For some reason, I think I vaguely remember Erin mentioning McCloud in another class we had together - correct me if I'm wrong, darling - and possibly writing a paper on it. If I am correct in my remembering, I'd love to hear what it was you were writing about when you mentioned this (I think was in Advanced Comp?).
My mind imploded on itself a little while reading to the first chapter of the three we were assigned, but while I think that concepts the author is speaking about are really interesting, what I couldn't help doing the whole time was comparing this reading to the other readings we've been doing in class. All deal with relevant issues in rhetoric, but what I think sets McCloud apart from the others - other than the obvious pictures - is the ease with which I was able to understand the wide concepts he was trying to convey, which put me in mind of the different ways we learn - aural, visual, etc. The visual point in this is one known well in the world of comics, but I wanted to apply it to another topic that a classmate and I were discussing the other day: the use of fonts.
Fonts vary in every text, every book - and I never realized how often they effect how I learn - and maybe how everyone learns. The all-cap thicker font of McCloud's writing kept my attention centered - is that because I make the correlation between all caps meaning I'm either being yelled at or someone's trying to emphasize a point? I put that up against how much trouble I have paying attention to the the small printed, dictionary-thin pages of my Rhet/Comp book in another class - possibly because I associate that print with higher learning I have trouble understanding? Or how larger fonts in books in thick books make me less appreciative of it's content (it just looks more juvenile to me). I think it's incredibly interesting.
Pictures and comics aside, that is what I kept thinking about while reading from McCloud.
Sunday, September 29, 2013
Sunday, September 22, 2013
Sosnoski & Jakobs
From Jakobs article, I gleaned the definition of Hypertext:
"Hypertext will, therefore, be defined as an on or offline accessible, functionally determined subnet of modules with a certain communicative purpose, organized by an overarching thematic idea." (Jakobs)
So...the web? Text online or on-screen in general? I think... And yet for all of the explanation in the article, I still couldn't put that understanding into a more comprehensive line of thought than that, until I read Sosnoski's article.
I feel that the direction of this post aligns itself with what I wrote about last time. Sometimes I wonder if I really am odd and too much old-fashioned when it comes to technology on a screen. Sosnoski's article started out by describing how much he truly enjoys reading on a screen, and ended with how he thinks it will become more popular as is become more aesthetically pleasing (i.e, the comfy chair, fireplace, etc) - which it already has. Maybe it's because of the negative experience I have with reading on a screen (eye issues and the migraine like), but I don't think that's it.
Part of it lies with this quote: "Good Writing is often distinguished from bad writing on the grounds of coherence." (Sosnoski, 5). It takes me far longer to read something from a computer screen than it does from actual paper; when on my computer, I constantly have to reread passages, as if the set-up distracts me. It seems much less coherent to me - whether or not the writing is good or bad. Maybe because I don't have something in my hands to keep them grounded in the subject I'm currently reading?Or maybe it's just because I have trouble focusing and am also inclined to dislike reading on screens.
There's a paragraph towards the end of the article that I want to believe: "I believe that a more sensible view sees; hyper-readmg, whether exploratory or constructive, as another way of reading (and writing), which is not likely to supplant the ones we already have since they accomplísh different objectives." (Sosnoski, 7)
But do they always? All I can think about is the little 1st and 2nd grade students I know in my hometown who told me they gave up their kindles/nooks for Lent, to which all I could think was, Why aren't they reading from physical BOOKS at that age?
Whether that's a parenting decision or a dialogue between the way children used to read, the way they are reading, and the way the will read, I'm not sure.
"Hypertext will, therefore, be defined as an on or offline accessible, functionally determined subnet of modules with a certain communicative purpose, organized by an overarching thematic idea." (Jakobs)
So...the web? Text online or on-screen in general? I think... And yet for all of the explanation in the article, I still couldn't put that understanding into a more comprehensive line of thought than that, until I read Sosnoski's article.
