In class response to Blogging

2. "...After reading Lovink's article, are you convinced that blogging is truly the nihilist impulse? Why or why not?"

I disagree that blogging is the nihilist impulse. If I were to make an intuitive guess, I would guess that only half of blogging is nihilistic. It has been my experience reading blogs that some of them do go against social norms and expectations, but the other half of blogs really are pop culture and agree with social norms and practices. A blog is an expression of one's self, therefore the blogs to be found will be just as varying as the people. Not everyone hates our current politicians, but some do. I can find blogs that hate the current political system, and others that advocate it and praise it. To call blogging "nihilistic" and use this single term to describe it is just not broad enough. It all depends on the person, and there are millions of blogs on the web. I will say, though, that many people wish to be "different." They wish to express themselves in a way that makes them stand out, and so in this case blogging may be nihilistic. Although sometimes when people try to be different and buy the latest new indie fashion or something, they just wind up being the same. But back on topic, I agree that reading an article or blog post that is bashing something as opposed to praising something is more enjoyable to read. It must be the nihilist in me...

Web 2.0: Blogs and Social Sites

On a side note, I find it funny that I have to talk about blogs... on a blog. Anyways! :

In Blogging, the nihilist impulse, Geert Lovink attempts to "make general statements about their 'nature' and divide them into proper genres" despite his acknowledgement of the impossibility to accomplish such a task. He defines a blog as: "... a frequent, chronological publication of personal thoughts and Web links, a mixture of what is happening in a person's life and what is happening on the Web and in the world out there." I do think this is close to being accurate, except that sometimes people do make blogs that focus on one topic (like cake making...) or a blog may exist that does not focus on both the web and events in one's personal life. So I don't think that his definition is perfect, but it is still better than I could have done. Additioanlly, he does talk about the varieties of blogs that exist and their purpose for existing throughout his piece.

Lovink goes on to describe the relationship between blogs and mainstream media. What blogs do that networks like CNN fail to do, he writes, is to integrate open, interactive messages from their constituencies. They are "feedback channels" which means they allow anyone to hastily write their opinion-- whether they agree or disagree, what was interesting and what was not-- on a popular (or not so popular) topic. He notes that, aside from a few, bloggers do not have time to research. The posts are not "scholarly." In general, this is probably true. A lot of the blogs I have seen are all narcissitic in nature (again, said a lot, not most or all)-- ex: "I like this, I don't like this... you care about what I have to say because I'm awesome... " (slight exaggeration). I agree with Lovink when he says that bloggers rarely add new facts to a news story.

It is rather simple yet true: Blogs do make up the public opinion. But that's OK. There is nothing wrong with that. As Lovink writes, blogs mirror conversations that occur in cafes and bars and that blogs are not actually a new format of writing, but digital orality.

I also want to discuss "truth-finding" on the Internet. Different people will hold different beliefs to be true, and it is improbable that there is any one truth out there(besides what science tells us, anyways, but then again even scientific conclusions come from observations which still could be wrong), but I think the Internet is the best at being a conglomeration of opinions on any topic.

The Internet connects me to information all over the world. I do not usually start with a book when I want to know about something. I like to see many differing opinions so I can choose for myself which seems more rational, so I start with Google. It is impossible to have completely objective opinions or information, but I try to be open-minded and learn about as many opinions as I can. Like Lovink writes, "blogs assist users in their crossing from Truth to Nothingness." Older generations, he notes, used to find truth in whatever the TV said. Now, we just watch TV for entertainment and take everything for a grain of salt.

I think there is something very special about what David Kline said in Lovink's piece:
"bloggers are often eloquent in the way that those who are not self-consciously polished often are – raw, uncensored, and energized by the sound of their newly awakened voices. And by keeping a daily record of their rites of passage, bloggers often give a shape and meaning to the stages and cycles of their lives that would otherwise be missed in the helter-skelter of modern existence."

Despite what I said earlier about bloggers having a narcisstic aspect to their writing, they often do write with an unparalled enthusiasm and insightfulness that cannot be found in mainstream media. And if they didn't keep blogs, their knowledge would only exist in their brains. It feels great to live in an age where knowledge is so accessible and varying.

April 20, 2009 Group presentation question

To what extent do you think that the technotext is as much a literary work in the same sense that a book is? If you do not believe that technotext can be a literary work, what is it lacking? If you are a supporter, then what does it have?

Technotext can be a literary work and more. Whereas a book is non-mutable, or, rather, not meant to be mutable (because one could technically cut up a book and rearrange the words/letters), technotext is meant to be mutable. Technotext may have multiple beginnings or endings, yes, which allows the text to be more interactive with the reader. In some sense, the reader chooses what happens in the story. Depending on how advanced the technotext is, words can move around the screen and therefore be a just like a book but with added features. What a technotext is lacking is the fact that it may not give a reader closure. What I mean by this is that if it has multiple endings, the reader may not have a sense of what the "real" ending is meant to be. Obviously, with technotexts with multiple endings, perhaps there is not meant to be a "real" ending and that is the beauty of it. However, I know some people who would be bothered and question "but which one is the real ending?" and hate the alternative endings (and, one could say, similarly, cliff hangers). Technotexts also lack the ability to be printed and bought in a bookstore. They rely on the computer to live, or they do not exist. Despite this fact, I still like technotexts. I like the interaction. However, I will admit that for the simple fact that these technotexts live on the computer I am more impatient with them than when reading books. There is a sort of immediacy that comes with anything I view on the computer.

TechnoText

I am not exactly sure what makes a GOOD technotext, but I think some of what I viewed should not be categorized as good ones. For instance, Red Spider/Razor Burn has two different stories that can be read. One has two options to choose from. However, after that, there are no more options. It is a linear path until the end, just like a regular book. I am not sure how this is very interactive, to be honest. The same goes for some of the other poems at the BeeHive Archive. David Hunter Sutherland and Janet Buck's technotexts are just... small poem books on the internet. There is nothing special about them that is obvious to me. It is not that the stories were not interesting, because they were, but there was just no difference between reading them online and reading them in a physical copy of a book.

I think my favorite one, out of the ones that I viewed, is The Girl and the Wolf by Nick Montfort. Basically, there is a very short introduction to the poem that sounds a lot like the introduction of Little Red Riding Hood. However, depending on which square you choose on the grid, with each square representing a different amount of sex and violence, the rest of the story will be completely different. This is very good at interacting with the reader while at the same time, it is not really the reader who wrote the story.

So now that I think about it, a good technotext is one that interacts with the reader on more than the level of "oh, I need to click here to read the rest and have no other options..." There is a lot of freedom with technotexts and anything an author does to one, I am sure I would find interesting. At the same time, because there is a lot of freedom with technotexts, I expect more out of one than the previously mentioned Red Spider/Razor Burn and the like.

Technotexts and Virtual Words

I thought that the Anipoems, by Ana María Uribe, were completely fantastic! My favorite one was probably the "Gym 3" where the P's change into R's, which looks like humans working out by kicking out their leg. I thought it was a very creative idea. I thought the whole site of anipoems was really quite cool, but I did not really believe these were "poems." They were cool animations, but poems? "Oh, come on!" I thought.

