#penrose

Penrose Chainmail

Dr. T's World of Chainmail

He does other tessellations, too!

i am doing things for these OCs that defy the bounds of reason

I want you to imagine college writing like making a cake; you have already gathered your ingredients with mise en place and now you’re mixing your ingredients together. 

By this, I am referencing the creation part of writing. You don’t write just to write, rather, you write to join a conversation–to create a name for yourself in a writing setting. 

This can only allude to finding a “voice” or writing with authority. 

The main facet that differentiates high school level writing from college level writing is the presence of an authoritative voice; in other words, a student will have to learn how to create a “name” for themselves in the writing process.

To help visualize this, let’s look at Professors Ann M. Penrose and Cheryl Geisler’s Reading and Writing Without Authority; in this example, they compare students who utilize an authoritative voice versus those who do not utilize an authoritative voice.

Characteristics (507)

Roger: 

 “Texts are authored and negotiable” 

“Authors present knowledge in the form of claims” 

“Knowledge claims can conflict”

“Knowledge claims can be tested”

Janet: 

 “Texts are definitive” 

“Information-transfer model” 

Students want to write like Roger, but they may relate more to Janet if they are a new writer. College-level writers (such as Roger) write to join a conversation–they write as if they were an expert on a topic. They explain their viewpoint in confidence, but allow people to reject their viewpoint if they have a disagreement. A conversation is created among scholars. 

For writers that are not yet at Roger level, they may have a more direct approach to writing. Writers may choose one viewpoint and stick to that. Such a viewpoint is static–it does not constantly evolve as the conversation evolves. 

To put it in a more casual sense, imagine you are in a group of friends. They are all trying to decide on where to eat–the group recommends Olive Garden. 

Friend 1: “Olive Garden has a wide selection of Italian food–there’s something for everyone.”

Having a voice with authority means that your response would look a little something like:

You: “Olive Garden sounds good, but Little Caesars would fit our budget more and we could eat wherever we want.” 

Notice how you are able to join the conversation, acknowledge the other speaker, but also include your own viewpoint on the matter. You were able to analyze the pros and cons of eating at each restaurant, which then meant you could think about which choice best fit the situation. 

You: “If you think Olive Garden sounds good then…that’s fine with me.” 

In this scenario, you are less likely to establish yourself as someone with an authoritative voice. This is mainly because you are yielding your viewpoint entirely. You can still choose Olive Garden, but seeking an “exact truth” is not adding to a conversation. Your friends want true input rather than just a spat-out agreement; authority means you have the “why” supporting the “what”

Impossible Staircase - Optical Illusion

Give me the OC pull of the day