1

Gwendolyn Grigsby

Kaaronica Evans

Writing 2

19 / 3 / 24

Writing Project #1: Step 1 - Proposal

For this project, I have selected the article “Predicting Online Political Participation: The

Importance of Selection Bias and Selective Exposure in the Online Setting”, written by Jessica

Feezell and published in Political Research Quarterly. Feezell discusses the idea that the

dissemination of information online, especially when accompanied by selective exposure, is a

new and unique driver of political participation that needs to be researched differently compared

to more traditional drivers of participation. She also describes its definition of selective exposure,

explaining that internet users tend to be faced with ideas that mirror their own, creating an

ideological echo chamber that strengthens their beliefs whether grounded in reality or otherwise.

The study analyzes the data from the Pew Internet and American Life post-election survey

conducted in 2010. The article was written for political scientists and was published in

September of 2016, intended to discuss the unique climate of internet political participation and

to analyze how selective exposure can affect one’s political participation.

I intend to translate this article into a fable. Fables are short stories about talking animals,

intended to instill a certain moral in the reader– usually a child. This moral is usually a reflection

of the writer’s personal moral code or a “common sense” moral largely agreed upon by the

community. Convincing a child of this moral’s value is the primary goal of any fable writer, the

secondary being to entertain. In many cases, these goals go hand-in-hand, as in order to keep a

child engaged and willing to learn, they must be entertained. To this end, a fable writer will often
 2

include illustrations and will publish their work as a picture book. Fables are distinct from the

greater short story genre for these reasons. While a short story writer may choose to include

these characteristics in their work, they are not the core of the genre like they are for fables.

I chose to translate this scholarly article into a fable because of the stark contrast between

the two genres. The article is written for professionals familiar with a particular vocabulary and

intellectual climate, whereas a fable is intended for young children who are unfamiliar with

many aspects of social interaction and academics. Furthermore, the article takes a neutral stance

as it reports the findings and processes of its study, while a fable favors an opinionated stance.

Therefore, my fable will attempt to instill a moral in the reader that can be gleaned from the

paper, while not focusing on the intricacies of the study. I hope to gain a stronger understanding

of genre as I attempt to reconcile the drastic and intrinsic differences between these two means of

communication.

In my fable, the animals are representative of different topics covered in the article. The

rabbit acts as the average internet user, often faced with many choices to be made and not always

holding the necessary knowledge to make an informed decision. The bear and fox represent two

opposing viewpoints that an internet user must choose between. The bear is simply one option,

while the fox and his friends are symbols for the opposing option as well as an echo chamber

where an internet user may find themselves hearing one opinion over and over, leading the other

lesser-heard option to fall to the wayside.

Writing Project #1: Step 2 - Translation of Article to a Fable

Rabbit was wandering through the forest when he heard rather loud screaming. Rabbit,

interested by the shouts, hopped around following the noise. Soon, he stumbles into a clearing in

the woods where he finds Fox and Bear arguing with each other!

“What are you yelling about?” Rabbit asks shyly.

Fox turns to him and says, “I deserve this cave, I found it first! But Bear thinks he

deserves it!”

Bear, hesitant, says “I know you found it first, Fox, but I need it… I have to hibernate…”

Rabbit stops to think.

Before Rabbit can decide anything though, Fox interrupts. “Oh, I know!” says Fox,

“What if Rabbit here settled this for us!”

Bear thinks for a moment and then agrees. “Sure… That seems fair,” says Bear. Fox and

Bear turn to Rabbit, but Rabbit turns away. He feels afraid because he realizes both Fox and Bear

are counting on him.

“Oh, I’m not sure…” Rabbit says, “I need some time to think.” Rabbit shyly hops into the

forest, thinking about how his decision would affect Fox and Bear. If he picks Bear, Fox would

probably get upset. But, if he picks Fox, then Bear would be upset! Rabbit doesn’t want to upset

either of them… Suddenly, Fox springs out in front of Rabbit.

“Rabbit!” Fox smiles, “my good friend, Rabbit. You need a little help deciding, do you?”

Rabbit, caught off of his guard, says, “Well, sure I’m having trouble Fox. I don’t know if

I should trust you or Bear…”

Fox steps closer to Rabbit. “Oh, it’s easy, really! I found the cave so I deserve it!”

Suddenly, Fox’s friend Eagle lands in front of Rabbit.

“Oh, hi there Rabbit! I was passing by and couldn’t help overhearing you and Fox! I have

to say, I think I agree with Fox. He did find the cave,” Eagle says. Then, Fox’s other friend

Groundhog pops up from the ground.

