In Amy J. Devitt, Anis Bawarshi, and Mary Jo Reiff's article, "Materiality and Genre in the Study of Discourse Communities," these three writers put their ideas all into the same article so the reader can compare and contrast between the three. 
     In Amy's aritcle, she explains how different discourse communities collide through legal genre.  She uses things like tax forms, ballot questions, and jury instructions as an example.  She explains that these three different genres depend on human actions, and the the cooperation participants for different communities. She ends discussing that these simple things have a serious effect on people's lives. 
     In Anis's article, she tells the reader that the word genre comes from the French, and means "sort" or "kind".  Anis talks about a patient's medical history form is a commonly used medical genre, and is a good way to understand how doctors function and how they treat their patient.  She uses the student Michael as an example, and says he learns to play 'the language game.'  He becomes part of the community within social work. 
     In Mary's article, she explains how Charles Bazerman describes genres as 'road maps,' and student writers have to navigate the landscape.  She puts her article into different goals, and genres.  She uses Susan, a pre-law student as an example as she would carry her mini-ethnography on the law community.  To understand the people's different values, beliefs, and knowledge of the communities, Susan considered genres as opinions, deeds, contracts or wills.  Ethnography is both a research and an approach to genre analysis. 

COMPARE
     I would compare these three readings put into one with the readings this past week talking about the different discourse communities.  I would base this mainly off of James Paul Gee's article, because they all explain their views and ideas on how discourse communities are based, whether it is on values, believes, wills, etc.  This article has put three different perspectives into one, while Gee puts his perspective into four different categories, such as dominant, non-dominant, secondary, and primary discourses. 

     Overall, I enjoyed reading the three different articles.  They made sense to me, and gave me more of a clear understanding of discourse communities, and different perspectives which they could be viewed as.  I really liked how instead of just clumping the three ideas all together, they used different subheadings, titles, and told who had which idea, and thoroughly explained.  It would be almost possible for someone not to be able to follow the article.