the topic theme of his paper before he introduced the thesis of the paper. I felt that the paper was a success overall.
Unfortunately, it took me a little while to understand the contrast that the author makes at the beginning of his article "Watching TV Makes You Smarter." However, after I understood this analogy, I really enjoyed how classified certain television shows such as "violent television dramas and juvenile sitcoms" to be "nutritional." The authors’ hook is the dialog in the very beginning of the article between Scientist A and Scientist B. The author seemed to have followed certain details specified by The Curious Researcher in that first of all, he chose a topic that could be controversial, yet almost anyone could have experience with it. A lot of people think that television is bad for you and that many shows project negative ideas and information to viewers. The author uses this interest as an opposing claim since he clearly feels that television is healthy for your mind. The author also presents information in the introduction to his article that could lead his readers to question whether or not they think that psychological thrillers and juvenile sitcoms could be healthy for us, which is sparking interest in the readers. It "raises questions," just as our assigned reading in The Curious Researcher suggests it to do.
ReplyDeleteThe thesis of this article is very straight forward in that the author believes that watching television can actually make you more intelligent, because it heightens your awareness to more than just the show on the screen, but certain relationships building throughout different episodes and certain details that are carried on throughout the show. The viewers learn to make connections and put the pieces of the puzzle together, and to the author of this article, that is “nutritional.” I would say that this thesis is located in paragraph three when he says “But as that ‘24’ episode suggests, the exact opposite is happening: the culture is getting more cognitively demanding, not less.”
The author also uses his lengthy five paragraph introduction to create a common ground for his readers with a show that everyone is at least familiar with and can relate to; "24." He uses this show as a source of background information to support his claim that television can be healthy. Certain aspects of the show that relate to real life and current events in history such as "post 9/11 anxiety" show how deep television shows can go and how they reach to society by giving them true and valuable information, while making them think about more than just the context of the show.
Although the author creates a very unique opening hook to his article, I would entirely have to agree with Kelly and Ania by saying that I would have become more interested in the article if he started it with some action-packed details from a scene in one of the episodes.
Dialogue, one of the examples Bruce Ballenger mentioned under hooks for beginning a research paper, can be found at the opening of the article “Watching TV makes you Smarter,” in Beyond Words on page 50. The dialogue from Woody Allen’s “Sleeper” is, in my opinion, especially appropriate for this paper because the situation depicted counteracts the idea which is addressed in the rest of the paper; the rejection of the claim that over time “mass culture follows a path declining steadily.” In the Curious Researcher, beginning your paper with dialogue is recommended when it includes dialogue amongst people involved in the topic. Therefore, the dialogue chosen, according to Ballenger is not a prime example, but does pertain to similar themes, and thus could be appropriate. Following the dialogue in Steven Johnson’s article, he introduces the topic of the paper by first providing an example that positively reflects his thesis, the TV show “24,” and its inclusion of elements that are not only violent scenes, but those which could also positively alter mental development through episodes where you must “pay attention, make inferences, track shifting social relationships.” At the beginning of the fourth paragraph, which starts with “I believe that the sleeper…not dumbing them down,” the thesis appears. While it perfectly addresses the situation discussed, it might have been a bit more effective if it had appeared earlier. Although, the introduction as a whole, in my opinion, is interesting, sophisticated, and well thought out. In the article “Watching TV makes you Smarter,” Johnson employed some of the techniques discussed in the Curious Researcher and employed them well.
ReplyDeleteNatascha B, while I agree with you on the hook located at the beginning of the article, I disagree with you on exactly which sentence is the thesis. In my opinion, I thought it was the first sentence of the fourth paragraph, not the one towards the end of the third. Regardless of which it actually is, I completely agree with you in that Johnson’s decision to begin with the example of the TV show “24,” made the article much more interesting, rather than beginning with information on the Sleeper Curve.