I Am A Lone Reed

So, I know that this is taking some serious liberty with what we are supposed to respond to and what I may actually be doing. But, since I'm already blogging later than I should be and I think it happens to apply, I'm going for it.

In class and our readings, I have been thinking a lot about the application of technology in our writing. "What are we so scared about?" is my main question. And I recently watched one of my favorite movies, "You've Got Mail" with Meg Ryan and Tom Hanks (in attempt to not go totally crazy on too much work and too little sleep..) -- beyond the half-a-box of tissue it takes to get me through that movie and the glass of red wine, it occurred to me (our best thoughts sometimes come from the lack of inhibition?) that people have been literally afraid of the technology that develops around us further every day, and continues to define our lives, for a long time. While the 90's was really not that long ago, the fear of technology-driven Apocalypse has been a serious issue in the mind of society for a long time. In "You've Got Mail" the fear is the "corporation" and one character is actually obsessed with typewriters for the purpose of its archaic value in society, a treasured piece of history he believes is being lost in the sands of time and the fast-paced New York style life.

The thing we are forgetting is that typewriters themselves changed the way people interact: publication, instant and unchangeable publication. Oh no! I can't believe humanity survived such an awful development.

But seriously, people will certainly still interact with each other: we cannot survive (proven by many-a-Biological study-- prove me wrong if you want, I'm not all that fired up about it) without interaction; we are a social group of mammals (my ability to apply that to a compact word has completely diminished: species?).

So, the larger point is that since we are notably visual and notably social at the very least, why should we fight it? I know this may be beating the dead cat, I really think it is important to realize that the things we are learning in this course teaches us to do exactly what we have been taught to do since Elementary school (especially in humanities-based classes): Paint A Picture With Your Words. But instead of worrying about not being able to actually explain what you're looking at, you can show a picture of what you're looking at and talk about something that really matters: Why you're pointing out what you are looking at.

If technology is going to be the end of humanity as we know it the news to you would be: it is too late: life as you know it has been altered previously by technology. And my best guess (as I am not the Omniscient Universe controlling being) is that there is something else (humanity itself?) that will be the end of life as we know it -- Heaven forbid.

Sorry about the rant: I really like what we have been learning about and I really think technology is a really important application of writing :) Pictures + Writing = pretty cool.

(also, sorry this is so long and maybe not so relevant)

This Week

I was really impressed with our reading. I honestly never thought that I'd have any particular liking for graphic comics, though I know people who do like them a lot so I didn't judge them. Now I understand more of the draw to them but on a deeper level, I was really impressed. Specifically, I really liked how it cut out the bullshit and just spoke at a basic level of "this-is-this". It made it easy to follow and--- well, a little like looking in a mirror held up to humanity.

I particularly liked the Iconicity and Words and Images chapters. I guess I do have really specific examples but I mostly just liked how it lead into each though and each though was big and powerful but small enough to understand, or relate to.

Our faces are masks. I love that that was pointed out. I feel like that a lot and it is interesting how poignantly that can be displayed through a cartoony man with cute glasses.

I'm really interested to see what everyone else thought of this: I'm sure some of you are taking Lit Crit this semester and it has been a long time since I've taken that class but this reading called to mind readings in that class: Any thoughts tying the two together? It seems like the evolution of language is particularly relevant -- not only in this class but as a pressing issue for English majors and society in general. I think people worry unnecessarily about it... Thoughts?

Reading and Writing

So, it seems like our readings for this week deal very specifically with "information overload" due to technological access to everything and the idea that because of our the vastness of information readily available to people everywhere, specifically online/screens, people have to categorize which type of reading they will read deeply and which they will skim. I am relatively certain that most students do this quite a bit of their time in school. In order to be a successful student, you have no real choice but to skim and do it efficiently while extracting exact quotes you need and, more importantly, important information that will help you with a specific course or in a career later.

In response specifically to the Sosnoski article, I don't think students need to be taught to be hyper-readers -- it happens naturally and quickly. Plus, teaching people how to read and what for is completely ridiculous. It has to be a process where the reader knows what they are looking for and the teacher cannot teach them how to find something like that. It must be an independent learning process or the student will not be able to deep read or hyper-read a text on screen or off.

