To Agree Or Not To Agree

            That was my question today as I exited my dining hall and walked out into a warm and sunny day on Tremont Street in Boston, to agree or not to agree. Looking around on my walk to the dining hall early I noticed that there were more people than usual walking around the street, particularly on the side of the Boston Common, but feeling the warmth of the suns rays on this Saturday afternoon I attributed it as nothing more that just a nice day in mid October. It wasn’t until I had finished with my lunch and returned to the street that I noticed the police motorcycles and the massive groups of people in the distance waving flags or holding signs and chanting their slogans.

Admittedly this past week I have not gotten around to watching the news so I was uncertain of what this protest or march was and I was most certainly going to watch and find out. The first marchers came closer, carrying a banner that I believe said “veterans for peace” and it appeared for a moment to be a veteran’s march against the wars, and momentarily my curiosity had been resolved.

  Not long had passed, however, before that group with their cause had passed and a different chant could be heard as signs speaking of the 99^th percentile could be seen being help proudly above marcher’s heads. I quickly recognized the slogan from the Occupy Wall Street protest, or more accurately Occupy Boston in this case. This new group of people with different slogans and signs seemed to be a part of this march for a completely different reason than that of the first group. Although his group may agree with the end to the wars, it was that this was not their primary cause.

By this point I had become a fixed spectator of the march, still attempting to decipher what exactly its cause was.

Those participating marched on and with each passing group different chants could be heard, different signs to be displayed. As the arch progressed and I stood on the corner I noticed that causes were getting more and more mixed. There would be one protestor waving a flag with peace proudly displayed on it, and on the right another protestor carrying a sign attacking corporate greed. There was even one man, seemingly alone, who carried a sign attacking the media with a message that I interpreted as calling some media opinionated, telling you what you should think and not just the facts.

As I stood on that corner and read those signs and listened to what these people had to say, I found that I agreed with some things but there were others that I did not. It was this split of my opinions that raised the question, if I were to march with these protestors what would I be marching for?

My first thought was that of compromise. Though all of the protestors had different causes, was it just a thought that something has to change that brought them together? Was it that these people would be able to take a part of each cause in whatever grand solution they were marching for?

My next thought however was that perhaps these protestors were so focused in their own cause that when they all united what they were marching for was more along the lines of anarchy. The idea that they should all be given exactly what they want and no longer want others making any decision for them.

Standing there I asked myself these questions as well as the main one, should I agree or not agree? That is my question, if I joined them would I be supporting all ideas, or just the ones I agreed with or would I just be recognizing that we are all entitled to our beliefs and simply deserve the right to be heard and respected.

In the end I did not join them. Even though I saw some causes I could agree with, I did not know exactly what I would be marching for, or what I would be marching towards, or even if my opinion would be heard in the noise of everyone trying to make their cause the loudest and most prevalent.

That is when I realized that what I wanted to march for. The cause I wanted to promote was this; that we all respect one another, and the opinions that we hold and that we keep an open mind and are willing to entertain other arguments and beliefs of others so that we may find common ground, and a place that we agree.

Writing: Why, How, and If I Do It.

            You are reading this right? You are currently reading my writing word by word, and interpreting each word as well. I write so that you can read, so that you may interpret my words. As I type these letters and words they have no meaning. You, the reader, put meaning in my writing so I write for you. I write so that you may give my words meaning and analyze them so that my ideas can take new life and we can both learn from them. But I admit it is not a purely selfless act. I also write for me. I write so that the thoughts that I have can have a physical representation. Even if you give my words a different meaning, I hope that we can agree on some things and we can both benefit from these words and each other. So why do I write? Unlike Joan Didion who sees writing as “say listen to me, see it my way, change your mind,” I write for us, so we may both interpret my work and learn from it or work off of it.

            A writer needs a reader. Without a reader writing is nothing more than a waste of paper or memory. Speaking of the reader the poet Billy Collins says “it’s not that I cannot live without you,” however I disagree without the reader, Collins writing would be lost and if there was no reader to put meaning in his words than his writing would fall meaningless, dead. Without readers writing is no more than a complicated thought process, it would be only for the writer and that is where it’s so called life would end. But readers do not only give a writers work meaning. In talking about things he does not do to the reader, Collins lists that he does not “hold up my monstrous mirror” and even though writers can show the reflection of the reader in the writing we also see the writer in that mirror. Through the eyes of the reader we can see the personality and styles of the writer and improve them. So yes the writer does need the reader, and the writer also writes in ways so that he or she can keep their reader.

            Every family has a storyteller, mine is no different. Although my mother would love to take the title, she is not; it is my brother Bill, the journalist, who takes this title for my family. Perhaps my brother’s favorite story to tell is of a time when my brothers and I were younger. When we were kids the middle child of me and my two brothers, Patrick, and my brother bill would fight, however pats tactics were a little different. As my brother will tell the story pat was thinking ahead, for on our deck, which was only a step up, we had folding chairs which pat would throw at my brother Billy’s knees. Bill will always blame these instances for his bad knees and admit defeat to my pat. The way Bill tells story like these is with much emotion and humor and is something that has always affected how I myself write or tell stories. My brother’s storytelling techniques have taught me how to use humor to drive a point or keep my listeners and readers interested in what is occasionally a boring subject.

