I enjoyed reading the blog posts this week, because I've always been curious about other peoples' interactions with Twitter. I never got into the Twitter-sphere, and I think it has something to do with my inability to accurately express myself in 140 characters or less. I was a little surprised with MermaidGhost's response to Zach Whalen's twitter project. I don't think that the Twitter-verse only appreciates bots because they're funny or can quote cult-classic movies. It seems that it sells the audience a little bit short, in my opinion.
However, if that is how the majority of the Twitter-sphere views bots, then it's easy to see how electronic literature isn't taken seriously. Bots, blogging, and computer-based criticism all seem to be viewed skeptically, and I think that adding social media into the mix only adds another level of skepticism.
But, why should we discredit computers or social media? I have more respect for digital media and computer-based criticism this week after working more on my own textual interventions, and reading Stephen Ramsay's explanation of patacomps and pataphysics. It seems there is a world of criticism and creativity that we, as a culture, are throwing to the way-side because we've pigeonholed the computer and social media into having only one function. Even worse? We've pigeonholed ourselves by asserting that digital audiences can't understand or don't care about internet projects, such as Zach Whalen's genius Twitter-bot.
Sunday, November 16, 2014
Thursday, November 13, 2014
What If Shakespeare Had a Twitter?
I have a love/hate relationship with Twitter. I've always enjoyed using it to snoop on people, keep up with celebrities, and get news right in the moment. However, I hate using it. In fact, I don't have a twitter account that I keep updated. I was required to have one for a class last year, and guess what? I haven't updated it since the class ended.
But, I must say that Zach Whalen's article on twitter bots made me rethink how I use and view twitter. Similarly, Stephen Ramsay's conclusion that he hopes that algorithmic-criticism will soon became as outdated and odd as library-based criticism forced me to view the integration of computers into literary criticism in a different way.
Ramsay is completely correct in his assertion that computers are already a part of the human social experience, and that they've transformed from clinical number crunchers to personal information devices that hold photos of our loved ones, valued manuscripts, and access to numerous social networking sites. I would argue that it would be worthwhile to see what it would mean for the literary sphere if we could collide the social networking experience (such as Twitter) with human-based computer criticism.
Instead of viewing Twitter or Tumblr or Facebook as purely fun, time sucks, and distractions from "real" schoolwork, maybe the humanities should embrace projects such as Zach Whalen's into their fold. What if we allowed students to create this algorithms and fake Twitters as projects to explore word frequency and character information as a way to critically explore the text? It's possible that we could turn an entirely new audience onto critical thinking and literature.
I would argue that Zach Whalen's project is something that could be adapted to fit the classroom, and it could be useful in developing new and meaningful ways to explore literary criticism. How would a Marxist reading of a text produce different outlooks? Tweet from a character's perspective and apply the criticism. Reader-response? Great! Apply an algorithm like Whalen's to characters or text and interact with the text and create new meanings in entirely unique ways.
There are a myriad of ways that the collision of social networking, literary criticism, and algorithms can happen to produce meaningful and original research and criticism. The key is deconstructing our view of what these websites and computers should be used for, and instead, seeing them for what they could be used for.
But, I must say that Zach Whalen's article on twitter bots made me rethink how I use and view twitter. Similarly, Stephen Ramsay's conclusion that he hopes that algorithmic-criticism will soon became as outdated and odd as library-based criticism forced me to view the integration of computers into literary criticism in a different way.
Ramsay is completely correct in his assertion that computers are already a part of the human social experience, and that they've transformed from clinical number crunchers to personal information devices that hold photos of our loved ones, valued manuscripts, and access to numerous social networking sites. I would argue that it would be worthwhile to see what it would mean for the literary sphere if we could collide the social networking experience (such as Twitter) with human-based computer criticism.
Instead of viewing Twitter or Tumblr or Facebook as purely fun, time sucks, and distractions from "real" schoolwork, maybe the humanities should embrace projects such as Zach Whalen's into their fold. What if we allowed students to create this algorithms and fake Twitters as projects to explore word frequency and character information as a way to critically explore the text? It's possible that we could turn an entirely new audience onto critical thinking and literature.
I would argue that Zach Whalen's project is something that could be adapted to fit the classroom, and it could be useful in developing new and meaningful ways to explore literary criticism. How would a Marxist reading of a text produce different outlooks? Tweet from a character's perspective and apply the criticism. Reader-response? Great! Apply an algorithm like Whalen's to characters or text and interact with the text and create new meanings in entirely unique ways.
There are a myriad of ways that the collision of social networking, literary criticism, and algorithms can happen to produce meaningful and original research and criticism. The key is deconstructing our view of what these websites and computers should be used for, and instead, seeing them for what they could be used for.
Sunday, November 9, 2014
I Am Not a Lumberjack
After I read all of Group 4's blogposts, I noticed two common themes - a dislike for this week's readings and a far greater interest in the works being used as examples or commentaries instead of the articles themselves.
Singing Celara and shidaipe both lament "Birds Singing Other Birds Songs," and I can understand. It seemed nonsensical to me, and it still does. I considered a recent conversation about modernism and postmodernism, and it seemed highly applicable to the reactions to this weeks readings.
In my recent conversation, my colleagues and I complained about the lack of accessibility to the majority of Joyce's writings- especially Ulysses. My mother used to joke that her copy of Allusions in Ulysses was twice the size of the actual book (and it actually is!). However, as a writer and English major, I wonder if this kind of literature has the desired effect that the author intends.
Is Joyce trying to confuse us? What is the point of "Birds Singing Other Birds Songs"? What's the deal with all the blue? All of these questions were raised at some point this week, and I wonder if the deconstructed and non-linear nature of some literature (cyberpunk, electronic lit, Beatniks) is too much? Has it gotten to the point where the point of the piece of work is lost? To borrow a commonly used phrase, can we not see the forest for the trees?
For many of us, it feels like we have to be lumberjacks, cutting away pieces of the text, to understand its meaning. However, I think the opposite is true: we should be conservationists, preserving the integrity of these complicated creations (even those with annoying bird sounds), because they lend to the overall understanding of the piece. Instead of reconstructing the piece, we should reconstruct the way we think.
I enjoy thinking critically about literature, and I enjoy dense and complex plots. However, I can definitely understand (and agree) with a lot of the issues raised with the dryness, complexity, and oddity of this weeks assigned readings/texts. I would argue that most of our confusion and hesitancy with these particular texts arises from a lack of experience with non-traditional texts due to a narrow canonical education in our primary, secondary, and college-level education. For most of us, this is the first time we've been exposed to any of these texts or electronic literature. I don't think it should be this way.
I would propose that integrating more non-linear, deconstructed, and unorthodox texts earlier in curriculum could create a generation that has a broader and deeper understanding of reading, writing, and creating.
Singing Celara and shidaipe both lament "Birds Singing Other Birds Songs," and I can understand. It seemed nonsensical to me, and it still does. I considered a recent conversation about modernism and postmodernism, and it seemed highly applicable to the reactions to this weeks readings.
In my recent conversation, my colleagues and I complained about the lack of accessibility to the majority of Joyce's writings- especially Ulysses. My mother used to joke that her copy of Allusions in Ulysses was twice the size of the actual book (and it actually is!). However, as a writer and English major, I wonder if this kind of literature has the desired effect that the author intends.
Is Joyce trying to confuse us? What is the point of "Birds Singing Other Birds Songs"? What's the deal with all the blue? All of these questions were raised at some point this week, and I wonder if the deconstructed and non-linear nature of some literature (cyberpunk, electronic lit, Beatniks) is too much? Has it gotten to the point where the point of the piece of work is lost? To borrow a commonly used phrase, can we not see the forest for the trees?
For many of us, it feels like we have to be lumberjacks, cutting away pieces of the text, to understand its meaning. However, I think the opposite is true: we should be conservationists, preserving the integrity of these complicated creations (even those with annoying bird sounds), because they lend to the overall understanding of the piece. Instead of reconstructing the piece, we should reconstruct the way we think.
I enjoy thinking critically about literature, and I enjoy dense and complex plots. However, I can definitely understand (and agree) with a lot of the issues raised with the dryness, complexity, and oddity of this weeks assigned readings/texts. I would argue that most of our confusion and hesitancy with these particular texts arises from a lack of experience with non-traditional texts due to a narrow canonical education in our primary, secondary, and college-level education. For most of us, this is the first time we've been exposed to any of these texts or electronic literature. I don't think it should be this way.
I would propose that integrating more non-linear, deconstructed, and unorthodox texts earlier in curriculum could create a generation that has a broader and deeper understanding of reading, writing, and creating.
Thursday, November 6, 2014
Editions, Archives, and Projects - Oh My!
Kenneth Price attacks terminology of large-scale text-based electronic publishing, and I think his attack is unwarranted. An invasion, if you will.
He tackles edition, archive, database, and project in his essay. Edition seems to encompass too many changes and annotations, archive and database are outdated, and project is too unfocused for his needs. However, I think therein lies the problem with Price's essay: his problems. Kenneth Price is approaching this from his own arena, and I think he fails to consider the larger literary sphere.
Scholars, especially scholars who are used to traditional print-publishing, need to have access to familiar terminology as they transition into the digital-age. I think that McLuhan is in his right to warn us not to look into the future with our rear-view mirrors, but I would argue that there are so many valid projects that use these words (edition, archive, database, project). In addition, there are so many scholars that are not Price that don't think arsenal is the terminology that the technological community should be gravitating towards.
Maybe I'm still stuck in my writer view point. I like the focus on my written product, the thing that I poured my blood, sweat, and tears into and let THAT speak for me. Price clearly wants to shift away from this mindset with his use of the word "arsenal," because he thinks it can help lend to a different mindset. He ends his essay asking this question:
"Can we imagine a world in which what is emphasized is not the created thing so much as the group of people who are now joined together for a common purpose?" (Price).
I can imagine this world, but I don't know how I feel about it. I think there is value in literature, in art, in the beauty of the product. I'm a Wilde fangirl in that way. My hope is that the large-scale text-based electronic publishing world will find a happy medium that celebrates a collaboration of scholars as well as the product of their collaboration.
He tackles edition, archive, database, and project in his essay. Edition seems to encompass too many changes and annotations, archive and database are outdated, and project is too unfocused for his needs. However, I think therein lies the problem with Price's essay: his problems. Kenneth Price is approaching this from his own arena, and I think he fails to consider the larger literary sphere.
Scholars, especially scholars who are used to traditional print-publishing, need to have access to familiar terminology as they transition into the digital-age. I think that McLuhan is in his right to warn us not to look into the future with our rear-view mirrors, but I would argue that there are so many valid projects that use these words (edition, archive, database, project). In addition, there are so many scholars that are not Price that don't think arsenal is the terminology that the technological community should be gravitating towards.