As far as the "We Can't Teach Students to Love Reading" is concerned, it is too true. I hate reading... and I don't mean to give off the wrong impression, what I mean is: I hate wasting my time. I don't like to name-drop with literature and classical ideas and theorists and I am never going to be that person. I've spent a good two years trying to fit the mold with Lit students and ... well -- the people are great, I love the department and most of the students but I felt like it was wasting my time -- almost always (and, for those of you in Lit, I don't judge you and don't want to fight it out). But I love to spend time reading/skimming things that will actually really help me in school and life. I love Wikipedia. It is not that I would base a book report off of Wikipedia but I have definitely done in-depth reports, gotten to the 15th page, decided to look up a term on Wikipedia and realized that all of my sources (books from the library that other people have actually written and read) are cited on that specific page. -- Imagine my dismay upon realizing all of my hard research could easily be found with a blue highlighted link! With keyword searches!!

That is the beauty of online and screen text... or one of the many. Don't get me wrong... I love physical books -- Thumbing through them, smelling them when walking into a used-book store, mm! But, I love not breaking my back with a million books that I may never find anything useful in when I can key-word/phrase search topics and read ten really helpful articles all with through the convenience of my lightweight laptop! :) Woohoo! (I don't have a kindle/ipad but they look pretty much awesome... any reviews for preference between either of those and physical text reading?)

Most importantly, what I always think about with anything is communication. I love that people are tapping into a completely new world of communicating with each other. I'm not a huge networker/online communicator but technology is certainly changing the way people communicate and more-so how they learn to communicate... I won't rant on about that but I do love the new doors opening for people and kids learning how to read, write and speak in many languages and societies worldwide: who'd have thought?

Youch... sorry that was so long... and dull! I'll do better next time

The Meaning of Rhetoric, The Meaning of Life?

Hello all,
So it seems that a commonly asked and never (?) answered question is: What is rhetoric? I hear it all the time and usually the answer starts with: Well, I can't really say. The way it is frequently approached is through history: the history of Western Civilization and the communication that we currently employ from everyday speech to our most important writing/speeches. There are loads of formulas out there on how to communicate well: how to speak rhetorically with proficiency and Covino and Jolliffe go over the basics: Invention, arrangment, memory, delivery: these all seem like horrific pieces of rhetoric, the bad, nightmarish image of public communication classes and high school speeches in English class come to mind with these words. But, the reality of Rhetoric is that without its history, without the history of life, there is no such thing as rhetoric. The story of rhetoric and its many applications is an interesting view into the history of humanity, how we interact, when we decided to change the way we interact and most importantly what we have decided is important to talk about throughout the years. Rhetoric is extremely important and for powerful people is the means to their success. There are many factors in what makes successful rhetoric that are included in who a person is, their personal style, their background, their knowledge on the subject but what it comes down to is the basic structure of public speaking and communication, which now includes blogging, vlogging, and really any internet activity with which persuasive power and trust is given to the author.

As far as the Grant-Davie article is concerned, I am really impressed with the idea of a rhetor addressing the need to change: it makes a lot of sense.The way people are inspired to change things around them are often due to the way it is presented: the words used to summarize a bill, a speech given by a powerful person, a car salesman giving you the rundown on the new, family-safe Subaru, a high school guidance counselor explaining the importance of higher education: the presentation and its effectiveness are all a part of the particular discourse: the speaker(author) and the audience. What makes it effective is the ability of the author to communicate and empathize with the given audience. Everything else can simply fall into place and the "why" that everyone struggles over is simple: there are points in human history when things combine to create a setting, a specific history, a "placement" in history, time, geography, etc which causes something to be particularly effective. To give a speech on the importance of women's suffrage today would be misplaced historically while the issue of human trafficking is something that has been a serious issue for years. The "Why" of rhetoric is almost as important as the "when", in my opinion.

Rhetoric is a vastly interesting topic, as it provides more questions than answers in the actual study of it but the practice of it often creates grand shifts in ideologies of the people of the world. What an interesting combination: a person could potentially study rhetoric their entire life and use it very poorly or a person could study and know nothing about the ins-and-outs of rhetoric and still be an extraordinarily persuasive rhetorician. I'm really interested to see how this course will address the technology of Rhetoric, as it is a huge and extremely important part of our current and future lives.