Essay

My essay can be found here. It's in the right format in my Word document, but Google Docs is a little bit funny. Enjoy!

Blog Post 9: Reflections

Before walking into English on the first day of classes, if one would have told me that I would be blogging in English, I would have reacted one of these two ways: I would have been very skeptical, or I would have been dreading it. In all honesty I found blogging (and writing in general) to be a bore. I also did not regard blogging as writing on a collegiate level. I had no prior experience with either writing or reading blogs. Ignorance, in this case, was definitely not bliss. I had no idea what I was missing out on—news, gossip, opinions, and everything else can be found in a blog, and I had almost no idea! And better yet, all of this information can be reflected upon to view subjects in a completely different light, something everyone can stand to practice every now and then, just for the sake of making life more peaceful.

Still, I will admit, writing is not a favorite activity of mine, nor will it ever be a hobby (well, as of right now, at least). The blogs also came with a difficult side: starting. Writing an introduction is a bit difficult for me. This is very discouraging when you are O. C. D. like me, and you have to write everything in order, or it just bothers you to no end. I also learned that writing comes easily once the screen on Microsoft Word has more black on it than white—that white screen which I have stared blankly at before many a paper poured from my fingers, drops at first, but then becoming a waterfall. Better yet, as the reader with "new literacy" skills would prefer, writing blogs were a piece of cake after I had some of it finished.

I have also found myself looking at more intellectual websites, though my Facebook addiction is still here and will be for quite some time.

An outside source...

This article is most likely going to be one of my outside sources for the essay. It compares and contrasts learning through computers and learning through books; however, I am on the fence about using it because it was published in February/March of 1998. What do you all think?

Blog Post 8:

MISREAD PROMPT; ACCIDENTALLY GOT POSTS 7 AND 8 INTERTWINED
As time goes on, newspapers are becoming more and more obsolete; the speed at which the news is distributed (usually the day after something happens, maybe longer), cannot match the speed of the Internet, which is instant. Sadly, this means that the numbers of newspapers in the country will, in the future, be drastically lower than that of today. They will not be totally eradicated, as mankind has a fondness of "reminiscing" and "doing things the old fashioned way." But, as they slowly decline, Hedges claims the fabric of democracy will also decline; he claims that virtually all news we read online is controlled by a few corporations, much like the news in 1984 by George Orwell. Most Americans get their news online, either through corporately owned news channels or from places that only exist to reinforce certain views (FOX News, a combination of both, comes to mind).

This article was much more fairly written than Hedges' last article, but he still manages to use his post to attack a politician. This time it is George W. Bush. Why must he use his articles to attack someone? It generally leaves a sour taste in my mouth; someone that possesses such skill in writing is ruining his works by attacking others. This does not go to say I was a fan of Bush, but there is a time and place for that kind of thing. He also falls into his old habit of not citing sources, though this go-round, his facts seem much more believable (though they do still seem a bit inflated). If Hedges were to remedy these ailments to his writing, he would be a very persuasive author.

Blog Post 7: Illiterate, or Just Lazy?

Are Americans really becoming illiterate? That is what Chris Hedges wants us to believe. But is it true? Hedges claims that over 92 million of the population of America is illiterate or semi-literate, a term he defines as those "who read at a fourth- or fifth-grade level" (1). He also goes on to say that the illiterate will believe mostly everything they are told and do no research it to back it up. Hedges says politicians need only a story that does not have to be true. He claims that "it can be completely at odds with the facts" (2). This is where the hipocrisy lies in his argument; all of is information is just written on the page, no sources, no outside references. I, as an "illiterate person,"  most likely one of his "42%" of high school gradutates that "never reads a book" would not even have the ability to look up his facts to check to see if they were true. At times, it even seems as if this article was written in a hysterical frenzy attacking Barack Obama because Hedges was bitter that Obama won the presidency (as indeed, this article was published a week after the election ended).

Thompson's article, however, appeared it was not written in a blind rage, and he points out, citing his sources, that our generation is more literate than ever; more than "38 percent of [what we write] took place out of the classroom" (1). This is significant, as as short as 40 years ago, almost no one wrote outside of school, except for the occasional letter. He adds that the social networking phenomenon has also greatly increased our ability to modify our tone and judge our audience in order to successfully get our point across (a lesson of which Hedges should take note).