Maybe I'm still stuck in my writer view point. I like the focus on my written product, the thing that I poured my blood, sweat, and tears into and let THAT speak for me. Price clearly wants to shift away from this mindset with his use of the word "arsenal," because he thinks it can help lend to a different mindset. He ends his essay asking this question:
"Can we imagine a world in which what is emphasized is not the created thing so much as the group of people who are now joined together for a common purpose?" (Price).
I can imagine this world, but I don't know how I feel about it. I think there is value in literature, in art, in the beauty of the product. I'm a Wilde fangirl in that way. My hope is that the large-scale text-based electronic publishing world will find a happy medium that celebrates a collaboration of scholars as well as the product of their collaboration.
Sunday, November 2, 2014
Give Me An Expanded Canon, or Give Me Literary Death
I think that blogger reschp2 makes a fantastic point by bringing up the destructive sex present in most of the cyberpunk literature we've been introduced to this week. I would agree with his analysis, and that the connection he draws between McLuhan and the presence of technology in cyberpunk literature, and that both McLuhan and the cyberpunk authors try to predict how technology will influence society through different genres (fiction and non-fiction).
However, I definitely agree with blogger realblueivy and her assertion that cyberpunk has given way to "alt lit" and other types of fiction that seem to have a broader definition, but still incorporate technology in a modern way.
After our readings for this week, and reading the responses from my classmates, I would argue that a lot of us don't see the point for cyberpunk literature. I mean, it's full of cliches, bad sex scenes, and writing that's hard to follow. So, what's the point? Why are we studying it?
I would assert that its value lies in its difference. Cyberpunk literature is, to me, like Beatnik poetry and prose. It's often misunderstood, thrown in a corner of 'only hipsters read this,' and never (or very rarely) taught in mainstream classrooms. However, I think teachers do a disservice to students by throwing out both of these genres.
I think that if they were incorporated into the canon, and taught side-by-side with the literature overlords we've come to know, love, and write terrible essays about, then we could create an entirely knew generation that produces writing that reflects a varied, global, and technologically influenced background. An argument could be made that alt lit is already doing this, but I think that alt lit is often seen as "teen lit" because of chat speak, and that there needs to be both an overhaul to how alt lit is written AND how it's perceived. All of this should be part of the same movement to expand the canon in a way that benefits EVERYONE.
Well, that's my opinion, anyway.
Here is a piece with an interview with William Gibson, and the last paragraph kind of encapsulates the point I'm trying to make. Everyone needs to read more of everything:
William Gibson Interview
However, I definitely agree with blogger realblueivy and her assertion that cyberpunk has given way to "alt lit" and other types of fiction that seem to have a broader definition, but still incorporate technology in a modern way.
After our readings for this week, and reading the responses from my classmates, I would argue that a lot of us don't see the point for cyberpunk literature. I mean, it's full of cliches, bad sex scenes, and writing that's hard to follow. So, what's the point? Why are we studying it?
I would assert that its value lies in its difference. Cyberpunk literature is, to me, like Beatnik poetry and prose. It's often misunderstood, thrown in a corner of 'only hipsters read this,' and never (or very rarely) taught in mainstream classrooms. However, I think teachers do a disservice to students by throwing out both of these genres.
I think that if they were incorporated into the canon, and taught side-by-side with the literature overlords we've come to know, love, and write terrible essays about, then we could create an entirely knew generation that produces writing that reflects a varied, global, and technologically influenced background. An argument could be made that alt lit is already doing this, but I think that alt lit is often seen as "teen lit" because of chat speak, and that there needs to be both an overhaul to how alt lit is written AND how it's perceived. All of this should be part of the same movement to expand the canon in a way that benefits EVERYONE.
Well, that's my opinion, anyway.
Here is a piece with an interview with William Gibson, and the last paragraph kind of encapsulates the point I'm trying to make. Everyone needs to read more of everything:
William Gibson Interview
Wednesday, October 29, 2014
But You Didn't Say WHY!
Reading Charles Stross' "Lobsters" and William Gibson's "Burning Chrome" from a twenty-first century perspective is interesting, to say the least. I am connected to the entire world by my fingertips, and I can surf the cybersphere in seconds. It makes me feel, in a way, that I am living in my own Virtual Reality. However, I think that the globally connected world that exists in 2014 is beyond what any cyberpunk writer could've predicted.
In "Burning Chrome," Gibson gives us the archetype for the hacker that we see in movies, books, and comics across genres. The two loner types, sitting on the edge of society, and going against the big, bad corporation. Then, Stross sets up our burning desire for artificial intelligence (A.I.), the interconnectedness of humanity and computers, and the growing legal presence of computers in society. Gibson and Stross give us both sides of the cyber stereotypes: the loner hacker fighting against Big Brother and the shiny scientific innovation becoming part of society.
I would argue that it's in these two stereotypes that we see the major growth that occurred in cyberpunk as the technological age grew into the twenty-first century.
Gibson's characters are separate, loners, and using their skills to fight Chrome and organized crime. In addition, their initial motivation centers around getting money to impress a girl. Throughout, I get the impression that their hacking skills, their interaction with computers, and their involvement in the digital world is all a means to an end.
Contrastingly, Stross' world centers around artificial intelligence, which is as far from "a means to an end" that one can get. The artificial (the technological) is integrated into the mind, and a legal precedent is set for uploaded minds in the story. Manfred, the main character, is integrated in a world that does not view the major integration of technology as something to be fought, and the technologically gifted (hackers and A.I.) aren't loners that exist in the periphery.
In my opinion, these stories grow as the technological age grows, and they are prime examples of how our literature is going to be continually hacked by the increasing presence of technology. However, there is something in these stories that is stagnant, dated, and unappealing: their treatment of women.
In "Burning Chrome," Rikki is actually working for a brothel tied to Chrome, and ends up leaving for Hollywood after integrating technology (a cybernetic eye) into her own body. It paints the picture of Rikki as a betrayer to Jack and Bobby, and as an idealized body being worshipped instead of an actual character.
In "Lobsters," Manfred's fiancée, Pamela, is even more problematically portrayed. She basically rapes Manny in order to get pregnant, so as to insure herself some "right" to his intellectual property and gains. It's diabolical, and there are no other positive female characters or influences in the story.
My question here is why? Why aren't there more women, why aren't they portrayed as fighting alongside Jack and Bobby, or interacting with the spiny lobsters? Why are they subjugated to the sidelines as foils to the main characters or idealized bodies for the loner hacker?
Obviously, the integration of technology into our literature is the focus this week as we consider cyberpunk as a genre; however, I think we cannot lose sight of other problematic issues in these stories simply because this is primarily a technology-centric class. At the end of the day, this is still literature, and it deserves all of our considerations, critiques, and whys.
In "Burning Chrome," Gibson gives us the archetype for the hacker that we see in movies, books, and comics across genres. The two loner types, sitting on the edge of society, and going against the big, bad corporation. Then, Stross sets up our burning desire for artificial intelligence (A.I.), the interconnectedness of humanity and computers, and the growing legal presence of computers in society. Gibson and Stross give us both sides of the cyber stereotypes: the loner hacker fighting against Big Brother and the shiny scientific innovation becoming part of society.
I would argue that it's in these two stereotypes that we see the major growth that occurred in cyberpunk as the technological age grew into the twenty-first century.
Gibson's characters are separate, loners, and using their skills to fight Chrome and organized crime. In addition, their initial motivation centers around getting money to impress a girl. Throughout, I get the impression that their hacking skills, their interaction with computers, and their involvement in the digital world is all a means to an end.
Contrastingly, Stross' world centers around artificial intelligence, which is as far from "a means to an end" that one can get. The artificial (the technological) is integrated into the mind, and a legal precedent is set for uploaded minds in the story. Manfred, the main character, is integrated in a world that does not view the major integration of technology as something to be fought, and the technologically gifted (hackers and A.I.) aren't loners that exist in the periphery.
In my opinion, these stories grow as the technological age grows, and they are prime examples of how our literature is going to be continually hacked by the increasing presence of technology. However, there is something in these stories that is stagnant, dated, and unappealing: their treatment of women.
In "Burning Chrome," Rikki is actually working for a brothel tied to Chrome, and ends up leaving for Hollywood after integrating technology (a cybernetic eye) into her own body. It paints the picture of Rikki as a betrayer to Jack and Bobby, and as an idealized body being worshipped instead of an actual character.
In "Lobsters," Manfred's fiancée, Pamela, is even more problematically portrayed. She basically rapes Manny in order to get pregnant, so as to insure herself some "right" to his intellectual property and gains. It's diabolical, and there are no other positive female characters or influences in the story.
My question here is why? Why aren't there more women, why aren't they portrayed as fighting alongside Jack and Bobby, or interacting with the spiny lobsters? Why are they subjugated to the sidelines as foils to the main characters or idealized bodies for the loner hacker?
Obviously, the integration of technology into our literature is the focus this week as we consider cyberpunk as a genre; however, I think we cannot lose sight of other problematic issues in these stories simply because this is primarily a technology-centric class. At the end of the day, this is still literature, and it deserves all of our considerations, critiques, and whys.
Sunday, October 26, 2014
Cut It, Fold It, Mash It, Hack It
Lemonlewis points out her issues with Robe Pope's "Re-writing Texts, Re-constructing the Subject: Work as Play on the Critical-Creative Interface," and I can understand her confusion. However, I think part of Pope's theory relies on a reader-response attitude, to an extent, because his idea assumes that each individual reader interacts with the text different, and through that interaction, creates something meaningful. In reader-response, we call this "the poem," but I think Pope's idea re-imagines an old idea.
He proposes that what we re-write in our head is not only an interaction between reader and text, but a tool used to better understand the original text in a critical way.
Awolewel raises a few questions about the validity of this juxtaposition between the original and the cut-up/mash/fold-in. He asks, "Is interpretation invasive?" (awolewel). In my opinion? Yes, it is invasive.
But, I think that critical reading, thinking, and understanding is meant to be invasive, to both the writer and the reader. If the reader is not meant to interact with the text and produce their own original interpretations, then the text fails, in my opinion. Pope's ideas only take the interactive concept and push it a step further by suggesting re-imagined texts can be integrated in literary criticism.
I was thinking about how exactly hacking texts allows the reader to better understand the original, and I came to the conclusion that it's similar to when you learn forms of poetry. For example, the Shakespearean sonnet has a very specific form that is easier to understand (in my opinion) when the writer/reader has engaged in writing an original sonnet. It allows the reader/writer to gain perspective about the effort that goes into creating sonnets; therefore, their understanding of other sonnets grows deeper.
I would argue that this kind of writing method (cut-up, mash, fold-in, etc.) could be implemented in the tinkering pedagogy we talked about earlier, and help students simultaneously understand their own voice and the voice of the author's they're studying.
