Sunday, December 6, 2009
Saturday, December 5, 2009
This Is It.
It's hard to believe this is my last blog post.
Thankfully, they went a lot better than I expected.
I wonder if I'm going to miss this??
One aspect of this class that I have particularly enjoyed has been noting its relevence to my life and connecting the material to areas outside the English classroom. On more than one occasion I was able to think about topics I was learning about in my Sociology class in terms of the information I was learning in this English class, and vice versa. Both classes, for example, discussed how the media and technology affect our society, particularly our education system. In this class, we noted how the internet has in some ways made us dumber, and learned from Chris Hedges the dangers of illiteracy. In my Sociology class however, I learned about a study concerning cell phone technology and its effects on literacy. Surprisingly, the study found that those who use "text language" actually do better in English classes. Apparently being able to make abbreviations and phonetically shorten words proves a deep understanding of the English language. So, from both courses, I was able to learn about both the good and bad effects of technology.
I have also found that this class has subtley changed the way I read and write on the internet. Before, I would never go to the web to seek out news. Actually, I wouldn't really go much of anywhere to seek out the news. Now however, I am a regular reader of the New York Times and The Daily Dish and I like it. It feels good to have some useful knowledge and to be up to date on some local, national, and even global issues. Reading online, like writing online, is not as difficult as I thought it would be.
Finally, as corny as it sounds, I think I have gained a new appreciation for writing and reading. I have learned that not everyone values these things anymore. There are many people who no longer even take the time to fully digest a text or even attempt to put their thoughts into written words. Knowing these things makes me treasure my own simple abilities to read and write and encourages me to work harder to preserve them.
Thankfully, they went a lot better than I expected.
I wonder if I'm going to miss this??
One aspect of this class that I have particularly enjoyed has been noting its relevence to my life and connecting the material to areas outside the English classroom. On more than one occasion I was able to think about topics I was learning about in my Sociology class in terms of the information I was learning in this English class, and vice versa. Both classes, for example, discussed how the media and technology affect our society, particularly our education system. In this class, we noted how the internet has in some ways made us dumber, and learned from Chris Hedges the dangers of illiteracy. In my Sociology class however, I learned about a study concerning cell phone technology and its effects on literacy. Surprisingly, the study found that those who use "text language" actually do better in English classes. Apparently being able to make abbreviations and phonetically shorten words proves a deep understanding of the English language. So, from both courses, I was able to learn about both the good and bad effects of technology.
I have also found that this class has subtley changed the way I read and write on the internet. Before, I would never go to the web to seek out news. Actually, I wouldn't really go much of anywhere to seek out the news. Now however, I am a regular reader of the New York Times and The Daily Dish and I like it. It feels good to have some useful knowledge and to be up to date on some local, national, and even global issues. Reading online, like writing online, is not as difficult as I thought it would be.
Finally, as corny as it sounds, I think I have gained a new appreciation for writing and reading. I have learned that not everyone values these things anymore. There are many people who no longer even take the time to fully digest a text or even attempt to put their thoughts into written words. Knowing these things makes me treasure my own simple abilities to read and write and encourages me to work harder to preserve them.
Sunday, November 22, 2009
Final Essay Draft
Here's my essay.
I've worked long and hard on this sucker.
And now here I am wondering if I've even followed the prompt...help.
I've worked long and hard on this sucker.
And now here I am wondering if I've even followed the prompt...help.
Friday, November 13, 2009
Taking an Approach
From my understanding, "taking an approach," as descirbed by Harris, is a technique in which the writer channels another mode of thinking, or perhaps even another style of writing altogether, to express his ideas. It is similar to both forwarding and countering in that it involves acknowledging the validity of a previously established idea, and then expanding on that idea. It is different in that it does not so much use this idea to support the current argument, but to offer insight into the argumentative processes of the writer. The act of "taking an approach" makes most sense to me when compared or thought of as an introduction or premise to a piece of writing. During an introduction or prologue, the author can explain the inspirations for his written text - perhaps a particular idea of another intellectual, or the stylistic aspects of another piece of writing - which descirbe the approach he will take in his writing.
I know that definition is a little bit hairy, but it's even more difficult (in my opinion) to find examples of a writer taking an approach (at least online). It seems the author almost has to blatantly say, for example: "I'm writing this piece from a Freudian point of view, but updating some of his theories to coincide with today's culture" to know for sure that he is taking an approach. Otherwise, how can a reader know for sure what has inspired the writer's thinking? With that being said, I was able to understand Andrew Sullivan's basic approach by reading about his background. I know that he writes from the perspective of a self-proclaimed "libertarian conservative," gay, Catholic, British man. Obviously, all of these traits affect his views and therefore how and what he writes about on his blog.
I know that definition is a little bit hairy, but it's even more difficult (in my opinion) to find examples of a writer taking an approach (at least online). It seems the author almost has to blatantly say, for example: "I'm writing this piece from a Freudian point of view, but updating some of his theories to coincide with today's culture" to know for sure that he is taking an approach. Otherwise, how can a reader know for sure what has inspired the writer's thinking? With that being said, I was able to understand Andrew Sullivan's basic approach by reading about his background. I know that he writes from the perspective of a self-proclaimed "libertarian conservative," gay, Catholic, British man. Obviously, all of these traits affect his views and therefore how and what he writes about on his blog.
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
Contradicting Myself
At the end of a previous post of mine, Harris vs. Sullivan, I wrote:
After re-reading that, I'm wondering just what I was thinking. Who did I think I was to make such a sweeping statement about writing and what it means to write? This is a concept I am still struggling with, even though it appears as if I were once an expert on the subject. I admit, a "true" piece of writing is all of the things I mentioned before. It is analytical, it is personal, and it is honest. But that is not all; writing is much more than that. While it is analytical, it is also consensual, it is personal, but still relatable, and it is honest and yet ambiguous. Furthermore, writing is more than just a list of adjectives. It is a style and a process all its own that is deeply dependent upon the individual actually doing the writing. The writer sifts through his thoughts and decides which ones are meaningful enough to be written down - which ones reflect what he's really thinking. The writer, therefore, decides what is true and untrue, what should be written and what should not. In this way, it seems that all writing is a true form of writing.
Okay. Obviously I just countered my previous idea that blogging is writing in its truest form. I did this by first acknowledging the valid traits of writing that I mentioned before - how it's analytical, personal, and honest. I then expanded on these ideas by saying that their opposites could also be used to describe writing - it is consensual, relatable, and ambiguous. I then took the piece in a new direction and offered a different explanation of "true" writing. This time I suggested that perhaps all writing is true writing, as opposed to blogging being the ultimate "true" writing.
P.S. I'm not sure why my block quote looks like a poem. I couldn't get it to all be aligned.
In many ways, bloggers are the kind of expert academic readers that Harris
describes. They analyze texts, turn them into something personal, and get at the
core of their message. While I think both Harris and Sullivan would agree that
blogging is a form of writing, I am willing to propose that blogging is perhaps
writing in its truest form.
After re-reading that, I'm wondering just what I was thinking. Who did I think I was to make such a sweeping statement about writing and what it means to write? This is a concept I am still struggling with, even though it appears as if I were once an expert on the subject. I admit, a "true" piece of writing is all of the things I mentioned before. It is analytical, it is personal, and it is honest. But that is not all; writing is much more than that. While it is analytical, it is also consensual, it is personal, but still relatable, and it is honest and yet ambiguous. Furthermore, writing is more than just a list of adjectives. It is a style and a process all its own that is deeply dependent upon the individual actually doing the writing. The writer sifts through his thoughts and decides which ones are meaningful enough to be written down - which ones reflect what he's really thinking. The writer, therefore, decides what is true and untrue, what should be written and what should not. In this way, it seems that all writing is a true form of writing.