While it is true in Hedges' claim that we are becoming more image-based as a society, that does not necessarily mean that we are illiterate; it just proves to show that we are becoming lazier as technology progresses, to the point where reading takes too much effort as opposed to looking at an image and having our brain do the work for us.

Blog Post 6: In With the New

Carr poses the question "Is Google making us stupid?" What is his answer? He claims that humans are not becoming stupid; they are, in fact, becoming more machine-like and losing the ability to do "human" things, such as analyze complex texts. For example, studies have shown that most people now skim web pages and jump around, never going back to reread, which is much like a search engine is in today's world. Carr provides a great analogy for the situation: "Once I was a scuba diver in the sea of words. Now I zip along the surface like a guy on a Jet Ski" (1).

Though Carr's claim can be seen as correct, it is not entirely applicable for all situations. We humans are still expressive, as evidenced in our love and addiction to certain social networking web sites (Facebook immediately comes to mind). The proliferation of blogging as a viable source of writing is another example of a need to be human. Though blogging is lacking in complexity, blogging remains a major output for human expression. A computer-like being would certainly not be such an avid proprietor of social networking or composing its own works.

Free will is what separates us from machines; computers respond only to the basic formula of "Input yields Output," whereas humans do things that, more often than not, make no sense, especially from a computer's point of view, such as writing down what we think, having and forming opinions, or having emotions. Would a computer talk with a person? Perhaps, but only if the person were to initiate the conversation.

Though our ability to think in the ways of the past may be drastically changing, we are becoming more intelligent. The answers to everything we have ever wondered slowly creep into our mind and remain there as we continue to use the Internet, a thought unheard of merely 25 years ago. If losing our old way of thinking is the only way to gain such intelligence, then I say out with the old and in with the new.

Blog Post 5

Joseph Harris defines writing as juxtaposing one's thoughts with what has also been written, almost always in response. This, he calls, is intertextuality. This is also true in Sullivan's view of blogging; Sullivan takes the responses on his blogs and reworks them into new postings. The two authors also agree that writing is meant to be responded to; however, this is much more apparent in blogging than in traditional styles of writing. Blogs have the expectation of receiving comments, through various functions on the blogging site and general blogging etiquette, whereas traditional writing lacks the ease of response. This leads to where the two authors differ in their views, which also shows the split in the difference between blogging and traditional methods of writing. In traditional writing, Harris claims that "readers rarely respond directly to a writer with comments on his or her text" (5). In blogging, however, half of the experience comes from comments on the author's work that is instantly accessible to the author. Blogging is 21^st century writing—it allows for the reader and writer to interact in such a way that has never been possible. Of course, it will never have the same literary standing as traditional methods (books being a particular medium that comes to mind), as anyone can publish a blog, whereas books and other published documents must go through a cycle of editors, which leads to a more polished and accurate work.

Harris' views on reading startled me, but upon considering it, I find it rings true. The author claims that readers read texts (always with an opinion on what is written, never completely neutral), and that "a book is a text, but so are movies, plays, songs, paintings, sculptures, photographs, cartoons, videos, billboards, advertisements, web pages, and the like" (11). The relationship with the reader and writer must always exist, as when one does not exist, the other fails to have a function; therefore, the actor, the director, the artist, the musician, the photographer, and the graphic designer are all writers. This thought is revolutionary to me, and the very thought of it makes me look at everything around me in a new light.

Blog Post 4: MLIA

Going from blog to blog, I was not surprised in the least to discover that everyone (well, I'll admit, I didn't look at every blog) got on Facebook. But why? Facebook is a way for people to stay connected in a world where people are used to seeing more of their friends and family than in prior years before the cell phone or the internet. It gives everyone the excuse to "hang out" with old pals (or new ones), though indirectly. Strangely enough, I noticed that no one who's blog I read got on MySpace. Four years ago, that would certainly not have been the case. Facebook would barely have shown up, if at all. MySpace still held the title of "Most Used Social Network." I find it funny how this drastic change took place, as back then everyone loved MySpace and hated Facebook, whereas today, the opposite is true.