However, when reading The Dreamlife of Letters, by Brian Kim Stefans, I realized, when he said that poetry should be interactive, that this is another one of those subjects that challenge traditional connotations(which makes Honors 353 a great thinking and debate class). Anipoems, and especially Stefans' The Dreamlife of Letters, challenges what a poem really is, or in other words, my preconceived notions of poetry. I used to think of it as non-mobile words that make sentences that elicit deep emotions from humans. However, mobile text can elicit greater emotions from humans; there are less limitations when it comes to mobile-text-- so why should mobile text not be poetic? That is right, mobile text is extremely poetic! There were a lot of interesting interpretations that can be made by watching Stefan's anipoem-- for example, one part I liked was "Pride" that started at the top of the screen then dropped. I take it to mean that someone lost their pride because something bad happened in their life. I think the "flashyness" of anipoems just threw me off at first. When I see flashy, I generally think movies or cartoon, not poems.

I also find it interesting that these anipoems could not exist as printed material, although making them into a flipbook might work. I do agree with Hayles in My Mother Was a Computer on page 38 that print tradition does not create more masterful pieces of literature than electronic means can. They are certainly different, but this does not make one better than another. Additionally, digitization is still fairly new so I do not think it should be judged quite yet against Shakespeare and the like. The last thing I want to comment on is the general topic Hayles writes about: the similarities between code and writing/speech and why code should matter to us. I am not sure if code in the basic sense really matters that much-- I took a class on Python and let me tell you, it was not fun. But in the more abstract sense, yes, I think it matters. We did not have to read the beginning of the book, but I did anyways to figure out exactly what Hayles was getting at, and she makes an interesting point-- just like the motherboard of a computer runs everything in our computers and eventually connects to cyberspace, "Mother Nature" controls our world. It is a scary analogy, really, because it is like we live in a type of cyberspace or something. Basically, code represents a complex world (Hayles notes this around page 41), like our world, although code itself is not so complex. We should care about code because it models our real lives. It is also similar to writing/speech because just like a little change in code can change something big in the computer process, a little change in my semantics would change the meaning of my sentences as well.

The Century of Artists' Books and Writing Machines

Growing up, I often heard the phrase, "don't judge a book by its cover," but something I realized while reading the Introduction of The Century of Artists' Books, by Johanna Drucker, is that sometimes I just can't help it! It seems to be an instinct in humans to go with what looks good, what is aesthetically pleasing. As I learned earlier in Hnrs 353, form is part of a text's message. Therefore it comes as no surprise to me that Kaye, in Writing Machines, wanted to shout "Materiality is content, and content is materiality!" (pg. 75)

Despite this knowledge, at first I was unsure what an "artist's book" was when I started reading The Century of Artists' Books. The first thing I thought about when I tried to discern what exactly an "artist's book" is was a certain book featured on Seinfeld. It was a book about coffee tables that can be morphed into a coffee table itself. Chapter One of Drucker's book, however, explains that just because a book is artistic does not mean it is an artist's book. Artist's books communicate with people. They should be mutable and have "some conviction... to be a book in order to succeed" (pg 25). They are usually not for financial gain (this is one reason artist's books are separate from livres d'artists). They can be used for political activism. Generally, they are also published independently, not in publishing firms.

But most importantly, from reading Chapter Two, I think I finally understand what an "artist's book" is: "[it] should be a work by an artist self-conscious about art form, rather than a merely highly artistic book" (page 21). Additionally, in Artists' Books: The Book As a Work of Art, by Stephen Bury, an artist's book is described as "books or book-like objects over the final appearance of which an artist has had a high degree of control; where the book is intended as a work of art in itself." So I would classify the book about coffee tables as an artist's book. It physically embodies the content it tries to teach. It is its content. It is a work of art in my opinion. The author was certainly self-conscious about what he (Kramer) wanted his book to look like. Maybe what would have made the book even better was if all of the text formed the specific coffee tables they were describing. The coffee table book really elicits no drama and has nothing to do with political activism, but it does question what a book can be.

William Blake is an obviously excellent example whose works, mostly speaking on religion, had an "effect of unity" (pg 25). He was able to "mobilize the space of the page, the tones of the paper, the colors of ink and paint,..." and created books where images and text were in dialogue with each other (pg 25). Where I can see how all of the examples are artist's books, I must say I do not believe one can give a complete, accurate definition of what an artist's book is (even though I tried to earlier in this post). It is probably best to explain what an artist's book is not.

That Pachebel's Video we saw in class-- READ!

I have an important comment to make about the Pachebel's video we saw in class. I didn't get to say what I wanted to say after it ended because the group's presentation pretty much ended after it. I felt like it was too late for me to speak up (I take some time to get the courage to raise my hand...)...

I DISAGREE that all music has a formula. The video was supposed to give that message. More generally, the video was supposed to give the message that literature, dance, music, etc., all have some sort of copied formula.

I analyze music all of the time and will give my input:

When we write music, we are dealing with 12 notes (well, with the traditional music keyboard). 12 notes. I repeat: 12 notes. Of course there are going to be some similarities, some songs having more than others. However, there are also many different things that can be done with rhythm, chords progressions, different combinations of melodies with harmonies, etc.(I think Alex DID make this point, actually).

Basically, my point is that the ones that really are similar are POP songs, or even jazz songs for Christ's sake. One can find generic songs for any genre of music(they can be good/okay songs, but it's not what I would want to listen to. They are not spectacular). Anything that really fits clearly into a genre, and has the generic genre sound, was made from a formula(i.e. jazz: walking bassline, all the same characteristics as any other jazz song, no spectacular melody, does not add anything else). But I don't like this kind of music. I kind of like songs that takes influences from genres but is... just not that genre. It has few similarities with other songs since(few because similarities are inescapable with 12 notes), but is really not from a formula. Every song that the Pachebel's Canon video guy played were very recent, pop songs, none of which I like. Additionally, this is not to say that I don't like the occassional pop song, or jazz song, whatever, I do, but the songs I like go "above and beyond" and are songs that I believe are not completely from the formula. There are ALWAYS going to be some similarities, of course, but some wonderful songs ARE different, very different, and these are the songs that I tend to like.

I did not choose to like these songs. I came to this conclusion after I started analyzing why I like what I like. Even the music I compose I do not believe sounds like anything else. Sure, one could say "well it has elements of techno... da da da..." but I think it is new and different. I don't particularly like my music (yea...) but I at least can say it does not distinctly fit into one category. It is human nature to put things into categories, though, which is why all songs wind up in one. There are many less-formulated songs out there, though, and I think the same goes for literature, too.

I remember Meg saying that there are a certain amount of categories of plots that exist, but I want to find those categories and challenge it. I do believe what my past professor said that all writing is stolen, but I think that every once in a while things are added and changed around, which makes it completely different.

Back to dealing with music, I mean... when one writes music, they can only write with the skills they possess-- these skills come from previous heard music. Composition is about knowledge of music, and associations with different notes. If no one ever experiments, then there will never be anything different. The "experimenters" are the ones who want to write what they think sounds good and does not try to be "rock" or "pop" or anything, and these are the ones who make great music.

Oh, and I never liked Stars Wars and Harry Potter (or the new Twilight). The fact that they have a certain formula may explain it. Thanks group today who presented that brought this to my attention!

Sorry, this whole thing must not make sense. I'm typing really fast and thinking really fast (I'm not a fast thinker) because I have to study for a geology test.... but it makes sense in my brain :(

Uncreative Writing Class Blog Entry

2. Do you agree with the belief that, "If it's not on the Web, it doesn't exist” ? Consider all aspects of life including people, places, history, knowledge, and mundane realities.