Okay. Obviously I just countered my previous idea that blogging is writing in its truest form. I did this by first acknowledging the valid traits of writing that I mentioned before - how it's analytical, personal, and honest. I then expanded on these ideas by saying that their opposites could also be used to describe writing - it is consensual, relatable, and ambiguous. I then took the piece in a new direction and offered a different explanation of "true" writing. This time I suggested that perhaps all writing is true writing, as opposed to blogging being the ultimate "true" writing.
P.S. I'm not sure why my block quote looks like a poem. I couldn't get it to all be aligned.
Saturday, November 7, 2009
On the Contrary
In simple terms, Harris uses the tactic of countering "not to nullify but to suggest a different way of thinking." Once again, the act of keeping a story, opinion, theory, or idea alive is the goal of countering, just as we have seen it to be the goal of forwarding, as well as blogging (in general). It is different from forwarding though in that you note the limits of an idea or a text and suggest a new, perhaps substituted, way to think about it. When forwarding, as we learned, you note the uses of an idea or a text and apply that information directly to your own, similar, yet slightly more developed, line of thinking. Harris outlines three ways to counter a text, which are: arguing the other side, uncovering values, and dissenting. No matter which of these approaches to countering is utilized, it is easy to offend to the opposing party, which Harris warns against. To avoid unnecessary fights and personal hurt, Harris proposes and encourages "honest yet civil disagreement," in which the purpose of countering is reiterated as a force to "rewrite the work of others in order to say something more," rather than settling on simply disagreeing.
I found an example of countering in Andrew Sullivan's blog, The Daily Dish, in which one of his readers wrote in response to John Nagl's prescription for Afghanistan. John Nagl is a retired United States Army officer who is seen as an expert on counterinsurgency and recently (I'm assuming) released his opinions of how the situation in Afghanistan should be handled. The reader counters Nagl's ideas by first stating two of the claims he believes are true and valid. Thus, fulfilling the first step of countering and offering credit to Nagl. The reader then states a third claim made by Nagl which he (the reader) believes is unrealistic and should not be applied to our relations with Afghanistan - a move that marks the second step of countering. Finally, and most importantly, the reader proposes a new use for Nagl's third claim. He argues against Nagl's idea, but does not stop at disagreement. Rather, he offers a new approach to this idea, keeping it alive, but sending it in a new direction.
I found an example of countering in Andrew Sullivan's blog, The Daily Dish, in which one of his readers wrote in response to John Nagl's prescription for Afghanistan. John Nagl is a retired United States Army officer who is seen as an expert on counterinsurgency and recently (I'm assuming) released his opinions of how the situation in Afghanistan should be handled. The reader counters Nagl's ideas by first stating two of the claims he believes are true and valid. Thus, fulfilling the first step of countering and offering credit to Nagl. The reader then states a third claim made by Nagl which he (the reader) believes is unrealistic and should not be applied to our relations with Afghanistan - a move that marks the second step of countering. Finally, and most importantly, the reader proposes a new use for Nagl's third claim. He argues against Nagl's idea, but does not stop at disagreement. Rather, he offers a new approach to this idea, keeping it alive, but sending it in a new direction.
Monday, November 2, 2009
Forwarding
Joseph Harris outlines the idea of "forwarding" in chapter three of his text "Rewriting: How to do Things with Texts." Basically, the main purpose of forwarding is to present outside sources of information - or other texts, ideas, terms, keywords, and/or images - and then re-present them by adding your own take on the issue at hand. Harris writes that "in forwarding a text, you extend its uses." You don't simply cite it and move on. No, forwarding is all about giving new life to an existing theory, text, or idea. It is about taking what is known, or already understood, and thinking about it differently. It is about personally evolving an idea.
Although we may not always recognize our own use of forwarding, it is something we do quite frequently. Any discussion had with classmates, with a family member, or even with a friend, is most likely an example of forwarding. Think about it, for any class discussion, the teacher presents an idea and asks the class to expand on it, or to offer their opinions. In English class, for example, I and my classmates forward ideas all the time. During every class we are presented with quotes from the blogs we have written and then expand on the more interesting ones. We also discuss the readings we are assigned, such as blogs and other articles. In both instances, we add our own ideas to what we have read, keeping the topics alive and in motion.
When relating the technique of forwarding to that of a conversation or discussion, blogs become an obvious source to find such techniques. In essence, a blog is after all, a continuous online discussion. Andrew Sullivan's blog, the Daily Dish, is especially successful at forwarding ideas. A large chunk of The Daily Dish is made up of writings from people responding to previously presented issues. When these people make a new post, they take the previous information and offer their own insight and/or opinion. Foster Kamer, for example, wrote a piece called "The Truth Just Sounds Different," in which he presents a series of quotes from Levi Johnston (concerning the recent scandal between him and Sarah Palin) and offers his take on their purpose, or what he sees them to mean. Kamer suggests that perhaps Johnston is "lying about all this (the claims that Palin pushed to adopt the child Johnston had with her daughter, and that Johston has further secrets about Palin which he won't release because he doesn't want to hurt her). He has a motive: to get access to his son, and to make lots of money." The act of Kamer taking these statements from Johnston and then evaluating them, is the very technique of forwarding.
Although we may not always recognize our own use of forwarding, it is something we do quite frequently. Any discussion had with classmates, with a family member, or even with a friend, is most likely an example of forwarding. Think about it, for any class discussion, the teacher presents an idea and asks the class to expand on it, or to offer their opinions. In English class, for example, I and my classmates forward ideas all the time. During every class we are presented with quotes from the blogs we have written and then expand on the more interesting ones. We also discuss the readings we are assigned, such as blogs and other articles. In both instances, we add our own ideas to what we have read, keeping the topics alive and in motion.
When relating the technique of forwarding to that of a conversation or discussion, blogs become an obvious source to find such techniques. In essence, a blog is after all, a continuous online discussion. Andrew Sullivan's blog, the Daily Dish, is especially successful at forwarding ideas. A large chunk of The Daily Dish is made up of writings from people responding to previously presented issues. When these people make a new post, they take the previous information and offer their own insight and/or opinion. Foster Kamer, for example, wrote a piece called "The Truth Just Sounds Different," in which he presents a series of quotes from Levi Johnston (concerning the recent scandal between him and Sarah Palin) and offers his take on their purpose, or what he sees them to mean. Kamer suggests that perhaps Johnston is "lying about all this (the claims that Palin pushed to adopt the child Johnston had with her daughter, and that Johston has further secrets about Palin which he won't release because he doesn't want to hurt her). He has a motive: to get access to his son, and to make lots of money." The act of Kamer taking these statements from Johnston and then evaluating them, is the very technique of forwarding.
Friday, October 30, 2009
Blogs Get with the Times
The New York Times is undoubtedly one of the best - if not the best - news publications made available to us today. For many other sources distributing the news, it is a force to be reckoned with, to say the least. One of the things that makes the New York Times so successful is that its staff has managed to capture the writing trends of today, while still producing news that confirms and appeals to a more antiquated and traditional style. This has especially been made possible through their use of two mediums - an online news hub and a printed newspaper. Obviously, the online site is the more popular, or societally-smart, medium. It is updated continuously and has articles written with a quick, easy-to-understand, and easy-to-read tone. All of these traits, which harness immediacy and efficiency, appeal to the masses. On the other hand, its news stories focus more on facts and less on opinions and are also published in a newspaper. These are, of course, traits that make the NYT seem more refined and acceptable by the more traditional sense of news reporting.
I, personally, have been reading the online publication of the New York Times, as well as a couple of other blogs to receive my news. While the NYT and blogs are fundamentally different, I think many similarities can be drawn between the two. For example, The Daily Dish - one of the blogs I am following - which is written by Andrew Sullivan, covers much of the same news that the NYT covers - like the healthcare debate, for example. While of course his blog presents the news with a slight bias and demands reader involvement, it achieves the same tasks of the NYT. Both sources of news are just that - sources of news. They have something to say or some information to share and so, they say it. Both the NYT and The Daily Dish are educating me and keeping me informed. The only real difference is that when I read The Daily Dish, I not only get to read news presented by Andrew Sullivan, but also the opinions of a variety of people who write in about the issues. When I read the NYT, I read one article and move on to the next. There is no audience participation or sharing of ideas like there is in a blog.
