Target audience: UW students

Tone: Upbeat – energizing

Pathos: Something at the end like, “Make the choice that will be best for you, the organization, and the people you serve. Serve for more than just one short quarter.”

Logos and Ethos: Possibly quote the interviews. Either quote or cite Adam saying what % of quarter-long volunteers end up staying longer. Or try and find that info from Michaelann.

Benefits of service:

– Staff = less paperwork, can trust volunteers with more responsibility, volunteers know how to do more jobs

– Volunteers = learn more, can do more instead of just the low-level jobs, can perform service more effectively by forming relationship with clients and getting to know the culture of organization

– Clients = better served (see last points above under “volunteers”)

(1) Jessica Vu addresses the course outcomes directly. She paraphrases them and says how the themes of the course were used to fulfill the outcomes.

(2) Vu includes the prompts for the paper, her original drafts, Jentery’s letters, and her final drafts at attachments. She contextualizes the assignments within the course so readers can understand what each paper is about. Including these documents allows readers to see the progression of her work, including how she incorporated Jentery’s suggestions. In her explanatory paragraphs, she also gives concrete examples of how she fulfilled the outcomes, often quoting her paper, so the reader doesn’t have to make these conclusions for him/herself.

(3) Organization – she clearly labels sections as being about a specific outcome, so it’s very easy to read and see what point she’s trying to make. Language – she speaks neither too casually nor too informally, so she’s credible without being hard to understand. Use of evidence – makes her persuasive.

(4)

(5) Organization – including a general introduction, then labeling sections as being about “Outcome 1” or “Outcome 2” is very clear and helps the reader understand where you’re going. Contextualizing – Vu argues not only that the papers not only fulfill the course outcomes but also address the main theme of the course. Quotes – giving quotes from your own paper to show what was lacking in your first paper, what Jentery specifically told you to change, and how you addressed these suggestions in your final paper is very effective. Also, it’s good to attach not only your final paper but also the original, unrevised version and Jentery’s suggestions.

(6) 3.6

My research question is how the revelations that voice-over narration provides impact the audience’s opinion of Will. In particular, how do these stylistic elements evoke a different reaction to Will than his personality alone evokes, and a different reaction than if the viewers met him in real life?

The original soundscript for my clip from About a Boy mixes Will’s voice-over narration with dialogue between Will and Angie. My new soundscript will keep some of both but will also introduce voice-over narration by Angie. In her commentary, she will call attention to and dismiss some or all of the faults Will displays in the scene: artificialness/deception, shallowness, self-absorption, and a lack of compassion. For instance, when Will falsely declares how deeply he loves children, Angie seems to believe his scam in the original film. In my soundscript, she will scoff at what she considers a blatant attempt to fool her and reflect that she finds his display charming. She will guide the viewer toward personally developing a more positive view of Will by offering a favorable interpretation of his character flaws herself, by demonstrating that he has not succeeded in duping her, and possibly through the cultural stereotypes associated with her feminine voice (that’s an argument I’m still toying with).

Some may argue that making Will likeable defeats the purpose of giving him such an obnoxious personality, but such critics fail to recognize the complexities of a well-produced film. Will is not a stock villain but the protagonist. For the viewers to become emotionally engaged in his struggles, blunders, and triumphs, and thus find the film engaging, they must develop a connection with him in spite of his repulsive character. I believe the film already allows the audience to do this to a certain extent. Angie’s narration would build upon what the filmmakers have already done, adding one more way the audience can connect with Will.

Other critics would reject the addition of Angie’s commentary as gratuitous. They would complain that it provides no new revelations about Will as compared to the original soundscript. This argument misses the purpose of Angie’s narration, which is not to supply extra information about Will’s personality but to interpret and comment upon the information, guiding the audience’s thoughts and impressions in the intended direction.

My new soundscript attends to how the audience’s view of a character is somewhat independent of the character’s personality, heavily dependent on other techniques used to portray the character. This is largely a contrast to how we form opinions of others in real life: without a screenwriter crafting a careful lens through which we view someone, we must rely more heavily on raw personality.