Though everyone used it, I tragically discovered that I use Facebook more than anyone else. It makes me sad, but at the same time, I don't care because I love Facebook so much. I wonder if there really is such a thing as a Facebook addiction. If there is, I definitely have one. Are there others who share this addiction? Are there any in the class?

This study has also opened the doors to new websites for me. I had never been to My Life is Average until today, though I had heard about it before. The posts on it were hilarious. In fact, they were so enjoyable, they made me put off doing this until I had read 26 pages of posts.

After contemplating what I wrote, I've determined that the Internet is my excuse to procrastinate. Oh well!

Blog Post 3: Facebook owns me. :(

Sunday, September 6, 2009:
11:13 AM: Got on the Internet
11:13 AM:  facebook.com—checked messages, read statuses, talked to friends
1:32 PM:  louisville.edu/email—checked email
1:34 PM:  facebook.com—checked messages, read statuses, talked to friends
3:13 PM: Got off the Internet

Monday, September 7, 2009:
11:52 AM: Got on the Internet
11:52 AM: facebook.com—checked messages, read statuses, talked to friends
12:04 PM: fmylife.com—read interesting and humorous events in the lives of others
1:32 PM: facebook.com—checked messages, read statuses, talked to friends
1:49 PM: true.com—joined for fun*, made a profile**, looked around, laughed with some friends about it.
2:12 PM: facebook.com—checked messages, read statuses, talked to friends
2:32 PM: chemistry.com—joined for fun*, made a profile**, looked around, laughed with some friends about it.
3:24 PM: facebook.com—checked messages, read status, talked to friends
3:41 PM: match.com—joined for fun*, made a profile**, looked around, laughed with some friends about it.
4:02 PM: facebook.com—checked messages, read statuses, talked to friends
4:34 PM: Got off the Internet
8:56 PM: Got on the Internet
8:56 PM: facebook.com—checked messages, read statuses, talked to friends
9:05 PM: fmylife.com—read about the miserable lives of others
9:24 PM: mylifeisg.com—read about the good fortune of others
9:56 PM: facebook.com—checked messages, read statuses, talked to friends
10:07 PM: ebay.com—looked at Eb Clarinets
10:13 PM: wwbw.com—looked at Eb Clarinets
10:23 PM: milesaheadmusic.net—looked for Eb clarinets
10:39 PM: blogger.com—wrote and published blog

*joined for fun: seen as an ad on facebook. I joined because I recently turned 18 and did it just because I could.
**made a profile: typed my interests, about me, etc.
As you may be able to tell, facebook is an addiction for me, and it dominates my life. Sadly, I hated facebook two years ago. How did this happen?

Blog Post 2:

Why do people write? The answer is a simple one: to inform others. Though it is true that some writers keep their works hidden, the works are written down because it simulates bearing one's soul to another human being. Blogs, however, almost guarantee that it will be read by a reader. If an amateur writer writes a piece, there is a strong chance that it will go unread. Blogs give everyone, despite their writing skills, the ability to be heard; in other words, one does not have to be a novelist or journalist in order to be noticed. Some of the top bloggers of the world are everyday people. This is one of the reasons why Sullivan blogs.

Why else would Sullivan blog? The raw emotion found in blogs due to their spontaneity is another key reason. Strangely enough, as a professional writer, it sometimes seems as though one tries to keep the writer separate from the piece—no sense of personality. Blogs, on the other hand, are rife with personality—quirks, humor, anger, jealousy, and any other human emotion can be found lurking in the depths of the "blogosphere," as Sullivan puts it. These emotions in blogs ultimately lead to an intimate relationship between the writer and reader, which "is unlike the bond that the The Times, say, develops with its readers," even though the two may cover the same events.

Sullivan also blogs because it allows him to gather knowledge and a deeper understanding of what he is blogging about; conversations over his texts mixed with the ease of acquiring information on the Internet allows the writer to gather additional information quickly or to see the story from different points of view, which gives the writer a deeper appreciation for the topic.