I think the New York Times does a phenomenal job of actually doing its job and providing good and sound news. This is hard to come by today and deserves much credit. I think that blogs, too, also deserve credit, for they do the job of a newspaper, and then do some more.
I, personally, have been reading the online publication of the New York Times, as well as a couple of other blogs to receive my news. While the NYT and blogs are fundamentally different, I think many similarities can be drawn between the two. For example, The Daily Dish - one of the blogs I am following - which is written by Andrew Sullivan, covers much of the same news that the NYT covers - like the healthcare debate, for example. While of course his blog presents the news with a slight bias and demands reader involvement, it achieves the same tasks of the NYT. Both sources of news are just that - sources of news. They have something to say or some information to share and so, they say it. Both the NYT and The Daily Dish are educating me and keeping me informed. The only real difference is that when I read The Daily Dish, I not only get to read news presented by Andrew Sullivan, but also the opinions of a variety of people who write in about the issues. When I read the NYT, I read one article and move on to the next. There is no audience participation or sharing of ideas like there is in a blog.
I think the New York Times does a phenomenal job of actually doing its job and providing good and sound news. This is hard to come by today and deserves much credit. I think that blogs, too, also deserve credit, for they do the job of a newspaper, and then do some more.
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Teaming Up: Jarvis and Sullivan
One idea found among Jarvis's text and diagrams about the spread of news is that in times passed, the process (of gathering news) lead to the product (the packaged story). Nowadays however, Jarvis says that the process is the product. In other words, news today can no longer be packaged, distributed, and then ingested - at least not just once. After we find the news, or perhaps after it finds us, we don't just forget about it and move on; we continue to circulate the story. We talk about it with our peers, family, and friends, we search for background information, and we read about it from various sources, among other things. All the while, more and more facts and pieces of information are added to the story, making it fuller - or more substantial. Picture making a snowball: as you push your tiny lump of snow across the yard, it will get bigger, denser, and more compact until of course, you stop pushing it. A news story works the same way.
This idea of news being continuous and being found within the actual process of forming/finding news is exactly the idea Sullivan wrote about in his article, "Why I Blog." It is also, coincidentally, a large reason why blogs have become so popular. Blogging, which seems to be Sullivan's forte, is possibly the best example of Jarvis's new press-sphere. A blog contains and allows for the interaction between peers, other sources, government, and the media via online discussion and the incorporation of links. Sullivan directly addresses the continuity of news within a blog by acknowledging that "if it stops moving, it dies." I think it's safe to say that Sullivan and Hedges are arguing the same ideas.
For the most part, I'd say that I agree with the idea of news being in continuous circulation and therefore always growing and changing. This is (or seems) true for big pieces of news, but I will have to argue that it is not so true for the smaller or more trivial pieces of news. For example, I recently read an article from The New York Times website about how humans are built to run. It pointed out many of the anatomical characteristics that make humans, in general, successful runners. While I found this article to be rather interesting, I still haven't heard anyone else talking about it, heard about it on the news, or read any similar articles anywhere else. So, in this case, I ingested the news and its' process ended. Other, much larger stories though, such as the war in Iraq, have been ingested time and time again because everyone has heard and is talking about it, hearing about it, or reading about it.
This idea of news being continuous and being found within the actual process of forming/finding news is exactly the idea Sullivan wrote about in his article, "Why I Blog." It is also, coincidentally, a large reason why blogs have become so popular. Blogging, which seems to be Sullivan's forte, is possibly the best example of Jarvis's new press-sphere. A blog contains and allows for the interaction between peers, other sources, government, and the media via online discussion and the incorporation of links. Sullivan directly addresses the continuity of news within a blog by acknowledging that "if it stops moving, it dies." I think it's safe to say that Sullivan and Hedges are arguing the same ideas.
For the most part, I'd say that I agree with the idea of news being in continuous circulation and therefore always growing and changing. This is (or seems) true for big pieces of news, but I will have to argue that it is not so true for the smaller or more trivial pieces of news. For example, I recently read an article from The New York Times website about how humans are built to run. It pointed out many of the anatomical characteristics that make humans, in general, successful runners. While I found this article to be rather interesting, I still haven't heard anyone else talking about it, heard about it on the news, or read any similar articles anywhere else. So, in this case, I ingested the news and its' process ended. Other, much larger stories though, such as the war in Iraq, have been ingested time and time again because everyone has heard and is talking about it, hearing about it, or reading about it.
Monday, October 26, 2009
The Press-Sphere
What does blogger Jeff Jarvis mean when he writes that the press is becoming the press-sphere? Well, to be honest, I'm not exactly sure. After swimming through his sentences and diagrams, I have gathered, more or less, that he believes the press is losing its handle on the control of the news. It is being replaced by, or perhaps, placed at competition with, all of today's numerous news sources. Some of these news sources are the media, the government, large companies, our peers, links to background or various information, work, and search. (I'm assuming he means search engines, but your guess is as good as mine.) As you can see, the press is now only a small piece of the news-circulating puzzle. At the end of his blog, Jarvis sums up the shift in the news world by saying that news today is "bigger. . . It’s more complex. It moves over time. It’s more about process than product. It has no limit of sources and handlers and distributors and curators and perspectives." It seems to me that Jarvis is okay with this adapted style of news. After all, it is exciting (and more fair to the public) to have so many sources of information.
The only downfall I see in this is that news can now almost never be received without also receiving a complementary opinion. The news, it seems, is almost always biased. Whether written, spoken, or visually presented, we can pick up the attached undertone of a piece of news. We can know by some one's use of language, their facial expressions, the tone of their voice, etc just what they think about the subject they're relaying to us. So, to me, the new press-sphere Jarvis describes makes it difficult for anyone to think for themselves or form their own, immediate opinions. On the other hand though, the new press-sphere's wide variety of sources ensures, as I mentioned before, that we will receive more than just one opinion of the news. So, while we may initially be thinking in the terms of another and borrowing the ideas of our peers, I think in the end we will have formed a more educated opinion and be sure of our own, final stance. (I really just talked myself in circles there. Sorry about that. Hopefully it made some sense.)
One minor note I'd like to make in regards to Jarvis' post is that I think it would have been helpful for the reader if he had defined what the 'press' was, or who it comprised. That would have helped me, at least. That's all I have to say about that.
The only downfall I see in this is that news can now almost never be received without also receiving a complementary opinion. The news, it seems, is almost always biased. Whether written, spoken, or visually presented, we can pick up the attached undertone of a piece of news. We can know by some one's use of language, their facial expressions, the tone of their voice, etc just what they think about the subject they're relaying to us. So, to me, the new press-sphere Jarvis describes makes it difficult for anyone to think for themselves or form their own, immediate opinions. On the other hand though, the new press-sphere's wide variety of sources ensures, as I mentioned before, that we will receive more than just one opinion of the news. So, while we may initially be thinking in the terms of another and borrowing the ideas of our peers, I think in the end we will have formed a more educated opinion and be sure of our own, final stance. (I really just talked myself in circles there. Sorry about that. Hopefully it made some sense.)
One minor note I'd like to make in regards to Jarvis' post is that I think it would have been helpful for the reader if he had defined what the 'press' was, or who it comprised. That would have helped me, at least. That's all I have to say about that.