I feel that the direction of this post aligns itself with what I wrote about last time. Sometimes I wonder if I really am odd and too much old-fashioned when it comes to technology on a screen. Sosnoski's article started out by describing how much he truly enjoys reading on a screen, and ended with how he thinks it will become more popular as is become more aesthetically pleasing (i.e, the comfy chair, fireplace, etc) - which it already has. Maybe it's because of the negative experience I have with reading on a screen (eye issues and the migraine like), but I don't think that's it.
Part of it lies with this quote: "Good Writing is often distinguished from bad writing on the grounds of coherence." (Sosnoski, 5). It takes me far longer to read something from a computer screen than it does from actual paper; when on my computer, I constantly have to reread passages, as if the set-up distracts me. It seems much less coherent to me - whether or not the writing is good or bad. Maybe because I don't have something in my hands to keep them grounded in the subject I'm currently reading?Or maybe it's just because I have trouble focusing and am also inclined to dislike reading on screens.
There's a paragraph towards the end of the article that I want to believe: "I believe that a more sensible view sees; hyper-readmg, whether exploratory or constructive, as another way of reading (and writing), which is not likely to supplant the ones we already have since they accomplísh different objectives." (Sosnoski, 7)
But do they always? All I can think about is the little 1st and 2nd grade students I know in my hometown who told me they gave up their kindles/nooks for Lent, to which all I could think was, Why aren't they reading from physical BOOKS at that age?
Whether that's a parenting decision or a dialogue between the way children used to read, the way they are reading, and the way the will read, I'm not sure.
Saturday, September 14, 2013
No iPad for me, dears.
I still prefer to write with pens - a specific, cheap Bic kind, actually, that I can buy in black packs. Whenever I take notes in class, I prefer them to be on paper (because I have trouble paying attention if I do them on the computer), I have to write poetry on open wide pages that allow for me to cross out and scribble and generally make the paper look like a hodge-podge mess, and I love fleshing out story lines and character sketches on lined composition notebooks. I even have a typewriter that sits on my desk that I still use occasionally.
But I could not write an essay or novel long-hand to save my life. My fingers can't keep up with my thoughts unless they're on a keyboard, as they are now, and I can't imagine how the Greats (whose work we still read today) did it when they were accomplishing their great novels or collections. My words never sound fluid when I reread them from a handwritten sheet of paper, they way those authors words must of. Does that make me less of a writer?
So, though I refuse to own a nook/kindle/whatever else they'll come up with (my boyfriend and I have a bet going - if I buy something like that in the next 10 years, he gets as many roofboxes for our cars as he wants. I win, and we move to the UK), I've been tainted, in a way, by computers, and I'm almost waiting for the days when technology renders us useless without it. I'm one of those skeptics.
Which is why it's really interesting to look back and see something like this "Writing lacks such tonal cues of the human voice as pitch and stress, not to mention the physical cues that face to face communication..." (Baron, 4) and remember how Plato thought that writing was going to ruin us. Reading the above quote, my initial response was, That's not entirely true. If I know someone well enough, I hear the inflections and the tones in their voices through the writing they send to me, be it letters, emails, or texts. I know that that is also true for some other people. That evolution of thought for me would never have occurred for Plato.
Does that mean that all of our fears are ungrounded - books no longer being in print, newspaper journalists losing their jobs to machines, etc?
Even so, what makes me sad is that half of what we are doing today will never last. Outside of writing - our skyscrapers won't be here in 1000 years the way the Colosseum still is; if the internet were ever to crash, half of the information we know would be lost - and with the rate that memory loss is climbing at, how would we remember all of it?
Are we dumbing ourselves down even as we at the same time learn new ways to communicate?
But I could not write an essay or novel long-hand to save my life. My fingers can't keep up with my thoughts unless they're on a keyboard, as they are now, and I can't imagine how the Greats (whose work we still read today) did it when they were accomplishing their great novels or collections. My words never sound fluid when I reread them from a handwritten sheet of paper, they way those authors words must of. Does that make me less of a writer?
So, though I refuse to own a nook/kindle/whatever else they'll come up with (my boyfriend and I have a bet going - if I buy something like that in the next 10 years, he gets as many roofboxes for our cars as he wants. I win, and we move to the UK), I've been tainted, in a way, by computers, and I'm almost waiting for the days when technology renders us useless without it. I'm one of those skeptics.