For my artifact, I’m favoring Kozloff’s article, “A Defense – and History – of Voice-Over Narration.” I particularly like the sentence where she says, “Indeed, narration is such a powerful device for deepening characterizations and leading viewers to share a character’s perspective that some film theorists see ‘the voice’ as a counterpoint to “the gaze.” (Italics mine) A huge part of my new narration is that Angie sees Will in a positive light in spite of his flaws; I want the audience to do the same when they listen to her.

I do have a few questions/problems. First, I noticed the major-paper description requires a source outside the course material. I did a fair amount of searching online tonight for one, and I’ve been unsuccessful so far. I knew what I wanted to find, and I felt like it must be out there somewhere, but I just couldn’t find it. I expect the lovely librarians at Odegaard can help me, though. Second, when I was talking to you during virtual office hours, you recommended that I address the topic of gender since I introduce a female narrator. You said gender could even be the social issue my claim attends to. I really like that idea, but I’m struggling with what to say about gender in relation to my claim. I did find one article (http://psp.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/32/6/806) that sort of said feminine/female voices are seen as “sensitive” and kind,” while masculine/male voices are “cold” (807). I had a vague idea that a female voice dicussing Will’s faults portrays him in a better light than his own voice does, or that Angie’s female voice makes people more inclined to agree with her claims that Will’s a good guy, or something…

My final problem is about my quote addressing a social issue. Right now, my social issue is how we perceive characters independently of their personality, but I’m not really sure whether or not this is an acceptable issue. If I can find some way to engage gender, then my social issue can be about the stereotypes and associations surrounding male vs. female voices. But, as I said, I’m struggling with the gender thing.

“Any statement will invoke the structures of power allied with the social location of the speaker, aside from the speaker’s intentions or attempts to avoid such invocations.”

Given this quote, what happens if someone verbally attacks the very structures of power that are allied with his/her social location? Suppose a government was widely criticized because people felt that it favored the rich and ignored the poor. I’d say that government was “allied” with the upper class, no? Now suppose that a man named Bob was fortunate enough to be among the wealthy in the given country. Given his social status, Bob was personally benefiting from the government’s policies. But Bob was not a greedy person, and he would much prefer to see the government help those who really need it rather than make the wealthy even wealthier. So, he spoke out against the very government that was helping him. Interesting scenario, and how does this relate to the original quote? Would his criticism be less credible because he comes from a social class that is “allied” with the government?

“[Joyce Trebilcot] agrees that an absolute prohibition of speaking for would undermine political effectiveness, and therefore says that she will avoid speaking for others only within her lesbian feminist community.”

I found this puzzling – maybe too much was lost when Alcoff reduced a complex argument to a single sentence. Earlier in the paper, when discussing the proposal that someone “should only speak for groups of which [s/he is] a member,” Alcoff ponders how to “draw the categories” and notes that they are always “arbitrary.” I completely agree with Alcoff’s idea and feel that, with a little generalization, it is highly relevant to the quote about Trebilcot. Why does Trebilcot feel that she cannot speak for her fellow lesbian feminists but can and should speak for others? I’m not attacking her decision, I just feel that the line she draws is arbitrary, and I’m curious why she chose to draw it at the limits of the lesbian feminist circle.

I’m also confused by Alcoff’s criticism of the “Retreat” response. By her definition, “This response is simply to retreat from all practices of speaking for; it asserts that one can only know one’s own narrow individual experience and one’s ‘own truth’ and thus that one can never make claims beyond this.” One of the points she makes against it is that anything you say will inevitably have some impact on others, whether you want it to or not. She writes, “When I ‘speak for myself’ I am participating in the creation and reproduction of discourses through which my own and other selves are constituted.” I certainly agree with her, but I don’t see how this is a point against the retreat response. The justification for the retreat response concerns what you, personally, know and understand before speaking; Alcoff’s supposed criticism of the retreat response concerns what other people know and understand after you speak. Isn’t her argument irrelevant?