            So even though I have my techniques, and reasons for writing, and the readers to give my words meaning the question still exist whether or not I am a writer. I suppose it depends. Is anyone who sings a singer, and is the person who puts words on the paper the writer? Well if anyone who sings is a singer, than yes I have written so in that aspect I am a writer. However the words I put on the paper do not have meaning until the reader gives them meaning. So if it is the reader that gives the words meaning does that make them the writers? I believe that both are true, anyone who writes can be considered a writer and anyone who reads can also be considered a writer. We are all writers; I have no doubt of that, even if our paper and pen are only our thoughts. So yes I am a writer, and so is anyone reading this.

Bibliography

Collins, Billy. The Flight of the Reader

Didion. Joan. Why I Write

Merh!: What Writing Is, Was, And Will Be

            As far back as you look in human history it can be said that there is some form of writing, whether it is drawings on cave walls or when the first alphabet was actually created. The idea of writing has never really changed, it is used to write down stories and facts and arguments. The materiality of writing on the other hand has had quite the evolution from its early stages. I’m sure that by now you have noticed that you are not reading this paper on a cave wall, so how did we get to this, and why, and where will we go from here. Well There are many historians that can sit down and tell you how writing as we know it came to be, through papyrus, codex and book to where we are now. However what we do not know is where we are going and if this evolution will continue. Right now we are at a crossroads when it comes to writing, we have the printed book, which has been present for quite some time and has dictated the textual word, but at the same time we as a society are starting to explore the new possibilities that writing on the Internet and the computer can offer. Both sides have unique benefits that the other really cannot offer. So truthfully when it comes to the question of where is writing at now, and where is it headed? The best I can do is shrug my shoulders and say “merh”. We are currently at a stand still between the two forms of writing and there’s a possibility that either side could prevail. So we are faced with the decision of whether or not to keep a method that has worked for us for centuries, or to embrace a new method that is still just emerging as a writing tool. To figure out what we should do, we have to first realize what the advantages of both are.

            First let’s start with the advantages that exist in printed text. According to Jay David Bolter “for most of us today, the printed book remains the embodiment of text” (Bolter) and he is right, if I talk about a novel most people would get the image of a book in there heads. The printed text still has a hold on our minds; it is what writing should be for most of us. The majority of people learned how to read out of a textbook or some form of printed text. Because of this, these people will most likely regard the printed book as the primary form of writing, because to those people it is first and it was in much more abundance. There is nothing wrong with the printed book, and because of this and our comfort with it, it is going to make it even harder for us to change from this form of writing. Perhaps the number one thing that the printed book has going for it is that it was first, before the electronic book and the Internet. Seeing as the printed book has always worked, there is no immediate need to fix it. So not only is the new form of writing that replaces going to have to improve on it, but it is going to have to improve on it so much that we are willing to take the chance to switch from the one form of writing to the other.

            The second thing that gives the printed book an advantage is its tangibility. Even Alex Breen in a blog post saying that he became a computer geek admits “I still feel attached to both the physicality and literary structure of a real novel” (Breen). There is something about the feel of a book that captivates people; they are drawn to the touch of the pages, and the ability to turn each individual page as they continue to read. I personally find a comfort in the smell of a new book, and that sent helps me to get lost in the words as the jump off of the pages at me. These are things that electronic books cannot have. EBooks can never imitate the smell or feel of a book, they may be programmed to look like a book and seemingly turn pages the same way a book would, but anyone who has read a book and then used an eBook reading device can tell you that it is not the same thing. Somewhere in the worn down torn up pages of an old book there is a sense of home, and a connection made with everyone else who has read that book before you. An eBook cannot offer that, you cannot see the finger marks on an eBook that you can find on every page of an old book. Printed books become more than just text, they are things that seem to hold not just the story written on it’s pages but also the stories of everyone who has read the book, and new books give you the ability to put your own story on it.

            The eBook on the other hand offers us a range of new abilities with the accompaniment of the Internet. One of these abilities is convenience. With printed books you have to go to a book store to buy the book you want, and once you are there you have to find the book somewhere on the multitude of shelves that fill the store. This problem is eliminated with most eBook readers. Most eBook readers allow you to purchase the book you want from just about anywhere with Internet service. And beyond that you do not have to look through dozens of shelves to find the book you want. Instead you can just type in the title or author into a search bar and the book that you are looking for should come up in a matter of seconds, there for your reading. The convenience of eBooks is a vast improvement over the process of buying printed books, and it also gives you other options in shopping for the book. In most eBook stores you can pull up comments on a book in seconds. This allows you to see what other people think of the book before you actually purchase it so that you can see if it is worth your money, or if it is really what you are looking for.