Which is why it's really interesting to look back and see something like this "Writing lacks such tonal cues of the human voice as pitch and stress, not to mention the physical cues that face to face communication..." (Baron, 4) and remember how Plato thought that writing was going to ruin us. Reading the above quote, my initial response was, That's not entirely true. If I know someone well enough, I hear the inflections and the tones in their voices through the writing they send to me, be it letters, emails, or texts. I know that that is also true for some other people. That evolution of thought for me would never have occurred for Plato.
Does that mean that all of our fears are ungrounded - books no longer being in print, newspaper journalists losing their jobs to machines, etc?
Even so, what makes me sad is that half of what we are doing today will never last. Outside of writing - our skyscrapers won't be here in 1000 years the way the Colosseum still is; if the internet were ever to crash, half of the information we know would be lost - and with the rate that memory loss is climbing at, how would we remember all of it?
Are we dumbing ourselves down even as we at the same time learn new ways to communicate?
Saturday, September 7, 2013
Intertextuality
"Examining texts 'intertextually' means looking for traces, the bits and pieces of Text that which writers or speakers borrow and sew together to create new discourse." (Porter)
That sounds like an awesome patchwork quilt that I'd like to have lying across my bed. But it's also the subject of what I am constantly thinking - no, worrying - about whenever I sit down to write. Not just in essays and research papers, but when I sit down to work on my novel. And that worry is that, if all of my ideas were struck by something that influenced me, either from a straightforward point or a rhetorical point, what is truly mine? Porter says:
"[Clreativeness does not consist in producing new sentences. The newness of a sentence is a quite unimportant and unascertainable property and 'creativity' in language lies in the speaker's ability to create new meanings: to realize the potentiality of language for the indefinite extension of its resources to new contexts of situation." (Porter, 5)
Several things to take into account for the above would be: 1) Genre, 2) Time Period, which falls in with, 3) Style. In the 19th century, Porter says something akin to be published meant to be writing in a style based on Shelley or Tennyson - how does that transfer to our own generation? What authors are we following now, be it in non-fiction or fiction?
This is where I think we struggle with the point that Porter alludes to: is every writer guilty of plagarism? In the broadest sense of the word, I suppose the answer would be yes - nothing that I have ever seen/read/watched, etc, has not influenced what I think or write. Just last weekend on Labor Day, I watched a movie with my father and throughout it, we kept saying, "Oop! They borrowed that from Star Wars and that from Predator and THAT from Star Trek and that from Moon..." and on and on it went. While we enjoyed the movie itself, we knew that it held "traces" of all the other great works of it's genre; it was continually borrowing from its ancestors.
The second half of that second quote says, "...'creativity' in language lies in the speaker's ability to create new meanings: to realize the potentiality of language for the indefinite extension of its resources to new contexts of situation." I partially agree with that...but even if you take that and put it in the rhetorical sense, as Porter said, it still doesn't remove the writer to his/her own newly completely created way of looking at things. Two people can - however rarely - look at something and think the exact same thing about it. And there's billions of people on the planet - the odds are pretty good.
Being a contributor to a web is great, but many people want to stand out. So what gives us the ability to do that? What is creativity at its root?
I know I'm focusing only on the Porter piece, but it's something that I literally think about all the time.
Maybe I have this all backwards and are looking at it the wrong way. Thoughts, anyone?
That sounds like an awesome patchwork quilt that I'd like to have lying across my bed. But it's also the subject of what I am constantly thinking - no, worrying - about whenever I sit down to write. Not just in essays and research papers, but when I sit down to work on my novel. And that worry is that, if all of my ideas were struck by something that influenced me, either from a straightforward point or a rhetorical point, what is truly mine? Porter says:
"[Clreativeness does not consist in producing new sentences. The newness of a sentence is a quite unimportant and unascertainable property and 'creativity' in language lies in the speaker's ability to create new meanings: to realize the potentiality of language for the indefinite extension of its resources to new contexts of situation." (Porter, 5)
Several things to take into account for the above would be: 1) Genre, 2) Time Period, which falls in with, 3) Style. In the 19th century, Porter says something akin to be published meant to be writing in a style based on Shelley or Tennyson - how does that transfer to our own generation? What authors are we following now, be it in non-fiction or fiction?