Thursday, October 23, 2014
Is There Another Text for Us to Hack?
Mark Sample says, in his article "Notes towards a Deformed Humanities," The deformed work is the end, not the means to the end" (Sample).
I'm not sure about that. After going through the readings for this week, my understanding of the value of creative-criticism is that it helps us understand a pre-existing text by deconstructing and changing (intervening) with the original text. I decided to create my own N+7 poem to test out my understanding.
Using W.B. Yeats' "No Second Troy," I used the N+7 generator to produce an intervened version of the poem:
Original:
I've studied Yeats' poetry before, and this poem specifically in its relationship to Maud Gonne. The "she" and "her" that Yeats' refers to is Maud Gonne, as he feels spurned by her and thinks that her presence is destructive to his life. By knowing this, my interpretation of the N+7 text is influenced. When "misery" changes to "mission," Maud Gonne is now giving Yeats purpose. A tightened "bedstead" instead of "beauty" implies a denied sexual or romantic venture. "Burn" becomes "business," and the implication of total destruction is removed from the poem.
It is through this exercise that I have to come to understand that it is possible for intervened works to become works within their own right; however, this is only when the textual hacking is for a creative purpose and not a creative-critical purpose. In order to use hacked texts effectively in the creative-critical sphere, it seems necessary to me to re-integrate the original meaning of the text and/or the text itself.
Even in William S. Burroughs explanation of the Cut-Up method, there is greater understanding of the impact of the method at the end of the piece because the reader has interacted with the original text before it was cut up.
I could be totally wrong, but to me it seems necessary to return to the original text in order to find meaning in the creative-critical sense.
I'm not sure about that. After going through the readings for this week, my understanding of the value of creative-criticism is that it helps us understand a pre-existing text by deconstructing and changing (intervening) with the original text. I decided to create my own N+7 poem to test out my understanding.
Using W.B. Yeats' "No Second Troy," I used the N+7 generator to produce an intervened version of the poem:
Original:
"Why should I blame her that she filled my days
With misery, or that she would of late
Have taught to ignorant men most violent ways,
Or hurled the little streets upon the great.
Had they but courage equal to desire?
What could have made her peaceful with a mind
That nobleness made simple as a fire,
With beauty like a tightened bow, kind
That is not natural in an age like this,
Being high and solitary and most stern?
Why, what could she have done, being what she is?
Was there another Troy for her to burn?"
N+7 Text:
"Why should I blemish her that she filled my dealings,
With mission, or that she would of late
Have taught to ignorant mangles most violent weavers,
Or hurled the little striped upon the great.
Had they but cove equal to detective?
What could have made her peaceful with a minister
That nobleness made simple as a fireside,
With bedstead like a tightened bra, a kitbag
That is not natural in an aide like this,
Bench high and solitary and most stickpin?
Why, what could she have done, bench what she is?
Was there another Troy for her to business?"
I've studied Yeats' poetry before, and this poem specifically in its relationship to Maud Gonne. The "she" and "her" that Yeats' refers to is Maud Gonne, as he feels spurned by her and thinks that her presence is destructive to his life. By knowing this, my interpretation of the N+7 text is influenced. When "misery" changes to "mission," Maud Gonne is now giving Yeats purpose. A tightened "bedstead" instead of "beauty" implies a denied sexual or romantic venture. "Burn" becomes "business," and the implication of total destruction is removed from the poem.
It is through this exercise that I have to come to understand that it is possible for intervened works to become works within their own right; however, this is only when the textual hacking is for a creative purpose and not a creative-critical purpose. In order to use hacked texts effectively in the creative-critical sphere, it seems necessary to me to re-integrate the original meaning of the text and/or the text itself.
Even in William S. Burroughs explanation of the Cut-Up method, there is greater understanding of the impact of the method at the end of the piece because the reader has interacted with the original text before it was cut up.
I could be totally wrong, but to me it seems necessary to return to the original text in order to find meaning in the creative-critical sense.
Thursday, October 16, 2014
50 Shades of Composition
It's embarrassing to admit, but I was a Twilight fan in my early tweens. I enjoyed the Bella-Edward-Jacob love triangle, and I thought the Cullen's were a dynamic family unit. As I've gotten older, my tastes have changed and I'm not a "Twihard" anymore. However, when E.L. James' Fifty Shades of Grey came out in 2011, I was appalled to find out that someone had made a profit by writing fan-fiction. James' characters were based completely on Stephanie Meyers' Bella and Edward, and the only significant difference was the name change (Edward became Christian, and Bella became Anastasia). How was this not plagiarism? Why wasn't Meyers angry and suing James? But the best question yet- how could we, the reading public, buy and consume a work that was so problematic in its plagiarism?
After reading "Plagiarism, Originality, Assemblage" and "Made Not Only in Words: Composition in a New Key,"I think I have a better understanding of how the digital-age mindset towards remix works may have created a reading public that saw James' work as original. Musicians sample other artists (think Vanilla Ice's "Ice, Ice, Baby") and visual artists make pieces that reference other visual art, such as Marcel DuChamp's "Salvador Dali as Mona Lisa," seen here:
We consider these original artworks, so why would books be any different? I think if we understand that mindset of the reading public, it will be easier to dissect the readings this week and their implications for academic writing.
In "Made Not Only in Words," Kathleen Blake Yancey laments, "Don't you wish that the energy and motivation that students bring to some of these other genres they would bring to our assignments?" (298). But, how can educators expect students to approach an 8 to 10 page paper on the Jungian aspects of Shakespeare's tragedies with the same enthusiasm that they bring to a project that engages their creativity, their intelligent, and multiple senses? As I said in my post, "In Defense of the Essay," I still hold the essay as a valuable educational assignment, but I will be the first to admit that not every students finds those kind of assignments exhilarating or engaging.
Johnson-Eilola and Selber ask a question that raises a key question in this pedagogical discussion: "What happens, however, if we tell students that their goal is not to create new, unique texts but to filter and remix other texts in ways that solve concrete problems or enact real social action?" (380). Indeed, what would happen if we asked students to interact with texts, like Shakespeare, in ways that have connections to the world they're living in? I think it is wholly unfair to ask students to disconnect from the world around them in order to focus in on an eight to ten page assignment that ignores the global setting around them. Technology has created a global arena that doesn't allow for students or academics to put on their blinders, sit in the library, and write papers without concern for the real world. To do so, or even suggest that this model is still valid, is completely outdated.
Obviously, the broad incorporation of others' ideas into our own texts is something that is cross-discipline and cross-genre. It is something that's taking hold in academic writing, as well as fiction. I still think that James' Fifty Shades of Grey crosses the line into blatant plagiarism, but there are millions of readers across the globe who could disagree with me.
The question is not whether or not the intertextual/remix relationship in composition is going to happen, because it's already here. Instead, the question for academics and writers across disciplines, is are we going to utilize the new reading public, their mindset, and global arena afforded to us through the digital age; or, are we going to bury our heads in the proverbial sand?
Works Cited:
Johnson-Eilola, J. and S.A. Selber. "Plagiarism, Originality, Assemblage." Computers and Composition 24. 2007. Web. 16 Oct. 2014.
Yancey, Kathleen B. "Made Not Only in Words: Composition in a New Key." CCC 56:2. December 2004. Web. 16 Oct. 2014.
After reading "Plagiarism, Originality, Assemblage" and "Made Not Only in Words: Composition in a New Key,"I think I have a better understanding of how the digital-age mindset towards remix works may have created a reading public that saw James' work as original. Musicians sample other artists (think Vanilla Ice's "Ice, Ice, Baby") and visual artists make pieces that reference other visual art, such as Marcel DuChamp's "Salvador Dali as Mona Lisa," seen here:
We consider these original artworks, so why would books be any different? I think if we understand that mindset of the reading public, it will be easier to dissect the readings this week and their implications for academic writing.
In "Made Not Only in Words," Kathleen Blake Yancey laments, "Don't you wish that the energy and motivation that students bring to some of these other genres they would bring to our assignments?" (298). But, how can educators expect students to approach an 8 to 10 page paper on the Jungian aspects of Shakespeare's tragedies with the same enthusiasm that they bring to a project that engages their creativity, their intelligent, and multiple senses? As I said in my post, "In Defense of the Essay," I still hold the essay as a valuable educational assignment, but I will be the first to admit that not every students finds those kind of assignments exhilarating or engaging.
Johnson-Eilola and Selber ask a question that raises a key question in this pedagogical discussion: "What happens, however, if we tell students that their goal is not to create new, unique texts but to filter and remix other texts in ways that solve concrete problems or enact real social action?" (380). Indeed, what would happen if we asked students to interact with texts, like Shakespeare, in ways that have connections to the world they're living in? I think it is wholly unfair to ask students to disconnect from the world around them in order to focus in on an eight to ten page assignment that ignores the global setting around them. Technology has created a global arena that doesn't allow for students or academics to put on their blinders, sit in the library, and write papers without concern for the real world. To do so, or even suggest that this model is still valid, is completely outdated.
Obviously, the broad incorporation of others' ideas into our own texts is something that is cross-discipline and cross-genre. It is something that's taking hold in academic writing, as well as fiction. I still think that James' Fifty Shades of Grey crosses the line into blatant plagiarism, but there are millions of readers across the globe who could disagree with me.
The question is not whether or not the intertextual/remix relationship in composition is going to happen, because it's already here. Instead, the question for academics and writers across disciplines, is are we going to utilize the new reading public, their mindset, and global arena afforded to us through the digital age; or, are we going to bury our heads in the proverbial sand?
Works Cited:
Johnson-Eilola, J. and S.A. Selber. "Plagiarism, Originality, Assemblage." Computers and Composition 24. 2007. Web. 16 Oct. 2014.
Yancey, Kathleen B. "Made Not Only in Words: Composition in a New Key." CCC 56:2. December 2004. Web. 16 Oct. 2014.
Friday, October 10, 2014
Value the Vomit
Blogger awolewel shares a wonderful phrase that a professor said to him/her: "Value the vomit!" (awolewel). It's a short and memorable saying that's supposed to make students value their pre-writing and free writing that will eventually turn into a beautiful paper. As I read over the blogs this week, I noticed that many bloggers rejoiced at Mark L. Sample's rejection of the traditional essay. However, I would question: are we rejoicing the rejection of the essay or the evaluation?
For example, MermaidGhost says, "I struggled with anxiety and depression, so writing anything for school is like pulling teeth. And then I'm freaking out that I haven't written anything yet, or if it's good enough..." (Mermaid Ghost). I would argue that her apprehension is connected to the evaluation rather than the act of writing itself. However, that still leaves students with unnecessary anxiety. So, how do we change that on pedagogical level?
We have to value the vomit.
If we started teaching students to value all of their writing, from pre-writing to the final product, instead of putting the emphasis on evaluation against a specific formulaic mold, then we might create a generation of students who value and cultivate their writing skills.