            The Convenience of the eBook doesn’t stop there however. Using computers and the Internet we can amass a library of thousands of books in a space no larger than your hand. Humans have always tried to organize all of their knowledge and information in one place, it’s this desire that lead to the creation of libraries and encyclopedia. In the form of these computers and trough the Internet we are given another option for gathering all of our information under one roof, so to say. The Internet offers us an ability that has not been truly available, and that is the idea to store all of our books, writings, and teachings in one place for anyone to access. As Bolter says “as full texts become available online, we see the urge to create a ‘universal’ database”(Bolter 93). This quote is saying that because all of these texts and writings are appearing online anyway, we see the opportunity to organize them in one place for everyone to access. This has never been attainable because of the massive amounts of writings and texts. It would take an enormous building to house all of these books, to a point where it would be pointless to even try to get all of these texts in one place. The second reason you would not be able to do this with printed books is because they would all have to be in one location. So say this grand library was in New York, even someone from Boston would have to travel some two hundred miles to use these books, and someone in china would have to travel to the other side of the globe. Using computers and the Internet all of these books could be compressed into one building of memory and using the Internet anyone could access these books from there own computer or eBook reader from all over the world. The eBook and electronic writing gives us large advancements when it comes to the ability to obtain materials as well as the ability to store materials.

            Both of these two options provide something different than the other. In the eBook there is an ability to amass great amounts of information to be accessed my the masses, however to get that you have to give up the comfort and the home-like feeling that people get from printed books. So even examining both sides of this evolution of writing we are still faced with an extremely difficult decision. However the solution may be much easier than we realize. Earlier in this piece I referred to this dilemma of electronic writing versus print writing as being in a state of what I call merh. However perhaps this state is better than we think. In the stand still that we are currently in we get the best of both worlds. Using the Internet and computers we can still distribute writing easily and quickly to the masses. However by keeping printed books as well we create a standard that writers want to meet, to be able to have people by the book in print and receive that home-like feeling of it. I believe that we will not sacrifice the comfort that comes with printed books, because in them we find a tangible escape. At the same time I believe that we will continue to explore what the Internet and electronic writing has to offer because we are always looking to improve upon what we have. So if you ask me what the materiality of writing is now and what it will be, I believe that it is “merh” and I think that it will remain in that state for a long time to come.

Bibliography

Bolter, Jay D. Second Edition ed. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2001. Print.

"Response to Bolter." Breenbrain. Web. 27 Apr. 2011. <http://breenbrain.blogspot.com/2011/03/response-to-bolter.html>.

Chapter 6 Refashioned Dialogues

Observe: In this prezi The group did not only use quotes from the chapter that their presentation is about but also some of their own ideas. The group also used a couple of videos and pictures to aid the argument that they formed in the text. From each statement to the next there is a logical order in which the audience can follow and they will not get lost among random ideas. However even though there is a connection in thought from each point to the next there is not a connection in the orientation of each statement.

Analyze: I think the groups main point was that writing does not need to have one specific structure, but it can be turned and altered to fit each individual writers ideas and form. I think that this point was very strong with things that they did such as the video in which print was reversed as well as the point that was written backwards. I thought that the presentation also showed well the new forms available to us now with computers and pictures. Overall I think the presentation was very clear and well structured… or well not structured whichever the group would prefer.

Question:

Although we do not have just one way of writing anymore do you think that having one structured way has its benefits?

Do you think that experimenting with the structure in which we write will make our writing to confusing and we will lose our points?

Is it possible that with too many forms of writing it will be unclear as to how to read?

Will we keep a similar structure as to what we have now, or will we create something entirely new?

Do we experiment with these structures because our current one is not good enough?

Do you ever think we will settle on just one form of writing?

Reflection on Chapter 5 The Electronic Book

            In our presentation I thought we did a good job of hitting our points, being the history of print leading up to the electronic age as well as how we are using computers to make the book and organization of the book electronic. We tried to show all sides of the argument that we were showing, in that we wanted to present the good eBooks can do as well as the benefits that the printed books have to offer.

            I think that we presented the points and ideas well. I was happy about the order that each quote or idea progressed in. I thought that each statement transition both from the statement before it as well as transitioned into the next quote or statement. We also tried to break up the presentation into three main parts however I was happy that even between these parts we were able to maintain this flow so that although the sections created an order they were not necessary.

            Something that I would’ve like to change in our presentation is I would have liked more audience participation. I feel like we were just presenting facts but were not challenged on them so we did not have to really provide any explanation or back-up to what we were saying. I also would’ve liked a little more free-range discussion. Instead of just staying on one course I would’ve liked to break down and present more of the arguments that exist on the subject that we were presenting instead of just stating some of the facts and our own opinions. However even without these things I was very happy with how the prezi went.

Ch. 4 The Breakout Of The Visual

Observe: This prezi uses purely quotes to for their visual argument, meaning that they did not include any personal thoughts in their presentation. The presentation does include some examples of visuals, such as a graph and an illustration in an early book. The size and orientation of the textual aspects of the prezi vary and have no real order besides a logical sense of what they are saying.

Analyze: The argument that this prezi is making is the importance and significance that visuals have. The presentation argues that in some cases visuals are more powerful than the text itself and hold meaning that words and books cannot. The presentation also talks about how it is becoming more and more common to see a visual to be a representation of the text that it is accompanying. The presentation points out that today even though we have certain textual arguments or stories, we also attempt to make them visual or to add visuals to them to further the point and how the internet is allowing us to do this more and more.

Question:

Do you believe that the visual is in fact more powerful than the text?

When talking about movies, do you think that more people would rather watch the movie or read the book?

For those who would rather watch the movie than read the book, is it because the visual is more powerful or just easy?

Why do you think that in early manuscripts so much effort was put into visuals?

Were visuals left our of printed texts because they were not seen to add much to the text?

Do you think a writing style with purely the visual could ever exist in this age?

