Annotated Bibliography Assignment
Student Name
Professor
Course Name
[e1]Date
Annotated Bibliography: Artifacts Readings[e2]
Motoko, Rich. "Literacy Debate: Online, R U Really Reading?" The New York Times. New
York Times, 27 July 2008. Web. 20 May 2009.
Presented[e3] in a journalistic style, “Literacy Debate: Online, R U Really
Reading?” presents a range of opinions regarding whether or not the Internet enhances
literacy. The author pulls quotes from experts and from teenagers to offer perspectives
regarding why the Internet is having such an impact on literacy for this generation. His
variety of sources underscores that even experts don’t agree on whether the Internet
enhances or diminishes literacy. But, regardless of the debate regarding literacy
outcomes, many other countries are beginning to assess Internet literacy, a trend which
the United States is choosing to ignore. The sampling of student quotes also made clear
that students will continue to use the Internet to interact with others and to read and do
research. The question ultimately posed by the author [e4]is what educators will do with
the interest students show in the Internet: will they treat it as a teachable moment, or will
they discount the Internet as a sub-standard form of literacy, allowing students to draw
their own conclusions and lessons from the medium?
Since the article appeared in the New York Times, the reader expects a certain
level of fairness to both sides of the issue. [e5]The author allowed equal time to experts
who approved online reading versus those who believe that students’ literacy levels are
falling because of extensive Internet use, at the expense of traditional print reading. The
quotes from students display a wide range of reasons for Internet usage, from connecting
with others regarding academic topics to reading and writing fan fiction, and the students
showed a wide range of critical thinking and research and writing abilities. By using a
variety of interviewees, as well as statistical data representing both sides of the issue, the
author presents the kind of journalism one would expect from a leading news source in
the United States.
Lamott, Anne. Bird by Bird: Some Instructions on Writing and Life. New York: Anchor, 1995.
Print.
In this selection, essayist Anne Lamott gives practical advice on how writers can
best tackle long writing assignments. Reflecting on her personal experience as essayist
and novelist,[e6] Lamott explains how she personally combats authorial deferments such
as a wandering mind, “shitty” (122) first drafts, and writing without a plan in mind. Most
specifically, Lamott centers on the idea that all writing, no matter how large in scope,
should be written as her own ten-year-old brother was once forced to write a report on
birds in one night – just take it “bird by bird” (122)[e7], or one small piece at a time.
Lamott’s essay is written for struggling writers of all genres. Her practical, thorough, and
entertaining advice pertains to writers working on small assignments or dissertations and
everything in between. Considering Lamott’s extensive, decades- long experience as a
writer, her advice can be taken with great weight by the reader. Lamott’s light, humorous,
and anecdotal [e8]take on the subject also makes the reader feel at ease when reading her
advice. Her own history as a struggling writer allows for Lamott to effectively serve the
needs and values of her own readers through her guidance.
Tuchman, Barbara W. “When Does History Happen?” Practicing History. New York: Knopf,
1981. 27-28. Print.
The author, Barbara Tuchman, is writing about the difference between
contemporary historians and historians from subsequent generations. She attempts to
describe the various contributions that both types of historians make, and this excerpt of
her article focuses on contemporary historians, who are people writing at the moment of
an historical event (27). She seems to have two main arguments in her article. First, she
argues that the more “conscious” historians are of what they are writing, the more
valuable their contributions will be. For instance, she describes “on-lookers” and “active
participants” as two different kinds of historians who provide “narratives” o[e9]f events
for future generations. In contrast, journalists, writers of memoirs and autobiographies,
and those who compile different historical accounts merely provide “raw material.”
Second, she argues that an historian who experiences the moment he or she writes about
has a double-edged sword. That historian is “intimately” aware of his or her subject
matter but lacks the distance to write about it in a detached way. The author uses
references to famous historical documents, such as Thucydides’ Peloponnesian War[e10],
to reinforce her point. She also uses a series of categories to make her point, which she
may have created herself.
Her[e11] overview of the various categories of historians uses simple short
sentences and a basic accessible but academic language. Each paragraph is fairly small
and very similar to what one might read in a newspaper article. I[e12] would infer from this
evidence that the article is intended for an undergraduate student or someone just learning
about the field of history. The writer uses very little evidence, which implies that her
reader would need to be someone mostly curious and not skeptical of her position. Since
Tuchman does not offer much evidence for her argument, her readers would find this
article valuable only if they wanted a basic overview.