I would argue that our class does that. Students are encouraged to blog and share their ideas in formats that are evaluated, but are not demandingly formulaic. We have a basic assignment each week, but we have so many choices of articles and can write on anything that strikes our fancy. In doing so, we have created a space that records the progression of our writing skills and ideas, and simultaneously allows us to learn from the students around us and exchange ideas. In this way, we are building ourselves and tinkering together.
Works Cited:
awolewel. "Awakening my Inner Child" awolewel. 8 Oct. 2014. Web. 10 Oct. 2014.
MermaidGhost. "Week 7 Reading Response" MermaidGhost. 9 Oct. 2014. Web. 10 Oct. 2014.
For example, MermaidGhost says, "I struggled with anxiety and depression, so writing anything for school is like pulling teeth. And then I'm freaking out that I haven't written anything yet, or if it's good enough..." (Mermaid Ghost). I would argue that her apprehension is connected to the evaluation rather than the act of writing itself. However, that still leaves students with unnecessary anxiety. So, how do we change that on pedagogical level?
We have to value the vomit.
If we started teaching students to value all of their writing, from pre-writing to the final product, instead of putting the emphasis on evaluation against a specific formulaic mold, then we might create a generation of students who value and cultivate their writing skills.
I would argue that our class does that. Students are encouraged to blog and share their ideas in formats that are evaluated, but are not demandingly formulaic. We have a basic assignment each week, but we have so many choices of articles and can write on anything that strikes our fancy. In doing so, we have created a space that records the progression of our writing skills and ideas, and simultaneously allows us to learn from the students around us and exchange ideas. In this way, we are building ourselves and tinkering together.
Works Cited:
awolewel. "Awakening my Inner Child" awolewel. 8 Oct. 2014. Web. 10 Oct. 2014.
MermaidGhost. "Week 7 Reading Response" MermaidGhost. 9 Oct. 2014. Web. 10 Oct. 2014.
Wednesday, October 8, 2014
In Defense of the Essay
As an English major, I am still a fan of the academic paper. I don't agree with everything Mark L. Sample says in his article, "What's Wrong with Writing Essays," but I think he makes the case for changing pedagogy to engage students more effectively. Personally, I think the process of research and synthesizing ideas into an academic format is useful to students across all majors. However, I can see where tinkering could come into play in the literary field in a way that benefits all students.
Jentery Sayers talks about the incorporation of tinkering in her essay, "Tinker-Centric Pedagogy in Literature and Language Classrooms." I think the most important point she makes is the space for test-and-failure that tinkering creates in a classroom. In the university setting, there are hundreds of thousands of students whose lives revolve around evaluation and GPAs. Perhaps if teachers change the way students are evaluated to center around the process instead of a formulaic end goal, then students will be able to more actively engage in the classroom and through their assignments.
However, how do teachers approach this new kind of pedagogy without completely removing the importance of the end product? Students should still want to produce original products that showcase critical thinking and an impressive synthesis of ideas. I think the key here is, as Sayers says, "...having students document what changes from experiment to experiment" (285). I would argue that you could translate this process to a paper-writing process. By changing the pedagogy to be tinker-centric, it might be possible to remove the inherently problematic issues with essays that Sample talks about.
I think that blogs are a useful way to approach paper-writing, because I think they serve as a type of change log that Sayers talks about. Teachers could use blogs as a way for students to document the change in their writing and ideas over the course of a class, and then have them use that documented change in a final product that addresses all of the skills they've acquired throughout the semester: coding, digital production, and synthesize of literary ideas.
It seems like blogging is becoming seen as what should be the "standard" instead of the "exception;" at least, according to this article by Michael Drennan of The Guardian. He makes the case for incorporating blogs, without discrediting the experience of writing, by saying, "Asking all students to write blogs as learning unfold and interlinks, empowers the teacher to be more supportive because they're less tied to the bureaucracy; it raises challenge levels; it enables IT-skilling; it lets students see their own progress...it means more productive and accelerating learning-talk over rote-writing" (Drennan).
Additionally, I think Drennan's article makes another important point: adopting a digital method that can be adapted to the tinker-centric pedagogy is good for teachers as well as students. By freeing teachers from confining rubrics and traditional molds, digital/tinker-centric assignments can help teachers interact with students on a deeper level in order to foster a supportive relationship that isn't evaluation-centric.
Sample complains that the traditional essay eliminates critical thinking by following a formulaic model that doesn't allow for productive deviation. However, it might be worthwhile for the digital humanities to consider a true collaboration between the digital and the traditional academic paper in order to combine the values of the paper with the innovation of the digital.
Works Cited:
Drennan, Michael. "Blogging in the Classroom: Why Your Students Should Write Online." The Guardian. N.p., 17 July 2012. Web. 8 Oct 2014
Sample, Mark L. What's Wrong with Writing Essays. Debates in the Digital Humanities. Web. 8 Oct. 2014.
Sayers, Jentery. Tinker-Centric Pedagogy in Literature and Language Classrooms (n.d.): n. pag. Utah State University Press. Web. 8 Oct. 2014.
Jentery Sayers talks about the incorporation of tinkering in her essay, "Tinker-Centric Pedagogy in Literature and Language Classrooms." I think the most important point she makes is the space for test-and-failure that tinkering creates in a classroom. In the university setting, there are hundreds of thousands of students whose lives revolve around evaluation and GPAs. Perhaps if teachers change the way students are evaluated to center around the process instead of a formulaic end goal, then students will be able to more actively engage in the classroom and through their assignments.
However, how do teachers approach this new kind of pedagogy without completely removing the importance of the end product? Students should still want to produce original products that showcase critical thinking and an impressive synthesis of ideas. I think the key here is, as Sayers says, "...having students document what changes from experiment to experiment" (285). I would argue that you could translate this process to a paper-writing process. By changing the pedagogy to be tinker-centric, it might be possible to remove the inherently problematic issues with essays that Sample talks about.
I think that blogs are a useful way to approach paper-writing, because I think they serve as a type of change log that Sayers talks about. Teachers could use blogs as a way for students to document the change in their writing and ideas over the course of a class, and then have them use that documented change in a final product that addresses all of the skills they've acquired throughout the semester: coding, digital production, and synthesize of literary ideas.
It seems like blogging is becoming seen as what should be the "standard" instead of the "exception;" at least, according to this article by Michael Drennan of The Guardian. He makes the case for incorporating blogs, without discrediting the experience of writing, by saying, "Asking all students to write blogs as learning unfold and interlinks, empowers the teacher to be more supportive because they're less tied to the bureaucracy; it raises challenge levels; it enables IT-skilling; it lets students see their own progress...it means more productive and accelerating learning-talk over rote-writing" (Drennan).
Additionally, I think Drennan's article makes another important point: adopting a digital method that can be adapted to the tinker-centric pedagogy is good for teachers as well as students. By freeing teachers from confining rubrics and traditional molds, digital/tinker-centric assignments can help teachers interact with students on a deeper level in order to foster a supportive relationship that isn't evaluation-centric.
Sample complains that the traditional essay eliminates critical thinking by following a formulaic model that doesn't allow for productive deviation. However, it might be worthwhile for the digital humanities to consider a true collaboration between the digital and the traditional academic paper in order to combine the values of the paper with the innovation of the digital.
Works Cited:
Drennan, Michael. "Blogging in the Classroom: Why Your Students Should Write Online." The Guardian. N.p., 17 July 2012. Web. 8 Oct 2014
Sample, Mark L. What's Wrong with Writing Essays. Debates in the Digital Humanities. Web. 8 Oct. 2014.
Sayers, Jentery. Tinker-Centric Pedagogy in Literature and Language Classrooms (n.d.): n. pag. Utah State University Press. Web. 8 Oct. 2014.
Saturday, October 4, 2014
And You're Walking, And You're Walking, And You're Walking...*
I had a crush on Legolas. It was my first real, massive, there-will-be-no-other-don't-laugh-at-me crush. So, when my mom finally let me create my own character for our family-and-friends Dungeons and Dragons campaign, I chose to be an elf. I think it was one of the happiest moments of my childhood to be able to say "I'm an elf" and have the adults in my life agree with me.
As an adult, I don't get to play D'n'D as much as I would like, but it still holds a special place in my heart. Reading Nick Montfort's article this week was exciting, and I think that Digitize Rhetoric's blog post does a great job of breaking down the possibilities for gaming as interactive fiction. He points out that Dungeons and Dragons may not come to mind as an example of interactive fiction at first glance, but, "...if a redactor were present, a text or work would inevitably arise, infused with basic elements of literature: setting, character, conflict, plot, ambiguity, etc" (Digitize Rhetoric).
I remember members of my own family-run D'n'D group had a redactor of sorts, and there are many funny quotes and memorable dialogue that were memorialized online during our numerous campaigns. However, it's debatable whether or not a redactor role is common in these games. Additionally, if we take into account games such as World of Warcraft and other MMORPG's (short for massively multiplayer online role-playing games),
Chris Davis' blog post talks about the short comings of modern technology because of the lack of preservation techniques for current electronic media. I would argue this is especially true for interactive fiction, because there is no story being electronically written while the player is creating their narrative.
I think it would open up a whole new world of fiction if there was a program created for MMORPG's that allowed for a characters gameplay to be saved in a narrative, electronically written form. Instead of writing off these games, whether they're online or D'n'D campaigns taking place in someone's living room, the literary community should try and figure out a way to foster this love for roleplaying in order to create an entirely new genre of fiction that represents some of the biggest communities in the digital age.
I know that I would love to have the transcripts from my elven character Salogel (yes, it's Legolas spelled backwards), because sometimes the funniest fiction comes from the mind of a child.
*The title comes from a well-known episode of "Dexter's Laboratory," and you can watch the video here. If you've got nine minutes (or 30 seconds and then skip to the last 30 seconds) it's a pretty funny video in light of what we've been talking about.
Works Cited:
davisc47 [Chris Davis]. "Reading Response Five: Invincible Hard Drives " Chris Davis Elite Blog. Web. 4 October 2014.
digitizerhetoric [Gabriel Vega]. "Is It Literature?" Digitize Rhetoric. Web. 4 October 2014
As an adult, I don't get to play D'n'D as much as I would like, but it still holds a special place in my heart. Reading Nick Montfort's article this week was exciting, and I think that Digitize Rhetoric's blog post does a great job of breaking down the possibilities for gaming as interactive fiction. He points out that Dungeons and Dragons may not come to mind as an example of interactive fiction at first glance, but, "...if a redactor were present, a text or work would inevitably arise, infused with basic elements of literature: setting, character, conflict, plot, ambiguity, etc" (Digitize Rhetoric).