Ch. 3 Hypertext and The Remediation of Print

http://prezi.com/ltd96tjbiajm/hypertext/

Observe: In this prezi, the ideas flow into each other one after the other, and are presented to the reader in a logical order that he or she can follow. However even though the ideas are presented in a logical sequence the physical action of moving from one idea to the next in the prezi is somewhat random, as is the size and orientation of the words. The prezi not only use quotes but also statements from the creators. This prezi also uses pictures and a video along with the written aspect.

Analyze: This prezi does not have a real argument to it, its main point is to explain the concept of hypertext to its viewer. The points addressed in the prezi explain what hypertext is as well as what it offers and how it is used. The presenters tried to argue that hypertext is a large improvement, being able to directly link one material to another.

Questions:

Where did this idea come from, as in what brought about the idea of connecting texts and ideas?

Can Hypertext worsen an argument by linking to an irrelevant piece of writing?

Along with Hypertext is there the risk that the reader continues to go from page to page and never returns to finish the original?

Is Hypertext a new thing, or just an easier way of doing something we had in the form of an index?

Does Hypertext change the way we write or does it just offer a new way to read?

Can it be said that this prezi is a form of hypertext, bringing you from media to media and idea to idea?

Blind Write

The following was typed without the use of a monitor:

            Every family has a storyteller, mine is no different. Although my mother would love to take the title, she is not, it is my brother Bill, the journalist, who takes this title for my family.Perhaps my brothers favorite story to tell is of a time when me an my brothers were younger. When we were kids the middle child of me and my two brothers, Patrick,  and my brother bill would fight, however pats tactics were a little different. As my brother will tell the story pat was thinking ahead, for on our deck, which was only a tep up, we had folding chairs which pat would throw at my brother billy’s knees. Bill will always blaim these instances for his bad knees and admit defeat to my pat. The way Bill tells story like these is with much emotion and humor and is something that has always affected how I myself write or tell stories. My brothers storytelling techniques have taught me  me how to use humor to drive a point or keep my listeners and readers interested in what is occasionally a boring subject.

Visual Argument On The Word Part

http://www.box.net/shared/hfuok2n9x5

            The existence of a visual argument is difficult to prove, however this was my goal when I created a project on a visual argument for the word part. In the project I attempted to argue the idea that everything is a part of something bigger. How I went about doing this was by first showing images that were purely isolated parts such as a slice of pizza, a car wheel, or one skyscraper in a skyline. These were my parts however I needed to show that they were all part of something bigger. To accomplish this I then took the pictures of the isolated parts and had the whole of the picture fade in around the, such as the pizza slice turning into a pizza, the wheel turning into the whole car, and the one skyscraper joined by others to make a city skyline.

            For an argument to exist it must be able to be rejected or accepted. In this project, the argument is that everything is a part of something bigger. In J. Anthony Blair’s article he expresses that “claims and reasons have to be propositional” meaning that you cannot simply present facts as an argument. In my project I believe that you can argue that the first set of pictures, what I call the parts, are not parts but whole things themselves although the presentation is trying to show that they are still a part of something bigger. For instance, it can be said that the example in the presentation of a lone skyscraper in a city skyline is simply that, a lone skyscraper. The presentation later shows that, the same skyscraper, is only one building out of many in the same picture. This is showing that although the argument exists that the first skyscraper is just a skyscraper it is also part of a bigger collection of buildings. So in the presentation there are two views that can be taken on each example, however the presentation is trying to make one of those views apparent as well as argue that view. I think that in this way my presentation meets Blair’s standards for an argument.

            One requirement for a visual argument is the argument itself and that it can be expressed. The argument in my project is that everything is a part of something bigger. The way that the project goes about showing this is that it takes the parts introduced in the first set of pictures, and in the second set of pictures transforms the one part into a whole of something else. The project clearly expresses this in the transformation of one part into the bigger picture. When the part transforms into the bigger picture it is showing how it contributes to the whole, and that that one part in needed. This is how the argument of everything being a part of a bigger picture is presented in the project.

            The project was not set up to be predictable, but rather to lead you to its point step by step, picture by picture. However once the viewer understands the pattern of how each part transformed into the whole picture it was taken out of then it becomes predictable. At this point you stop seeing each picture as just one part, but what it is part of. Once the viewer starts predicting the part as what it is part of then they are agreeing with the argument that everything is a part of something else, and they are now looking for what the images are a part of. The final transition of images is from a picture of a woman to a picture of earth, implying that each person is part of the earth. This final transition is attempting to bring the viewer to recognize a common idea that we are all part of a global community, so that the viewer see’s themselves as a part, as well as see what they are a part of. In doing this, the presentation feeds on the common idea that most are familiar with to personalize its point.

            In setting up my project, the organization of the pictures was crucial to my method of argument. As Gunther Kress said “Meaning… is attached ‘being first’ and to ‘being last’” which is something that held very true in the presentation of my argument. My project was structured to show isolated parts at first, and then show each of these parts fading into a whole of something bigger. However if I were to reverse the order in which I showed these two things, the whole picture fading into one part, the message that would become more prevalent is that every whole can be broken up into parts, as opposed to everything is a part of a bigger whole. This shows how important the arrangement of images is in a visual argument, the same pictures could be present but in a different order and that would change the message a viewer would get.

