Writing Workshop II Fall 2004
1)Weekly creative writing on any
topic you want or an alter-ego journal. Leaders, Loners, True Believers, Team
Players, Sparkling Personalities and Corporate Clones: Who is your Alter-Ego?Alter
Ego Journal: Pick a leader or follower from any country in the war on terror,
someone who is often in the news such as Bush, Osama, Sharon, Netanyahu, Crown
Prince Abdullah, Saddam Hussein, Arafat, Powell, or even a newscaster such
as Tom Brokaw, Peter Jennings or Geraldo Rivera, or a true believer like Zacarias
Moussaoui, John Walker Lindh etc. Look at present and past speeches and write
a short entry in their voice every week, commenting on current events, the
core books and particularly, your research. Perhaps your alter ego feels very
differently than you do about things, which would strengthen your argumentation.
2) 8-10 page midterm with one page bibliography.
3) Oral Presentation
4) Final paper--15-20 pages with a 3 page bibliography
Content Theme for Fall 2004:War on Terror and its Aftermath. Consult Jihad vs McWorld: Whose Paradise is Lost?
Excellent Final Papers published in the Online Journal of Education's Issue on Terrorism 2001-ad infinitum
Sharpen Argumentation at: https://pages.nyu.edu/keefer/brain/argue.html and, /argue1.html and /argue2.html, and /basic.html and /claims.html
To complete a 15-20 page college research paper
with a 3 page bibliography
To explore a personal methodology for creativity and research from brainstorming
To gather, organize and evaluate primary and secondary sources online, in the library, the community and through empirical research such as interviews and investigation
To engage in close and survey reading and to paraphrase, summarize, and integrate sources into personal research
To develop and refine a thesis
To structure the categories of an outline
To develop and refine critical and argumentative faculties
To establish credibility through research, audience analysis, (beliefs, values, attitudes and behaviors), critical thinking, decision making and persuasive tactics
To learn the constructs of classical (Aristotle) and contemporary (Toulmin, Roger, Monroe, Boolean, Cyber) argumentation
To constructively question and defend a claim or syllogism, identifying logical fallacies
To practice debates in workshop (cooperative and adverarial) and improve oral communication skills
To understand advocacy through role playing and argumentative writing in the voice of alter ego
To analyse media, politics, law, current events, religion, philosophy, literature, science, history in terms of controversy, conflict and conversion
To improve writing skills through improvisational, poetic and personal writing and create a webfolio for website or OJEMH
To create a distinctive, original expository style, using MLA or APA parenthetical documentation
To increase knowledge and understanding of content theme
To publish excellent papers in the Online Journal of Education, Media and Health for the World Association for Online Education
Core Books: Critical Thinking and
Communication, Anti-American Terrorism in the Middle East-- A Reader. Inside
the Kingdom by Carmen bin Ladin. 9/11 Commission Report. Islam, Liberty
and Development by Mohammad Khatami.
Optional: reading list. Benjamin Barber's Jihad vs McWorld. Imperial Hubris by Anonymous. The Hidden Face of Eve by Nawal el Saadawi.
Attendance/Participation Policy: You are only allowed one absence.When you are forced to be absent, for whatever reason, consult the syllabus and outline, email classmates from the listserv, and make up the work as soon as possible. Individual attention is for research projects, not to waste time discussing why you can't come to class. This is also true of late or missed assignments. The curriculum and grading contract are clear: it is your responsibility to hand in work every week and to clarify assignments when they are given.
25% of grades of midterms and final papers are on argumentation. This
means having a clear claim or thesis, which will grow into a claim of
fact, which must state a problem, not a fact, and should be VERY
SPECIFIC as to demographics, time, and place, a claims of value, which
can open up into theoretical discussion and span time and space, and a
claim of policy, which must provide a concrete solution to the claim of
fact, and counterclaim(s of fact, value and policy.
The claims must develop and evolve throughout the paper so that after
every description or summary of a source, you go BACK TO your claim to
strengthen it. You must summarize opposite POVs and provide rebuttal to
them, thereby strengthening your claim.
Argumentation is also being aware of the logical fallacies of your
sources and your own arguments.
Therefore, the marriage thesis must be confined to a specific group of
people in a specific time and place. For example, should lower-caste
couples under 25 years of age in Northern India in 2007 submit to
marriages arranged by their parents, or choose their own partners, based
on love and compatibility?
That is the claim of fact.