I remember members of my own family-run D'n'D group had a redactor of sorts, and there are many funny quotes and memorable dialogue that were memorialized online during our numerous campaigns. However, it's debatable whether or not a redactor role is common in these games. Additionally, if we take into account games such as World of Warcraft and other MMORPG's (short for massively multiplayer online role-playing games),
Chris Davis' blog post talks about the short comings of modern technology because of the lack of preservation techniques for current electronic media. I would argue this is especially true for interactive fiction, because there is no story being electronically written while the player is creating their narrative.
I think it would open up a whole new world of fiction if there was a program created for MMORPG's that allowed for a characters gameplay to be saved in a narrative, electronically written form. Instead of writing off these games, whether they're online or D'n'D campaigns taking place in someone's living room, the literary community should try and figure out a way to foster this love for roleplaying in order to create an entirely new genre of fiction that represents some of the biggest communities in the digital age.
I know that I would love to have the transcripts from my elven character Salogel (yes, it's Legolas spelled backwards), because sometimes the funniest fiction comes from the mind of a child.
*The title comes from a well-known episode of "Dexter's Laboratory," and you can watch the video here. If you've got nine minutes (or 30 seconds and then skip to the last 30 seconds) it's a pretty funny video in light of what we've been talking about.
Works Cited:
davisc47 [Chris Davis]. "Reading Response Five: Invincible Hard Drives " Chris Davis Elite Blog. Web. 4 October 2014.
digitizerhetoric [Gabriel Vega]. "Is It Literature?" Digitize Rhetoric. Web. 4 October 2014
Wednesday, October 1, 2014
An Overflow of Gazing at the Unseen
As I've been working on our McLuhan project, I've been able to dive deeper into some of the concepts introduced into McLuhan's work and I think they're particularly appropriate when considering Nick "A Companion to Digital Literary Studies" and his ideas regarding the role of interactive fiction as a conceptual way to better understand Oulipo's theory of potential literature.
I hope this doesn't confuse anyone, because my goal here is to incorporate more traditional literary ideas with newer ones in order to facilitate understanding because that's what helped me comprehend some of the more complex theories.
First, McLuhan defines the exchange between reader and author, saying, "Mechanical multiples of the same texts created a public -- a reading public" (McLuhan 122). This reading public (generally referred to as 'the reader') constantly watches and influences the way the authors write and produce their literary texts.
Now, this reminded me of a literary concept that I've been discussing in my 20th Century American Lit class called the Panopticon, which helped define the powerful impact of the gaze on the subjects of the gaze. Here is an image to help you visualize:
I hope this doesn't confuse anyone, because my goal here is to incorporate more traditional literary ideas with newer ones in order to facilitate understanding because that's what helped me comprehend some of the more complex theories.
First, McLuhan defines the exchange between reader and author, saying, "Mechanical multiples of the same texts created a public -- a reading public" (McLuhan 122). This reading public (generally referred to as 'the reader') constantly watches and influences the way the authors write and produce their literary texts.
Now, this reminded me of a literary concept that I've been discussing in my 20th Century American Lit class called the Panopticon, which helped define the powerful impact of the gaze on the subjects of the gaze. Here is an image to help you visualize:
Here's the idea behind the image: The watchtower has a view of the prisoners twenty-four/seven, and therefore influences the way the prisoners behave because the prisoners are constantly aware that they're under the gaze of the watchtower.
In this way, authors are constantly under the gaze of the reading public. However, what happens when the reading public and the authors merge? I believe this is where interactive fiction and Oulipo's theory of potential literature occur.
Monfort talks about the role of the author (or the interactor) in interactive fiction, saying, "The interactor could have typed something different and gone into a different area at first... Bronze [the interactive story referenced in the article] provides a specific set of possibilities, however, not every imaginable text..." (Monfort).
The interactor has become both audience and author, because he or she is able to control the direction of the story to his or her own satisfaction. Oulipo's concept of potential fiction takes that and sets in on an unlimited stage by incorporating the digital components. Stephen Ramsay says in An Algorithmic Criticism, "The computer revolutionizes, not because it proposes an alternative...but because it reimagines that procedure at new scales, with new speeds, and among new sets of conditions" (Ramsay 31).
Monfort's description of the relationship between human and computers in interaction fiction says, "If interactive fiction were simply a riff on the command-line way of interacting computers, it would be of little interest. But it has been more than that for decades, providing a fascinating structure for narrative human-computer conversation, bringing simulation and narration together in novel ways" (Monfort).
I believe that this human-computer interaction is reflective of the shift from a drastic separation between reading public and authors into a reading public that are simultaneously authors.
Works Cited:
McLuhan, Marshall, Quentin Fiore, and Jerome Agel. The Medium is the Massage. New York: Bantam, 1967. Print.
Montfort, Nick. "Riddle Machines: The History and Nature of Interactive Fiction." A Companion to Digital Literary Studies. N.P., 2008. Web. 01 Oct. 2014.
Ramsay, Stephen. Reading Machines: Toward an Algorithmic Criticism. Urbana: U of Illinois, 2011. Print.
Saturday, September 27, 2014
Bad Artists Copy. Good Artists Steal.*
Singing Celara brings out the message in Jamie O'Neil's video, "The Medium is the Mix," saying: "...O'Neil makes the statement that no idea is unique, we simply mix other people's ideas into our own words and situations" (Singing Celara). In addition, I think blogger Writing Moves makes an excellent point in her newest blog post, "Reading Response 4: Language Altering Media," by talking about the use of HTML and coding as a new form of writing. She says, "Writing in our digital age can still mean words, but it can also mean programming" (Writing Moves).
I would argue that these two ideas are contradictory. O'Neil's suggestion that no idea is unique simply because we employ a mix of mediums is obsolete in the eyes of the digital age. Writing Move's blog post pulls in the example from Kenneth Goldsmith's "Revenge of the Text," where the author disrupts an image of Shakespeare by inserting a sonnet into the HTML coding. Here are the before and after images:
I would argue that these two ideas are contradictory. O'Neil's suggestion that no idea is unique simply because we employ a mix of mediums is obsolete in the eyes of the digital age. Writing Move's blog post pulls in the example from Kenneth Goldsmith's "Revenge of the Text," where the author disrupts an image of Shakespeare by inserting a sonnet into the HTML coding. Here are the before and after images:
By inserting the "word language" (the sonnet) into the "coding language" (the HTML), Goldsmith has managed to create something completely new. It did not exist before he conceived and produced it, and I think that O'Neil's argument is weak in light Goldsmith's work. In addition, mixing mediums to create new art is not a concept exclusive to the digital age. Pablo Picasso's "Guitar" is considered a renowned, unique piece of artwork and it is made from a mix of preexisting material. Here it is if you've never seen it:
I think that Goldsmith's ideas, as well as the concept of mash-ups as art form, may have taken a page from Picasso's book. By doing so, another layer of artistry has been added to the production of the written word (coding and non-coding).
*This is a quote from Pablo Picasso, which you can find here.
Works Cited:
Nunweiler, Alexandria. "Writing Moves" 24 Sept. 2014. Web. 27 Sept. 2014.
Singing Celara. "Singing Celara: An Assignment Blog" 24 Sept. 2014. Web. 27 Sept. 2014.
Wednesday, September 24, 2014
Two Warring Mediums in One Literary Body
"It is a peculiar sensation, this double-consciousness, this sense of alway's looking at one's self through the eyes of others, of measuring one's soul by the tape of a world that looks on in amused contempt and pity" (DuBois 3). Paul Miller, aka DJ Spooky, quotes W.E.B. DuBois in his article "DJing Is Writing/Writing Is DJing." I've been exploring DuBois' seminal work in one of my other classes and I would have never thought to integrate DuBois' concept into our Cyber Rhetoric class. If you've never encountered double consciousness before, or need a refresher, the Wikipedia article is quite informing and in lay language. It includes the quote that I've used above and explains it more in depth.
In my consideration of the connection between this literary critical idea and our study of the cyber sphere I have come to the conclusion that the juxtaposition between electronic and print texts may call for an examination of the way we critically approach texts in different mediums in the digital age.
Stephen Ramsay suggests in his book, "Reading Machines: Towards an Algorithmic Criticism," that computers should be considered viable resources in the field of literary criticism. He says, "If algorithmic criticism is to have a central hermeneutical tenet, it is this: that the narrowing constraints of computational logic -- the irreducible tendency of the computer toward enumeration, measurement, and verification -- is fully comparable with the goals of criticism..." (Ramsay 16). I think that Ramsay makes a valid point, but I think the issue regarding the integration of electronics and criticism lies not in the technological tools but in the literary theory. I would ask if there needs to be a different lens through which we view electronic words and texts, or can we examine them in the same way as their print predecessors?
To clarify, I am not asking if we should only use computers to explore electronic texts; instead, I'm suggesting that the critical approach we apply to electronic text may need to be different from printed texts. A parallel can be drawn from preexisting literary criticism and its evolution over the last century as the coinage of 'double consciousness' by W.E.B. DuBois led to a revolutionary recognition of the separate existence of multiple consciousnesses.
His ideas in "The Souls of Black Folks" then gave way to African American criticism. By defining a line between the white and black consciousnesses, DuBois then created an argument for the validity of a separate consideration of the African American lens.
Electronic texts are becoming increasingly validated through their integration in the academic sphere. However, their integration does not signify assimilation. Kenneth Goldsmith points out the differences between printed texts and electronic texts by defining the differences between the purpose of their words. He says, "Words very well might not only written to be read [as is the case for printed texts] but rather to be shared, moved, and manipulated, sometimes by humans, more often by machines [in the case of electronic texts..." (Goldsmith 15).
I believe it is limiting to only view electronic texts through the eyes of printed text and measure their worth against their paper peers. If we create a separate type of criticism, that takes into account the intricacies of the cyber sphere, I believe it will lead to more in-depth research and understanding as well as more authentic research. As I wrote last week in my post about possibly creating a separate kind of Reader-Response Criticism that incorporates hypertext, I believe that the electronic literary world merits both incorporation into the preexisting literary field and separate recognition of its own literary worth.
Works Cited:
DuBois, W.E.B. The Souls of Black Folks. New York: Dodd, Mead, 1961. Print.
Goldsmith, Kenneth. "Revenge of the Text." Uncreative Writing: Managing Language in the Digital Age. New York: Columbia UP, 2011.
Ramsay, Stephen. Reading Machines: Toward An Algorithmic Criticism. Urbana: U of Illinois, 2011. Print.
In my consideration of the connection between this literary critical idea and our study of the cyber sphere I have come to the conclusion that the juxtaposition between electronic and print texts may call for an examination of the way we critically approach texts in different mediums in the digital age.