I absolutely do not agree with that statement. There are many things that are not on the web. For instance, one cannot find all books on "Google Books." The title of the book may pop up, but it could say there is no preview available and, thus, one must actually get the physical copy of the book if they wish to read it. Secondly, I have a lot of thoughts inside of my head that I could turn into literature. I have not written down all of my thoughts, though, and put them on the web. They are stored in my brain. My friend keeps a diary, as well, that is not in the form of a blog-- I am talking about a hard copy of a diary, the way everyone used to write. Some people also do not have access to the internet-- does this mean that their writing does not exist? Of course not! Some literature may also be buried in the ground somewhere because of an earthquake or otherwise, and has never been found. It still exists, just no one today knows it is there. Very old, out of print books generally do not become uploaded to the internet, either. It is either because it has outdated information or it has just been forgotten about. There are seemingly infinite possibilities of literature that is not online!

Uncreative Writing

Half way through reading "Winter," a section of Weather, I felt like killing myself. It was all just meaningless to me. I couldn't go on and yet I forced myself to. I skimmed the rest of it and clicked on "Spring." I made my way, slowly and painfully, through the rest of the seasons. I did not enjoy reading Weather, and yet I am oddly happy for its existence. If someone could help explain to me why I feel this way, feel free. I look forward to discussion in class to help me better understand my feelings here.

But reading this made me realize that we can only take in the weather in small doses otherwise it becomes meaningless. Well, it is meaningless once the day has passed as well.

There is a form to Weather. It seems to be a paragraph for each day of the year, in order, but I cannot be sure for there is no date mentioned which seemingly makes it more useless. I found it interesting that each paragraph was generally about the same size. This must mean that newscasters must fit the weather in a certain amount of time, regardless of how much there is to say. The same-size paragraphs did help to keep the piece unified. As Kenneth Goldsmith writes in "Sentences on Conceptual Writing," : "...it is best that the basic unit be deliberately uninteresting so that it may more easily become an intrinsic part of the entire work. Using complex basic forms only disrupts the unity of the whole." He succeeded in having a unified piece, for sure.

The many "uh's" also made the reading more painful. I am not used to that. This is something that is generally only said orally. In writing, we do not have to type "uh" because we have time between words to think and write. Orally presenting, one feels the need to fill in the gaps of silence and I can usually ignore it. I could not while reading.

I also did a little experiment with the work. I searched the work for repetition using the "ctrl F" method because as I read, I felt like I was reading the same words over and over. To my surprise, there was hardly any repetition! Well, there were 70 "sunshine's" in Winter, but "rainy" appears only once, and there are few mentions of "cloudy" and other words that one would expect to hear (or see, in this case). I think I am analyzing this piece of work more than it is supposed to be. Most people don't read it at all. But in this modern era (or post-modern era), I am used to analyzing things way too much. My generation has been trained to be so creative that it ends up not being creative at all. Some people have formulas that they use to create things (In Petty Theft, Britney Spears is mentioned as an example, which I agree with). Kenneth G., as quoted in Anne Henochowicz's article Petty Theft, says, "What passes for creativity in our culture is actually vastly uncreative.Think of the flood of worn-out narratives, passing for originality, be it novels, films or music, and you'll find that what we term creative is nothing more than repetitious formulas, spun over and over." What comes to my mind for recent work that is deemed as "creative" and is not is Twilight. Don't hate me. The truth hurts.

"To work with a plan that is preset is one way of avoiding subjectivity" is another quote from Kenneth G. Part of me wonders what he means by this-- is he saying that avoiding subjectivity is a good thing? Or is he trying to say that controversy and subjectivity are good things because without it, you get a book of stock quotes or a book on last year's weather reports. I think he meant the latter :) Or it is how I would like to interpret it.

Additionally, I know that Soliloquy, mentioned in "Petty Theft," a record of everything Kenneth said during one week is supposed to be uncreative writing, but I think it might be interesting!

Mobile Writing

2. What do you see as a potential future for the development of technologies heading towards? Do you perceive it as heqding more towards texting or perhaps is the use of texting now a side effect of a lack of mobile technology that would allow the user to write complete or more thought-provoking sentences. Why do you agree or disagree. Justify your answer.

The more advanced technology becomes, the easier it becomes to carry it with us. For instance, the telephone used to be attached to the wall. Telephones then evolved so that we could carry them around the house without a cord. And now, we have cell phones that we can carry across the world. I think that the next step(far, far in the future, though) is having a chip inside of our brains that we do not have to hold. Anyone can contact us at anytime (I haven't been watching too many sci-fi movies, I swear). Of course, how soon this will happen, I am not sure. It may get to a point that as soon as a baby is born, the chip will become surgically placed inside his/her brain instead of it being optional. This has many drawbacks in regards to privacy, of course, but then again, in the future it may not be seen as invasion of privacy. After all, people used to think that a telephone inside of their homes was an invasion of privacy but now they don't.

In regards to texting, I think that maybe texting devices will all have a stylus so that it will be faster to write/text. The problem here is what the book, txting the gr8 db8 notes: if someone's handwriting is bad, the device will not input the correct letters/words. The stylus, for people with good handwriting, will aid in longer and more complex sentences and thoughts.

I obviously agree(from what I wrote above) that texting will have to change eventually since it is hard to type long sentences quickly on a cell phone.

txtng the gr8 db8 by David Crystal

Crystal's book was very enjoyable for me to read. I think that it is because I already know a lot about texting; it is something that I do all of the time and it is a more modern invention. I especially liked that he defends a lot of the stereotypes about texting. It feels good to have a defender of something that I like. One of the stereotypes that Crystal defends is that texting is causing linguistic problems in society! The shortening of words and acronyms, or initialisms (pg 41: "reduction of words to their initial letters) are hated by "outsiders" of the texting world.

Crystal explains that the shortening of words and using initialisms is NOT a new phenomenon. In fact, "people have been initializing common phrases for centuries" (pg 43). Crystal goes on to list several examples of old initialisms like SWALK ("sealed with a loving kiss"), ETA ("estimated time of arrival"), and TTFN (ta-ta for now). Thus, the "outsiders" that think texting has caused an obssession with shortening words and initialisms are wrong. Texting has just shed more light onto this culture's obssession with it.

Besides defending the stereotypes of texting, Crystal also answers some common questions. A common question about texting is why people do it-- I knew I could answer this question for myself, but I was not sure about other people. I do it for four reasons: I am shy and feel more comfortable texting people, I often do it out of boredom(page 110 notes that "the aim is escape"), it can be fun, and in case I do not want people to overhear what I am saying, I can discreetly type a message anywhere, anytime! Crystal not only covers my reasons, but he also goes on to explain five more reasons that I found intriguing-- on page 73 of his book, Crystal introduces a concept that he coins "upping the ante." Friends will play a game where the one will text an acronym and the other will try to lengthen the acronym and outdo the friend. It sounds a bit silly, but it gets the creative juices flowing and is really no sillier than some other board games one can buy at K-Mart. It does no harm. Another reason that texting has become popular is economic issues. In some countries, texting is a lot cheaper than making a phone call, especially if it is a long distance phone call. Crystal also explains that when one wants to quickly give information to someone, this can be done easily by texting instead of calling. A text is short and gets to the point-- as Crystal puts it on page 97, "You can send me a text which gets to the point immediately, and I won't feel you have been impolite." On page 94, Crystal writes that "texting quickly emerged as an index of belonging." I can not relate to this one. Lastly, texting is a "welcome alternative to speech" in noisy environments(pg.94).

Additionally, Mizuko Ito is qouted as saying "mobile phones... have also created new disciplines...accompanied by new sets of social expectations and manners." (pg. 29) I agree with this statement. My boyfriend expects my phone to be on me all of the time. If I do not respond to a text message within 5 minutes, I either get a phone call or another message asking if I am alright. Sometimes it can be annoying. However, it does not work like this with all of my friends. What I really like about texting on the cell phone is that the message I send does not require my friend to be sitting at a computer, for instance. People generally have ther phones on them everywhere they go. I can also respond to a message when I am good and ready to respond and the person will respond whenever they are good and ready to. Texting is very convenient and non-confrontational.

