SQR#2

Summary:

Geoffrey Sirc simply contradicts David Barthalomea. Barthalomea states that we should speak as if we are all knowing, and speak as what he calls “the language of the university”. On the other hand, Sirc states pretty much the excact opposite. “I want to counterpoint this to a cultural undercurrent that has also been present atleast since 1954, which I’m calling virtual urbanism: a different textuality, one in which actual humas, with needs, fears, desires, memories drift through the important spaces of their lives, encountering other humas similary engaged in the ongoing mystery of existence.” (Geoffrey Sirc) As you can see, he counterpoints, or opposes what Barthalomea says. This is important because it makes you think, who is correct? Two different pont of views, that is to say not one way or the other is incorrect, those are just two differnet ways of writing. Sirc believes that when we write the way we speak, the reader will be able to relate better and get more emotion out of it than if we were to write in the “language of the university”.

Question:

After reading this article, there are a couple of questions I came up with. Are these two writing styles the only two writing styles that exist? Is there a certain time in which a style is needed? Or can these two styles be combined to create a hybrid style?

Answer:

I believe that these are not the only two writing styles that exist when speaking to an audience. There may be five, ten one hundred, or even infinite writing styles that exist and there is no wrong or right style. The time and place where you might be may affect the style you use. You may feel more comfortable following what Barthalomea says in a class presentation, while when speaking with your friends you may apply more of what Sirc states and just talk how you talk, or vise versa.