Stephen Ramsay suggests in his book, "Reading Machines: Towards an Algorithmic Criticism," that computers should be considered viable resources in the field of literary criticism. He says, "If algorithmic criticism is to have a central hermeneutical tenet, it is this: that the narrowing constraints of computational logic -- the irreducible tendency of the computer toward enumeration, measurement, and verification -- is fully comparable with the goals of criticism..." (Ramsay 16). I think that Ramsay makes a valid point, but I think the issue regarding the integration of electronics and criticism lies not in the technological tools but in the literary theory. I would ask if there needs to be a different lens through which we view electronic words and texts, or can we examine them in the same way as their print predecessors?
To clarify, I am not asking if we should only use computers to explore electronic texts; instead, I'm suggesting that the critical approach we apply to electronic text may need to be different from printed texts. A parallel can be drawn from preexisting literary criticism and its evolution over the last century as the coinage of 'double consciousness' by W.E.B. DuBois led to a revolutionary recognition of the separate existence of multiple consciousnesses.
His ideas in "The Souls of Black Folks" then gave way to African American criticism. By defining a line between the white and black consciousnesses, DuBois then created an argument for the validity of a separate consideration of the African American lens.
Electronic texts are becoming increasingly validated through their integration in the academic sphere. However, their integration does not signify assimilation. Kenneth Goldsmith points out the differences between printed texts and electronic texts by defining the differences between the purpose of their words. He says, "Words very well might not only written to be read [as is the case for printed texts] but rather to be shared, moved, and manipulated, sometimes by humans, more often by machines [in the case of electronic texts..." (Goldsmith 15).
I believe it is limiting to only view electronic texts through the eyes of printed text and measure their worth against their paper peers. If we create a separate type of criticism, that takes into account the intricacies of the cyber sphere, I believe it will lead to more in-depth research and understanding as well as more authentic research. As I wrote last week in my post about possibly creating a separate kind of Reader-Response Criticism that incorporates hypertext, I believe that the electronic literary world merits both incorporation into the preexisting literary field and separate recognition of its own literary worth.
Works Cited:
DuBois, W.E.B. The Souls of Black Folks. New York: Dodd, Mead, 1961. Print.
Goldsmith, Kenneth. "Revenge of the Text." Uncreative Writing: Managing Language in the Digital Age. New York: Columbia UP, 2011.
Ramsay, Stephen. Reading Machines: Toward An Algorithmic Criticism. Urbana: U of Illinois, 2011. Print.
Friday, September 19, 2014
You're Hot and You're Cold, You're Yes and You're No
As I was delving into the concepts of hot and cold media presented by McLuhan I couldn't help but think of the hit 2008 song "Hot N Cold" by Katy Perry. While one really has nothing to do with the other, the song helped me contemplate how the hot and cold theory is possibly a misnomer. As MissDeeZee pointed out, McLuhan's theory "...is not a binary. It is not a dichotomy" (MissDeeZee). I would agree with her. The terms hot and cold suggest that media can be categorized into two opposing sides; however, media exists on McLuhan's continuum instead within his binary.
A question that McLuhan's spectrum forces me to raise this week, in light of the readings on hypertexts and electronic editions that we've been doing, is would the incorporation of hypertext and electronic editions push reading towards being hotter or colder?
I think that blogger realblueivy makes a good point when she says, "Although many teachers are resistant to the idea of e-readers in class or online textbooks, I believe that they may have the ability to change our entire learning process" (realblueivy). By using hypertext, I would argue that reading becomes more immersive (like movies) and therefore is hotter; but, at the same time it requires more active participation (like traditional reading) so it is cooler in that aspect.
The increasing use of hypertext and e-readers may call for an overhaul of McLuhan's hot and cold theory and how we explain it or use it as everything blurs together due to the mesh of traditional literary texts with new-age media and digital technology.
Works Cited:
Hot N Cold. Perf. Katy Perry. YouTube. N.p., 13. Oct. 2008 Web 19 Sept. 2014
MissDeeZee93. "Untitled." Cyber Rhetoric - Writ 502. N.P., 17 Sept. 2014. Web. 19 Sept. 2014
realblueivy. "Reading Response 3." realblueivy. N.p., 18 Sept. 2014. Web. 19 Sept. 2014
A question that McLuhan's spectrum forces me to raise this week, in light of the readings on hypertexts and electronic editions that we've been doing, is would the incorporation of hypertext and electronic editions push reading towards being hotter or colder?
I think that blogger realblueivy makes a good point when she says, "Although many teachers are resistant to the idea of e-readers in class or online textbooks, I believe that they may have the ability to change our entire learning process" (realblueivy). By using hypertext, I would argue that reading becomes more immersive (like movies) and therefore is hotter; but, at the same time it requires more active participation (like traditional reading) so it is cooler in that aspect.
The increasing use of hypertext and e-readers may call for an overhaul of McLuhan's hot and cold theory and how we explain it or use it as everything blurs together due to the mesh of traditional literary texts with new-age media and digital technology.
Works Cited:
Hot N Cold. Perf. Katy Perry. YouTube. N.p., 13. Oct. 2008 Web 19 Sept. 2014
MissDeeZee93. "Untitled." Cyber Rhetoric - Writ 502. N.P., 17 Sept. 2014. Web. 19 Sept. 2014
realblueivy. "Reading Response 3." realblueivy. N.p., 18 Sept. 2014. Web. 19 Sept. 2014
Wednesday, September 17, 2014
To Tweet, or Not to Tweet?
Last spring I waded my way through the text-laden and theory-heavy course known as English 300, or Approaches to Literature. Throughout the class we learned the main literary criticism and theory necessary to succeed as an English major, and one of the ones that interested me the most was Reader-Response Criticism (called RRC from here on for brevity). For those of you who are unfamiliar with RRC, here is a detailed explanation and overview of the criticism and its history.
Earlier in the week, I raised the question in our participation forums about the interconnectedness of RRC and the use of hypertexts. As I've been working on annotated bibliographies and research papers for other classes, I can't help but wonder how different the experience would be if I were reading electronic editions of these scholarly articles with hypertext annotations. Landlow says this about the use of hypertext in scholarly works: "Although you cannot change my text, you can write a response and then link it to my document" (Landlow).
I would question whether or not this creates an entirely different type of RRC by incorporating the reader's experience with the collective audience's opinions in an interaction with the main text. As we progress farther into the digital age, I would argue that developing a system for incorporating scholarly electronic editions with hypertext into the traditional research and learning process is only beneficial. By allowing students to read and incorporate other perspectives they will be able to form more well-rounded opinions.
Over the last few years, the humanities world has seen several changes to accommodate the growing integration of electronic media into scholarly research. An example of this is the incorporation of Twitter and 'tweets' into MLA's citable resources. An article published in 2012 briefly discusses the benefits and drawbacks to this decision, but overall commends the MLA for considering Twitter as part of the scholarly discussion. In my opinion, the further we integrate electronic resources into our research, the more information we (as scholars) can incorporate and use to produce phenomenal papers and presentations.
While there are other obstacles standing in the way of a full-on electronic incorporation, such as equitable and unrestricted access to the Internet globally, I believe that classes like these are creating the building blocks for a successful argument for the integration of electronic media and tools into the classroom, academic sphere, and beyond.
Works Cited:
Byford, Sam. "Modern Language Association Standardizes Format for Citing Tweets." The Verge. N.p., 8 March 2012. Web. 17 September 2014.
Landlow, George P. "Reading and Writing in a Hypertext Environment." Reading and Writing in a Hypertext Environment. Johns Hopkins University Press, n.d. Web. 17 September 2014.
Earlier in the week, I raised the question in our participation forums about the interconnectedness of RRC and the use of hypertexts. As I've been working on annotated bibliographies and research papers for other classes, I can't help but wonder how different the experience would be if I were reading electronic editions of these scholarly articles with hypertext annotations. Landlow says this about the use of hypertext in scholarly works: "Although you cannot change my text, you can write a response and then link it to my document" (Landlow).
I would question whether or not this creates an entirely different type of RRC by incorporating the reader's experience with the collective audience's opinions in an interaction with the main text. As we progress farther into the digital age, I would argue that developing a system for incorporating scholarly electronic editions with hypertext into the traditional research and learning process is only beneficial. By allowing students to read and incorporate other perspectives they will be able to form more well-rounded opinions.
Over the last few years, the humanities world has seen several changes to accommodate the growing integration of electronic media into scholarly research. An example of this is the incorporation of Twitter and 'tweets' into MLA's citable resources. An article published in 2012 briefly discusses the benefits and drawbacks to this decision, but overall commends the MLA for considering Twitter as part of the scholarly discussion. In my opinion, the further we integrate electronic resources into our research, the more information we (as scholars) can incorporate and use to produce phenomenal papers and presentations.
While there are other obstacles standing in the way of a full-on electronic incorporation, such as equitable and unrestricted access to the Internet globally, I believe that classes like these are creating the building blocks for a successful argument for the integration of electronic media and tools into the classroom, academic sphere, and beyond.
Works Cited:
Byford, Sam. "Modern Language Association Standardizes Format for Citing Tweets." The Verge. N.p., 8 March 2012. Web. 17 September 2014.
Landlow, George P. "Reading and Writing in a Hypertext Environment." Reading and Writing in a Hypertext Environment. Johns Hopkins University Press, n.d. Web. 17 September 2014.
Friday, September 12, 2014
A Nod to Mr. Spock and Master Yoda
In "Star Trek: The Original Series," Spock is quoted as saying: "Change is the essential process of all existence." For those of you who are unfamiliar with Star Trek, Spock is famous for his ability to combine Vulcan logic (a trademark of his race) with human compassion in order to become one of the wisest, and I would argue most relatable, characters in the Star Trek universe. I would have to agree with Mr. Spock; however, the inevitability of change in the humanities during the digital age raises a few questions for me.
How can the change be most effective? As this shift occurs, what damage is it going to bring to authors/writers and readers/audiences? How is this change going to irreversibly alter the humanities field? All of these are big questions, but I'd like to try and address them with some help by the points raised in both MermaidGhost's and lemonlewis's blog posts.
MermaidGhost states her opinion regarding change early on in her post: "My issue with the ever changing world of print is that no one is willing to accept when it's time to change... Just change with the times, there's nothing to fear" (MermaidGhost). I agree that the static air surrounding printed texts can be overwhelming for those of who grew up with Google at the tip of our fingertips; however, I wholeheartedly disagree that there is nothing to fear in this digital shift. As I talked about in my own response post this week, plagiarism is on the rise in the digital age and authorship is constantly under fire in a world where anonymity is king.
In addition to the issues with authorship and intellectual property rights in regards to electronic material I would argue that the Internet as a medium is imperfect and potentially unaccessible. As we've been considering the digital age this week the cyber-sphere has been in an uproar about Net Neutrality. If you don't know what that is here's a nifty primer from The Wall Street Journal by Gauthem Nagesh. Here's a quick definition of net neutrality if you don't have time to read the whole thing: "Net neutrality is the principle that all traffic on the Internet should be treated equally -- broadband providers shouldn't be able to choose which websites consumers can access" (Nagesh).