This is where I think we struggle with the point that Porter alludes to: is every writer guilty of plagarism? In the broadest sense of the word, I suppose the answer would be yes - nothing that I have ever seen/read/watched, etc, has not influenced what I think or write. Just last weekend on Labor Day, I watched a movie with my father and throughout it, we kept saying, "Oop! They borrowed that from Star Wars and that from Predator and THAT from Star Trek and that from Moon..." and on and on it went. While we enjoyed the movie itself, we knew that it held "traces" of all the other great works of it's genre; it was continually borrowing from its ancestors.
The second half of that second quote says, "...'creativity' in language lies in the speaker's ability to create new meanings: to realize the potentiality of language for the indefinite extension of its resources to new contexts of situation." I partially agree with that...but even if you take that and put it in the rhetorical sense, as Porter said, it still doesn't remove the writer to his/her own newly completely created way of looking at things. Two people can - however rarely - look at something and think the exact same thing about it. And there's billions of people on the planet - the odds are pretty good.
Being a contributor to a web is great, but many people want to stand out. So what gives us the ability to do that? What is creativity at its root?
I know I'm focusing only on the Porter piece, but it's something that I literally think about all the time.
Maybe I have this all backwards and are looking at it the wrong way. Thoughts, anyone?
Thursday, September 5, 2013
Introductory Video!
My introductory video! After many different ideas, this one seemed perfect. Yay!
Monday, September 2, 2013
Overload
There has been one thought from me after having read these articles and two others associated with Rhetoric this weekend, and it fits well into the section which Geisler calls "Information Overload."
Rhetoric for me, up until now, has always been one of those words that you hear in the English world, and go, "Yeah! Rhetoric!" and nod accordingly, as though I know exactly what is being said. And this semester, having two classes that explore the subject and its different facets has been slightly daunting - and its only the first week.
I was walking home with my roommate last week and we were discussing rhetoric - her knowledge of it, and my lack of knowledge about it. At the end of the conversation, she said something akin to rhetoric as a way of breaking down and discovering the layers in not only people, but the way they interact with each other, etc. And I realized, that as a fiction writer, that was exactly what I liked to do too; maybe the two were not entirely different.
I've finally latched onto a term that gives me a starting place to understand it: the Art of Persuasion (term used in other class). From there, I feel that I can go on and begin to slowly understand the concepts involved. The Geisler article stood out to me because it remembered both the classical origins of the craft - where I understand the persuasion part to come in, because it was mostly oratory back then - and the issues facing us now with access to so much writing and information on the web (where the ITexts come in).
During class discussion on Thrusday morning, the term took a political turn in our group, as we spoke about propaganda and the way politicians use rhetoric to convey convincing speeches, which circle back around to the classical use.
From there, my mind spiraled during the notes we took at the end of the class:
Voice is irrelevant (words are more important than sound)
Identity is irrelevant (who's talking shouldn't matter to the meaning of what gets said)
Time and space are irrelevant (anything true here is true there so what's true for me is true for you)
A valid conclusion is a good conclusion. (Dialectic can be used to make the worse argument seem the better argument)
Motivation is irrelevant (why someone says a thing has no bearing on its validity - but passion invalidates)
Bodies are irrelevant (a good idea is a good idea independent of bodies, while bodies, through passion, corrupts thought)
Instances are irrelevant, principles are dominant (don't let a bad instance get in the way of a good principle - deduction trumps induction)
And all of that I applied to the speech I listened to Obama give for the 50th Anniversary of the March on Washington - and in thinking about that, the "philosophy of argument" seems pretty wrong.
And from there, that it seems rhetoric creeps into every part of daily lives, and we don't even know it.