Finally, I would like to say that I am glad that Crystal writes that there have never been any real studies suggesting or proving that texting can degenerate the English language and create teenagers unable to write in proper English. One girl's school paper, which supposedly was done completely in a texting style and never actually found (so probably did not exist), was used to make a general statement about all youngters. He also notes, on page 153, that "conclusions [on such degenerative language studies] are distorted by media hype" and "present an unclear picture." I feel that texting can actually make one better at thinking and writing. I, myself, have full philosophical conversations by texting. Even if I did not, I still get a lot of practice writing that I would not get if it were not for the cell phone.

To the Flarf Haters.

While I do not disagree with the flarf-haters, I am hurt by the ones(one blog in particular) who called my questions being ruled by folly. That's basically calling me stupid. It was a clever answer to the question, but extremely disrespectful and you didn't really think about the question by answering it that way. I'm a sensitive person and I don't like someone making fun of the work that I diligently prepared to present to class.

I had to do a presentation about flarf. What was I supposed to do? Bitch about it? I was there to educate the class on it-- on aspects of it that they maybe hadn't thought about (which YOU obviously did not). I knew the case for hating flarf was clear so I felt I had to show the other side and facilitate discussion(we were being graded on being able to facilitate discussion). I personally liked the fact that some people liked it and others didn't. It is what I was hoping for because I am unsure how I feel about it myself. In fact, Sharon Mesmer does NOT make me laugh. I am not a flarf lover. I did not like the fact that I was being called dumb in some blog posts. I think they were pretty good questions that anyone would wonder. If I didn't come up with questions, I would get a bad grade. What were you expecting? "Why is flarf stupid?" Yes, our professor would have liked that one!

Additionally, I was hoping "world poetry" was fairly obvious what it was supposed to mean. Since it wasn't and I admit that I was wrong, you could have asked. But I did clear it up, yes?

Anyways, I wanted to see how people answered our questions and was extremely saddened when I came across the one that basically called me dumb. I did the best I could with a topic that a lot of people love to hate.

Flarf/Spoetry Blog post

People will often fail to accept that flarf and spoetry are forms of poetry. They seem ridiculous, lewd, and not "beautiful" or "sophisticated" like more mainstream poetry. How could anyone, one might wonder, make poetry by exploiting search engines and blogs? This is fraud!

I would argue that, actually, it is not fraud because person A takes different phrases and combines them in a way that makes it unique to person A. I also believe that flarf and spoetry take more creativity to make and is often deeper than regular, "beautiful" poetry. I am currently working on a flarf play to present to class and it is very difficult to weave random phrases together to make a cohesive, well-flowing plot. I do admit that a lot of spoetry and flarf do not necessarily need to be cohesive, but I like the ones that are. The ones that are take something seemingly nonsensical and spreads a message. And the ridiculousness of the poems often make me laugh.

Unfortunately, I do think that flarf and spoetry can go "too far." What I mean by this is that it can be offensive. I do not care if flarf or spoetry have "bad words," because I say bad words all the time, but I am talking about including an event like 9-11 into the poem, like Gary Sullivan explains. The 9-11 references are of course to make fun of the media's portrayal of the awful event, but I am afraid that some people will just not find it funny. I want to know how a person who lost someone he/she cared about would react to the 9-11 references.

On the other hand, a part of me also thinks that the whole point of flarf and spoetry is to talk about what is not being said. No one would dare make fun of anything related to 9-11, but it cannot be ignored. This reminds me of racism-- people are scared to open up and talk about such things, but it benefits society to be talked about.

Anyways, what I also like about flarf and spoetry is that it takes those little annoyances in life (like e-mail spam) and turns it into something useful. It also questions what "poetry" really is. In my mind, poetry is an expression of self. When search engines are "exploited," I think it gathers the world's expressions and puts them together. Flarf and spoetry can apply to more people than a single authored poem. Thus, you know what flarf and spoetry should be changed to? WORLD POETRY!

Blog Prompt 3-16

"Reflect on the relationship of the body to the typewriter, citing work from today's reading in the Wershler-Henry."

The typewriter has a relationship to the body in 5 different ways. I will break them down:

1) The typewriter itself can be the dictator of the amanuensis. In many passages, Wershler-Henry gives examples where the typewriter is seen as possessed. On page 31, Wershler-Henry tells the story of Auster and Messer. Messer goes downstairs to look at Auster's typewriter and Auster says: "God knows what he did down there, but I have never doubted that the typewriter spoke to him. In due course, I believe he has even managed to persuade it to bare its soul." Thus, the human body is just typing what the type-writer wants him/her to type.

2) In the case of a woman, the typewriter can also be part of the woman. A woman could not do her job, apparently, unless she had her typewriter. They came as a packaged deal. On page 79, the caption under the picture says that "...the 'Typewriter' refers to the woman and the machine, separately and as an assemblage."

3) The typewriter also can simply act a medium through which truths flow through the body. It takes one's truths and transforms them into written form. It can also be the medium through which "spirits" tell the body to type. On page 46, for instance: "the invention was... for the purpose of illuminating...epistolary truths"). And Chapter 12's Theodora Bosanquet supposedly types James words even after he was dead.

4) Finally, the typewriter is that which one must position themselves precisely from, and have a precise typing method. It is something which the human must adjust to:

On page 142, a certain typing textbook explains: "There should be approximately 6 to 8 inches of space between the top of the knee and the frame of the typewriter. The front of the body should be from 8 to 10 inches from the base of the machine..." and goes on and on with numbered questions one must ask themself. In this manner, one also "becomes" the machine, but in a more physical sense rather than #2 where it is just society that sees the woman and the typewriter as one in the same.

5) This last relationship is again with the woman and the typewriter. Women and machines was a very different concept a hundred years ago and so it was seen as somewhat taboo, and, thus, created the "Type-Writer Girl."

The Iron Whim

Wershler-Henry begins his book explaining how, although the typewriter is "dead," one can find many variations of it on Ebay. Typewriters from the 70's are being called "vintage" and they are bought up. The funny thing is that most people buy them and never use them. I understand why this is so-- I used to have hundreds of toy cars from my childhood; my dad threw them out a few years ago. He claimed I didn't need them because I didn't use them. He just didn't understand. Vintage items, although obsolete, "serve as a sign of the passage of time" (pg 23).

How I interpret this is not that the old times are over and that time is ephemeral, but having vintage items is a kind of denial that the good times-- the known-- still exists. It keeps alive the dead, as paradoxical as that seems.

"Vintage" items bring back memories, memories of comfortable times, memories of the known. No one knows the future, and new technology is not received with open arms immediately. It is not immediately deemed as safe because it is not familiar. In fact, some technology, like the Dvorak keyboard (as opposed to the standard QWERTY keyboard) is never welcomed at all, despite the testings and proofs that less errors are made with it (chapter 19).

I like Wershler-Henry's approach to his book- instead of going through a history of mechanical invention, he goes through what purposes the typewriter was invented to serve, and how the type-writer influenced society.