Then the claim of value could span time and space to discuss all the
implications of contractual versus romantic love, marriages decided by
self or family etc. Counterclaim here would be valuing romantic marriage
or pleasing self over contractual marriage or pleasing community.
Finally the claim of policy goes back to the problem to the original
dilemma question, and says that Lower-caste couples under 25 years of
age in Northern India in 2007 should make a compromise of obeying
parents and pleasing self through a new innovative system of dating.
Then the description of that system is the claim of policy, which could
be countered by another system.
25% of grade is on Depth and Diversity of Research Sources.
Sources should include books, professional articles, Internet htmls, audio/video if you want,
observation, interviews, personal experience and imagination.
Sources should focus on the narrow time period in your claim of fact but will be original if
you also span time and include historical sources, and embrace other disciplines or cultures in your claims of value. Claims of policy should include original primary source research..
Sources should represent different POVS, counter-claims that disagree with your thesis.
Always read material you
disagree with thoroughly, as you would focus on your most lethal fighter in a martial arts
Internet sources can be superficial, so make search you read academic books as well.
Original sources are the interviews and field work and case studies and questionnaires you do.
25% of the grade is on originality. Originality can be developed through discovering a problem not yet described in your claim of fact, arguing values by crossing cultures, combining disciplines, and delving into history, and developing a claim of policy based on your original interviews and field work. Originality can also be developed through style, such as using Proust in a martial arts paper, combining poetry and memoir with argumentation, including photos as people have done in my journals, and writing with a strong, original voice.
25% of the grade is on style. This includes a correctly formatted 3-page MLA/APA bibliography, correct parenthetical documentation after each quote, error-free prose with no grammatical or proofreading errors, and a style that reflects the content.
Week 1: In class writing to assess interest and experience and to start brainstorming on course theme.
"Can it be that what Jihad and McWorld have in common is anarchy: the absence of common will and that conscious and collective human control under the guidance of law we call democracy? ...Jihad and McWorld operate with equal strength in opposite directions, the one driven by parochial hatreds, the other by universalizing markets, the one re-creating ancient subnational and ethnic borders from within, the other making national borders porous from without. Yet Jihad and McWorld have this in common: they both make war on the nation-state and thus undermine the nation-state's democratic institutions. Each eschews civil society and belittles democratic citizenship, neither seeks alternative democratic institutions. Their common thread is indifference to civil liberty. Jihad forges communities of blood rooted in exclusion and hatred, communities that slight democracy in favor of tyrannical paternalism or consensual tribalism. McWorld forges global markets rooted in consumption and profit, leaving to an untrustworthy, if not altogether fictitious, invisible hand issues of public interest and common good that once might have been nurtured by democratic citizenries and their watchful governments. ...the new temples to liberty will be McDonald's and Kentucky Fried Chicken. ...Impartial judiciaries and deliberative assemblies play no role in the roving killer bands that speak on behalf of newly liberated 'peoples,' and such democratic institutions have at best marginal influence on the roving multinational corporations that speak on behalf of newly liberated markets. Jihad pursues a bloody politics of identity, McWorld a bloodless economics of profit. Belonging by default to McWorld, everyone is a consumer; seeking a repository for identity, everyone belongs to some tribe. But no one is a citizen. Without citizens, how can there be democracy?"
The True Believer: "A mass movement
attracts and holds a following not because it can satisfy the desire for self-advancement,
but because it can satisfy the passion for self-renunciation....We join a
mass movement to be free from freedom. Those who see their lives as spoiled
and wasted crave equality and fraternity more than they do freedom. If they
clamor for freedom, it is but freedom to establish equality and uniformity.
The passion for equality is partly a passion for anonymity: to be one thread
of the many which make up a tunic; one thread not distinguishable from the
others. No one can then point us out, measure us against others and expose
our inferiority....Where freedom is real, equality is the passion of the masses.
Where equality is real, freedom is the passion of a small minority. Equality
without freedom creates a more stable social pattern than freedom without
The third is from The Hidden Face of Eve. "A wife who does not work may, in turn, take pride in the fact that her man is sufficiently well off to take care of her needs. All these distorted ideas and feelings are due to the fact that woman's work outside the home does not of itself lead to the true liberation of the woman as long as it continues to operate within the framework of a class society and under the patriarchal system."