This seems all scatterbrained and unconnected (I realize) but bear with me - it's only the first post, and I'm simply trying to put together a basis of understanding for a topic that I am just beginning to learn about.
Apologies for the late posting - it will suffice to say I hate technology.
Rhetoric for me, up until now, has always been one of those words that you hear in the English world, and go, "Yeah! Rhetoric!" and nod accordingly, as though I know exactly what is being said. And this semester, having two classes that explore the subject and its different facets has been slightly daunting - and its only the first week.
I was walking home with my roommate last week and we were discussing rhetoric - her knowledge of it, and my lack of knowledge about it. At the end of the conversation, she said something akin to rhetoric as a way of breaking down and discovering the layers in not only people, but the way they interact with each other, etc. And I realized, that as a fiction writer, that was exactly what I liked to do too; maybe the two were not entirely different.
I've finally latched onto a term that gives me a starting place to understand it: the Art of Persuasion (term used in other class). From there, I feel that I can go on and begin to slowly understand the concepts involved. The Geisler article stood out to me because it remembered both the classical origins of the craft - where I understand the persuasion part to come in, because it was mostly oratory back then - and the issues facing us now with access to so much writing and information on the web (where the ITexts come in).
During class discussion on Thrusday morning, the term took a political turn in our group, as we spoke about propaganda and the way politicians use rhetoric to convey convincing speeches, which circle back around to the classical use.
From there, my mind spiraled during the notes we took at the end of the class:
Voice is irrelevant (words are more important than sound)
Identity is irrelevant (who's talking shouldn't matter to the meaning of what gets said)
Time and space are irrelevant (anything true here is true there so what's true for me is true for you)
A valid conclusion is a good conclusion. (Dialectic can be used to make the worse argument seem the better argument)
Motivation is irrelevant (why someone says a thing has no bearing on its validity - but passion invalidates)
Bodies are irrelevant (a good idea is a good idea independent of bodies, while bodies, through passion, corrupts thought)
Instances are irrelevant, principles are dominant (don't let a bad instance get in the way of a good principle - deduction trumps induction)
And all of that I applied to the speech I listened to Obama give for the 50th Anniversary of the March on Washington - and in thinking about that, the "philosophy of argument" seems pretty wrong.
And from there, that it seems rhetoric creeps into every part of daily lives, and we don't even know it.
This seems all scatterbrained and unconnected (I realize) but bear with me - it's only the first post, and I'm simply trying to put together a basis of understanding for a topic that I am just beginning to learn about.
Apologies for the late posting - it will suffice to say I hate technology.
Hello all!
I'm Autumn Toennis, who during class said she is the one that likes to sing and loves trees, and frequently mixes the two together. I feel as though I should have a longer introduction, but as we are making a personal introduction video, I will refrain from saying too many of the things that I would put in here that I will be placing in the vid (hopefully).
I would cheesily say that I enjoy long walks on the beach, but as there is a lack of beaches where I've generally lived most of my life, I will say that I enjoy long walks in the woods. Which, because I am the the one who said she loves to sing in trees, seems much more appropriate. And true.
I would've stayed in the Sequoia groves in Yosemite forever, if the park and my manfriend would have allowed me.
Looking forward to learning about rhetoric - this concept that I do not yet understand and my roommate loves ;) - in it's many forms.
Toodles!
I'm Autumn Toennis, who during class said she is the one that likes to sing and loves trees, and frequently mixes the two together. I feel as though I should have a longer introduction, but as we are making a personal introduction video, I will refrain from saying too many of the things that I would put in here that I will be placing in the vid (hopefully).
I would cheesily say that I enjoy long walks on the beach, but as there is a lack of beaches where I've generally lived most of my life, I will say that I enjoy long walks in the woods. Which, because I am the the one who said she loves to sing in trees, seems much more appropriate. And true.
I would've stayed in the Sequoia groves in Yosemite forever, if the park and my manfriend would have allowed me.
Looking forward to learning about rhetoric - this concept that I do not yet understand and my roommate loves ;) - in it's many forms.
Toodles!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)