“Howdy, Rabbit! Hi there Eagle! I was digging through when I heard y’all talking! I must

say, I also think the cave should go to Fox!” Groundhog adds. Rabbit stands in front of Fox,

Eagle, and Groundhog. Surely, Rabbit thinks to himself, Eagle and Groundhog wouldn’t agree

with Fox if it weren’t right for him to get the cave…

Rabbit looks up at the three friends. “Well… alright. Let’s go back, I’ve made up my

mind.” Then, Rabbit, Fox, Eagle, and Groundhog return to the cave, where they find Bear

waiting.

“Have you decided, Rabbit?” asks Bear, “Wait, what are Eagle and Grou–”

Rabbit, confident he’s making the right choice, stops Bear. “Yes, I have!” says Rabbit,

“After talking to Fox and Eagle and Groundhog, I think the cave should go to Fox, since he

found it first!”

Bear, sad, looks down. “Well, alright I guess. Fair’s fair. I’ll go find another cave…” Bear

says, turning away and walking into the forest.

“Thank you so much, Rabbit, I’m glad you could see reason!” Fox cheers. Eagle and

Groundhog hurry into the cave, excited to explore Fox’s new home.

A few weeks pass and it begins to snow. Rabbit hops along passing by the cave and hears

Fox, Eagle, and Groundhog hollering and having fun. I knew I made the right choice, Rabbit

thought, proud that his choice let the three friends be so happy. Rabbit continues hopping along

until he comes across Bear! But Bear looks sad.

“What’s wrong, Bear?” Rabbit asks.

“Oh, hi Rabbit. I’m sad because I can’t find another cave… I’m too big to fit in small

holes, so I need a big cave to keep warm. Fox can fit into small holes so he didn’t need the

cave… It made me a little upset that you listened to Fox and his friends, but never talked to me,

but you made your choice and I wanted to respect it,” Bear explains. Rabbit looks down. He

didn’t think about how much Bear needed a cave. Fox found the cave first, but he didn’t need it

like Bear did.

“I’m sorry, Bear. I listened to Fox and his friends, but I didn’t listen to you. I should listen

to both sides before making a decision!” Rabbit thinks to himself, then says, “Well, to make

things up to you, how about I help you find a cave!”

Bear looks up. “You mean it?” Bear asks. “Oh, thank you so much Rabbit! Let’s go!”

And so Rabbit and Bear scurry along through the snow, looking to find a new cave for Bear to

hibernate in for the winter.

Writing Project #1: Step 3 - Reflective Essay

The article I chose to focus on for this assignment was “Predicting Online Political

Participation: The Importance of Selection Bias and Selective Exposure in the Online Setting”,

written by Jessica Feezell and published in Political Research Quarterly. This paper detailed a

study conducted by the writer and her associates where they observed how online media affects

political participation, particularly when considering selective exposure. I decided it would be a

fun test of my genre understanding to translate such a serious, rigid genre as a research paper to
 6

the fantastical, childish world of fables. Fables and research papers are, on first glance, utterly

different genres, and upon digging a little deeper it is clear to see that they are not just utterly

different, rather they are antithetical to each other. Research papers are held to extremely high

academic standards. In order to get published, not only must the paper be well written, but the

data it reports must be so accurate and the reasoning so sound it can stand up to the scrutiny of a

panel of experts. They must follow rigid structures and contain highly technical vernacular just

to be considered for publication. Finally, once published, they are quite difficult for the average

person to get a hold of, as they are locked behind expensive journal subscriptions or one-time

purchases. In a stark contrast, fables are completely fictional short stories about talking animals

and morality made for children. Getting published is no easy feat, don’t get me wrong, but

compared to a research paper the standards are not so insurmountable. Once published, they are

extremely easy to access, often sitting around in libraries for free or in book stores for no more

than $15. Fables, at their core, are highly opinionated, where the moral of the story aligns with

the writer's personal beliefs. A fable cares not for data points or bullet proof studies, in fact it

entirely disregards them, favoring fun story telling and a message of morality. The two genres

are intrinsically incompatible, which is what makes translating between the genres so fascinating.

In my translation, the changes I made to the article were drastic, as one might expect. I

decided to chuck out each and every piece of technical information. I retained the spirit of the

findings regardless, demonstrating how a person stumbles into an echo chamber and becomes

more likely to participate in a biased way. Fables are intended for young children, usually not

any older than 8 years– such young kids are likely not going to resonate with a recounting of

numbers and models they don’t understand, much unlike the academics who are familiar with the

vocabulary and who possess a vested interest in the precise numerical findings. Genres, after all,
 7

are tailored for particular audiences, so one must pay attention to how that audience would react

to one’s work. Johns recounts in Discourse Communities and Communities of Practice:

Membership, Conflict, and Diversity her husband’s involvement in the cycling community,

noting “[cycling magazines use] a register that is mysterious to the uninitiated: ‘unified gear

triangle’; ‘metal matrix composite’. Cyclists share values (good health, travel interests), special

knowledge, vocabulary, and genres…”. Genres, especially those more specifically tailored to

certain audiences– such as hobby magazines or fables– need to take special care in the precise

vocabulary and structuring used so as to best meet the audience’s expectations for the given

genre.