            The visual arguments that were presented in class all presented each respective point well. The combination of the pictures in each presentation as well as how they were set up helped to lead the audience to the point as well as provide evidence to it. However without the multiple pictures and structure of the presentations I do not believe that the arguments could have been present without a verbal explanation. So although a visual argument is not as powerful as a verbal argument, in which you can outline your exact points, the visual argument can still present evidence to lead the viewer to a conclusion in an argument. However even though a visual argument may not be able to pinpoint an exact argument, it can transfer a way of thinking, emotion, or felling that may not be present in black and white words on a page. A visual argument is a unique way of presenting a point however the clearest method of argument is still verbally, but if you put the two methods together than the argument can truly be powerful.

  

Bibliography

Blair, J. Anthony. “Argumentation and Advocacy”. River Falls: 1996

Kress, Gunther. “Literacy In The New Media Age”. New York: Routledge, 2003

Faster Than A Speeding Book

            The combination of the computer and the Internet has definitely changed the way in which we receive and create writing in many ways. However perhaps the greatest way that this combination has changed writing is the speed in which it can be distributed. Thanks to the Internet we can post a piece of writing and it will be available for viewing in only a matter of seconds by an enormous audience. In the case of printed or handwritten writing you only have one copy of the work and must find a way to distribute it to a large audience and then have it shipped out, a process that may take days, or months just to distribute the material. However with the Internet I can upload this post tonight and my mother, who is around three hundred miles away, can read it a few seconds later. Distribution of the written piece is not the only thing that the Internet speeds up however. Although things such as letters to the editor have existed for some time comments and criticism have never been able to be viewed so quickly as they are by using the Internet. The Internet allows for comments to be put up almost instantly. The speed of the Internet is a great improvement over the speed of printed text, allowing for ideas to be distributed faster, and for feedback to be received faster.

Chapter Two of Writing Spaces

            In Bolter’s Chapter on writing as technology he argues that every instance of writing in history has been technological. Bolter first builds his argument on the idea that the word technology comes from the Greek word techne, which means an art or craft. In this I believe Bolter is completely correct seeing as writing is not something that we are born to do, but a skill that we learn. However even past this idea Bolter uses the point that even a modern day pen is technology, making writing with pen and paper, something that we see as traditional, writing with technology. The pen is not a natural thing, but rather a mechanized device that we have created to make writing easier. The word processor can be seen in the same light of the pen, it is not natural; it is something that we as humans created to make writing simpler for ourselves. So in this sense it is not writing with technology that is new to us, but rather the form that the writing is in is the change, such as being on paper, or on a screen. The computer and Internet create a new medium in which we can receive and create writings, however the technological aspect of writing is nothing new to the history of the written word.

Don't Worry Billy, I'll Answer

In the last three stanzas, what motivated you to turn the speaker’s attention to him/herself?

            I think that turning the attention to the speaker was an effort at ridiculousness. In doing this it just discredits the style of this type of poetry and makes it laughable. By bringing the attention to the speaker Collins is further discrediting this style of writing that he is trying to put down.

Do you have something against metaphor or simply the over-the-top or ludicrous metaphor?

            I don not believe that Billy Collins has anything against metaphors as a hole, but that he has something against this style of using metaphors. Collins is targeting this one ideal for metaphors, comparing a beloved to something otherwise random. This style is something that when truly analyzed does not have much meaning when it comes down to the picture of metaphors and I think that is what Collins is saying.

Do you always read poems critically; if so why?

            I think that Billy Collins, as a poet, would read most poetry rather critically, both so that he may find errors and so that he can find ideas. I think in reading anything critically you don’t only find things you don’t like but also things you wouldn’t change and you can learn from what you think is good as well as get an idea because of someone else’s ideas. However I think it must also be important to find mistakes so that when writing your own pieces you do not make the same mistakes.

Sample U

            In sample u, part four it says that the predictability of images is key to a visual argument. However I disagree, I believe you may be able to get an even stronger point across if the audience is left confused at first. In presenting the argument through predictable pictures you are telling your audience your point, no different then writing the phrase down and giving it to them. If you first confuse the audience on the other hand, when your point does become clear it allows them to have arrived to it on their own, creating a kind of “oh” factor. I believe that this “oh” factor creates a greater understanding and agreement from the audience that cannot be produced by pure predictability.

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?

Justifying Choices

I agree with Will’s statements about how we as writers are expected to follow a certain rubric, restricting us from truly being creative. I think that as Will said, there are certain rules about how we write so that it is our words that paint the picture, not the layout itself. I think that there are types of writing that you want to express the creativity, and express meaning in presentation as well as your words. However I think that in a writing paper where the focus is how we write and how we present an argument in our words, than it is best to have a simple layout that highlights the words instead of the paper. The “societal norms” that will talks about I believe are there so that we can have our argument be the focal point of a paper, so that you’re opinions are not agreed with just because they look pretty. We write in the bland style that we have so that our arguments can be truly examined for how we describe them in our words, and that we can learn to do it better as well. So I do agree with Will that we have these norms for a reason, and that the reasons are valid.

How Do I Know This Is Good? Sample H

Reasons I Was Moved

-       - The author brought up points that brought up points that made me wonder why I got an iPod.