Saturday, October 24, 2009
My Take on The Times
I have to admit, I could probably stand to spend some more time reading and researching the New York Times (as well as both of my other blogs). I read them (almost every day), but just scroll through the headlines and read whatever is interesting to me. Now that I've just re-read that last sentence, I think that's probably the whole idea of this assignment, but I feel like I could be doing more. I've read in some of my other classmates' blogs that they're finding specific categories of news within The New York Times that they're in to. I haven't poked around the site enough to do so, as I'm slightly ashamed to say, but I hope to find something to keep coming back to. It would be cool to read something religiously every day. (And of course, by 'religiously,' I don't mean reading to find Jesus or words by which to live my life. I just mean reading to fill a need. Maybe 'regularly' would have been the better word there?)
So far, some particular stories that have caught my eye have been those concerning child development issues and parenting styles. (I'm a babysitter and a psychology major, if you couldn't tell.) I read one article about how Baby Einstein products, which are an overwhelming retail item in the baby department, have (surprisingly) not actually made babies into geniuses. What's more, Walt Disney, which owns Baby Einstein is offering $15 refunds for every Baby Einstein product that is returned before March 10. There is a limit to returning only four items, but still, that's an easy $60 and you don't even need a receipt. Another particular article that I found interesting was about the future increase in the world's population and the concern of whether or not we'll be able to produce enough food to feed everyone. Some scientists are predicting we'll need to increase our food production by 50% over the next twenty years in order to feed everyone. While the details of this issue are difficult to know for sure, it is a topic that is receiving more and more attention, and rightly so I think. So, I'm in to news about kids and larger, world-scare stories? What does that say about me?
In addition to spending more time reading The New York Times in general, I could also spend more time reading political and/or economical articles covered in The New York Times. I tend to avoid the articles about healthcare, and I get annoyed with news on the Swine Flu, but those are the big issues of today, which I should probably know more about. I guess that's something I can focus on for this next week of news.
So far, some particular stories that have caught my eye have been those concerning child development issues and parenting styles. (I'm a babysitter and a psychology major, if you couldn't tell.) I read one article about how Baby Einstein products, which are an overwhelming retail item in the baby department, have (surprisingly) not actually made babies into geniuses. What's more, Walt Disney, which owns Baby Einstein is offering $15 refunds for every Baby Einstein product that is returned before March 10. There is a limit to returning only four items, but still, that's an easy $60 and you don't even need a receipt. Another particular article that I found interesting was about the future increase in the world's population and the concern of whether or not we'll be able to produce enough food to feed everyone. Some scientists are predicting we'll need to increase our food production by 50% over the next twenty years in order to feed everyone. While the details of this issue are difficult to know for sure, it is a topic that is receiving more and more attention, and rightly so I think. So, I'm in to news about kids and larger, world-scare stories? What does that say about me?
In addition to spending more time reading The New York Times in general, I could also spend more time reading political and/or economical articles covered in The New York Times. I tend to avoid the articles about healthcare, and I get annoyed with news on the Swine Flu, but those are the big issues of today, which I should probably know more about. I guess that's something I can focus on for this next week of news.
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
Blog Analysis
In my last post, I listed the two blogs I was planning on following - The Daily Dish and Regret the Error. Today however, I changed my mind about what I will be reading. While I will continue to follow The Daily Dish by Andrew Sullivan, I will no longer be keeping up with Regret the Error. While this blog is entertaining, it is not regularly updated and loses its' charm rather quickly. In its place, I have decided to read Consuming Louisville - a blog about restaurants, shops, events, and happenings in Louisville.
This blog is written by one woman and one woman only - Michelle Jones. Jones is a writer, photographer, and self-proclaimed web geek who LOVES Louisville. Naturally, this blog is biased. If you're someone who hates Louisville (if such a person exists) and are looking for a place to complain, this is not the blog for you. I bet you saw that coming though, right? This blog is written (presumably) for people who live in Louisville - particularly the Highlands, although other areas are covered - and are looking to connect with their city and enjoy all it has to offer. Jones offers daily updates about events around town. Recently, for example, she has provided information about a few Halloween parties, Midnights at the Baxter, cooking lessons at the Brown Hotel, and the bestowed #1 Hotel rating of 21C (it was voted the #1 hotel in the United States by Conde Nast Traveler Magazine's Readers). Everything written is inspired by the people of Louisville - what we're in to, what we're looking for - and ultimately what is applicable to us. In short, this blog manageable, easy to read and operate, and perfect for all those Louisville lovers looking for something to do. I'm pleased I found it.
This blog is written by one woman and one woman only - Michelle Jones. Jones is a writer, photographer, and self-proclaimed web geek who LOVES Louisville. Naturally, this blog is biased. If you're someone who hates Louisville (if such a person exists) and are looking for a place to complain, this is not the blog for you. I bet you saw that coming though, right? This blog is written (presumably) for people who live in Louisville - particularly the Highlands, although other areas are covered - and are looking to connect with their city and enjoy all it has to offer. Jones offers daily updates about events around town. Recently, for example, she has provided information about a few Halloween parties, Midnights at the Baxter, cooking lessons at the Brown Hotel, and the bestowed #1 Hotel rating of 21C (it was voted the #1 hotel in the United States by Conde Nast Traveler Magazine's Readers). Everything written is inspired by the people of Louisville - what we're in to, what we're looking for - and ultimately what is applicable to us. In short, this blog manageable, easy to read and operate, and perfect for all those Louisville lovers looking for something to do. I'm pleased I found it.
Monday, October 19, 2009
Blogs I'm Following
The first blog I've chosen to follow is the The Daily Dish by Andrew Sullivan because I enjoy his writing style and appreciate his ideas (at least all that I've seen so far). The second blog I'll be following is Regret the Error, which points out any mistakes made in the press. I like that this blog's purpose is to keep the press honest and accurate. It's also good for a laugh every now and again.
Passive vs. Active
Reading through my classmates' blog posts about where they get their news was both reassuring and worrisome for me. It makes me feel better about myself to know that I'm not the only one who could improve her knowledge of current events, but also slightly worried that the general concensus is more or less the mindset of: "I'm busy. If something is important, I'll hear about it eventually." Don't get me wrong, mine would probably be the first name on the list of such thinkers, but I wish that it weren't, and as I noticed, many of my classmates wish the same thing. So why do we still carry this mentality? Why don't we do something to change it? I don't have an answer, but I think it's due in part to the fact that our culture, particularly Internet access within our culture, allows it, or at least makes it easy, to think this way. We have so much access to information that it can be difficult to filter through news and separate the important from the trivial, especially when society seems to value the more trivial end of the spectrum. But, what's interesting, is that this mentality is valid. The news will eventually find us. This is almost inevitable as every corner of the earth is filled with something to look at or to learn about or to listen to. Billboards, posters, televisions, radios, passerbys, friends, family, magazine covers, newspapers, and the internet are just a few of the constant sources of background noise (or news) that we get each day. So, while partaking in a more passive style of news-gathering may not be the most responsible or commendable method, it does seem to be the most logical. And how can anyone argue against logic? Hmmm . . . this seems like a bit of a catch 22 . . .
I think it'd be interesting to learn where and how people like Sullivan, Hedges, and Carr get their news and what they think about the passive/active approaches to new-gathering. I'm almost certain Hedges would condemn our generation (myself included) for being lazy and uninformed citizens. Sullivan would probably argue for the beautiful ambiguity that stems from our freedom to search the world (re: the web) and learn about what interests us as it is happening. Carr then, - always the level-head in this trio - would most likely express sentiments similar to my classmates' and mine. That is, he'd argue the idea of convenience, but long for news that is either decisively satisfying or else underwelming, just so he'd have a clear take on the issues.
I think it'd be interesting to learn where and how people like Sullivan, Hedges, and Carr get their news and what they think about the passive/active approaches to new-gathering. I'm almost certain Hedges would condemn our generation (myself included) for being lazy and uninformed citizens. Sullivan would probably argue for the beautiful ambiguity that stems from our freedom to search the world (re: the web) and learn about what interests us as it is happening. Carr then, - always the level-head in this trio - would most likely express sentiments similar to my classmates' and mine. That is, he'd argue the idea of convenience, but long for news that is either decisively satisfying or else underwelming, just so he'd have a clear take on the issues.
