If I were to guest lecture in the next section of this 181 course, I would select the skill of they say, I say statements to teach to incoming freshmen.  This is due to the fact that I feel I have gained prolific knowledge in this area, and feel most confident explaining this concept.  I would go about this by first explaining that they say, I say statements are an important part of academic writing and they can be utilized in many different formats, settings, and genres.  Describing they say, I say statements as “entering into conversation” by using a summary of others’ arguments as a way of tying in one’s own argument, would allow incoming students to understand the purpose (Graff xvi).  Breaking down the statements into the different parts would be necessary, so I would begin by giving examples of ways to state others’ arguments in the context of different situations paired with examples of the three ways to respond to an argument.  I would provide a hand out with many of the different templates for they say, I say statements so that they could visualize these examples in context.  Naysayers and “So What?” statements along with transitions should also be briefly mentioned since they are important for the continuation in the writing process following the they say, I say statement.  One activity I would implement would be to practice they say, I say statements in the context of each students personal life.  This would be a good introduction because it is known information and allows one to interact and learn new and interesting things about individuals which keeps people engaged.  The other activity would be to use they say, I say statements in discussion about the reading.  This would be more difficult, but would show one of the many practical applications.

In my cover letter, I am considering showcasing my blog post 4, blog post 5, proposal and annotated bibliography, rough draft, and final paper to show my growth as a writer through writing as a process.  My blog post 4 was the comparison of an image in Patrick Ness’s The Knife of Never Letting Go to the never-ending stream of data and lack of privacy and how that affects identity in Gary Shteyngart’s Super Sad True Love Story. The use of a secondary source in comparison to Gary Shteyngart’s Super Sad True Love Story is found in blog post 5, where I brought in Melissa Nilles’ article, “Technology is Destroying the Quality of Human Interaction” to relate the technological detachment found in the novel to today’s society.  Both of these blog posts gave me ideas to build off of and inspired my topic for my final paper.  My proposal and annotated bibliography in comparison to my final paper will prove how much my ideas have transformed through the writing process.  From their simple origins, my thoughts for my final paper started out with a very large scope as seen in my proposal, and slowly narrowed back down to my original analysis of Super Sad True Love Story.  After getting the basis of the ideas for my paper, I like to write them down and add bullet points of subtopics that I can think of off the top of my head. At this point, I tend to just ramble on about my topic to a willing listener, so that they can give me feedback if any of it makes sense without context.  Then, I tend to go back to my sources and look for specific passages that pertain to those subtopics that I can use to quote and expand or refute my claim.  I then annotate the sources, so that I can come back to them at a later date, and still have specific notes and examples to easily pull from when I begin writing the actual paper.  I generally don’t like outlines, because I tend to restrict myself by only sticking to them instead of letting the creative thoughts flow naturally on paper.  Once I have my general topic, subtopics and specific details, I am able to start writing my rough draft where I throw all of my thoughts down on paper.  I tend to need revision of the organizational aspects for my papers and specific wordings, because occasionally I struggle to get my thoughts to make sense on paper rather than just in my head.

For introductions, I generally try and make a bold statement that really makes people pay attention.  I then give sufficient information to provide context for the rest of my paper, and state the purpose and premise of my paper to lead to my thesis statement.  Conclusions are different in the sense that most everything has been said, so it is simply wrapping up and summarizing the point of the paper, and my stance on the topic.  This is the place where I try and clear up any confusion through blunt statements that exude the purpose of the paper and leave no misconceptions.

I chose the article “Technology is Destroying the Quality of Human Interaction” by Melissa Nilles, which is about how technology is causing a detachment between humans and is limiting the meaning of interactions.  Nilles begins the article with a paragraph describing a recent nightmare where she gives examples of how technology is disrupting the connections between her and those around her.  She follows this anecdote with the bold statement, “Oh wait, that wasn’t a dream.  This technological detachment is becoming today’s reality” (Nilles).  This introduction is strong, because the anecdote is one that at first seems dystopic, but reveals itself as more and more relatable as it goes on.  It has the ability to make people think, and in this sense draws people in.  The anecdote was a little on the lengthy side, which could make readers get disinterested and stop reading.  The single line that is set apart after the first paragraph is really affective, because it stands out and is blunt and powerful.  The meaning is clear, but doesn’t give too much information away.  I plan on incorporating the short, punchy sentence structure concluding Nilles’ introduction to grab the attention of readers and to switch up the structure of my sentences in order to make those points stand out.