I found it quite interesting that one of the reasons some inventors give for the invention of the type-writer (although it was not called this at first) was to produce "truth" (pg 37 among others-- on page 46, for instance: "the invention was... for the purpose of illuminating...epistolary truths"). One may just as well produce lies on such a machine as truth(well I thought this at first-- I will explain later). In fact, Wershler-Henry notes many times throughout the book that the authorship of type-written documents is ambiguous:

One never knows if the author is the dictator, the amanuensis, the typewriter itself, or a spirit that goes through the amanuensis ( a good example is Chapter 12's Theodora Bosanquet). I think it is kind of eerie, really-- if you sit alone with a typewriter, you are never really alone.

Now I will explain why I changed my mind about "lies" being produced on the typewriter:

After I read "Regardless of whether... these works are literary conceits...the works themselves remains valuable contributions to culture" (pg 77). I think that what these "lies" show are truth about a culture. The imagination that created a lie is a product of a culture, and imagination is a respectable trait. Therefore, it seems logical (yet absurd) to make a claim that the biggest/most-convincing lie is the most imaginative/creative and respectable person!

My next to last thought on this book concerns women. My friend and I were recently discussing feminists. I thought that women are not really treated inferiorly or seen inferiorly, but my friend thought they are. Now that I read Iron Whim, I see they really were. The type-writer SEEMED like a break through for women, but in a sense, it was not. Women did get into the workforce, but were always with the typewriter(and received little pay compared to men). It was as if it was OK that a woman was working only because men knew that the woman could not do work by themselves-- they required an extra assistant-- the type-writer. On page 88, Wershler-Henry writes that "the merging of the two[type-writer and woman]...alleviated the suspicion that either on their own might have elicited."

"If a novel presented a woman as an author, it would assign her with an emasculated hireling" (pg 92). This sentence reminds me of Harry Potter's author-- few knew that she was a woman because on the book, it was the initials of her first and middle name that appeared.

So you know, maybe I am wrong about women being treated equally, although I do think we (or them since I did not do anything?,...) have come a long way.

My last thought is about the typing monkeys! I never thought about that instead of looking for a unique story/play/poem, experimenters try to test if the monkeys can write Shakespeare. What good is this? I suppose it makes for some good philosophical debate or something, but it does not make sense to produce Romeo and Juliet when it already exists. Additionally, it is ironic that that chapter talks about probability of the monkeys because I am in Probability class this semester. I could do some of my own calculations to figure out these types of problems. Even if something is infinite (for example: there are 20 coupons, all different colors. If you pick up one, record the color, then put it back, how many turns will it take to get a complete set of colors? This could go on forever, never getting the last color...) an "expected value" can still be calculated.

It is not intuitive, but in the mathematics/probability world, it somehow works...

Graffiti Documentation Exercise

This week, please consider the reading assignment in Graffiti Lives as you do your documenting, and in particular consider that graffiti artists often refer to themselves as "writers." With this in mind, explore what it means to "write" in public spaces with the tools and methods of these writers. What relationship to self, thought, social order, economics, etc. do you see specific to these writing spaces/ materials. Who are these writing selves? Why write in these spaces?

Like Snyder writes in his book, Graffiti Lives, I do not think class, status, ethnicity, etc., has anything to do with who is "writing." Anyone can like writing.

Some people do it for fame; Synder writes that "[TAKI 183] made it clear what writing was all about: fame" (pg 23). TAKI wrote his name in strategic places and eventually was in the New York Times.

Others do have a message to tell and were inspired by politics. Snyder writes that, indeed, "...graffiti... served those who wished to influence public opinion about the culture and its practitioners" (pg. 28).

And then there are the others who do it for art. Some writers have "turned their youthful graffiti success into adult careers as muralists for hire, tattoo artists, graphic designers, and magazine publishers" (pg. 44).

For whatever reason writers do it, though, it is always an expression of themselves which is why it is called writing.

My dad was recently in Champaign, Illinois. Timing really could not have been more perfect. Let me explain: He loves trains and said how there was one near where he was staying. This gave me the idea to ask him to take pictures for me if there was any graffiti nearby since graffiti was very popular around trains back in the 60's and 70's according to Graffiti Lives and Style Wars. Lucky for me, there was graffiti! I think the following pictures do prove my theory of why writers write. For instance, this first picture shows the graffiti is near a train-- because so many people will ride by, the graffiti will have a lot of exposure. This gives fame. One can tell that some of the graffiti was done specifically for the riders, as well, since one throw-up says "Rider," unless that is someone's alias, of course. There are also a lot of tags all over the place, even on top of "Rider,"-- putting your tag up around a city as many times as you can gives you exposure, as well.

This next picture says "No war" showing that some people do it because they are politically inspired.

This last picture from Illinois I think shows that graffiti is an expression of oneself. Someone has written "I 'heart' (someone/something I can't discern)" which is obviously an expression of one's feelings for the world to see.

Does the writing define the writer, and if so, how? What relationship might these materials and spaces have to the writer and the writing? What counts as graffiti?

I do not think the writing necessarily defines the writer. For one thing, sometimes only the writer can understand his/her work. Others can only wish to come close to the true meaning of the writing. I can honestly say that I do not understand graffiti's meanings, although I can do take stabs at the meanings. Snyder also notes that it helps if one is an "insider" to understand meanings better-- the "writers... would often decipher the unique style of graffiti, which are difficult for outsiders to read" (pg. 15).

I think that these graffiti places in Illinois seem somewhat desolate. It is almost a win-win situation: no one will catch you doing graffiti and the trains going by helps get exposure. I do think that most people try to get their graffiti up in places with a lot of people and a place, as Snyder notes, wth little chance of removal. Fame is something that most people want. It is sad to think that someone does a "piece" and no one ever sees it.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I walked around Mason Saturday night as it began to snow. I only found one graffiti there and I'm not quite sure what it is. I believe it's a tag, just in "Wildstyle" since I can't read it. It was going up the million steps to the John Center on a brick wall. The picture quality is not good since I took it at night:

I believe there is not a lot of graffiti at Mason because it would just get removed. Additionally, it is a place of "authority." People feel like the place is kept clean so there is less desire to add graffiti, whereas that place in Illinois has so much graffiti that one might as well add to it. Snyder writes that Jeff Ferrell, in Crimes of Style, creates a theory that "graffiti... upsets the 'aesthetics of authory' embedded in a clean wall that is meant to inspire order" (pg. 30).

Finally, I want to change the connotation of graffiti. Most people see graffiti as ink, aerosol cans, etc. As it was snowing Saturday night, I decided to create some of my own graffiti. I did not have any aerosol cans or ink, though, but I had a better idea! Observe:

Do you know what this is? Well, snow covered one of the tables outside of the Johnson Center. I used my finger and drew a smiley face, then signed it with my alias. I think it counts as defacing property, or maybe I am just full of myself. Either way, I think I found a way to do "graffiti" that does not involve ink and is not permanent. This helped me realize "what counts as graffiti"-- it can be anything that is not meant to be there by who owns the property. Or, in the case of legal walls, anything that is an expression of oneself that may be viewed by whoever passes by.

Graffiti Lives by Gregory J. Snyder

In the introduction of this book, Snyder notes how one must steer clear of making generalizations about the meaning of graffiti; graffiti pieces (masterpieces-- many colors and intricately designed), tags (the writer's alias), and throw-ups (usually in one or two colors and quickly "thrown-up") mean something different for each writer. Some do it for fame. Others do it for the thrill of participating in illegal activity, while others yet use graffiti as the first step of pursuing a sophisticated art career with a monetary reward. Not everyone will understand a writer's graffiti.

This got me to thinking about the title of the book, "Graffiti Lives." It is ambiguous like some graffiti. It could either mean graffiti lives, speaking about the individual lives of people involved with graffiti, or it could mean that graffiti lives(think of the other way to pronounce this) as in graffiti is still flourishing in the cities.