The fourth is from The Prince: "And here comes in the question whether it is better to be loved rather than feared, or feared rather than loved. It might perhaps be answered that we should wish to be both; but since love and fear can hardly exist together, if we must choose between them, it is far safer to be feared than loved. For of men it may generally be affirmed that they are thankless, fickle, false, studious to avoid danger, greedy of gain, devoted to you while you are able to confer benefits upons them, and ready, as I said before, while danger is distant, to shed their blood, and sacrifice their property, their lives, and their children for you; but in the hour of need they turn against you....Moreover men are less careful how they offend him who makes himself loved than him who makes himself feared. For love is held by the tie of obligation, which, because men are a sorry breed, is broken on every whisper of private interest; but fear is bound by the apprehension of punshiment which never relaxes its grasp. "
The Course Theme for 2003 is Cross Cultural Perspectives on the War on Terror. The core books relate to this theme as we compare the ethics and rhetoric of today's leaders with THE PRINCE, the psychology of jihadhis, McWorldians and other true believers in Hoffer's book, the dilemma of feminism and terrorism with Nawal el Saadawi and the plight of democracy in the clash between McWorld and indigenous culture in Barber's book. Read the primary source material in the Reader on Anti-American Terrorism. Look over the contents of the Journal on Terrorism and Education to get ideas for your own research. Literary classics such as Macbeth, Dante's Inferno and Paradise Lost give timeless perspectives to the dialectic of terror and are opportunities for discussion, oral interpretation and the appreciation of beautiful language.
Breakdown: Media-Enhanced Migratory Writing Workshop IIAlthough Writing Workshop II is a research course with stringent academic requirements, it should also be a time to explore the way you think, to develop your writing style, and to discover a personal methodology that works for you. As you write and improve your research skills, think about the following questions: 1) Do you prefer to build your own house or to evaluate, analyse and synthesize the contruction of others'? (Creative vs. Critical Thinking) 2) Do you start with a view of the big picture or do you need to piece together the details before you can understand what you're talking about? (Deductive vs. Inductive Thinking) 3) Do you prefer to see, read, hear or feel things? (Sensory Preferences) 4) Do you like clear-cut goals and definitions or do you prefer to wrestle with ambiguity, surprising yourself with different shades of meaning and interpretation? 5) Are you trapped in a compulsive rigidity of formulas and protocol or are you lost in a chaotic wilderness of creativity? 6) Are you afraid to play and make a fool of yourself or are you so wild you can't conform to anything? 7)Do you need more structure or do you need to let go?
All projects, creative and critical, MUST relate to your final research paper in some way, no matter how indirect.
9/11:Week 1: Read, understand and analyse the main propositions in the core books. What do you look for in a thesis? For this course, theses must be argumentative in nature, addressing the focal point of controversy, and providing an umbrella for your work. One of the most difficult things students face in research is finding an appropriate thesis. Learn to recognize the main proposition in books, articles, speeches so that you can decide whether to use the evidence to support or refute and then rebut your work. Read this article to help you.
9/18:Week 2: Media: In class-writing on the six kinds of writing--narrative, descriptive, dramatic, expository, argumentative, poetic, and investigate their styles, objectives and relationship to audience. How can you use these styles in your paper, to develop and clarify your topic?
9/25:Week 3: Media: Television and Journalism. C-Span, France 5, BBC, Arab channels, CNN, Fox, UN channel. Examine controversy and conflict. Identify claims and counterclaims. Look at all points of view. Survey your field. Read the course theme again, think deeply about your interests and career goals, what you want to learn this semester and how you can best make an original contribution to the field. Take out as many books as possible from the library on your subject, go online for pertinent websites, online journals, relevant chat rooms and discussion groups, and investigate the wonderful resources in Manhattan, which is the cultural and economic capital of the world. Decide who you could interview, what embassies or libraries to visit, where to "hang out" to do your work. Get an overview in the beginning of the semester. Collect as many sources and resources as possible without analyzing everything in depth yet. Bring at least 3 sources, a brainstorming sheet and a 2 page essay relating your research hypotheses to the entire field. Begin to organize and document your work, with MLA or APA data on index cards with the main proposition, a pertinent quote, and how it relates to your thesis.
10/2:Week 4: Media: Library. Meet at reference desk of Bobst Library. Browse, surf and study. Leave with as many books and professional articles as possible. Develop your hypothesis. You can work with 2 or 3 potential hypotheses. Feel free to change them at any time. Pick 3 most important sources, including those who refute your theses. Summarize, analyze and integrate them into your work. Play word or creativity games, cubes, questions, six hats, role-playing to develop your stance and lead you to the right questions. Write personal creative essay for next week.