Saturday, October 17, 2009
Where Do I Get My News?
"I get the news I need from the weather report."
Sorry, that Simon & Garfunkel reference was just too perfect to pass up.
In all seriousness though, the weather really is a big part of my daily news intake. I wake up every morning, tune to the “local on the 8’s” weather update, and plan my day accordingly. How else am I supposed to know whether to wear a parka or a raincoat, to go for a run in the morning or wait until the afternoon, or to pack an umbrella or sunglasses for later? I know what you’re thinking, but no, stepping outside is not an option. For one thing, I’m too sleepy to move that much in the morning, and for another, stepping outside in the morning says nothing about what the weather will be like later in the day. Especially when you live in Louisville.
As for other news - like current local, national, and global events – I get the bulk of my information from the Courier Journal, which I read (or, more accurately, skim) every morning. My strategy is to read the front page of each section (usually skipping the Sports section) and then, if any articles particularly spark my interest, find and read the entire article. This seems to work fairly well for me; although I’m sure it wouldn’t hurt to look more in depth at a wider range of articles. I also use my parents as a source of news. They are always aware of what’s going on in the world, so if I have questions about anything, I ask them and usually get the answers I’m looking for. Every now and then I’ll watch one of the local news channels, but that rarely happens.
(By the way, if anyone's interested in hearing the full Simon & Garfunkel song I mentioned, here it is. It's one of my favorites.)
Sorry, that Simon & Garfunkel reference was just too perfect to pass up.
In all seriousness though, the weather really is a big part of my daily news intake. I wake up every morning, tune to the “local on the 8’s” weather update, and plan my day accordingly. How else am I supposed to know whether to wear a parka or a raincoat, to go for a run in the morning or wait until the afternoon, or to pack an umbrella or sunglasses for later? I know what you’re thinking, but no, stepping outside is not an option. For one thing, I’m too sleepy to move that much in the morning, and for another, stepping outside in the morning says nothing about what the weather will be like later in the day. Especially when you live in Louisville.
As for other news - like current local, national, and global events – I get the bulk of my information from the Courier Journal, which I read (or, more accurately, skim) every morning. My strategy is to read the front page of each section (usually skipping the Sports section) and then, if any articles particularly spark my interest, find and read the entire article. This seems to work fairly well for me; although I’m sure it wouldn’t hurt to look more in depth at a wider range of articles. I also use my parents as a source of news. They are always aware of what’s going on in the world, so if I have questions about anything, I ask them and usually get the answers I’m looking for. Every now and then I’ll watch one of the local news channels, but that rarely happens.
(By the way, if anyone's interested in hearing the full Simon & Garfunkel song I mentioned, here it is. It's one of my favorites.)
Thursday, October 1, 2009
Continued Revising
Hello again. Here is my paper. I keep editing this link rather than making new blog posts.
Hopefully you're still reading it...
I'm still open to comments/corrections/suggestions if anyone has any.
Hopefully you're still reading it...
I'm still open to comments/corrections/suggestions if anyone has any.
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Just Something to Look at...
My Sociology teacher showed us this video (or as much as she could before her computer froze, at least) today in class. I thought some of you might find it interesting.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NLlGopyXT_g
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NLlGopyXT_g
Monday, September 28, 2009
Essay Rough Draft
This is the first draft of my extended essay.
Any comments or corrections you have would be greatly appreciated! And feel free to make them directly on the document (Just make them noticeable, please.)
The areas I'd like specific help with are the conclusion (It's awful and corny. You'll see.), citation (right now I only have each author's name in the text. Should I also include the name of the article or piece of writing I'm referring to?), and most importantly, the overall feel/message of the paper. I'm concerned that I haven't actually said anything...
Thanks for your help!
Any comments or corrections you have would be greatly appreciated! And feel free to make them directly on the document (Just make them noticeable, please.)
The areas I'd like specific help with are the conclusion (It's awful and corny. You'll see.), citation (right now I only have each author's name in the text. Should I also include the name of the article or piece of writing I'm referring to?), and most importantly, the overall feel/message of the paper. I'm concerned that I haven't actually said anything...
Thanks for your help!
Friday, September 25, 2009
I found this article through the JSTOR database on UofL's website. After skimming it, it seems to have some good points about how partaking in electronic discussions can help improve critical thinking skills. It points out that an electronic discussion incorporates practice of both traditional writing and in-class discussion. So students actually seem to be getting the best of both worlds.
I hope it may be helpful to someone.
technology can help critical thinking
I hope it may be helpful to someone.
technology can help critical thinking
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
There It Was.
Well, that wasn't so bad after all. After about a half of a semester, thirteen classes, and nine blog posts, I'm finally comfortable with this whole blogging thing. It really was not nearly as bad as I thought it would be; it's actually been kind of fun. I feel like I've come to develop a stronger and more to-the-point voice through blog writing that I haven't been able to achieve before, at least not when it comes to school assignments. I'm not even that worried about the formal essay we have to write because I feel like all of these posts have served as the warm-up for that one essay. I guess what I mean, more simply, is that I feel well-practiced in writing. And I also feel less intimidated by it. Lately, the process of writing doesn't seem to be as heavy or pressing as it used to be. Sure, I still pause between sentences to contemplate what I want to say, but I've found that writing, through a blog particularly, has helped me sort through my ideas as I write them. It truly is a form of "writing out loud." (I'm almost positive I got that quote right.)
To reflect on the class and assignments as a whole, I'd say I've been pleasantly surprised with everything we've been reading, writing, and discussing. Because of the articles we read by Sullivan, Carr, Hedges, and Thompson, I feel, in a way, like I'm one step ahead of my peers when it comes to the Internet. It's hard to explain, but before I had never really considered all that the Internet does for us. I mean, immediately it provides us with whatever news, entertainment, and/or information we could ever want, but it also has more long-term, and often hidden, effects. It changes the way we think, read, write, and interact with one another, which I had never slowed down enough to realize before. I guess I'm just excited to have this new outlook. And, even more, to feel like I've got a pretty good grasp of it.
To reflect on the class and assignments as a whole, I'd say I've been pleasantly surprised with everything we've been reading, writing, and discussing. Because of the articles we read by Sullivan, Carr, Hedges, and Thompson, I feel, in a way, like I'm one step ahead of my peers when it comes to the Internet. It's hard to explain, but before I had never really considered all that the Internet does for us. I mean, immediately it provides us with whatever news, entertainment, and/or information we could ever want, but it also has more long-term, and often hidden, effects. It changes the way we think, read, write, and interact with one another, which I had never slowed down enough to realize before. I guess I'm just excited to have this new outlook. And, even more, to feel like I've got a pretty good grasp of it.
Sunday, September 20, 2009
Hedges vs. Thompson
For this latest post, we were assigned to read articles by both Chris Hedges and Clive Thompson, both of which assess the impact the Internet has on society, but both portray largely contrasting ideas.
To preface, I found Hedges' last article so personally upsetting that I almost want to boycott all of his ideas just to spite him. (Cause that'll really break him, I'm sure.) But his most recent article we were assigned to read, "Bad Days for Newsrooms - and Democracy," actually had some ideas that were not completely fabricated and seemed to me to be pretty legitimate. Reluctantly, I'd even say I agree with some of them...