I would begin my introduction by introducing my topic of how advances in technology are causing a decline in a sense of identity that is evident in Gary Shteyngart’s Super Sad True Love Story.  Background information about the technology and characters in the novel would be necessary in the introduction so that readers will understand my points without having to have read the novel.  I will have to define the term “apparat” from the novel, since it is the primary form of technology in the novel that I will be addressing, especially since it relates back to present day technology and current issues our society is facing.  My thesis will then conclude the introduction.

In my body, I would start by addressing the reliance on technology in the book through the use of a passage on page 270 that is Lenny’s diary entry where he discusses how the apparats aren’t connecting and he feels so alone and needs to connect to someone.  I would then use Melissa Nilles’ article, “Technology is Destroying the Quality of Human Interaction,” to relate this disconnect to our own society.  One quote that I think I will use is “Little by little, Internet and mobile technology seems to be subtly destroying the meaningfulness of interactions we have with others, disconnecting us from the world around us, and leading to an imminent sense of isolation in today’s society” (Nilles 1).  This will aid in my argument that technology is distancing us from our own identities by destroying our ability to connect with others and relate face-to-face.

My next point will be to compare the continuous flow of information and data streaming in Super Sad True Love Story to the “Noise” found in Patrick Ness’s “The Knife of Never Letting Go.”  This will require background information to define and explain what “Noise” is.  I will then compare it to a passage on pages 89-90, where Noah and Vishnu are teaching Lenny all of the new features on his apparat that determine various rankings that everyone is so absorbed by.  They have such a strong influence over people’s actions and behavior to where they become their identity.  I will then relate both of these through how the society is limited and stripped of their identity down to a monotone nature.

I will then do a recap and tie everything together in the conclusion.  This will provide clarity and meaning to my paper by answering the research question and consolidating the main points back into the restating of the thesis.

In blog post two, I used a primary source where I stated “On page 38, Lenny, while looking for information about Eunice, comes across her and her sister’s purchases that are mostly comprised of boutiques in L.A. and New York, footwear, and expensive socks.  During his analysis, he feels the need to save them from themselves and ‘the idiotic consumer culture that was bleeding them softly.’”  I introduced the quote, and gave background information in the novel that pertains to that point, so that readers could understand what was being said without having to read the novel.  I didn’t relate the quote to my argument until later, but it would be beneficial to tie in this point before making the next one, which could be accomplished by adding in a sentence or two after the quote talking about the socioeconomic issue faced in this novel that is mirrored in our own society.  I also could have moved, “The novel seems to comment on the societal obsession of consumer culture, and how this dangerous cycle is connected to the financial crisis of America” to follow the quote in order to clarify how this relates to what I’m saying.

I used a secondary source in blog post five, where I expressed, “As Nilles bluntly states, ‘technology seems to be subtly destroying the meaningfulness of interactions we have with others’ and nothing can replace the face-to-face connection of body language, facial expressions, and the attention of another.” I introduced the quote with “as Nilles bluntly states” and made it flow into my writing and opinion by explaining its meaning and using it in my argument to give validity to my points.  I also used it as a platform to build off of for my argument.  I could explain it differently by adding in “the essence of her argument is that” after the quote from her article so that her points are very apparent.

The scholarly source that I have selected is about the origin of cyborgs and their characteristics in Italian science fiction.  It has integral information towards the identification of women and technology that plays into the objectification of women and the history behind it all.  Ross declares that technology has been given genders and erotic qualities that reflect secondary narcissism, and that this originated in many different Italian texts.  She uses Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein to extend her argument that science fiction narratives tend to use Lombroso’s misogynistic ideas that portray women as machines and deny their bodies, while making the rational, creator beings male.  I plan on relating this article to support my views that technology has become seriously debilitating in human interaction and identity, especially in the portrayal of women as objects.  This can relate to Gary Shteyngart’s Super Sad True Love Story, in how Eunice is described in relation to a robot. The description of Eunice is dehumanizing, and makes her detachment from society seem like it is ideal.  She, along with the rest of their society, is absorbed into the encompassing world of the apparat.  The continuous flow of data and information is controlling and strips lives down to a monotone nature, because everything is accessible.  They don’t have to have actual conversations to get to know someone or find out their deepest, darkest secrets.  This provides a sense of technological detachment and creates isolation between individuals.  I would also like to bring in points from Ross’s article about objects, such as cars, being portrayed as female, which relates to the objectification of women.  As Ross points out, cyborgs and technology are given female traits and deemed as inferior is frequently found in science fiction texts.  I believe that this would be a very interesting topic to research more, and to relate to our current society.