10/9:Week 5: Media: Close Textual Analysis. Bring summaries of your most important sources to class as well as Terrorism Reader. Refine your bibliography into 3 pages, work on an outline and decide the best way for you to organize your work. Write a paper on your methods of analysis.
10/16:Week 6: Media: Editing. Bring 3 copies of your rough draft. Limit your research and refine your thesis so that you are very specific as to person, time, place, concept etc. This is the best way to avoid logical fallacies.
10/23:Week 7: Midterms due: Media: Speech. Bring in revised midterm, surveys, sources that identify the originality of your work. Oral presentations showing the relationship of outlining to public speech. Bring tape recorder and play with debates and interviews in class.
10/30:Week 8: Media: Great Fiction. Each student should give an analysis of the novel of their choice, chosen from Keefer's Major Twentieth Century Writers, and describe how this novel relates to their research topic. See film of Macbeth. Discussion of fiction and fact with review of argumentative fallacies. For next week write a rough draft of a midterm, around 8 pages. Pay special attention to the relationship of logic to syntax. Proofread carefully for grammatical, spelling, word choice and format (APA or MLA) errors. Make sure you are using MLA or APA parenthetical documentation.
11/6: Week 9: Media: Art objects as symbols or metaphors of thesis and exercises for descriptive writing. Meet at the Metropolitan Museum of Art, Friday evening. Choose a work or art, or several, that symbolizes your thesis, then sit down and describe it in words. How does descriptive writing differ from argumentative, expository and personal writing? How can this description enhance the focus and argumentation of your research? Bring descriptive writing to class next week. Interviews. Bring a transcription of your interview(s). Discuss conditions, problems that relate to your thesis.
11/13:Week 10: Media: Library. Meet at Bobst with revised outline and proposals for further research. Individual conferences.
11/20:Week 11: Media: Oral Presentations. Bring Tape recorder for your speech and hostile and friendly audiences.
12/4: Week 12: Media: Oral Presentations.
12/11:Week 13: Media: Cross-editing. Complete a rough draft, at least 15 pages, of the final research paper. Cross-edit and comment in listserv.
12/18:Week 14: Media: Final Paper due. No incompletes or extensions.
Ideally you want to be familiar with Aristotle's more formal reasoning, Toulmin's chain of reasoning from data to claim, and contemporary theories and applications of cyberargumentation.
In cyberspace we can't rely on the pitch and resonance of our voices, the warmth of our facial expression, the impressives stature of our bodies and the expense of our wardrobe to convince people to believe us. We have to convince with the speed, frequency and prevalence of our messages and the hypnotic, timely and informative nature of our web sites.
PROFESSOR KEEFER (COPYWRIGHT 1996)A COMPARISON OF TRADITIONAL VERSUS CYBER RHETORIC:
Keefer's Cyber-Logic Boot Camp
2) Pirouettes:Keeping your spot in a nonlinear world, developing speed and focus
3)Weaving: propositional logic through all evidence, refining and developing thesis
4)Searching for the Big 3 fallacies of ambiguity, presumption and relevance
5)Using Boolean logic and Venn diagrams to limit, expand and organize specific areas of research, especially online
6)Analysing the Persuasive Power of Images, including the homospatial imagery of collages
7)Using hypertext to make the surfer follow Your waves
The following is based on the book With Good Reason by S. Morris Engel.
Fallacies of Ambiguity
Equivocation: An ambiguity caused by a shift between two legitimate meanings of a term. "If you believe in the miracles of science, you should also believe in the miracles of the Bible."
Amphiboly: An ambiguity caused by faulty sentence structure. "SLOW CHILDREN CROSSING!"
Accent: A statement that is ambiguous because 1)its intended tone of voice is uncertain; 2) its stress is unclear; or 3) it is quoted out of context "President Clinton really knows how to wag his dog."
Hypostatization: The treatment of abstract terms like concrete ones, sometimes even the ascription of humanlike properties to them (similar to personification) "Even when he was home, the job would call to him seductively, asserting its dominance, luring him back to itembrace."
Division: The assumption that what is true of 1) the whole or 2) the group must be true of the parts or members. "This is the snobbiest eating club on campus; John, who is a member of it, must therefore be a terrible snob."
Composition: The assumption that what is true of 1) a part of a whole or 2) a member of a group must be true of the whole or the group. "By the year 3500 the human race will be extinct because we know that all of us now living will be dead."