The whole idea of his text is that news reporting, particularly from newspapers and television news networks, is dying and being replaced by a lesser, Internet-based form of journalism. To Hedges, newspapers "keep citizens engaged with their cultural, civic and political life," or they're supposed to at least. Lately though, he argues, news reporting is not presenting "real news," but instead "another form of mindless amusement and entertainment." I'm not sure I completely agree with this, but then again, I'm not exactly sure what he means by this statement either. Of course, all things in society evolve, news reporting is no exception. Today's methods of reporting are not the same as they were 20 or even 10 years ago, but I think the news is still educating us on the important and greater issues at hand, and more importantly, is being heard by a wider audience. Hedges attributes this change in reporting to the Internet, saying it "defies the purpose of reporting." He claims that people who go to the Internet for their news, gravitate toward sites that will confirm their own beliefs, thus learning only one side of the story. "Facts for many bloggers," he points out, "are interchangeable with opinions." These, to me, are all very good points. I think that news is losing some of its raw legitimacy. Rather than simply presenting society with the facts and letting us form our own opinions, news seems to come with a built-in kind of decoder and biased undertone. It's good when journalists get to share their ideas, and even better when an audience questions and debates those ideas, but as we know, this last step does not always happen. To say it again, it's easy for people to confuse opinions with facts. And who can blame them with the opinions are appealing and easy to understand?
The other article we read, "Clive Thompson on the New Literacy," is much more approving of the Internet and its effects on society, particularly the effects on our writing and reading skills. Based on the studies of Stanford University's writing and rhetoric professor, Andrea Lunsford, Thompson offers that "young people today write far more than any generation before" and are "remarkably adept...[at] assessing their audience and adapting their tone and technique to best get their point across." (Finally, some respect!) It was very refreshing to read Thompson's article and know that not everyone looks at the Internet as the doom of the American people, or views today's youth as stupid and incapable. We are living in the "Information Age" and are sharing information and ideas more than ever, to wider audiences than ever before. I think both Hedges and Thompson would agree that this is a good thing we're doing and something we should continue doing. We just need to remember to think responsibly.
To preface, I found Hedges' last article so personally upsetting that I almost want to boycott all of his ideas just to spite him. (Cause that'll really break him, I'm sure.) But his most recent article we were assigned to read, "Bad Days for Newsrooms - and Democracy," actually had some ideas that were not completely fabricated and seemed to me to be pretty legitimate. Reluctantly, I'd even say I agree with some of them...
The whole idea of his text is that news reporting, particularly from newspapers and television news networks, is dying and being replaced by a lesser, Internet-based form of journalism. To Hedges, newspapers "keep citizens engaged with their cultural, civic and political life," or they're supposed to at least. Lately though, he argues, news reporting is not presenting "real news," but instead "another form of mindless amusement and entertainment." I'm not sure I completely agree with this, but then again, I'm not exactly sure what he means by this statement either. Of course, all things in society evolve, news reporting is no exception. Today's methods of reporting are not the same as they were 20 or even 10 years ago, but I think the news is still educating us on the important and greater issues at hand, and more importantly, is being heard by a wider audience. Hedges attributes this change in reporting to the Internet, saying it "defies the purpose of reporting." He claims that people who go to the Internet for their news, gravitate toward sites that will confirm their own beliefs, thus learning only one side of the story. "Facts for many bloggers," he points out, "are interchangeable with opinions." These, to me, are all very good points. I think that news is losing some of its raw legitimacy. Rather than simply presenting society with the facts and letting us form our own opinions, news seems to come with a built-in kind of decoder and biased undertone. It's good when journalists get to share their ideas, and even better when an audience questions and debates those ideas, but as we know, this last step does not always happen. To say it again, it's easy for people to confuse opinions with facts. And who can blame them with the opinions are appealing and easy to understand?
The other article we read, "Clive Thompson on the New Literacy," is much more approving of the Internet and its effects on society, particularly the effects on our writing and reading skills. Based on the studies of Stanford University's writing and rhetoric professor, Andrea Lunsford, Thompson offers that "young people today write far more than any generation before" and are "remarkably adept...[at] assessing their audience and adapting their tone and technique to best get their point across." (Finally, some respect!) It was very refreshing to read Thompson's article and know that not everyone looks at the Internet as the doom of the American people, or views today's youth as stupid and incapable. We are living in the "Information Age" and are sharing information and ideas more than ever, to wider audiences than ever before. I think both Hedges and Thompson would agree that this is a good thing we're doing and something we should continue doing. We just need to remember to think responsibly.
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
"America the Illiterate"
My initial reaction to the article by Chris Hedges was this: outrage.
Although I just read Harris's advice to "form the habit of questioning your first responses," I don't see any way around it this time. Sorry, but I'm sticking with outrage.
I will however, try my best to be both generous and skeptical (mostly skeptical, I'll admit) of the text he provides. I'll start by being generous. Of course, I have to recognize the validity of the statistics that he provides - however sad and depressing they may be - and realize the truth behind them. For example, Hedges writes that "nearly a third of the nation's population is illiterate or barely literate" and that number continues to grow. He then adds that "eighty percent of the families in the United States last year did not buy a book," and that nearly half of all college graduates and a third of all high school graduates, never read a book after they finish school. These are some scary pieces of information. Perhaps I'm having such a hard time appreciating this article because I don't want to accept these basic facts. I don't know. Either way, I don't like what he's writing.
I can also understand his frustration with the American people. I especially agree with his idea of Americans having this contrived sense of superiority. He says: "We ask to be indulged and entertained by cliches, stereotypes and mythic narratives that tell us we can be whomever we want to be, that we live in the greatest country on Earth, that we are endowed with superior moral and physical qualities and that our glorious future is preordained, either because of our attributes as Americans or because we are blessed by God or both." This kind of societal uppity that we have developed as a people really upsets me too. It's definitely my least favorite thing about America.
Well, now comes the skeptical part. I want to start by saying I do not at all appreciate the message of this text. To me, it seems completely hopeless and backward. He himself is the bully - the "elitist" - that he describes in his text. He is the literate, well-educated one, but he's not doing anything to help those who aren't. He says we live in two Americas, which are basically, from my understanding of his argument, one made up of those who are fortunate and have been taught how to think, and one made up those who are not so lucky and simply scrape by with their limited knowledge. But don't you think he's worsening this divide by allowing it to continue? Sure, his text addresses the issue. That's a start. But surely he realizes the only people who will read his text are those living in his same, literate America.
Yes, literacy is an issue that needs to be dealt with, but in a much different way than Hedges goes about doing. I'm just not really sure what he even hoped to achieve through wiriting this article. Did he want to scare people? To frustrate them more? To make them feel either superior or inferior, depending on which "world" they belong to? Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see the point in doing any of these things. I don't like being told that my country "lives in a state of permanent amnesia" and "exists in a non-reality-based belief system." I don't like being told that all we understand are "images and slogans," and that "we do not seek or want honesty." There is no evidence to these ideas. They are Hedges' opinions, and while he is entitled to his opinions, I disagree. Maybe I’m naïve, but I highly doubt that anyone makes the conscious effort to avoid literacy skills, to avoid knowledge, to avoid truth. People are good and desire to do good things, but Hedges' text does not offer much encouragement.
Although I just read Harris's advice to "form the habit of questioning your first responses," I don't see any way around it this time. Sorry, but I'm sticking with outrage.
I will however, try my best to be both generous and skeptical (mostly skeptical, I'll admit) of the text he provides. I'll start by being generous. Of course, I have to recognize the validity of the statistics that he provides - however sad and depressing they may be - and realize the truth behind them. For example, Hedges writes that "nearly a third of the nation's population is illiterate or barely literate" and that number continues to grow. He then adds that "eighty percent of the families in the United States last year did not buy a book," and that nearly half of all college graduates and a third of all high school graduates, never read a book after they finish school. These are some scary pieces of information. Perhaps I'm having such a hard time appreciating this article because I don't want to accept these basic facts. I don't know. Either way, I don't like what he's writing.
I can also understand his frustration with the American people. I especially agree with his idea of Americans having this contrived sense of superiority. He says: "We ask to be indulged and entertained by cliches, stereotypes and mythic narratives that tell us we can be whomever we want to be, that we live in the greatest country on Earth, that we are endowed with superior moral and physical qualities and that our glorious future is preordained, either because of our attributes as Americans or because we are blessed by God or both." This kind of societal uppity that we have developed as a people really upsets me too. It's definitely my least favorite thing about America.
