- What is the main argument (thesis) of Greene's article?
- What, besides where it was published, makes this essay academic?
- What, besides the profanity, makes it seem not academic?
- Do you find Greene's argument persuasive--why or why not?
Monday, November 9, 2015
R.R. 11/9
For today's Reading Response I am going to ask you four questions. You must answer them all to receive credit. Further, no credit will be given to responses that deflect the question by stating that you were confused or the text was complicated. In short, you must attempt to answer each question.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1. The main argument of the article is that rather than trying to fuck over the system, which has become mainstream, be like Peru's subtes and under-fuck the system.
ReplyDelete2. The way he puts his ideas together and presents them with outside sources and builds upon his main argument serve to make the piece seem academic. Not to mention that he is talking about an academic topic within itself anyways.
3. The wording is much less formal and open. Even though he does use some words that are very academic sounding he also has just as many phrases that would not be seen in most academic articles like "circle jerk" and "Dookie-filled".
4. His argument is pretty persuasive because of how much thought seems to have been put behind it. He seems really passionate about the topic and even though he uses profanity, it is perfect for the way he seems to feel about the situation. The amount of outside information and examples he gives only serves to make the argument even more persuasive.
3. Also the article seems very personal and most of the time when you are writing academic papers, you are supposed to take a step back. Choose a side, but do not let your personal feelings move into how you talk about the topic at hand.
Delete1. Greene's main argument is that the punk underground is a political and social movement that goes across cultural boundaries. It's a system of refusal and it isn't just limited to one aspect of one aspect of society, it is transcultural.
ReplyDelete2. What makes this essay academic is Greene's use of outside sources and his discussion of a serious topic. He brings in at least 10 or 12 different academic journals and articles to aid his argument. He's also talking about a political issue, which makes this piece more serious and academic.
3. Definitely Greene's tone makes this piece seem less academic. Whereas he is serious, he also is super cut-and-dry and uses conversational diction throughout his argument, which give it a more casual tone.
4. I find his argument persuasive because he seems educated on what he's talking about. By reading it, you can tell he did his research; he comes across as credible, which makes me more open to accepting what he has to say.
1. The main argument of the article is that the problem of the punk underground is a socioeconomic issue caused by the "fucked upness of the system."
ReplyDelete2. He uses research/background knowledge to back up his argument such as the paragraph that starts with "Let me explain with a couple of examples taken from a geopolitical elsewhere: Lima, Peru." Also, the works cited section helps to make it academic.
3. He uses a lot of rhetorical questions that make it feel more like a conversation than an academic argument plus he uses so many of them in a row it starts to seem overdone.
4. I do find it persuasive I honestly think a lot of the reason has to do with how aggressively he was arguing his point, there really was not a single part that he didn't seem confident in. Plus the fact that he uses so much profanity kind of made me feel like he was like "screw it, I'm so confident in this argument I don't even have to censor myself or check myself twice before writing what I feel." It's almost like I would be frightened to disagree with him honestly.
1. Greene's thesis is that punk underground music should not and cannot be read too much into through means of cultural studies and other academic data. He says that people who hold themselves higher socially, try to over analyze punk artists as being lesser than them, which is a fallacy.
ReplyDelete2. Greene brings in many academic sources, and uses them in this argument, such as statistics and quotes. This makes his argument academic in a sense.
3. The tone is very casual, and this goes beyond the profanity. His sentence structures so not sounds very academic, and his word choice, even when not profane, is still casual. Also, the subject matter is not one that is likely to appear often in scholarly journals. Often we think of academic writing as having to do with high society or fancy science things, but in this case he just speaks about punk music.
4. I do not find his argument persuasive. I think that his tone and profanity discredits him as an effective arguer. I cannot take him seriously when he uses "Fuck" in almost every sentence. It seems unprofessional and it's hard to focus on his actual argument with such foul language.
1. I think that Green was focusing on punk, politics, and culture.
ReplyDelete2.I believe that besides where the article was published, the article is academic because it chose a topic and discussed it thouroughly with information from other sources.
3. I think that the topic of punk music could be another reason for why the article did not sound academic. Most academic essays aren't about music, certainly not punk music, which makes this article seem far from academic.