Introduction with References to Chapter One

I think the Broken Windows theory is ridiculous. Basically, police believe that graffiti, petty crime, will lead writers on a path to committing greater crimes as well as encourage crime from others. I think the police focus their time and effort too much on stopping writers when they could be stopping real criminals. Yes, graffiti is illegal, but it is not harming anyone. Additionally, in chapter one, Synder explains how many writers go on to have wonderful art careers after their graffiti lives whether it is being the founder of a graffiti magazine or being a tattoo artist. Studies suggest that graffiti does not lead to bigger crimes. In fact, on page 77, Espo is quoted as saying that "[graffiti] kept [him] out of so many of the typical drug-and-alcohol-related dramas that [his] friends were going through." I truly think that graffiti is a form of art. On page 33 of Graffiti Lives, Pink's tag blew my mind (although it was more of a throw-up with her name as the throw-up). The 3-dimensionality of it was incredible and the shadowing was well done. I can honestly say that I think she is a true artist. And do not get me started about ESPO's (or Steve Powers, as it is revealed late in Chapter 2) creativity!

There is a lot more to graffiti than one would think, as well, which I think contributes to it being an art form. Writers are always developing new ways to write. For instance, a "hangover" was created by literally hanging over the roof of a building and painting upside down!

Chapter One, Getting In

I like how Snyder explains that graffiti is for anyone regardless of class, ethnicity, status, etc. Just like anyone can like a band, a movie, or a book, anyone can like graffiti. However, I did find it interesting that Snyder tries to make the case that graffiti cannot be broken down into two categories: hip hop graffiti and gang graffiti. On page 27 of Graffiti Lives, he explains that hip hop did not even exist when graffiti got its start. In fact, writers do not just like hip hop. Apparently, they like all kinds of music: they like rock and metal, too!

Did you catch my sarcasm? Rock, metal, and hip hop are obviously not all types of music. I am an avid listener of rock, but even I can admit that there are many genres of music he did not mention: country, pop, techno, etc... This brings me to question if it is false that music has nothing to do with graffiti. Honestly, I cannot imagine someone who listens to Theme From a Summer Place (or accordion music that I play) doing graffiti. Maybe it is the stereotype in me-- or maybe it's the fact that the only music Snyder lists is rock, hip hop, and metal...

I do not know what to think about online "flick"(hmmm so THIS is where flickr came from?!) sharing of graffiti and "legal" graffiti walls. Places like flickr do make fame easier to obtain since one has access to share their works with the entire world, but this and legal graffiti walls take away some of the thrill and pressure of having to complete a work in a short amount of time and figuring out a creative way to get noticed. I feel like this was a big part of what graffiti was all about. Graffiti just does not seem the same anymore. One may as well paint "graffiti" on a canvas, post a picture of it online somewhere and pretend it was spray painted on a city wall.

Chapter 2 and Conclusion

Essentially, graffiti is one of those things that one must be open-minded about. I think that page 96, Synder makes a good point: "What is lost sometimes in the cacophony of the debate over whether graffiti is art or vandalism is that when it's art, it is free art. You don't need money, ...the right outfit,..." I believe this is why graffiti still "lives."

I am happy that I read this book (or up to where we were required-- I am definitely going to finish!). I used to think that graffiti was only for gangs (I know, I am still an ignorant child) but now I know it has such a complex history and have the desire to do my own! The fact that "Amaze" was a math major gives me hope that I can be a writer, as well (I am currently a math major!). It seems like a whole new world to me that I want to be immersed in. Hopefully I won't be vanged for being a toy, though.

Freewrite February 23, 2009

Question 2: Are we already immersed in simulation?

I think we are immersed in a different kind of simulation-- one that is at once fake and real.

In my opinion, what is "real" is what goes on in our brains. It does not matter, in my mind (no pun intended), if the physical presence of something is what we encounter. Physical presence can change the meaning of some things, but really, all activity happens in our brains.

Take a computer, for instance. Is it fake? What does fake even mean? It is made up of Earth's materials. It is, constructorily (is this even a real word?) man made, yes, but the Earth made us. When we log onto the computer, we take in new information to our brains. We do interact with other people. The internet is our thoughts from our brains on pixels. The internet is our ideas widely spread and easily accessible. Whenever I log onto the internet, I am exposed to so many brains that I have no excuse not to hold a lot of knowledge in my own.

I see why web 2.0 can be said to be just a simulation and not real life, but it gets my brain to think, analyze, make ideas of my own... it is part of my life.

In Class Discussion

I think deception can work both ways.

I have a friend who I ALWAYS fight with if I speak with her online. This is why we vowed to stop communicating with each other through this medium. We get along extremely well in person, however. I guess this is because of the way she moves/the expression in her voice in person. I am really not sure.

On the other hand, think about murderers. Friends of a murderer always say "He was such a nice guy! He never would have done something like this!" Here, body language was deceptive instead of bringing out the true personality.

However, I could be deceived by my friend's in-person personality/body language and be ignoring her words. You never know!

Freewrite 3

Baron argues in "From Pencils to Pixels" that all literacy technologies go through similar stages. What are some of these stages? How would Baron extend his argument?

I agree with Baron that all literacy technologies go through similar stages. The most striking similarity between all new technologies is that they are first received with resentment and uncertainty.

When writing first came into existence, Socrates was against it. He thought that orality was the most expressive form of communication and that there were dangers in writing. Would Socrates have continued living into this modern time, he probably would have accepted that writing is wonderful.

Baron explains how the telephone was also not initially well received. People were actually fearful that it would invade their privacy. A telephone call during dinner hour was unheard of.

I also know that computers were not initially embraced by the general public right away. It was not until the late '90's that if you did not have a computer, you wanted one. To say that you do not own a computer now would be received with disbelief.

Baron explains another recent example of this phenomenon. He writes that when the spell checker first came out, teachers forbid their students to use it because this did not really help the students learn to spell or honor their true knowledge. However, Baron writes "... now teachers complain if their students don’t run the spell check before they turn their papers in. "

Another similarity is obviously that, although new technologies are not initially embraced, they eventually become the norm. People are just stubborn and set in their ways. If Person A has done Task A by Method A his/her entire life, it is often difficult to change and do Task A by Method B, if that makes sense. One's brain needs to make new connections and re-learn something.

I think that both Baron and Ong note the advantages of new technologies, but I think that Ong goes further and also claims that orality had its advantages, as well. Not only this, but Ong has said that writing is, in a way, artificial. This, I believe, would be their main point of disagreement. Baron never mentions that writing, or any new technology, is artificial. He does well to praise new technology, though.

Proust and Squid write-up

After reading "human beings were never born to read" on the back cover of Proust and Squid by Maryanne Wolf, I was planning on writing an angry entry. I was ready to argue. "What does that really mean?" I wondered. All throughout this book, however, my questions is nicely answered.

On page 11, for instance, Wolf explains that there are no genes specific to reading in a human, as there are specific genes for vision and speech. Further into the book, Wolf also explains how each individual must "re-learn" how to read(I say "re-learn" but mean everyone must learn for the first time). Reading is not pre-programmed into us which explains why some people can read better than others.

Reading fluency largely depends on a child's environment growing up. If a child was surrounded by stories, fairytales, was often read to, then chances are the child's brain will develop well enough to become literate. On the other hand, a child who is often read to and does not listen to language often will have difficulties.