Well, now comes the skeptical part. I want to start by saying I do not at all appreciate the message of this text. To me, it seems completely hopeless and backward. He himself is the bully - the "elitist" - that he describes in his text. He is the literate, well-educated one, but he's not doing anything to help those who aren't. He says we live in two Americas, which are basically, from my understanding of his argument, one made up of those who are fortunate and have been taught how to think, and one made up those who are not so lucky and simply scrape by with their limited knowledge. But don't you think he's worsening this divide by allowing it to continue? Sure, his text addresses the issue. That's a start. But surely he realizes the only people who will read his text are those living in his same, literate America.
Yes, literacy is an issue that needs to be dealt with, but in a much different way than Hedges goes about doing. I'm just not really sure what he even hoped to achieve through wiriting this article. Did he want to scare people? To frustrate them more? To make them feel either superior or inferior, depending on which "world" they belong to? Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see the point in doing any of these things. I don't like being told that my country "lives in a state of permanent amnesia" and "exists in a non-reality-based belief system." I don't like being told that all we understand are "images and slogans," and that "we do not seek or want honesty." There is no evidence to these ideas. They are Hedges' opinions, and while he is entitled to his opinions, I disagree. Maybe I’m naïve, but I highly doubt that anyone makes the conscious effort to avoid literacy skills, to avoid knowledge, to avoid truth. People are good and desire to do good things, but Hedges' text does not offer much encouragement.
Monday, September 14, 2009
"Is Google Making Us Stupid?"
I sure hope not.
Though that is the question Nicholas Carr asks and attempts to answer in his article for the Atlantic Monthly, which he wrote a little over a year ago. (And to think, Twitter, the quick and to-the-point social networking site, wasn't even around a year ago...What does this say about Carr's ideas??) I'm not sure Carr ever reaches a clear answer to his question, but he does provide plenty of information that both confirms and denies reason to be worried. He spends most of the article noting how people's attention spans have shortened, and their ability to think deeply and critically has weakened. He even gave a few examples of intellectual writers and readers who have changed their once laborious habits into new, significantly condensed forms. Forms, Carr argues, that replicate those produced by the Internet. "Media," he says "are not just passive channels of information. They supply the stuff of thought, but they also shape the process of thought." It is only natural then, for people to think like a computer "thinks" - quickly, precisely, and factually. This is fine, except that it "leaves little place for the fuzziness of contemplation." Put simply, we are beginning to think less like humans and more like machines. We are losing our tendency to question. How horrifying is that? And what's more, the people working for Google seem to have made it their main goal in life to harness artificial intelligence and create an artificial brain that may even be smarter than the typical human brain. (!)
While the romantic in me does not like this one bit, my realistic side knows that the Internet is not a bad thing. Sure, it may be changing our way of thinking, but we are still thinking. The very fact that there is such advanced technology is because we (people, in general) have been able to think about and then create it. And no, I don’t think Google is making us stupid. (Spoiled and slightly lazy? Yes. But not stupid.) It provides us with more information than we could ever need or want, all we have to do is press a few keys and click a few buttons. It really is a pretty ideal system. The only thing that would be stupid would be to not take advantage of it.
To further this argument, most (if not all) of my English 105 classmates reported that they visited Google, along with numerous other websites, and none of us are stupid. In fact, we are still capable of carrying on intelligent discussions and thoughtfully reading, ingesting, translating, and rewriting information placed before us.
Though that is the question Nicholas Carr asks and attempts to answer in his article for the Atlantic Monthly, which he wrote a little over a year ago. (And to think, Twitter, the quick and to-the-point social networking site, wasn't even around a year ago...What does this say about Carr's ideas??) I'm not sure Carr ever reaches a clear answer to his question, but he does provide plenty of information that both confirms and denies reason to be worried. He spends most of the article noting how people's attention spans have shortened, and their ability to think deeply and critically has weakened. He even gave a few examples of intellectual writers and readers who have changed their once laborious habits into new, significantly condensed forms. Forms, Carr argues, that replicate those produced by the Internet. "Media," he says "are not just passive channels of information. They supply the stuff of thought, but they also shape the process of thought." It is only natural then, for people to think like a computer "thinks" - quickly, precisely, and factually. This is fine, except that it "leaves little place for the fuzziness of contemplation." Put simply, we are beginning to think less like humans and more like machines. We are losing our tendency to question. How horrifying is that? And what's more, the people working for Google seem to have made it their main goal in life to harness artificial intelligence and create an artificial brain that may even be smarter than the typical human brain. (!)
While the romantic in me does not like this one bit, my realistic side knows that the Internet is not a bad thing. Sure, it may be changing our way of thinking, but we are still thinking. The very fact that there is such advanced technology is because we (people, in general) have been able to think about and then create it. And no, I don’t think Google is making us stupid. (Spoiled and slightly lazy? Yes. But not stupid.) It provides us with more information than we could ever need or want, all we have to do is press a few keys and click a few buttons. It really is a pretty ideal system. The only thing that would be stupid would be to not take advantage of it.
To further this argument, most (if not all) of my English 105 classmates reported that they visited Google, along with numerous other websites, and none of us are stupid. In fact, we are still capable of carrying on intelligent discussions and thoughtfully reading, ingesting, translating, and rewriting information placed before us.
Saturday, September 12, 2009
Harris vs. Sullivan
After reading Jacob Harris's introduction, it seems to me that he wants writing to lose its' stigma of being this strict, old-school, academic-based undertaking, to being more of a realisic, appealing, and approachable process, much like the process of blogging. He wants people to realize that writing can be fun and everyone can do it. Specifically, he focuses on the process of working with texts, or reading and then rewriting them in your own words. This is his main concern throughout the first chapter of his book and coincidentally, my main concern as I write this blog post. He urges the reader to question the text at hand and decipher what its' writer is atually trying to do with the text. That is, he wants us to analyze the ideas behind the ideas, if that makes sense. Harris writes that "a text always says both less and more than its writer intends," and so it is our job, as educated readers, to fill in the gaps with our own writings.
This act, essentially, is what blogging does. As Andrew Sullivan mentioned in his article, blogging is a more personal, free-form style of writing that allows someone to think out loud. And further, a blogging community is a perfect place for the sharing and discussing of ideas to ignite our thinking. In many ways, bloggers are the kind of expert academic readers that Harris describes. They analyze texts, turn them into something personal, and get at the core of their message. While I think both Harris and Sullivan would agree that blogging is a form of writing, I am willing to propose that blogging is perhaps writing in its truest form.
This act, essentially, is what blogging does. As Andrew Sullivan mentioned in his article, blogging is a more personal, free-form style of writing that allows someone to think out loud. And further, a blogging community is a perfect place for the sharing and discussing of ideas to ignite our thinking. In many ways, bloggers are the kind of expert academic readers that Harris describes. They analyze texts, turn them into something personal, and get at the core of their message. While I think both Harris and Sullivan would agree that blogging is a form of writing, I am willing to propose that blogging is perhaps writing in its truest form.
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
A Breakdown of My (Internet) History
Let me start by saying I’m not a huge fan of the image my Internet log creates of me. Although I have recently come to terms with the fact that I am a rather mild human being, it’s not exactly something I want to have advertised. But I’m a good sport and I can take it in stride. I just want it to be known though, that I am not a regular visitor of goldenkey.com, nor do I research study abroad programs on a regular basis. This assignment just happened to have caught me on a bad (or maybe good?) weekend when I was feeling overly productive and slightly pressured by my Mom.