4. I personally did not find his argument persuasive. I do not like reading or hearing profanity, so this article completely turned me away. I honestly did not want to read it and did not enjoy reading it because of the language.
1. The main argument of Greene's article is that the way cultural studies labels punk underground as a "socioeconomic problem" is a completely incorrect. He goes on to say who are they to label the music that way. Greene also talks about how the music should be valued referencing things such as how it labels resistance movements in culture and different types of rebellions.
ReplyDelete2. This essay is academic because it relies on academic things, if that makes any sense. The entire argument Greene is providing evidence from real world events as to why his argument is correct. He cites events and academic literature for his argument. Yes, he is stating his opinion but he is using academic resources to validate why he is correct. Thus making this piece an academic work.
3. I think that the entire way that this piece was written makes it not seem academic. He talks in a very informal manner and asks rhetorical questions which is normally frowned upon in academic writing.
4. Yes I did find it persuasive because he had so much academic evidence as to why he thought he was right. But I think that the profanity and scattered writing made it a little less persuasive than it could have been. It makes the piece more passionate but it also just feels thrown together. If he would have written it in a more formal manner, I believe that he would have been able to persuade more people.
1.That solving Peru's Punk underground cannot be solved by police or an overbearing system. He mentions that cultural studies won't solve anything, but that a series of refusals just might do the trick.
ReplyDelete2. Greene uses many articles and sources to back up his argument. While his language makes this piece seem unacademic, his argument is solid and the backing format for his piece is academic. He picks a topic, clearly states his opinion, identifies a few problems, and says how to fix them to fit into the confound of his opinion.
3.While this piece has an argumentative structure, I got lost in the way his argument flowed. He made great points, but it was not a boring paragraph by paragraph argument research paper. It seemed more interactive because asked rhetorical questions. The over all structure was what drew away from the academic argument feeling for me.
4. I did, I thought that what he had to say was backed up by interweaved sources. He was clear, and even though the profanity and the structure took away from the seriousness of this piece, I think it worked for him. I wanted to keep reading and I didn't get as bored as I thought I would reading it. I think that this helped his argument because it gave him an edge because it was entertaining and he seemed to really care about his topic.
1. The punk style and rebellions towards society were not being done the right way or in an effective manner.
ReplyDelete2. There was a lot support in his writing and it was structured very well.
3. When I think of academic writing, I think of professional writing that has evidence supporting everything they say, but this article is not like this. It isn't just the profanity that makes it seem less professional, but it comes off very opinionated and angry.
4. It was persuasive. Although at points I found myself distracted by the language he used, he makes claims that he backs up with evidence and other peoples views that makes you think what he is saying is true.
1. The main argument of Greene’s article is to address how the “fucked up power structure of our totally fucked up system” impacts Peru’s punk underground. He writes on how the music and the music’s production attempts to subvert the system.
ReplyDelete2. The fact that there is a large amount of research backing up every claim makes this article academic. Every song or band referenced is given a background and for the most part a cultural reference. None of those would be possible without major amounts of research. Also, all of the sources appear to be very credible and most are from University Press.
3. This article seems less academic from the lack of in text citations. The claims, although backed up by evidence have little validity without a citation. The profanity is an obvious one but if it wasn’t included in establishing the goal of the article, it would seem much more academic.
4. I find his argument very persuasive. His evidence seems almost irrefutable and his passion truly gets his point across. I will say that it took a few readings to get past the profanity and elevated language mixed together to get to the heart of the article, but in all it was very persuasive.
1. The main argument is that punk is more than just a rebellious subculture, it is a movement that is actively attempting to "under-fuck" the existing hierarchy through its music. He argues that the punk group in Peru does this well by producing and distributing their own music without trying to use a record label or put it on vinyl.
ReplyDelete2. The essay provides a thesis and certain points to prove his argument. Besides the profanity, the essay uses academic language. It sticks to the point throughout, and uses specific examples to show his grasp of knowledge.
3. Sometimes the tone seems a bit conversational instead of the academic tone you'd expect from this type of essay. Also he seems to put down certain groups that don't have the same ideas he does, which is not normally done in academic essays.
4. I do find his argument persuasive because he is very passionate about this topic, and uses that passion well to lay out his argument. When he talks specifically about the group in Peru, he describes their situation well to support what he's trying to say about punk music and the punk "subculture" in general.
