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.