Alcoff writes, “I agree, then, that we should strive to create wherever possible the conditions for dialogue and the practice of speaking with and to rather than speaking for others.” This is a good point, but it seems to me that there is still a fuzzy line between speaking with/to others and speaking for them. Alcoff acknowledges that one question each of us must grapple with is, “If I don’t speak for those less privileged than myself, am I abandoning my political responsibility to speak out against oppression, a responsibility incurred by the very fact of my privilege?” Suppose that in an effort not to abandon this responsibility, while not causing harm by speaking for others wrongly, you meet with people from an oppressed group to find out exactly what they have to say for themselves. Now what? To fulfill this “responsibility to speak out against oppression,” you have to spread your newfound knowledge. But how do you do that? You could tape-record your interviews with the oppressed people and play their exact words for people, but realistically, recordings can’t be your sole medium. If you’re speaking in front of a group, you can’t just hit play, let the tape run for half an hour, and then step down from the podium without uttering a word; if you’re writing an article, it needs more than just a raw transcript. Ultimately, you are going to have to speak for others. You might speak for them in a way that reflects their own thoughts extremely accurately, but won’t that still be speaking for them?

The article calls into question the first definition of service: “To be of service to; to serve; to provide with a service.” Many people have excellent intentions when speaking for others, particularly when speaking for underrepresented or disadvantaged groups. They feel they are generously supplying a voice for a group that needs one. Alcoff counters that in some cases, the speakers are causing more harm than good – definitely not providing a service. The example that particularly stands out for me is Native Canadian women’s request that Anne Cameron not speak for them. Cameron most likely felt she was servicing the Native Candians, but she wasn’t at all.

Alcoff’s words of caution against speaking for others are a message I should carry with me. I have a strong interest in volunteer work and social justice. Inevitably, this will lead to situations over the years where I participate in “the practice of privileged persons speaking for or on behalf of less privileged persons,” which “has actually resulted (in many cases) in increasing or reenforcing the oppression of the group spoken for.” Reading Alcoff’s article addresses the possibility that I could cause damage when I intend to do good. It serves as a warning to consider the ramifications of what I say when discussing social issues or volunteer experiences.

A group like this could not have developed unless a mood in the United States had supported it – the belief that any true American must share God’s blessings with his poorer fellow men. The idea that every American has something to give, and at all times may, can, and should give it, explains why it occurred to students that they could help Mexican peasants ‘develop’ by spending a few months in their villages.”

How can this mindset, this way of thinking, actually cause harm where good is intended?

This question is highly relevant to our own service learning that is central to this course. It leads to personal questions: are we wasting our own time? Are we causing harm at the Boys and Girls clubs when we mean to be helping the children there? Answering this initial question can guide how we spend time ourselves, both during this quarter and as we do service in the future. Our question is not a mere exercise in intellectual thinking; it has ramifications in real life and in our success in this class and at the Boys and Girls club. The question can also lead to more general ponderings: What forms of service and practices common to service really do help? Which ones cause harm? How can we perform service in the most effective way? Which forms of service should be abandoned altogether? How can you tell the difference? Asking our initial question can lead to a transformation of the ways we do service, both as individuals and as a community.

One way in which service can cause harm is when the volunteers force ideals and culture on the people who are being served. While the people may have physical needs – shelter, medicine, clean water – they are generally content with their culture, which doesn’t necessarily need changing. When volunteers try to impose elements of their own culture on those being served, they can destroy a culture as good as their own, contribute to a global monoculture, and cause turmoil in the country as the old and new cultures clash.

Service: to be of service to, to serve, to provide with a service. 

In his speech, Illich describes why mission trips are so popular among Americans and why people formed the mission organization he is addressing. He declares, “A group like this could not have developed unless a mood in the United States had supported it – the belief that any true American must share God’s blessings with his poorer fellow men. The idea that every American has something to give, and at all times may, can, and should give it, explains why it occurred to students that they could help Mexican peasants ‘develop’ by spending a few months in their villages.” Illich disagrees with this rationale and proceeds to attack it during the rest of his speech. He himself does not feel that American missionaries are “being of service” or “providing a service” to the Mexicans, but as his quote indicates, the missionaries fervently do feel this way. They believe that they have “something to give.”