I know this book had nothing to do with race, but I want to take this time to make a comment about it. I once had a friend who thought that minorities were of a lower intelligence than "whites" because he viewed them as not as literate as other kids (this was in elementary school, mind you). I always knew he was incorrect about this and I kind of wish I still knew this friend so I could show him this book! You see, unfortunately, in this country, minorities still do not make an average salary(my friend who studied race issues in a class told me ALL about it). In Proust and Squid, Wolf explains that there is a correlation between salary and an environment in which a child may successfully become literate. Children fall behind because of their environment, which has nothing to do with intelligence or capacity to learn. If I still knew this friend today, I would tell him that and I would tell him how reading is not pre-programmed in us(it has nothing to do with genetics!) so what he thought would not make sense. I know this paragraph that I just wrote seems obvious to all of you reading (or I hope none of you think a race is actually superior to another, if so, you're wrong), but I felt I had to write it because some people actually do exist that feel that some people are smarter than others.

The only time that someone may be more literate than another person when it has nothing to do with environment is, I believe, when someone has dyslexia, which Wolf also talks about. Dyslexia is believed to be a "disorder" where someone's brain is actually wired differently than others, so there are different neural connections which makes reading more challenging. I found it so intriguing that Thomas Edison, Alexander Graham Bell, among other famous genuises had dyslexia! Their brains really must be wired in a way that allows for more creativity.

I found it interesting that Chinese is symbolic/logographic rather than our language which is mostly phonemic. The reason I find it interesting is because in 2nd grade, if I did not know how to spell a word, my teacher would tell me to sound it out and however the word sounded, I would try to spell it using the letters I knew that sounded similarly. If I had been learning Chinese, this would not be possible. In Chinese, you either know it or you don't!!!

My last comments will be arguing for and against Socrates' beliefs. I agree that there are dangers in writing-- one may not carefully analyze what they read or take in the wrong interpretation. However, I would argue that this is why we discuss what we read: to clear up any confusion. Taking in different interpretations is also what I find to be the beauty of writing. Different interpretations can show a creative mind. Additionally, I believe that getting a different sense of reality from reading is wonderful. It is good to have an imagination and I find it amazing what the brain can come up with. It feels good to be human.

P.S. ...Because of evolution, I do wonder if one day reading will become pre-programmed in us...

Messages in the Landscape

The differences between official and unofficial text were not immediately clear to me. I read the assignment and wondered how in the world I would figure it out. Well, I do not think there is necessarily a "right answer", but I came up with my own theory anyways by analyzing messages one sees on their way to the Natural History Museum in Washington, DC. As you view my themed pictures of "Trip to the Natural History Musem," I will gradually explain what I concluded and why I concluded what I did.

This is a picture from the metro I rode on my way to Washington, DC. The back of the seat in front of me had a "Borders" price sticker on it. This was obviously not the right place for the sticker. Although it has "official" font (I would assume) and is an "official" price sticker, it is really meaningless because the sticker is on a metro chair-- the chair is not being sold at Borders. Thus, I would classify this as "unofficial text" because it is not in the proper location or on the proper item.

This was also found written in pencil probably by some other previous metro passenger. I am actually not quite sure what this says. I believe some of it is in Spanish. It says "I love tu amo" or "I love to amo." If someone knows Spanish and they could tell me what this means then I would appreciate it. I think it means "I love you friend" or something to that effect.

Basically, I think this is either official or unofficial, depending. I would classify this as official IF the person who wrote it means they love everyone. Thus, anyone who comes across the message is an appropriate viewer. However, if the person who wrote the message was writing it to a particular person, I would classify this as unofficial text.

During the metro ride, I was bored. Thus, I played "Scrabble" on my phone with my friend. This text I classify as ALL OFFICIAL. Not only is "MOTOROLA" on my phone an official text, but it is supposed to be there. It was put there by the company that actually made the phone. The scrabble text is also official because they are part of the game, even though I may choose which words to play.

Ah! DC, I am here! Here is some text in front of the Natural History Museum. I would also classify this as Official Text because it was put there by who owns the property. It is on the Natural History Museum property and is about Natural History. It is also a fact.

Now this picture is from inside of the Natural History Museum. My reasoning for classifying this as Official Text goes along with my reasoning for classifying the previous picture as official text. This is the Natural History Museum and it is this museum that approved and put this text about the "Paleozoic Era" up. It is meant to be there and the message applies to everyone who views it.

In the metro station to go back home, I found this text. It was also put there by who owns the place (the Metro people...) and applies to anyone. If there is an emergency, anyone may press the button for help. Thus, I classify this as Official Text.

Since this is Metro/Museum/DC themed, I thought I might as well take a picture of my all-day metro card (which someone handed to me for free, wow!). This text I would also classify as Official Text, going along with my previous two reasonings. It is made by the Metro, for the Metro.

In summary, I considered something official text if:

1) It was made and approved by who owns the property,

2) The message applies to anyone reading it,

3) It is a fact, and

4) It is where it is supposed to be (the Borders sticker was not) and was, thus, meaningless...

However, I gave an exception to the "I love tu amo." In my opinion, just because the text was not made by who owns the property, the message could still apply to whoever reads it and it still has meaning. I believe meaning overrides the approval of the text being there. It was also a fact (if the person meant it, anyways...)

I did not get many pictures of Unofficial Text, but I thought about it and what I would consider to be Unofficial Text would be

1) An opinion, not a Fact. For instance, "Democrats Suck" would be unofficial text. I do not care whether it was made by a company and advertised/sold as posters or not. If it is an opinion, I think it is unofficial. However, if the latter was phrased "I think Democrats Suck," then I would classify this as Official Text because it is a fact that whoever wrote "I think Democrats Suck" probably thinks Democrats really do suck.

2) If the message is meaningless to some or all people

I obviously did not find much "Unofficial Text" and I think this is because I consider more things Official Text than Unofficial Text. Whether this is a good or bad thing, I do not know...

What do you think? Am I nuts?

Class Discussion February 9th

Sometimes I don't like speaking in class. I don't know why, it depends on the day. I'm just really afraid to talk. So I will write down some of my thoughts here.

I disagree that one cannot really have a conversation with the writing. I disagree that one cannot object to writing. It just depends on what kind of writing it is. With books, well, of course one cannot really talk back to books-- especially if the book was authored by someone who has died since publication.

However, I am writing in a blog right now and if someone wants to object to what I'm writing, they may leave a comment.

Additionally, I also wanted to say that I used to be in Forensics in high school and that required me to memorize speeches/short stories/poems/etc. and then perform them. If a poet from pre-literary times forgot part of what they memorized (even though they don't necessarily memorize anyways), they would be capable of making up things or filling in the holes. I, on the other hand, just stand there and go blank if I forget something. It is embarrassing.

Something I can do, however, is make up music on the instruments I play. I wonder why I can do that but cannot "improvise" speaking?

Update: About writing being artificial, I also disagree. I think if writing is artificial, then so is speaking. Why? Well speaking is a form of communication. It is a medium through which our thoughts and ideas reach others. It is a way our brain can connect with other brains.

The same goes for writing. It is a medium through which our thoughts and ideas reach others.

Just because we need a pencil or pen does not matter. I mean, we could use our blood to write and then it would be more "natural," but I don't think we want to resort to that. Our ideas are still there, regardless of if we speak or write them.

And what about that deaf person that can only read and write? Is he/she forced to live a life of artificiality? That seems a bit ridiculous, to me. No?

AHA! ANOTHER UPDATE!!! AN EPIPHANY!!! I have some good (I think) reasoning why writing is natural. In fact, I have reasoning why writing is more natural than primary orality. You see, in primary orality, people had to repeat things over and over again. Why? Because people would forget otherwise. This means that the human mind was not meant to remember things. It is rare that a person remembers everything they have seen/learned. Writing does for us what our minds are not meant to do... Does this seem like a good theory?