Fallacies of Presumption
Sweeping Generalization: Applying a generalization to an exceptional case by ignoring the particularities of the case. "Since step aerobics is good for the heart, they should make it mandatory in nursing homes."
Hasty Generalization: Using insufficient evidence or an isolated example as the basis for a widely general conclusion. "I was raped by a black man, therefore all black men are potential rapists." (This fallacy is often the basis for racism.)
Bifurcation: Considering a distinction or classification exclusive or exhaustive when other alternatives exist. "You're either for me or against me!"
Begging the Question: 1) Offering, as a premise, a simple restatement of the desired conclusion. "Immortality is impossible because when we die that's it." 2) A circular argument. "I'm always right." Why/" "Because I'm your mother and I say so." "How do we know that mothers are always right?" "Because I'm your mother and..." 3) (Wider generalization) "He must be depressed: he's an existentialist!"
Question-Begging Epithets: Using strongly emotional language to force an otherwise unsupported conclusion. "Democrats are amoral, lustful, greedy politicians who don't care about foetuses and family values."
Special Pleading: Applying a double standard that is exemplified in the choice of words "Horses sweat, men perspire, women glow."
False Analogy: Reaching a conclusion by likening or comparing two significantly incomparable cases. "How can you tell your children no to take money from others when the government they live under does it all the time?"
False Cause: Inferring a causal link between two events when no such causal connection has been established. "The only reason crime went down was because Agosto became mayor." (Crime also went down in every other city.)
Slippery Slope: Assuming, unjustifiably, that a proposed step will set off an undesirable and uncontrollable chain of events. "Today it's Kevorkian, tomorrow everyone over 65 will be euthanized, and by 2001 we'll have a BRAVE NEW WORLD!"
Irrelevant Thesis: Seeking, perhaps succeeding, to prove a conclusion not at issue. "Hunting isn't cruel because it makes so many people happy and well-employed.
Fallacies of Relevance
Genetic Fallacy: Attacking a thesis, institution, or idea by condemning its background or origin. "Classical Greek philosophy is anachronistic because it was created by Dead White Males."
Abusive ad Hominem: Attacking the character of the opposing speaker rather his or her thesis. "We shouldn't elect her because she's a lesbian."
Circumstantial ad Hominem: Attacking the opposing speaker by implying vested interests.
Tu Quoque: Attempting to show that an opponent does not act
in accord with his or her thesis. "How can my father tell me to stop
drinking when I know he's an alcoholic?"
Poisoning the Well: Attempting to preclude discussion by attacking the credibility of an opponent. "President Clinton lied about his affair with Monica Lewinsky therefore he must be lying about social security, education and the environment as well."
Mob Appeal: Using emotion-laden terminology to sway people en masse. "Stand up for Afro-american civil rights! Acquit O.J.Simpson of murder!"
Appeal to Pity: Seeking to persuade not by presenting evidence but by arousing pity. "Don't send the Menendez brothers to the gas chamber because their father abused them."
Appeal to Authority: Seeking to persuade not by giving evidence but merely by citing an authority, in the form of an: 1) appeal to the one, 2) appeal to the many, 3) appeal to the select few, 4)appeal to tradition. "Use this mouthwash because Madonna uses it." "Everybody owns a car so buy one soon." "If you use this perfume, you will be set apart from the crowd." Marriage is sacred because it's been around for ages.
Appeal to Ignorance: Emphasizing not the evidence for a thesis, but the lack of evidence against it. "There must be an afterlife because no one has proven for sure that there isn't."
Appeal to Fear: Seeking to persuade through fear. "Fuzzy, if you don't stop meowing, Mommy won't give you any yum yum."
Mother's Logical Fallacies by Lori Manning
Rhetoric, the art of persuasion, was first established as an art by Aristotle. He believed that his predecessors "limited themselves to working up ideas on how to arouse in the hearers emotions (pity, indignation, anger�) that would influence their judgement in a favorable way to the orator�s case." (194) Aristotle categorized rhetoric into three categories or pisteis. These categories are ethos, logos and pathos, the speaker�s reputation, the argument itself, and the play on emotions. I often use these three categories along with a few logical fallacies to get my niece to obey me. My niece, Lavel is a curious child who responds to most of my statements with "why" so I always make sure that I have a good argument. I gather facts about the situation and mentally prepare for a battle. For example, I was walking down the hall when I heard Lavel jumping on the bed so I yelled to her to stop jumping on the bed. She quickly dismounted and assured me that she had not been engaged in that act. I instructed her not to lie because I had seen her. She continued to deny my allegations because I often proclaimed that I had seen her doing a wrong act so that she would confess. Unfortunately she had caught on so I was forced to describe her action at length, which included raising her hands in an attempt to touch the ceiling and then falling onto her knees. Finally she admitted to the wrong doing and asked in a whiny voice why she couldn�t jump on the bed. I just ignored her.