-       - The use of facts and statistics in the paper gave more power and substance to the argument

-       - References to how the iPod may advance mad me consider the future of the product

-       - The different attractive features of the iPod mentioned helped show why it is popular

-       - Giving reasons how the iPod became the most popular music plaver, over its competitors

-       - The papr talked about the premise of “cool” and how that helped the iPods popularity

Reasons I Was Unmoved

-      -  There were parts when the paper felt repetitive

-       - There were occasionally unnecessary words that took out of the flow of the writing

-       - At times the paper read more like an informational paper on the iPod than a comparison to society

-       - Did not talk about iPods with an older generation

-       - Focused on younger generations instead of a whole

-       - The paper had a focus on the capabilities and advances of the iPod, but not why they where there or what the said about society

How Do I Know This Is Good? Sample G

Reasons I Was Moved

-       - The paper immediately tells you what it is about and what it will be trying to prove, pulling the reader in.

-       - It gives examples of everyday American life, and then ties it in to Red Bull

-       - The research and quotes used help to make the paper more convincing

-       - The paper has the fast-paced mentality that it is saying society as a whole has

-       - The comparison of success of Red Bull versus the lack of success of relaxation drinks

-       - The use of Red Bull’s advertising slogan to prove a point and talk about society

Reasons I Was Unmoved

-       - The fast-paced rhythm of the paper made it feel like you were getting a lot at once

-      -  There were not many transitions between ideas

-       - Although the paper listed stressful situations it did not say how Red Bull would be appealing to them

-       - There were a few typos, which mad the paper seem less professional

-       - Although the ideas were comparing society to Red Bull, it felt like there were long stretches in between them

-       - The papers main tying points were only the beginning and the end and felt like the middle was different arguments, not tied in until the end

Spring Come Early? Was The Groundhog Right?

            It’s a beautiful 48 degrees out which is something that on a Friday in February, is probably the last thing I’d expect. I woke up this morning expecting to put on my coat and speed walk to my classes, hoping that I wouldn’t freeze in the process. But to my surprise when I left my dorm this morning I quickly realized that, with the sun shining down on me, I didn’t even need my winter jacket today. Walking around campus the smell of melting snow and warm grass hit me like a long waited for sign of spring. Although I realize that spring is still over a month away, and in 5 days I’ll be speed walking to class again, it was a nice present from Mother Nature for at least a day.

Billy Collins' "Litany"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=56Iq3PbSWZY

Questions For The Author

Q1: What possessed you to take the original poem and change it in this manner?

Q2: Did you purposely choose to make some of your metaphors ridiculous?

Q3: Why put personal metaphors in as well?

Q4: Was there intended hidden meaning behind any metaphors, or was it their pure ridiculousness”

Q5: Why end with the same metaphor that you started with?

Q6: Were any other ideas or metaphors taken from the original poem?

And although this assignment only called for 6 questions I have a seventh.

Q7: If she isn’t the pine-scented air, can I call dibs on that?

The Three Letters That Rule My Life

            MLA. These Three simple letters have dictated a large amount of my career as a student, but the truth of the matter is I do not know why. Since I was in about sixth grade I was given this rubric for how my writing should be, black ink, 1 inch margins, double space, name and page number in the header, and a proper heading. It was never really explained to me why everything had to be like this, in fact the more I think about it the more I feel like a citizen in George Orwell’s 1984, blindly following the bland style that I was told I should.

            When I was first asked why my papers looked like this, why they were in this format, my mind went back to my junior year English teacher. I waned to write her a letter telling her that, although she made sure we knew how to write in MLA format, she never told us why we did it, and because of that she should write this explanation for me. However I realized that my letter would most likely go unanswered, so I started to honestly think about it.

            I believe the most logical reason that we are taught to write in this form is so that papers can be uniform. It’s easier to grade a paper if there’s a rubric to it, if there is a set up that is ordered and logical. It may feel like a bit of brain washing. But writing in This MLA format makes it easier for our errors to be critiqued. In one standard form we know what is expected, and we can build off of that, and work on the flaws in our writing while still having something to lean on. So although I still cannot tell you exactly why I write in the format that I write in, I can tell you that there is logic in writing in a standard format. It gives us something to work off of and learn with.

Don Stap's "Flight of the Kuaka"

            In Don Stap’s article “Flight of The Kuaka” he describes his experience in capturing Bar-tailed Godwits, a type of bird that migrates from Alaska to New Zealand each year. Stap also explains how this bird’s species is endangered and facing new challenges in the changing world.  The first thing I noticed about the article is the story that Stap presents you with. He describes to you his experience of capturing the bird and, using descriptive language, brings you along with him on this journey. However you soon notice that this article is much more than just a story.

            Stap’s writing soon takes a turn into a more scientific approach. The writing uses terms from the bird watching community that may be lost upon the average reader. Stap does not give his readers much of a definition for some of the terms, which leave the reader to continue on and have to fill in the blanks. The article appears to be readers within the bird enthusiast community as opposed to the average reader.

Definitions and Metaphors In Jonah Lehrer's "DON'T!"

Mark each time Lehrer offers a definition. How elaborate is each definition? What does the sequence of these mean in aggregate?