If net neutrality is lost, and Internet providers are able to control (via money) what websites you can access, then how can we use the Internet to its full potential? What is to stop a certain company (for example, Comporium in Rock Hill) to not offer a package that includes Wikipedia? All of the sudden, Wikipedia is gone from your computer with no way to access it. Issues such as these are what make me fear for the shift from print to digital. I've witnessed controlled book censorship, I don't want the same to happen to the cyber-world.
However, not all is lost. I would definitely agree with lemonlewis that McLuhan's book helps gain "at least an inkling of what it might be like to look around the next corner of history" (lemonlewis). As of right now, we can not know how the Internet will be shaped in ten or twenty years. Looking back to the late 90's and early 2000's, no one could have predicted the enormity of changes that have occurred in the digital world in our lifetime. I think there is a great chance for the humanities to step up and call for a truly neutral net in order to provide a more perfect community that enables a wider spread of literature and education.
As I said at the beginning of this post, these are all big questions, and I hope I've addressed them adequately. Since "Star Trek" does not have a monopoly on sage characters I would like to quote to quote Master Yoda in all of his infinite wisdom: "Impossible to see the future is."
I firmly believe that until today turns into tomorrow we will not understand the gravity and reach of the digital shift, and I'm becomingly increasingly okay with that.
Works Cited:
lemonlewis. "Reading Response 2" lemonlewis. Web. 12 September 2014.
MermaidGhost. "Response to Lecture 5 In The Medium is The Massage and This Week's Lecture" mermaidghost. Web. 12 September 2014.
Nagesh, Gautham. "Baffled by 'Net Neutrality'? Read This, a WSJ Primer." The Wall Street Journal. N.p. 12 May 2014. Web 12 Sept. 2014.
How can the change be most effective? As this shift occurs, what damage is it going to bring to authors/writers and readers/audiences? How is this change going to irreversibly alter the humanities field? All of these are big questions, but I'd like to try and address them with some help by the points raised in both MermaidGhost's and lemonlewis's blog posts.
MermaidGhost states her opinion regarding change early on in her post: "My issue with the ever changing world of print is that no one is willing to accept when it's time to change... Just change with the times, there's nothing to fear" (MermaidGhost). I agree that the static air surrounding printed texts can be overwhelming for those of who grew up with Google at the tip of our fingertips; however, I wholeheartedly disagree that there is nothing to fear in this digital shift. As I talked about in my own response post this week, plagiarism is on the rise in the digital age and authorship is constantly under fire in a world where anonymity is king.
In addition to the issues with authorship and intellectual property rights in regards to electronic material I would argue that the Internet as a medium is imperfect and potentially unaccessible. As we've been considering the digital age this week the cyber-sphere has been in an uproar about Net Neutrality. If you don't know what that is here's a nifty primer from The Wall Street Journal by Gauthem Nagesh. Here's a quick definition of net neutrality if you don't have time to read the whole thing: "Net neutrality is the principle that all traffic on the Internet should be treated equally -- broadband providers shouldn't be able to choose which websites consumers can access" (Nagesh).
If net neutrality is lost, and Internet providers are able to control (via money) what websites you can access, then how can we use the Internet to its full potential? What is to stop a certain company (for example, Comporium in Rock Hill) to not offer a package that includes Wikipedia? All of the sudden, Wikipedia is gone from your computer with no way to access it. Issues such as these are what make me fear for the shift from print to digital. I've witnessed controlled book censorship, I don't want the same to happen to the cyber-world.
However, not all is lost. I would definitely agree with lemonlewis that McLuhan's book helps gain "at least an inkling of what it might be like to look around the next corner of history" (lemonlewis). As of right now, we can not know how the Internet will be shaped in ten or twenty years. Looking back to the late 90's and early 2000's, no one could have predicted the enormity of changes that have occurred in the digital world in our lifetime. I think there is a great chance for the humanities to step up and call for a truly neutral net in order to provide a more perfect community that enables a wider spread of literature and education.
As I said at the beginning of this post, these are all big questions, and I hope I've addressed them adequately. Since "Star Trek" does not have a monopoly on sage characters I would like to quote to quote Master Yoda in all of his infinite wisdom: "Impossible to see the future is."
I firmly believe that until today turns into tomorrow we will not understand the gravity and reach of the digital shift, and I'm becomingly increasingly okay with that.
Works Cited:
lemonlewis. "Reading Response 2" lemonlewis. Web. 12 September 2014.
MermaidGhost. "Response to Lecture 5 In The Medium is The Massage and This Week's Lecture" mermaidghost. Web. 12 September 2014.
Nagesh, Gautham. "Baffled by 'Net Neutrality'? Read This, a WSJ Primer." The Wall Street Journal. N.p. 12 May 2014. Web 12 Sept. 2014.
Tuesday, September 9, 2014
Plagiarism is Not the Cat's Meow
I've been running through a list of my favorite authors all night trying to pick the perfect sounding name for my new kitten. One of my favorite professors at Winthrop has a cat named Oscar (after Oscar Wilde) and a dog, named Dora (after Eudora Welty), and I thought it was a clever way to pick names. As I read over some of the lectures on the class blog this week the most recent one, regarding authorship in the digital age, I began to consider the implications of publishing in the digital age and its effect on authors. Would James Joyce, Isabel Allende, and Flannery O'Connor still be my favorites if I read their texts on a screen under a pseudonym? Would I still consider them credible if I didn't consume their printed texts?
McLuhan summarizes the impact of printed text on authorship in "The Message is the Massage" when he says: "The invention of printing did away with anonymity, fostering ideas of literary fame and the habit of considering intellectual effort as private property" (McLuhan 122). Throughout the history of printed text, we as readers have given credence to these authors' intellectual effort and acknowledged their ownership of these words through warnings against plagiarism and repeatedly re-printing and selling these texts with their names on the spine.
However, all of this raises questions, in my mind, for coming-to-fame authors in the digital age: will they have the same ownership over their words as their predecessors? Will the cyber sphere create a space void of authorship? Will readers be able to give credence to these digital texts if they're not protected as private property?
In an article by Trip Gabriel in the New York Times, titled "Lines on Plagiarism Blur for Students in the Digital Age," one of the biggest problems for writers in the digital age comes to light. Students are becoming unable to grasp the concept that literature, articles, and essays on the internet belong to the writers who penned them. The article states that this phenomenon is due to the digital era, saying, "It is a disconnect that is growing in the Internet age as concepts of intellectual property, copyright and originality are under assault in the unbridled exchange of online information..." (Gabriel).
Obviously, it's not just novels and fiction that are under attack. PDF's of textbooks, digital newspaper articles, Wikipedia pages, and Sparknotes entries are all eligible for pick-and-choose plagiarism so prevalent today. In addition to the students lack of respect for these texts, faculty and academic institutions insisting that Wikipedia and other online articles (besides those from online academic databases) are not credible sources is constructing the framework that just because a text is online it doesn't deserve the same respect we pay to printed authors.
I am all for being able to read "Dubliners," "The House of the Spirits," and "Wise Blood" on my Nook, but it isn't without concern for the perceived decrease of respect for authors in a cyber-centric world.
Works Cited:
McLuhan summarizes the impact of printed text on authorship in "The Message is the Massage" when he says: "The invention of printing did away with anonymity, fostering ideas of literary fame and the habit of considering intellectual effort as private property" (McLuhan 122). Throughout the history of printed text, we as readers have given credence to these authors' intellectual effort and acknowledged their ownership of these words through warnings against plagiarism and repeatedly re-printing and selling these texts with their names on the spine.
However, all of this raises questions, in my mind, for coming-to-fame authors in the digital age: will they have the same ownership over their words as their predecessors? Will the cyber sphere create a space void of authorship? Will readers be able to give credence to these digital texts if they're not protected as private property?
In an article by Trip Gabriel in the New York Times, titled "Lines on Plagiarism Blur for Students in the Digital Age," one of the biggest problems for writers in the digital age comes to light. Students are becoming unable to grasp the concept that literature, articles, and essays on the internet belong to the writers who penned them. The article states that this phenomenon is due to the digital era, saying, "It is a disconnect that is growing in the Internet age as concepts of intellectual property, copyright and originality are under assault in the unbridled exchange of online information..." (Gabriel).
Obviously, it's not just novels and fiction that are under attack. PDF's of textbooks, digital newspaper articles, Wikipedia pages, and Sparknotes entries are all eligible for pick-and-choose plagiarism so prevalent today. In addition to the students lack of respect for these texts, faculty and academic institutions insisting that Wikipedia and other online articles (besides those from online academic databases) are not credible sources is constructing the framework that just because a text is online it doesn't deserve the same respect we pay to printed authors.
I am all for being able to read "Dubliners," "The House of the Spirits," and "Wise Blood" on my Nook, but it isn't without concern for the perceived decrease of respect for authors in a cyber-centric world.
Works Cited:
Gabriel,
Trip. "Lines on Plagiarism Blur for Students in Digital Age." The
New York Times. N.p., 1
Aug. 2010. Web. 9 Sept. 2014.
McLuhan,
Marshall, Quentin Fiore, and Jerome Agel. The Medium Is the Massage: An Inventory of Effects. San Francisco,
CA: HardWired, 1996. Print.
Monday, September 8, 2014
Analysis of Literacy Practices
All of my papers, hypothetical or written, begin
with contemplating the topic and potential thesis. I tend to use paper and
pencil to sketch out my initial thoughts, but do the majority of my research and
writing on the computer. I think Borges’ treatment of and interest in
juxtaposed or warring communities (such as the Japanese/German characters in
“The Garden of Forking Paths” or the Hasidic Jews/Hispanic communities in
“Death and the Compass”) would make an interesting topic for a paper and lend
itself to an effective thesis, so that’s what my paper would focus on.
As an English major I’ve done a number of annotated
bibliographies, but don’t tend to use them unless they’re assigned. However, since
beginning my academic career as an undergraduate I’ve become increasingly aware
of the importance of varied research, and so my approach to beginning this
paper would start with collecting as many relevant sources as possible from
different places. In the past, I’ve relied on the books from Winthrop’s Dacus
library in addition to online databases such as JSTOR, Ebscoe, and the
International MLA Bibliography, and so that’s where I would get the majority of
my peer-reviewed articles and essays.
