Hubris at Zunzal, and Meaning at Nowhere

            I believe it is in the second stanza that Jones rejects language as expressing meaning. In the second stanza we are thrown images however not given anything to connect them with. The images are placed into our mind however we are not able to have an “oh” moment where we understand what the message is. The language paints us the picture however without something else there is no meaning in each image.

I Think I Know?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SCNIBV87wV4

http://www.taylormali.com/index.cfm?webid=9

           In these two presentations of Taylor Mali’s “like you know”, both offer a form of performance that enhances the words being used. The actual performance by Mali gave the poem much more meaning with his actions and expressions. However I found it very interesting how if you follow how the words appear on the screen in the “textual” representation it offers up its own performance. The words on the screen convey emotion with the pause, or position, or size in which they appear. I think both these forms enhance the original writing and both offer their own form of expression of the writing.

Falling Apart At The Seams: A Response To Shelley Jackson's Stitch Bitch

http://web.mit.edu/comm-forum/papers/jackson.html

Body Not Whole

            In this section of the text Jackson states that we are not one body, but hundreds of things that only appear from a distance as one body. Ok, fine, yes that is correct. However every one little thing works together in a harmony of sorts. In our body if our lungs are not attached you our throat, well I quite frankly just would not work the same, would it? Even though each separate part works on it’s own if you were to move it’s location it may not work the same, or at all. I think the same is true for writing, yes everything can stand on its own, but order is still very much important and can help to make a stronger point. Even in Jackson’s writing, how she proves her point is by not having an order, however it is meant to not have a true order and if you gave it one it would not have the same affect.

Constraints & The Book

            In this section Jackson says that there is more than just our, so-called, traditional way of writing. Once more I both agree and disagree with Jackson, yes these constraints are not the only ones however it is impossible to write without constraint. We need to break the constraints that we keep because it is how we advance and learn more. However even a writing style without constraints has the constraint that you cannot introduce rules. So although fixed constraints are not necessary, constraints are unavoidable.

Stitch Bitch Ink Shed

“We might find ourselves perplexed by that miniature blackout as by any intrusive authorial device” I find this quote very insightful because it is true if you think about it. When I’m reading and turn the page sometimes I look back at the previous page because the writing was not cohesive. If I get interrupted when reading and have to start at the top of the page again without seeing the entire sentence, my thoughts often don’t make sense. The entire sentence, regardless of the page, is necessary for comprehension. Cohesiveness is key to writing and reading as well. It is frustrating when the reader gets lost in translation, it’s hard to regroup thoughts and turn back to the previous page, and you lose focus if you are interrupted.

The Cell Phone and Text as an Image

            One hand is stirring the mixture of melted butter and sugar, as the other hand is adding a mixture of eggs and vanilla extract. As I’m mixing all of my ingredients for my chocolate chip cookies, I do not have the ability to think about a conversation on the phone, and I definitely do not have the free hand needed to hold my cell phone. My solution? texting. It is much easier to take a 30 second break in between the madness that is flour, sugar and baking soda flying everywhere than to hold a phone between my head and shoulders trying to focus on everything I am doing and a conversation. Texting is an easier way to go about a conversation without taking up and hour or so of my day to hold a conversation with someone and not do anything else. With texting I am allowed to continue a conversation with the many aspects of my day.

Why Can't This and That Ever Just Get Along?

            In J. David Bolter’s book Writing Space, he cites Victor Hugo’s Notre-Dame de Paris, in the idea “this will destroy that”. Bolter uses this quote and brings it to modern times asking will print being put on computers destroy the physical book, will this destroy that.

            When it comes to this argument of printed text versus the computer and who will win, my question is why are they fighting? It is no question that these two forms of writing or publishing are different, when something is published in a physical book and distributed it is almost impossible to fix an error with it, and when something is put on the computer an error or typo can be fixed almost immediately. Beyond that the physical book creates more of a home-like feeling, being able to touch the words and turn the page, where as the computer is a brightly lit screen where the words seem t just continue without a break. So there is no arguing that the two means of writing are different, however just because they are different must we pick one? Can’t we take both methods for what they have to offer? The book for it’s home-like feeling that allows a story to come alive in your hands, and the computer for its precision and open-endedness. I believe the two can exist both separately but together so that we never have to choose the strengths of one and lose the strengths of another.

You Took The Moon, But Could You Leave The Stars?

            We’ve all heard it before, that the moon is made out of cheese. But my question is why can’t it be? Why can’t we go around hypothesizing that the moon is made of cheese, or that Marvin the Martian is flying around somewhere in space? No, instead NASA had to ruin the moon and prove that it, unfortunately, is not made of cheese. I understand that it was a great mystery that needed to be solved, reaching the moon, or whether or not aliens lived on mars, and why we wanted to find out, but I also wonder if maybe it was better when we didn’t know. Throughout history humankind has always looked to so called frontiers as a source of adventure, but they were and still are more than that. They are a source of dreams and fantasies, a place where we can escape our everyday life to visit something extraordinary. As we grow we learn that fairytales and stories from our childhood are not true, that superpowers are not real, and that prince charming did not wake snow white with a kiss. However even though we may learn that these fantasies are not real in our world, who is to say that they aren’t in another? Sometimes we as humans need this escape, to a place that, even though it may not exist, is much more spectacular than our day to day life and seeing as we have proven that it wasn’t in the new world, it wasn’t in the wild west, and it wasn’t even on the cheeseless moon, well maybe it is somewhere amongst the stars. So I understand that we all want to know the answers to life’s mysteries, but maybe the secret of these mysteries is not so much in the solution but in the mystery itself. So I ask you, as a dreamer, even though the fantasies of the moon were taken, can we keep the dreams of the stars alive?