Fables are about stories, therefore in place of the data and intense technicality I filled in a

tale about a conniving fox, naive rabbit, and reserved bear. The story, in essence, involved the

rabbit needing to make a decision and being heavily influenced by the fox and his friends while

neglecting the bear. Fables historically were a part of the oral tradition, but as written language

developed and we entered the modern age, they transitioned into being published as short picture

books. As such, much of the prose details the actions and thoughts of the animals. The locations

and appearances don’t need to be written about because it is clearly there as a picture. Despite

the (current) lack of pictures, I decided to abide by this genre convention. In terms of the actual

writing of the story, McCloud’s Writing with Pictures was particularly helpful. In it, he explains

“... your story’s moments should be like a dot-to-dot puzzle. Remove one dot and you change the

shape of the story.” Fables are generally short, and so following McCloud’s advice of having

each and every moment be intentional in progressing the story helped me not only keep it a

reasonable length, but also to maintain a flow in the story from start-to-finish. Additionally,

fables contain opinionated conclusions, where a moral message held by the writer is
 8

communicated to the children. This highly opinionated storytelling is expanded upon by

Rosenberg in her article Reading Games: Strategies for Reading Scholarly Sources, where she

explains “When thinking about the writer, we are particularly interested in clues about the

writer’s motivation and agenda. If we know something about what the writer cares about and is

trying to accomplish, it can help orient us to the reading and understand some of the choices the

writer makes in his or her work.” The presence of a moral stance and how each character is

presented in the fable gives the reader a unique insight to the writer’s stance and purpose in

writing the story. The research paper, however, did not hold any opinions on its findings, instead

opting for a neutral, objective summation of the writer’s findings. They found that selective

exposure of information online can lead to increased political participation, or radicalization. I

had to take some liberties throughout this whole translation, but especially in adapting this

conclusion. I concluded my story with the rabbit learning that selective exposure– in this case

listening solely to the fox and his friends– doesn’t lead to a complete and fair resolution, and that

he should listen to both sides before reaching any certain conclusion. After these changes, we are

left with a piece of work nigh-impossible to recognize as being derived from a research article.

Deprived of its data points and objective standpoint, and injected with fantastical stories and

highly subjective conclusions, one may find any political scientist sorely disappointed and any

child (hopefully) thoroughly engaged.

It was challenging at times, considering just what to keep and what to toss out for

something altogether new, though in the case of two genres so distinct, the answer was often the

latter. It was also somewhat of a challenge limiting my vocabulary and sentence structure to a

level that a young child could understand while not being too repetitive and boring for even a 6

year old. Another challenge I experienced, which was more personal than assignment-related,
 9

was the acceptance that my first draft is what it is. This is something Teaching Two Kinds of

Thinking by Teaching Writing by Elbow helped me with a lot. Elbow describes first-order and

second-order thinking as follows: “First-order thinking is intuitive and creative and doesn’t strive

for conscious direction or control. [...] Second-order thinking is conscious, directed, controlled

thinking.” Understanding the writing process as divided by these two orders of thinking has been

extremely helpful. I can write a rough first draft coasting entirely on first-order thinking, and

then come back with peer review and second-order thinking to analyze what can be improved

and rewrite.

After discussing the antithetical nature of a research paper and fable, one must ask, could

you call this a translation of the article when it retains neither form nor function? Would it then

just be something entirely new, resembling the article in broad topic only? I argue that their

intrinsic incompatibility, their antithetical nature, is precisely what makes this translation work.

No two genres are truly completely compatible, else they would simply be the same genre. Once

you take into account audience, traditional styles, vocabulary, structure, and environment a

message communicated in one genre can be utterly different in another. In choosing two genres

so incompatible, I can emphasize this point– the very nature of genre– to an extreme.

Works Cited

Elbow, Peter. Embracing Contraries: Explorations in Learning and Teaching. NewYork:

Oxford U Press. 1986

Johns, Ann M. “Discourse Communities and Communities of Practice: Membership;

Conflict, and Diversity.” Text, Role, and Context: Developing Academic Literacies, Cambridge,

New York; Cambridge UP, 1997.

McCloud, S. (2008). Making Comics: Storytelling Secrets of Comics, Manga and

Graphic Novels. Harper.

Rosenberg, Karen. “Reading Games: Strategies for Reading Scholarly Sources” Writing

Spaces: Readings on Writing, vol. 2, 2011.