With that being said, all of the other websites I visited can pretty much always be found in my computer’s history. Google is my homepage and I generally use it to find answers to any and all of my questions. That’s probably the site I visit most often. In fact, Google, Facebook, and UofL’s website are probably my top three most visited sites, with youtube coming in a close fourth. I use the Internet as a source of knowledge and entertainment, as I’m sure most people do. I wouldn’t consider myself very adept at “surfing the web” and finding new things to look at and read; I generally stick to what I know or have been told about. What’s surprising to me though is that most of my classmates also only have about a handful of websites that they visit regularly and the rest are just things they look at on the side here and there. This makes me wonder if my generation is really as hooked on technology as everyone claims. I like to think that we’re not.
With that being said, all of the other websites I visited can pretty much always be found in my computer’s history. Google is my homepage and I generally use it to find answers to any and all of my questions. That’s probably the site I visit most often. In fact, Google, Facebook, and UofL’s website are probably my top three most visited sites, with youtube coming in a close fourth. I use the Internet as a source of knowledge and entertainment, as I’m sure most people do. I wouldn’t consider myself very adept at “surfing the web” and finding new things to look at and read; I generally stick to what I know or have been told about. What’s surprising to me though is that most of my classmates also only have about a handful of websites that they visit regularly and the rest are just things they look at on the side here and there. This makes me wonder if my generation is really as hooked on technology as everyone claims. I like to think that we’re not.
Monday, September 7, 2009
Internet Useage
These are the notes I took on my Internet useage for 48 hours. Thankfully, there's nothing too embarrassing to share. Take a look:
Friday September 4:
Time Website Visited Activity
9:05 - 9:10 am www.louisville.edu check groupwise email, reply to a classmate's message
9:10 - 9:12 am www.swimplan.com get a workout
9:12 - 9:23 am www.facebook.com check message inbox, respond to wall posts and photo comments
3:00 - 3:10 pm www.facebook.com check message inbox, accept friend request, update status ("eating an apple is the nicest thing you could do for your tastebuds today"
3:10 - 4:05 pm www.louisville.edu check groupwise email
www.youtube.com watch German rap video ("Spass") hyperlinked through Groupwise
www.louisville.edu go to Blackboard and print Astronomy notes, check Psychology link to online assessments, email instructor that link doesn't work
www.youtube.com watch "How to be Emo"
www.louisville.edu email Sociology teacher response to "How to be Emo" youtube video
Saturday, September 5:
Time Website Activity
11:45 - 12:05 pm www.joingoldenkey.org join, fill out form, pay via credit card
12:00 - 1:00 pm www.louisville.edu check GPA (for Golden Key form), check groupwise email, peruse study abroad info
3:00 - 3:10 pm www.google.com search to find song title "Goodbye Stranger" by Supertramp
www.youtube.com listen to "Goodbye Stranger"
4:00 - 4:05 www.mapquest.com get directions to house (to babysit)
Friday September 4:
Time Website Visited Activity
9:05 - 9:10 am www.louisville.edu check groupwise email, reply to a classmate's message
9:10 - 9:12 am www.swimplan.com get a workout
9:12 - 9:23 am www.facebook.com check message inbox, respond to wall posts and photo comments
3:00 - 3:10 pm www.facebook.com check message inbox, accept friend request, update status ("eating an apple is the nicest thing you could do for your tastebuds today"
3:10 - 4:05 pm www.louisville.edu check groupwise email
www.youtube.com watch German rap video ("Spass") hyperlinked through Groupwise
www.louisville.edu go to Blackboard and print Astronomy notes, check Psychology link to online assessments, email instructor that link doesn't work
www.youtube.com watch "How to be Emo"
www.louisville.edu email Sociology teacher response to "How to be Emo" youtube video
Saturday, September 5:
Time Website Activity
11:45 - 12:05 pm www.joingoldenkey.org join, fill out form, pay via credit card
12:00 - 1:00 pm www.louisville.edu check GPA (for Golden Key form), check groupwise email, peruse study abroad info
3:00 - 3:10 pm www.google.com search to find song title "Goodbye Stranger" by Supertramp
www.youtube.com listen to "Goodbye Stranger"
4:00 - 4:05 www.mapquest.com get directions to house (to babysit)
Wednesday, September 2, 2009
Andrew Sullivan
Before this assignment, I had never even heard of Andrew Sullivan, much less read anything he had written, but after reading his text “Why I Blog,” I have decided that his is a voice worth listening to. I have gathered that he is a credible writer with a well-established career and numerous achievements under his belt. What impresses me most though, is that Andrew Sullivan, this middle-aged man (I’m assuming), has surprisingly young ideas. While most people tend to cling to the customs of their own generations, he seems to have taken on today’s revolutionary ideas (at least those relating to writing) – despite how fast-paced and technological infused they are. He recognizes the importance of falling-in with time, of living in the here and now. And “words, of all sorts,” he writes “have never seemed so now.” This, I think, is the most obvious reason why Mr. Sullivan blogs. He simply will not allow himself to remain unchanged, will not deny himself new opportunities for knowledge, and will not avoid the truth.
More simplistically though, I think Andrew Sullivan enjoys the thrill of blogging. I think he likes sitting in front of the computer, typing out his thoughts for the moment, and noticing how those thoughts may completely change by the time he writes his next post. I think he likes the constant feedback from his readers. I think he likes taking the risks and experiencing the fearlessness that come with blogging. And I think he likes the urgency it commands. He writes that “blogging is to writing what extreme sports are to athletics: more free-form, more accident-prone, less formal, more alive.” I think that analogy just about sums it up.
More simplistically though, I think Andrew Sullivan enjoys the thrill of blogging. I think he likes sitting in front of the computer, typing out his thoughts for the moment, and noticing how those thoughts may completely change by the time he writes his next post. I think he likes the constant feedback from his readers. I think he likes taking the risks and experiencing the fearlessness that come with blogging. And I think he likes the urgency it commands. He writes that “blogging is to writing what extreme sports are to athletics: more free-form, more accident-prone, less formal, more alive.” I think that analogy just about sums it up.
Saturday, August 29, 2009
my first post
So, this is it. This is my first-ever post in the blogging world and so far, it’s already easier than I expected. Well, easy in the sense that anyone can do it, and in only a matter of minutes at that. The hardest parts so far have been creating a memorable, eight-character password and deciding on an appropriate web address, which, rest assured, I successfully completed. I have to admit though, I’m not exactly sure if the “blog title” I picked was meant to be the title for the entire blog or just for this first post, but I’m expecting to realize that answer after I write my second one, if not immediately after I post this one. (Note: I just posted this and now need to re-title my blog. Unfortunately, "my first post" does not leave much room for growth.)
I know what you’re thinking, and the answer is Yes, I am avoiding writing anything of real substance. The truth is I’m kind of scared to death at the idea of people, even if they are just other students in my English 105 class, reading my blog posts. And I know this is silly because a blog is really nothing more than a one-sided conversation, and everything I say here I would probably also say aloud, but something about having my words on permanent, public display makes this whole thing horrifying.
In high school, we were assigned to read two novels by the Kentucky author Silas House. In one of the novels, he wrote something about how words fall flat in the air and drift away when spoken, but ink last always. I keep coming back to that idea and I think that’s what scares me the most.
Also, how much are you allowed to read and re-read and edit and delete your writing when you’re posting a blog? I seem to have done a lot of that. I hope it doesn’t make it less authentic.
I know what you’re thinking, and the answer is Yes, I am avoiding writing anything of real substance. The truth is I’m kind of scared to death at the idea of people, even if they are just other students in my English 105 class, reading my blog posts. And I know this is silly because a blog is really nothing more than a one-sided conversation, and everything I say here I would probably also say aloud, but something about having my words on permanent, public display makes this whole thing horrifying.
In high school, we were assigned to read two novels by the Kentucky author Silas House. In one of the novels, he wrote something about how words fall flat in the air and drift away when spoken, but ink last always. I keep coming back to that idea and I think that’s what scares me the most.
Also, how much are you allowed to read and re-read and edit and delete your writing when you’re posting a blog? I seem to have done a lot of that. I hope it doesn’t make it less authentic.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)