FREEWRITE 2

"More than any other single invention, writing has transformed human consciousness." (p. 78)

Ong means that writing is a gateway to higher intellectual activity, another world. Before writing, poets would describe places, people, and things. They would tell stories with similar themes--it was always the epic hero, for instance. The poets had great memories-- a good poet would know which words fit where, metrically-- but no analysis would take place. Cliches were used over and over in order for the poet to retain information. They were readily prepared phrases to stick into a story where they saw fit.

Once writing came onto the scene, analysis would take place, probably thanks to the linear characteristic of writing. Not only this, but with a writing system, thousands more words could be created and looked up. I believe physics was a result of the writing system, as well. Cliches no longer were necessary as a memorization tool.

I just wrote about how writing has transformed our minds for the better. However, I will note that writing has "transformed" our minds also for the worse. Thousands of years ago, before writing, discourse battles took place in many public places. People were capable of debating well. Poets were capable of telling stories with sprezzatura. Today, many people are afraid to speak in front of a class. Some people are not capable of it. Our minds have slowed down. I, myself, get nervous when I talk to people I do not know. I often find myself searching for words to say and I never find them. It is a lot easier for me to type out my thoughts than it is to speak them. I must see words as "things" instead of sounds and need to see them to think clearly.

There are many other significant inventions besides writing. They include the wheel (haha?) , the Democratic state, the telephone, electricity, the computer, etc. I think the Democratic state evolved due to writing, allowing for better thought and, thus, more creative/logical government. Electricity, the telephone, and the computer also were created from physics/other sciences, etc., which never would have been created if it were not for writing....

Orality and Literacy

The image to the left models primary orality, the age of literacy, and then secondary orality-- something the book, Orality and Literacy, attempts to explain the differences of.
The following is my response/thoughts about the book's ideas:


I find it really interesting that theories exist which claim Homer was not a real man and did not write the Iliad and Odyssey; it reminds me of the theories that claim Shakespeare did not write all, if any, of his plays. I do not know what to believe anymore. However, I agree with Wood in thinking that, if there was a Homer, he was able to produce his poetry because of his great memory.
Basically, oral poets were capable of retaining a lot of information by using technical devices, like cliches, over and over. I do not need to have a great memory or use cliches to remember things because I write things down. Funny enough, I do seem to forget something as soon as I write it down. I have the confidence that writing will not disappear, like how sound dies, and so the information I take notes on from videos, for instance, go in one ear and out the other. Thus, this is where primary orality has an advantage(what happens if I lose my notes?!).
However, whereas people that only know primary orality probably have a better memory than others, I do think people who are literate, or also live in the age of secondary orality, have an advantage as well. Take my brother, for instance. He was always reading as a child and still reads today. I think he has a quick mind when it comes to word associations and different meanings. The following are jokes he made all from yesterday at the family dinner:
My dad: Yeah, he went into the hospital to get heart surgery and came out of the operation without an appendix.
*Less than a second later*
My brother: That's what he gets for telling them he's an open book.



Get it? You know, books have appendixes...

Okay well try this one.
Me: I have to finish my math homework so don't bother me.
My Brother: I don't know why you take math. Math teachers always gave me Problems! That's all they ever do!


No? Still not funny?
Okay one more, I promise...


My mom (upstairs looking for the camera, making lots of noise): If only you guys knew what was going on up here!
My brother: I don't want to picture it. I shudder (shutter) to think of the possibilities.
Me: Yeah, the things that can develop


It took me more time to come up with my response to his joke. I am guessing it is because I never read as much as he did.


Now, this brings up another point that I wanted to get at. As is clear, my brother uses a lot of cliches or common phrases in his jokes. However, he does it in a clever way. I remember reading in Orality and Literacy that scholars were upset when they discovered Homer (if he did exist) used cliches, pre-written formulas in a way. I think Homer also did it in a clever way, and that is what matters. Nothing, I believe, is completely original. Another one of my Honors professors, Professor D'Andrea, once said that everything in literature is stolen from something else in literature. He said stolen. That is right. I think it makes sense, too, because we act a certain way because of our past experiences(I am a Determinist). We only know something if we are taught something, by teacher or book (or nowadays Internet/TV/etc. and in the future maybe some sort of telepathic device, who knows). And, of course, what distinguishes piece of art from another piece of art is rearranging the pieces of the puzzle; something new arises using the tools/literary devices/etc. that one has learned in a different way. There are a lot of love songs, for instance, and so one may ask why artists continue to make love songs when the concept is the same-- the answer is, of course, because it can be expressed different ways and the pieces of the puzzle were arranged differently-- on page 22 of Orality and Literacy, Alexander Pope is quoted as writing that a poet can express "what oft was thought" as "ne'er so well expressed." Essentially, I do not see Homer as less of a poet than before just because it is most likely he used cliches.


Additionally, of course, the other advantage to literacy is it gives a different, perhaps more logical, flow of thought since writing is linear(Orality and Literacy mentioned Plato, as an example, who was the first to seemingly use his brain for analytic purposes). I hold the opinion that society could not have advanced as far as it is now if it were not for writing.
I would write more but I think I have written too much already. Perhaps I will put up a separate/additional response on the reading later!



I will conclude, however, that I find both orality and literacy to have advantages. Do I think one is better than another? I lean towards literacy since the only-literary culture was more advanced than what it used to be, but I think it is obvious that both orality and literacy together are necessary for an even greater society. Today we have a "secondary orality" and our society is seemingly greater than the only-oral and only-literary societies combined. That is probably the formula that promises the most success-- orality and literature combined, despite the fact they are so different (but that's the thing, they both bring to the table more than they could by themselves!).

Helvetica Free Write

The lion is a random image I found off of google because I needed to upload an image. Then I decided to put up an image I actually care about. It's the CD cover from a great band. It also has nothing to do with typography...

Anyways, after watching Helvetica, I realized that it is true that Helvetica is everywhere where big name corporations/companies are to be found. Or, if it isn’t Helvetica, it is a “Helvetica-wanna-be” font. I was not really disturbed by this fact, but I kept trying to analyze why this is so. Letters used to have character. Letters used to have fashion. Now, they are seemingly “neutral.” I think that this is perhaps necessary for some things like newspapers or novels. It is important that the reader takes what he or she thinks is important from what he or she reads. Perhaps a more complex font for novels would bias what the reader reads (well, not that we aren’t already biased by just how an author may phrase something). What I do find to stray from Helvetica and like fonts are CD covers or web page titles. I think this is because music, for instance, is very emotional and so the font tries to capture this.

At the same time, I am neither thrown aback from Helvetica or from fonts with more character. I feel like I am just unaffected by anything anymore. Fonts that try to be different do nothing for me. Fonts that are neutral do nothing for me as well. ”Do I have a problem?” I wonder, “Or is it because of the culture I grew up in?” I have not been able to answer this question thus far. Maybe I will eventually. All I know is that if I had to choose, I prefer other fonts to Helvetica. I kind of relate to that guy who said he needs letters with something wrong with them—they cannot be perfect.

I just find it so interesting that so many people are extremely passionate about fonts and lettering. People are actually A.D.D. about letters on a page. I never knew these type of people existed. I was always passionate about music, but I suppose lettering is just another form of art and music and typography are synonymous with each other. I liked how one man in Helvetica said that just as letter spacings and such are important for typographers, the space between music notes are important for musicians. He was right. That is what I probably thought about most during the week between class—how typography relates to music.