http://www.jstor.org.proxy.library.emory.edu/stable/27669002?Search=yes&resultItemClick=true&searchText=Shelley’s&searchText=%22Frankenstein%22&searchText=%22objectification%20of%20women%22&searchUri=%2Faction%2FdoBasicSearch%3FQuery%3DShelley%2527s%2B%2522Frankenstein%2522%2B%2522objectification%2Bof%2Bwomen%2522%26amp%3Bprq%3DShelley%2B%2522Frankenstein%2522%2Bcriticism%252C%2B%2522objectification%2Bof%2Bwomen%2522%26amp%3Bgroup%3Dnone%26amp%3Bacc%3Don%26amp%3Bwc%3Don%26amp%3Bfc%3Doff%26amp%3Bso%3Drel%26amp%3Bhp%3D25&seq=1#references_tab_contents

Jessica Hale’s “Constructing Connectedness: Gender, Sexuality, and Race in Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein,” argues that the homosocial relationships in Frankenstein make a statement of the inability of women to reach a certain level of intellectual and intimate connections with men in the nineteenth century.  In the novel, male intimacy is the primary choice, and marriage is then seen as a secondary choice, which is used in exposing the strengths and inadequacies of the nuclear family.  The homosocial desire found in Shelley’s Frankenstein serves to define the separation of the domestic female role from the external male role that is prevalent in the nineteenth century.

Hale close reads the specific passage “I desire the company of a man who could sympathize with me, whose eyes would reply to mine” to emphasize that the erotic desire is for a male companion and not a wife or sexual partner, even though the man Walton dreams of serves an unromantic purpose (Shelley 4).

A secondary source of “men who feel secure enough in their masculinity to display feelings of domestic affection… who seem perfectly balanced in their manliness which incorporates rather than categorically excludes the feminine” (Schoene-Harwood 16), which is utilized by Hale to create a “they say, I say” statement that expresses agreement to the feminine and nurturing qualities displayed, but disagrees with the incorporation rather than exclusion of the feminine.  She uses it to support her argument and provide clarification and verification to her ideas.

One unfamiliar term that I came across in the same section was “mélange,” which is used in a sentence describing the comparisons between Victor’s homosocial desire for Clerval and his paternal desire for the child he created.  I used contextual evidence to deduce that it meant a combination, and verified it by looking it up on dictionary.com, where the definition says a mixture, medley.  The easiest way to track down a definition for an unfamiliar term is generally to use a dictionary, which have become very accessible due to the internet.

In the dystopian society of Gary Shteyngart’s Super Sad True Love Story, technology is the main interface through which people interact.  There is such limited face-to-face communication and interaction between the characters in this novel, because everyone is consumed by the encompassing world of the apparati.  People rely so heavily on their apparati and the online connection that when all of the connections were cut, several young people committed suicide, because they “needed to be ranked, to know [their] place in this world” (Shteyngart 270).  This reliance is not so farfetched from today’s society.  Nilles declares that technology, although it provides a miraculous way to stay in touch with friends long distance, is actually a hindrance in the way that it causes a disconnect from the world around us.  This “technological detachment” is providing a sense of isolation that is seen in Super Sad True Love Story (Nilles 1).  When Lenny and his two best friends, Noah and Vishnu, hang out they are focused mainly on their apparati, and teaching Lenny how to use the new functions while streaming the whole embarrassing moment live.  From page 88 to 91, the lack of real conversation between the three friends is astounding.  Their sole focus is on the ratings and how they are perceived by others through them.  This is paralleled to our society’s focus on social media and the quantity of friends rather than the quality.  As Nilles bluntly states, “technology seems to be subtly destroying the meaningfulness of interactions we have with others” and nothing can replace the face-to-face connection of body language, facial expressions, and the attention of another.

Nilles, Melissa.  “Technology is Destroying the Quality of Human Interaction.” The Bottom Line.  N.p., 24 Jan. 2012.  Web.  5 Oct. 2015.

A particularly dystopic passage from Super Sad True Love Story that I have found interesting is pages 89-90.  In this scene, Lenny is being taught by Noah and Vishnu in a bar how to use all of the new features on this apparat.  The new features use the plethora of information on each person’s profile to determine various rankings.  Everyone is so absorbed by these ratings, and they have such a strong influence over people’s actions and behavior to the point where books have become “artifacts.”

This image is from The Knife of Never Letting Go by Patrick Ness.  In this novel, the society is infected with this disease that makes men’s thoughts able to be heard by everyone at all times.  This never-ending stream of thoughts called “Noise” is similar to the continuous flow of information and data found in Super Sad True Love Story.  Everyone has access to all of the little details and secrets about everyone else.  There is no hiding in either of these societies.  In both of these situations, the disease and the technology cause the population to be in a daze, and control their lives.  These limitations dehumanize the population and strip away their lives to that of a monotone nature.