1. The main argument of Greene's article is the 'system' is built around hiding or ignoring the problems of the punk underground and that the only way to solve this problem is for the punks to "unite and under-fuck the system" right back.
ReplyDelete2. This could be considered academic because it has many similarities to an academic essay. One thing I noticed was Greene used a section at the bottom to add "Notes" to certain parts of the essay he felt needed elaborated on. You typically only see that in writings that are more academic.
3. Some parts of the article make it less academic, like his solution to the problem. His solution was for the punks to just unite and revolt which is juvenile and not the greatest idea. I feel like Greene didn't necessarily think out his so called solution very far and didn't think of the consequences that could come along with it.
4. I don't think his argument was very persuasive just because of the solution he provided. He had a great intro and body but the way he ended it completely lost me.
1. I think Greene's argument is that punk music tries break the standards of politics and culture that exist, but by attempting to be rebellious the end result of this actually reinforces or reinstates those standards.
ReplyDelete2. I think the examples that Green pulls into the article makes the essay academic. He brings in other sources and examples like Peru
3. I think that Greene's overall tone even minus the profanity makes it non-academic because he is very opinionated throughout the essay.
4. I find Greene's argument persuasive because of the examples and history he uses. I think that he tone also lends itself to sound very persuasive because he sounds legit and makes it hard to refute him.
The main argument of Green's article is that punk music is more effective if it doesn't use a "fuck the system," mentality. If you instead try and "under fuck" the system, then you can actually create change instead of having to create an entirely new system, which will ultimately put you back to where you started.
ReplyDelete2. This essay is academic because it cites other sources. It discusses people and events in order to form an argument.
3. Greene also makes himself seem not academic through his passionate tone. I could hear him almost yelling what he wrote, and I thought that he was urgent in trying to get his point across.
4. Yes, I found his argument persuasive. I agree that trying to overthrow the current system entirely is not useful. Furthermore, by using citations, he makes it clear that he is knowledgeable on the topic.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete1. The main argument of Greene's article is that the underground punk system isn't "fucked up" because of the nature of its existence as a rebellious subculture, but as a result of the authoritative, suppressive system from which it was born. This punk underground system then attempts to "under-fuck" the system from within.
Delete2. What makes this essay academic is the hefty amount of evidence and sources provided and cited both throughout the article and in the conclusive "Works Cited" page. Despite the use of casual language and profanity, Greene makes strong arguments and supports them by combating counterarguments and crafting intelligent thoughts and ideas.
3. What makes this essay seem unacademic, besides the profanity, is the personal, casual, combative tone of Greene's essay. It feels like a direct argument instead of a paper, more like an oral debate or an argument Greene would have with another person.
4. I do find Greene's argument persuasive because he addresses the counterarguments so well, so convincingly, and with enough evidence that it is hard to dismiss. He makes some incredibly intriguing, well-thought out points.
1. The main point of the article is that instead of completely flipping the system and saying fuck it to everything, "under- fucing" is a series of refusals; a more subtle way of throwing the system.
ReplyDelete2. The essay is academic because it uses an extensive amount of academic sources to back up the argument being made, and references these sources throughout as well as citing them at the end.
3. It seems not academic because of the tone being used. Not just with the profanity, but also that it is written in first person and seems like a casual discussion instead of how one would think an academic paper would normally sound.
1. The argument of this essay is that this underground system is complex and part of society in a way we don't realize. These musicians should more creatively "under-fuck" the system, instead of trying to fuck it over.
ReplyDelete2. The essay seems academic because Greene verbatim cites other sources and also references historical context, which could not all be done himself.
3. The essay is very opinionated, and when not done by an extremely credible source, it makes the essay less trust-worthy. The tone and style are also very relaxed and conversational, which is ok, just makes it seem less academic.
4. I did find Greene's argument persuasive, mainly because he felt so passionately about it and didn't use phrases such as "in my opinion" or "i personally think." He tells the reader what the problem is and doesn't falter in his argument, which makes for a persuasive essay.
1. After reading Greene's article I thought his main thesis was that the punk critics are the people that really understand culture as opposed to the cultural studies theorists that choose to ignore our rebellious youth subculture.