From a writing standpoint, it is imperative in my
process to have a working thesis and outline before I begin heavy research. I
take the preliminary notes that I’ve written by hand, and transfer them to a
word document. After accomplishing those goals, I would move on to focusing on
the research aspect of the paper. I tend to enjoy gathering materials through
online resources because of the ease of accessibility. I would use one of the
previously mentioned databases and implement a variety of Boolean searches in
order to narrow down the criticism into a manageable selection of relevant
articles. Some search terms I would use would be the following: Borges AND New
Historicism, World War II AND The Garden of Forking Paths, symbolism AND
(Borges AND The Garden of Forking Paths). After I have a small pool of fifteen
to twenty articles, I would go through and read the abstracts and the first few
pages in order to determine which arguments would lend themselves most
effectively to my thesis. Once I’ve narrowed it down to five or seven I would
most likely print them out, because I enjoy being able to highlight and
annotate on a physical text. I would repeat the Boolean search process with the
database of books at the Dacus library, and I typically use two to three books
for an eight to ten page paper.
After I’ve got my two to three books and my five to
seven relevant articles, I would go through each and pull out quotes that would
be useful in supporting my argument and add them to an outline of my paper. While
I do prefer to annotate by hand, I would add these quotes to an electronic
outline in a pre-existing word document. By doing this, it’s easier for me to
know how I can incorporate quotes and sources into my paper so I’m using the
resources effectively. From this point onward, I would be working on developing
my outline into a full-fledged paper that uses my research in a way that is
supportive.
Up until this point, I’ve thought that my process
was similar to most of my peers, if not a bit more focused. However, after
reading Nicholas Carr’s article, I realized that my version of
“collecting” was actually in line with what his article describes as “bouncing
around.” In addition, I can remember
from previous research papers counting out how many pages I had left to read,
and looking for the shortest scholarly articles possible. I don't think that my wandering attention stems from a lack of interest, but instead from an increasing reliance on instant gratification in the form of Wikipedia, Google, and Yahoo! Answers when I'm desperate.
I would agree that research (at the undergraduate, graduate, and professional level) is being influenced by the changes mentioned by Carr. As a current undergraduate student, I worry that my papers won’t be able to compete with others around me because of my lack of focus or tendency to rush through searches and sources. From a teaching perspective, since I plan on going into academia and teaching at the collegiate level, I worry that these changes will effect the overall integrity of research by progressively decreasing a student’s ability to put focused time and energy into a final product (in this case, a paper).
I would agree that research (at the undergraduate, graduate, and professional level) is being influenced by the changes mentioned by Carr. As a current undergraduate student, I worry that my papers won’t be able to compete with others around me because of my lack of focus or tendency to rush through searches and sources. From a teaching perspective, since I plan on going into academia and teaching at the collegiate level, I worry that these changes will effect the overall integrity of research by progressively decreasing a student’s ability to put focused time and energy into a final product (in this case, a paper).
Thursday, September 4, 2014
Construction and Deconstruction
I am struck by the ability to construct and deconstruct that stems from the use of writing as technology. As I read over our blogs for this week, two of them resonated with me because of their explanation of the role of writing in such different capacities.
Blogger Chris Davis shows in his blogpost, "Cavemen Probably Didn't Have Newspapers," Marshall McLuhan's argument "that written language was the primary catalyst for the development of civilization and advanced social structure in human beings" (Davis" is supported by the development of recorded information and tradable data that gave way to economies that would support an advanced civilization and structure like we have today.
However, blogger Gabriel Vega points out the power of writing as technology in his blogpost "Reading Response 1: Writing as Technology." He uses the revolt in Egypt during 2011 as an example of how writing, as both technology and skill, can be a part of a revolution in which "Egyptian citizens marched the streets, held events, though not devoid of violence, and they occupied major government infrastructures as well as city squares" (Vega). Technology and writing were joined together across the globe to give a voice to these citizens as they tore down the pre-existing structure.
I think that when you combine these two ideas, that writing can be both a constructive and destructive technology within a society, it helps support that idea that digitization may be cyclical.
Walter Ong explains in his article, "Digitization Ancient and Modern: Beginnings of Writings and Today's Computers," how the progression of writing occurred in the Sumerian, the Chinese, and the Mayan systems (4). The discovery of ancient Sumerian hand-made clay markers indicate a system that can be crudely related to digital binary, as they are both "numerically discrete units used to process data for reckoning purposes" (4).
We are seeing now, through historical evidence, that ideas we've incorporated into the twenty-first century technological world also appeared, at a rudimentary level, thousands of years ago through the Sumerians. Each of those systems (Sumerian, Chinese, and Mayan) used each subsequent writing progression to tear down the old structures and construct new technologies and innovations. However, I would raise this question: is the deconstruction always positive? Does it always lead to a better, more innovative outcome, or are there examples of damage?
Works Cited:
davisc47 [Chris Davis]. "Reading Response One: Cavemen Probably Didn't Have Newspapers" Chris Davis Elite Blog. Web. 4 September 2014.
digitizerhetoric [Gabriel Vega]. "Reading Response 1: Writing as Technology" Digitize Rhetoric. Web. 4 September 2014
Ong, Walter J. "Digitization Ancient and Modern: Beginnings of Writing and Today's Computers." Communication Research Trends 18.2 (1998): 4-21.
Blogger Chris Davis shows in his blogpost, "Cavemen Probably Didn't Have Newspapers," Marshall McLuhan's argument "that written language was the primary catalyst for the development of civilization and advanced social structure in human beings" (Davis" is supported by the development of recorded information and tradable data that gave way to economies that would support an advanced civilization and structure like we have today.
However, blogger Gabriel Vega points out the power of writing as technology in his blogpost "Reading Response 1: Writing as Technology." He uses the revolt in Egypt during 2011 as an example of how writing, as both technology and skill, can be a part of a revolution in which "Egyptian citizens marched the streets, held events, though not devoid of violence, and they occupied major government infrastructures as well as city squares" (Vega). Technology and writing were joined together across the globe to give a voice to these citizens as they tore down the pre-existing structure.
I think that when you combine these two ideas, that writing can be both a constructive and destructive technology within a society, it helps support that idea that digitization may be cyclical.
Walter Ong explains in his article, "Digitization Ancient and Modern: Beginnings of Writings and Today's Computers," how the progression of writing occurred in the Sumerian, the Chinese, and the Mayan systems (4). The discovery of ancient Sumerian hand-made clay markers indicate a system that can be crudely related to digital binary, as they are both "numerically discrete units used to process data for reckoning purposes" (4).
We are seeing now, through historical evidence, that ideas we've incorporated into the twenty-first century technological world also appeared, at a rudimentary level, thousands of years ago through the Sumerians. Each of those systems (Sumerian, Chinese, and Mayan) used each subsequent writing progression to tear down the old structures and construct new technologies and innovations. However, I would raise this question: is the deconstruction always positive? Does it always lead to a better, more innovative outcome, or are there examples of damage?
Works Cited:
davisc47 [Chris Davis]. "Reading Response One: Cavemen Probably Didn't Have Newspapers" Chris Davis Elite Blog. Web. 4 September 2014.
digitizerhetoric [Gabriel Vega]. "Reading Response 1: Writing as Technology" Digitize Rhetoric. Web. 4 September 2014
Ong, Walter J. "Digitization Ancient and Modern: Beginnings of Writing and Today's Computers." Communication Research Trends 18.2 (1998): 4-21.
Monday, September 1, 2014
A Not-So-Egg-celent Breakfast
An
egg shouldn’t make you feel anxious and uncomfortable, but I can’t help but
feel overwhelmed by the printed egg shown on the first page of Marshall McLuhan’s
“The Message is the Massage.” During the lecture on the first ten pages, we were
led to the back of the book in order to read this statement: “Page 1: A
trademark is printed on a raw egg yolk by a no-contact, no-pressure printing
technique. Imagine the possibilities to which this device will give birth!”
(McLuhan 158).
At first, the egg seemed like a
novelty item placed under an auspicious “Good Morning!” designed to entice the
reader into the graphically interesting book. However, when I read the quote on
page one hundred and fifty eight, I began imagining the possibilities. Could
Pepsi start putting their ads inside of eggs, too? Would presidential
candidates start investing in farms so that all of our dairy and egg products
could come pre-stamped with a logo? It’s disturbing to think of all the
possibilities for advertisement once a technique like this is invented.
However, I don’t think it’s something in the future to worry about- I think
it’s here now.
It struck me that while my eggs do
not have conspicuous trademarks on them I am still assaulted by advertisements,
campaigns, and logos much like the man in the wind tunnel on page three of
McLuhan’s book. When I wake up in the morning, my phone is usually close to my
head, and I have checked my Facebook, Yik Yak, email, messages, and Instagram
all before I climb out of bed. I feel disorganized if I don’t, but McLuhan’s
book has created an uneasy sense of awareness inside of me that I didn’t have
before. The advertisements on the side of my Facebook newsfeed show college
textbooks at discounted prices and pretty vintage engagement rings- reflections
of my search patterns for my near and far future. My email is hounded by
various companies and retail stores that I’ve foolishly given my account information
to in order to score a discount at one time or another.
Ninety percent of this information I
could live without. They have no bearing on my life, and usually end up unread,
discarded, or scrolled through without a second thought. However, I religiously
come back to their medium. Michael Wesch’s video “The Machine is Us/ing Us FinalVersion” shows the interconnectedness of society and the Internet. From 3:15 to
3:45 he makes this point: “Think of the 100 billion times per day humans click
on a Web page” (Wesch). Wesch makes several good points that support McLuhan’s
claim that “[S]ocieties have always been shaped ore by the nature of the
media…than by the content of the communication” (McLuhan 8). I don’t click on
various websites or apps hundred of times during the day because their content
is so riveting, but because their medium has shaped the way I interact
electronically. I would argue that the case is similar for humans all over the
world. As Wesch has put it, the machine (my iPhone) is using me and in turn, I
am inevitably a part of the machine.
I
think that Aristotle was on to something when he said, as quoted in our
lecture, that rhetoric is “the art of discovering the available means of
persuasion in the given case” (Walter). Companies, conglomerates, and
networking sites have discovered that their rhetoric lies in the whirling
vortex of cyberspace. By flooding our inboxes, newsfeeds, and timelines with
logos, trademarks, and information, we are consuming enormous amounts of data
without realizing it. Through our addiction to the medium (Facebook, Instagram,
email, the Internet) we are paying the companies who keep our plate of digital
information overflowing to continue to feed us.
An egg should not make me feel
anxious or uncomfortable, but the striking similarities between the
not-so-subliminal message on the yolk and on my iPhone screen has left me
without any appetite.
Works Cited:
McLuhan,
Marshall, Quentin Fiore, and Jerome Agel. The Medium Is the Massage: An Inventory of Effects. San Francisco,
CA: HardWired, 1996. Print.
Walter, John.
(2014, September 1). Introductory lecture. Lecture retrieved from http://www.othinn.com/cyber-rhetoric/?page_id=61.
Wesch, Michael. “The Machine is
Us/ing Us Final Version.” Digital Ethnography. 8 March 2007.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)