Choices and beliefs: how framing works, part 4
making different sorts of choices
Here are a few selected responses from the Forum discussion of the passage from "The Heart of the Issue." (It's worth reading through all of them.)
As I re-read I was left with the impression (based on a surface reading) that the author dislikes the Catholic Church or at least is under the impression that there is a lot of sandal occurring. However, as I read it again I think the opposite is almost true. I mean the author refers to the sandal that is occurring in the church as ‘alleged’ or says ‘grotesque allegations’, etc. Just from the word choice that he used I am under the impression that he thinks there are a lot of allegations lined up and many assumptions (and possibly quite a few exaggerations) surrounding the Catholic Church that may not be true or justified. However, I am not really sure now. The more I think about it the more ideas I get (aka I am confused).I've chosen some of the ones I thought most concrete in the way they continued to think about the passage and its function. I want in the time I have this morning to say some things about reading texts while attending only, or mainly, to the author's choice of words -- that's important, but how we read words is shaped by the larger context (and not just by what we bring to the text ourselves).While it is probable that in this case like all others the majority of things that could possibly happen most likely did. As disgust as the final acts may be. In this paragraph however, the author seems to be trying to come off as sarcastic. Or at least that is how it appears to me.
I think if I had taken this a couple steps further I would have hit the nail on the head. I have never looked at a piece of writing (unless it was a dialog) as a conversation between parties. Now that I am identifying the voices in the conversation I have a much better comprehension of the theme.
Hmm, I think I may have read the passage differently than you. I feel like the highlighted words make the passage seem sarcastic, I feel like you read the passage with a certainty that you knew what was happening or going to happen. I could be wrong. Let's try to look at the passage in many ways, is the author being suspicious, is the author being sarcastic or are they trying to lead you to an idea without bluntly saying it. Hmmmm.
I took this the same way that Brittany did at first and after re reading it the "of course" made it all seem sarcastic and now I understand what is going on. I always seem to fail at these assignments...
I'm going to agree with what Kara added to her original post, the more I re-read the paragraph the more my opinion changes. I'm leaning more towards the fact that maybe the author doesn't hate the Catholic church as much as I had first thought .. I'm not really sure yet though. This reminds me a lot of Doubt with my mind always changing. However, I am pretty certain that had the author really believed the Catholic church was horrible he wouldn't have used words that implied uncertainty. However, maybe not.
try reading it with a view that is focused on the author being sarcastic( which is the general answer on this forum) and once again with the author being serious. There are definately more then one meaning of the phrase "thus refered to" and "alleged". I think it is important to read the paragraph from both those views and see which one makes more sense to you. I at first wrote an entire paragraph explaining why i thought the author had a bone to pick with the church only to come on here and see everyone else saw it as sarcastic. It is important i think to allow both of those views to be seen
For Thursday, here's what I'd like you to do. Look back over both the Acocella piece and the one by Bromley and Shupe (I think it's interesting that a number of people thought of "the" author, and tried to decide, for example, whether she was Catholic or not), and find a sentence or passage in either where you think a word or phrase the author chooses could have been phrased in a way that would invite us to think differently about exactly the same statement. Rephrase the statement with a different word or phrase. Write out both alternatives, and then a short explanation of the difference you think it makes.
Save your document as a file in your /truth folder, named words.htm. Do this before tomorrow noon; after that read through the words.htm files and choose one you'd like to say something about. Post what you'd like to say about it on the Forum that's attached to the table of files (you'll find it on the English 1006 Web site).
Executive summary:
First, suppose Acocella hadn't said this:
The book offers a fantastically elaborated conspiracy theory -- involving Leonardo da Vinci, Isaac Newton, Victor Hugo, and Jean Cocteau . . .But, instead, this:
The book points out that there was a conspiracy -- involving Leonardo da Vinci, Isaac Newton, Victor Hugo, and Jean Cocteau . . .Any reader would feel that there was something weird going on: here she's been making fun of this weird story, and all of a sudden she's agreeing that the conspiracy exists.
Here's another. Suppose Bromley and Shupe, instead of this:
Individual Catholics usually were not blamed by Protestant critics for professing their faith, but were seen as the unwitting dupes of priests, Jesuits, and papal authorities.had said it this way:
Individual Catholics usually were not blamed by Protestant critics for professing their faith, because they were the unwitting dupes of priests, Jesuits, and papal authorities.In this case, it would stop an attentive reader cold: here the authors are trying to tell us how the Catholics have been charged with improbable crimes by Protestants, and suddenly they're agreeing that Catholics are "unwitting dupes" of the church.
In both cases, the phrase is inconsistent with the purpose of the text, and no one would ever write it. But changing it lets us look at the way in which the original fits right in, and supports what the writer's trying to do.