ReplyDelete2. This essay is academic because he cites other academic sources in his writing and uses them to help support his argument.
3. This article doesn't seem academic not only because of the profanity but because of Greene's informal word choice. He uses phrases like "Birmingham wankers" and "snotty intellectuals" that aren't usually what you would see in an academic article.
4. I do find Greene's argument persuasive because he backs it up with other educated sources that make sense with the topic he is arguing. He describes how punk critics expose and define the problem while cultural studies critics are more concerned about breaking the problem down to the point where it is distorted.
1. The main argument that Greene is presenting here is that the punk system has been ruined and tarnished by generations of idiots who have overdone it, and how the system found in Lima is a shining example of how the punk system in the US should be run. He is calling out for punk musicians around the world to come together and reestablish/cleanse the system.
ReplyDelete2. Greene has definite done his research on the topic of punk underground, especially when he gets to his premise on Peruvian punk and the political and social effects it had. There is definitely a sense of professionalism to his tone and the fact that he seems angry about it means he's passionate about this subject.
3. Much of the first few pages are fairly opinionated and biased, so it may be difficult to trust his ideas early on.
4. I think that this is a persuasive argument because the way he talks and is adamant about the topic really gets your blood flowing too, even if you are opposed or not knowledgable of it. The profanity adds to the argument by making it funny but interesting to read.
1. The main argument of Greene's article is that the problem of the punk underground is the only real way to under-fuck the system.
ReplyDelete2. This essay is academic because of the firm, backed-up stance that Greene makes, as well as the various references he utilizes.
3. Sometimes how zealous Greene is takes away from the academic nature of his argument. The zeal in his tone often turned the piece towards sounding more opinionated, not academic.
4. I do find Greene's argument persuasive because it's so profound and it makes a lot of good, revolutionary points.
1. The main argument of Greene's article is that punk is more than this under culture that rebels against the system, revolving around politics and how it's viewed.
ReplyDelete2. The essay becomes academic when Greene incorporates outside sources as both supporting statements and rebuttals to his point of view. He then addresses the disagreeing criticisms of his argument, therefore giving it total 360 degree coverage.
3. Besides the profanity, the language as a whole gives Greene a tone that is way more casual than academic. Yes, he uses big fancy words, but he also uses way too much slang and a ton of contractions. The way the article is set up and the format overall is odd as well. It's almost as though he has so much opinion and it's way too much to be persuasive, and it's shoved down your throat.
4. No, I don't think it's all that persuasive. Mainly because I could never really understand what he was saying because he used so much jargon that was both unnecessary to his point and hard to fully understand. Although some of these words are juxtaposing statements are what made his argument so credible, the profanity and use of curse words made his credibility fall apart. It may have been apart of his writing "brand" to use such language and tone, but maybe that means his brand isn't as academic as he's forcing it to be. I'm sure to the trained mind that's interested in this, maybe. But, to me, it's just kinda eh.
1. Many people see that the system fucks over people so they try to fuck over the system. However, this leads to an endless fucking over of other people. Instead, the underground punk movement in Peru tries to "under-fuck" the system by refusing to accept its social boundaries. That is the basic principle and foundation of the Peruvian underground punk system.
ReplyDelete2. Some of the diction was very academic and he also uses academic sources to back his arguments.
3. Obviously the profanity was the biggest thing that made this article seem not academic... It's also hard to see something as academic when it refers to "academic circle jerks." But another major thing that made this article seem less academic is that it seemed very emotionally driven and not objective.
4. I personally did not find it very persuasive because it was difficult for me to really accept the argument looking past all the "fuck you's" of the article.
1. The main argument of Greene's article is that cultural studies are superficial and fail to recognize subcultures fully.
ReplyDelete2. By looking at the works cited page it is obvious that Greene did extensive research on the topic. Also, Greene is a professor at Indiana University, so he has some credibility there.
3. The fact that the whole tone of the piece is very colloquial, it makes this article not seem academic. Most academic articles have very sophisticated language which makes it difficult to completely understand the topic being discussed.
4. I would say Greene's argument is persuasive because he pulls from various sources and gives examples to support his side. However, the use of profanity makes it difficult to take him seriously.