“There is something deeply contradictory about Walter Mischel—a psychologist who spent decades critiquing the validity of personality tests—inventing the marshmallow task, a simple test with impressive predictive power.” (paragraph 18)

““Young kids are pure id,’ Mischel says. ‘They start off unable to wait for anything—whatever they want they need. But then, as I watched my own kids, I marveled at how they gradually learned how to delay and how that made so many other things possible.’” (paragraph 19)

“What, then, determined self-control? Mischel’s conclusion, based on hundreds of hours of observation, was that the crucial skill was the ‘strategic allocation of attention.’ Instead of getting obsessed with the marshmallow—the ‘hot stimulus’—the patient children distracted themselves by covering their eyes, pretending to play hide-and-seek underneath the desk, or singing songs from ‘Sesame Street.’” (paragraph 22)

“‘If you’re thinking about the marshmallow and how delicious it is, then you’re going to eat it,’ Mischel says. ‘The key is to avoid thinking about it in the first place.’ \ In adults, this skill is often referred to as metacognition, or thinking about thinking, and it’s what allows people to outsmart their shortcomings.” (paragraph 23)

“The early appearance of the ability to delay suggest that is has a genetic origin, an example of personality at its most predetermined.” (paragraph 26)

“Two of the experiments were of particular interest. The first is a straightforward exercise known as the ‘suppression task.’ Subjects are given four random words, two printed in blue and two in red. After reading the words, they’re told to forget the blue words and remember the red words. Then the scientists provide a stream of ‘probe words’ and ask the subjects whether the probes are the words they were asked to remember.” (paragraph 30)

“In the second, known as the Go/No Go task, subjects are flashed a set of faces with various expressions. At first, they are told to press the space bar whenever they see a smile. This tasks little effort, since smiling faces automatically trigger what’s known as ‘approach behavior.’” (paragraph 31)

“Approach behavior” is the most interesting term here, letting its connotative meaning shine.

“For the most part, the regions are in the frontal cortex—the overhang of brain behind the eyes—and include the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, the anterior prefrontal cortex, the anterior cingulate, and the right and left inferior frontal gyri. While these cortical folds have long been associated with self-control, they’re also essential for working memory and directed attention. According to the scientists, that’s not an accident. ‘These are powerful instincts telling us to reach for the marshmallow or press the space bar,’ Jonides says. ‘The only way to defeat them is to avoid them, and that means paying attention to something else. We call that will power, but it’s got nothing to do with the will.’’” (paragraph 33)

            What I found interesting about all of the definitions used in Lehrer’s article was what they where defining. In the first couple of definitions that we see, they are not so much definitions of words as much as they as they are explanation of an idea. These definitions are not simply telling us what a word means but instead they are telling us how an idea works and why it is present in the experiments.  It isn’t until later in the article that Lehrer starts using scientific definitions. It’s in these definitions that we are actually told the meaning of a term used in the article. What this tells me about Lehrer’s writing is that he uses words that the readers will know, allowing the reader to follow the article without feeling as if it is a science textbook. However when it is necessary to define a term Lehrer is not afraid to explain what it means even if it does momentarily take you out of the flow of his article.

Have you found any metaphors in this text?  Did you expect to find metaphors or metaphoric language in a scientific text?

“One of Mischel’s favorite metaphors for this model of personality, known as interactionism, concerns a car making a screeching noise. How does a mechanic solve the problem? He begins by trying to identify the specific conditions that trigger the noise. Is there a screech when the car is accelerating, or when it’s shifting gears, or turning at slow speeds? Unless the mechanic can give the screech a context, he’ll never find the broken part.” (paragraph 19)

“In adults, this skill is often referred to as metacognition, or thinking about thinking, and it’s what allows people to outsmart their shortcomings. (When Odysseus had himself tied to the ship’s mast, he was using some of the skills of metacognition: knowing he wouldn’t be able to resist the Sirens’ song, he made it impossible to give in.)” (paragraph 23)

            I did not find too many big metaphors in the text however there were a couple. I think that the metaphors serve a big purpose in a scientific text because it relates something that is very large and compares it to something that the normal reader can understand. I think that the metaphors in a scientific text allow the common reader to understand what is happening without having to know the exact process and hypothesis behind the procedure.

Ideas, Ideas, And One More Idea

 “In thinking about an idea, many sentences and ideas can be drawn by using detailed words within the idea”

            The idea of this sentence of ideas is correct, however I for one have heard the word idea to many times at this point. At its base, this quote is saying when you have a thought it can branch of into many other thoughts. Although that this statement may be true, I believe the quote goes about saying it the wrong way. As I mentioned the first thing I noticed is how sick of the word idea I got by the end of it. Also the sentence feels as though it could be separated into two different sentences. If the writer broke the sentence up into one or two sentences, each explaining a part of the process described in the original, then it might make it easier to understand. Breaking up the sentence may also allow the writer to better convey what it is he or she means. I believe the sentence does get its point across, but that it could do so more clearly and creating more flow if it is approached differently, such as breaking it up.

Not Missing Our Train of Thought

            “Metacognition, thinking about thinking, and it’s what allows people to outsmart their shortcomings”. Thinking about thinking is understanding how you think. For instance a thought process might be connected like such “why is the sky blue? I’d like my hair blue. That girls laptop is blue”. Then once you snap out of it you are back to thinking on your previous thoughts. You can think about thought patterns and change them at your own will, which can eliminate negative thought tracks, or behaviors. To find out these patterns of thought we engage in metacognition. An example of this may be an overweight teenager wondering why he or she possesses the urge to eat the unhealthy products advertised to young consumers. However if we know why we are thinking what we are thinking then we can counter it and adjust the thought process however we may want. For instance if the same overweight teen knew why he or she was having the urge to eat these unhealthy products, he or she would be able to substitute it for another thought that may change the outcome.