After she had asked me over five times, I implemented a fallacy of presumption, begging of the question in particular. I told her that she could not jump on the bed because I, her aunt, said so. She continued to ask why so I responded "I�m the adult and you�re the child so you have to do whatever I say!" Lavel asked me why again so I decided to try another tactic. I attempted to establish my reputation with her by asking her a series of questions which were guaranteed to produce the responses that I needed to build my argument. I asked her who I was to her and she responded that I was her aunt. Next, I asked her if I was older and she answered yes in a mistrustful way. Then I asked her if she thought that I knew more than her and she responded yes but then quickly changed her response to sometimes. I stared at her intently and she said "I guess so."
Satisfied, I asked her if she thought that I cared about her and she said yes. Having gathered the responses that I was looking for, I stated, "Even you said that I care about you and know more than you so trust me when I tell you not to jump on the bed." "No, you just don�t want me to have any fun! You never want me to have fun," she yelled as she stormed to her room. Well that tactic alone did not work so I decided to appeal to her emotions. I followed her to her room, sat on the edge of her bed and said, "You know Lavel, I try really hard to be patient and understanding with you but you�re never willing to do the same for me. Why is that? When you failed your math exam, I was the one who dried your tears and helped you explain the grade to your parents. When Junior said you couldn�t play with his PlayStation, I talked him into letting both of us play. When Tevy didn�t let you go to the mall with her and her friends, you and I did something cool." In a solemn voice, I told her that she could have broken the bed, as my older nephews as well as her father had done, or injured herself and that I as her aunt would have felt very bad and would have been responsible.
As I walked out of the room, I said, "I love you, you are my favorite niece but yet you don�t feel the same way. Fine! I�ll just leave you alone. If that�s the way you want it, then that�s the way you got it." She yelled, "Wait, Aunt Lori!," as she ran in front of me and hugged me around the waist. I ignored her and but she held on. She began to cry and promised that she would not be so difficult in the future. None of the three components of pisteis worked for me individually but only as a unit. By gathering the facts, witnessing her actions, building my reputation, as an adult, her aunt and someone who cares, and playing on her emotions, I was able to persuade her to behave in the way that I wanted. I never realized that these tactics they worked as a unit until I came across Aristotle�s theory. As a result, I will use the unit as a rule of thumb in every situation, as it can only benefit me.
MLA Documentation: Use parenthetical documentation (23) after the quotes: Descartes wrote "I think therefore I am." (23) Then in the bibliography, (make sure it is alphabetized) put in full publication or production details.
Tannen, Deborah. The Argument Culture: Moving from Debate to Dialogue. New York: Random, 1998.
Kaplan, Robert D. "History Moving North." Atlantic Monthly Feb. 1997: 21+.
Cheuse, Alan. "Narrative Painting and Pictorial Fiction." Antioch Review 55 (1997): 277-91.
France, Peter. "His Own Biggest Hero." Rev of Victor Hugo, by Graham Robb. New York Times Book Review 15 Jan. 1998:7.
Spanoudis, Steve, Bob Blair, and Nelson Miller. Poets' Corner. 7 June 1999. 13 June 1999 <http:www.geocities.com/~spanoudi/poems>.
Blue Note Records. 9 June 1999. Blue Note Records. 9 June 1999 <http:www.bluenote.com>.
Coontz, Stephanie. "Family Myths, Family Realities." Salon 12 Dec. 1997. 3 Feb.2000 <http://www.salonmagazine.com/mwt/teature/1997/12/23coontz.html>.
Schubert, Josephine. "Re: Culture Shock." E-mail to the author. 14 Mar. 2000.
The English Patient. dir. Anthony Minghella. Perf. Ralph Fiennes, Juliette Binoche, Willem Dafoe, and Kristin Scott Thomas. Miramax, 1996.
Primates. Wild Discovery. Discovery Channel. 23 Mar. 1998.