Where Are My Wings?

            If we are what we consume then I’m surprised that America hasn’t already sprouted wings and flown away already. After all weren’t we promised to get wings somewhere in the form of the energy drinks that we crave for, and when talking about energy drinks what better brand to mention then red bull? Well I for one am still bound by the laws of gravity. With energy drinks such as Red Bull we expect a jolt of energy to replace the sleep we miss and the relaxation that we are too busy for. However energy drinks truly do not offer anymore of a jolt then a cup of coffee or caffeinated soda, and are merely sold to use on the appeal of quick energy when we need it.

            It has been said that since the beginning of time man has dreamed of conquering the skies, we thought we were close with the Wright brothers but now we have Red Bull to help us fly, or at least that’s what their commercials say. Red Bull feeds on one of Man’s oldest desires, to rule the sky, what a powerful thought. Well unfortunately it is not true, red bull does not give you wings, at least not that we know, but then who knows what the long term side effects of those ingredients will be. So what Red bull is actually doing is tapping into the power that consumers associate with the ability to fly and telling us that we can get that exhilaration form their product.

            The other thing that Red Bull offers us is a quick fix to day-to-day situations. It seems that in the animated ads, every problem or funny anecdote is solved by a can of Red Bull. One that comes to mind is a commercial in which we are at an older man, presumably a grandfather’s funeral when we see the grandfather in the clouds flirting, the grandmother then pulls a red bull out of her purse to fly up and pull him away. Now I don’t think my grandmother carries around a Red Bull in her purse next to the hard candy and cough drops, however if she did that scenario would be quite convenient. But no once again the producers of this commercial are only appealing to our desire for immediate gratification, and our love of humor.

            With what I have said in mind it is both impressing and sad at how the producers of these commercials have America’s consumers pegged. We as consumers are well, for a lack of a better word, consumed with the ideas of power, exhilaration, immediate gratification, and who doesn’t love a little laugh. We are all looking for a quick and easy way to get something that we would otherwise have to make time and effort to gain such as a solution to a problem or energy and rest. So as far as the ideas that Red Bull is targeting to get us to buy into the product, well then yes we are what we consume.

You Can Shine!... Or Can You?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Um9KsrH377A

            The link above is a Pantene commercial that ends with the slogan “you can shine”, however my question is if that is what they really want you to believe that you can. The commercial is about a blind violinist who, through practice, hard work, and the help of an unidentified street “hero”, makes it to a classical music competition and seemingly wins it. Now there is no doubt in my mind that this is an inspirational story illustrating how the ability exists to “shine”. However I am questioning how Pantene wants you to shine.

            The first thing you have to notice is that this is in fact a commercial, used to attempt to sell you a product. Secondly the company that produces this commercial does not sell violins, they sell shampoo. Knowing this you have to ask in what way are they saying you can “shine”? The company feeds you a breath-taking story, which feels as if it should be produced as a feature film, about how this girl accomplished her dreams. However it is then that the commercial says to you “she did all this, but the best you can do to shine is use our product”.

            The commercial creates a “fairytale effect” that causes its viewer to dream big and then takes that dream and replaces it with their product. So the commercial, although it seems to be building up you hope and ambitions, was actually designed to tell you that you cannot reach your dreams. It is after this that the commercial offers an alternate to your dreams with their product, to tell you that you cannot accomplish your dreams but you might as well look like the kind of person that does accomplish his or her dream. So can we all shine? That’s not up to me; it is up to each individual himself or herself. However for the sake of the commercial, even though they say “you can shine” they do want you to feel as though you can shine, but at the same time they want you to believe that the best you can shine is using their product.

Writing With a Crayon

Writing an assignment in crayon definitely gave it a different feel. With an ordinary assignment I find myself focused on more of the words, structure, and ideas actually going into the essay. However writing with a crayon made me think more creatively. I started wondering how the assignment would look and what I could do with the paragraphs visually. I think this aspect of creativity to my writing, giving it more meaning with this newfound visual aspect. This aspect did not take away from the writing but I believe it added to it and enhanced it by visually showing an aspect of my argument. Writing with the crayon was definitely a different experienced and flowed well with my argument.

I think a culture that only wrote in crayons would have more of a connection between the visual and factual aspects of writing. This would be a change from our culture, which mainly writes in one solid color like black, using only the words themselves to emphasize our points. This new culture however would have the ability or desire to convey the meaning of writing not only in words but also in color, presentation, and pictures. Perhaps the greatest use of writing in this culture would be one that uses both the visual aspect of writing as well as the basic part of it.

It is different writing with things other then just a pen and notebook paper. I think anyone can agree to that. However this thought makes me think what it would be like to write with something such as painting supplies, and how different materials can offer different ways of conveying a message. I think that how you perceive your writing material will affect how you write with it. For instance writing with art supplies may force you to be more decorative with your writing. This leads me to think how these different materials may change my writing.