STS Class

So, last night I finally went to an STS class...good thing because I think that it might have been the last one. So, the class I attended was Dreamweaver I and it was held at College Library. I did learn some things, but I think that if I were to do it again, I would take Dreamweaver II. So here's some of the cool stuff I learned:
First of all, apparently if you name your homepage "index" (or the page that you want people to see first) then that page will automatically come up first. To illustrate this point, the instructors told us to type in www.wisc.edu/index and it takes you to the UW homepage. I think that this is a very good tip, especially if I were to make bigger webpages-this way, I don't have to cut and paste the specific page that I would want one to see first.
Secondly, I learned how to put an mp3 on dreamweaver. This was actually pretty cool, because I tried to do it on my last project, but failed miserably. Anyhow, it's very easy, you just have to save the music file just as you save images and link to it. There is a way, using CSS (or so the instructors said) that you can have the music file play as soon as you open the page, but because that's particularly annoying, it's not as easy as it used to be.
So I did learn some very useful things, except that if I could do it all over again, I would rather take a higher level dreamweaver and not spend 2 hours on stuff that I've already learned.

It's Crunch Time

So it's finally here, the end of the semester. For many of us, that means it's crunch time. In this class alone, we are all pretty bogged down concerning final projects. But whatever, it's about time to finish out the semester and I'm hoping to finish out strong.

So, on that note, I also wanted to put up here that I recently found out I was accepted into the Teach for America program and will be teaching either K, 1st or 2nd grade starting in August at an elementary school in Phoenix, AZ. This is truly my dream job and I'm very excited. But I'm also stressing out. On top of all my final projects, graduation plans, etc. I have to read through many more text books before June, study for my educator's proficiency exam, log in many hours at an elementary school here and move to Phoenix by June 3rd. Aghhh! Hopefully, it will all come together.

So that's all I wanted to say. I know many of you all are in the same boat, I feel your pain.

Non-place

So, I waited to write this post until I had completed the movie, Lost in Translation. I think that this was a very good artifact to choose, especially as a critique of Auge's article.

After comparing the two together in class today, I am reminded of an old quote, something that we've probably all have already heard: Sometimes a crowded room feels the most alone. I think that this is a good distinction that Auge clearly makes when describing a non-place. Even though it's an area as busy as a train station or airport terminal....elevator, we still feel like we're alone. Even as indicated in the movie, we may pass the same people everyday in these same exact places, we might even smile at them, but we don't know who they are and we rarely ever converse with them.

But something that the movie suggests, which goes a little further than Auge's article, is the fact that maybe some people feel less alone in a non-place than a space that they would more readily call as a place. For example, Mr. Harris and the girl felt more comfortable around each other in the hotel bar than they did in their own hotel rooms. Furthermore, Mr. Harris felt more "at home" or in Tokyo than he did at his own house, with his own wife, and his own children, who were "used to him not being there."

So I think that the movie made a good example of how a place and non-place is greatly interchangeable. Furthermore, I think that an argument can be made (straying slightly from Auge) that a place is something more than relational, historical, but emphasize it's connection with identity. I think that it's this psychological connection that we have is what truly can define something between a place and non-place. For example, my old bedroom at my parent's house. I can relate to this place and it does have history (for sure), but I don't connect the old bedroom (which has since been re-modeled and all my stuff has been taken out) with my identity anymore, making it a non-place for me. This is the same as in the movie, when Mr. Harris is used to being away from his house, not caring about the carpet color or a shelfing unit (because he no longer associates it with identity-his identity).

All in all, I think that it's easier to interchange a place to a non-place and vice versa. Although Auge agrees with the interchangeability, I think that it is just more easy than he makes it out to be.

Non-place....or place...

For my blog post today, I am re-writing some notes I took of the non-place I chose to view- Charley's on State St. I decided to use this place for a variety of reasons, mainly because it's convenient for me, but also because I work there. In using this place for my blog post (when I got off of work) I could see the fine line that is drawn between a place and a non-place, something that I never really thought of before.

Auge states that if "a place can be defined as relational, historical and concerned with identity, then a space which cannot be defined as relational, or historical or concerned with identity will be a non-place." As we suggested in class, these areas would be like large lecture halls, shopping malls, grocery stores, restaurants, etc. So, I chose to view a restaurant.

What I found interesting, is that I never really noticed before that such a place could be a "non-place," but after sitting down and viewing it for awhile, it is quite obvious that it is. For example, no one really communicates with each other or other parties seated in the restaurant, although they are eating right next to each other (eating the same food and reading the same newspaper no less). Furthermore, you have no idea about an individual's history, why they are there, or if they're crazy or not and you're sitting right next to them! I find that so fascinating. I think this is why an airport terminal represents a non-place so well, because you have no idea if people are coming or going, etc.

Spring "Break"

So, I decided to do the spring break thing this year (kind of). On Monday, I went with a bunch of friends to the Dells and stayed in one of those water-park hotels. It was a pretty neat experience, but all in all, I'm glad it was only one night. First off, I was sick. That nasty flu that was going around during Christmas break was not the only flu going around I guess, as it struck me again. Being the sick one, no one even wanted to share a bed with me, so I ended up sleeping on the floor right next to the bathroom. Great.

Other than that though, it was a pretty interesting experience. Because our spring break was so late this year, hardly anyone else was there, so there were no lines for the slides or other pools, which was pretty nice. We also explored the downtown Dells area and went to some pretty cool places (not just bars) which made it worth the trip (although put a huge dent in my bank account.

But since Monday night, I have been back to the daily grind, working full days, trying to finish all my essays due the day after spring break, getting everything ready for graduation (I guess we are suppose to get our cap and gown already?) and going on those ever-popular job interviews (in which I'm competing for one position with all the other thousands of college-grads). My one hope is that it gets nice out soon, so I can sit outside and do this stuff...the library is getting old.

Anyhow, I hope everyone else is having an awesome spring break too!!

Modernism and Weird

So, as you all can probably tell, I'm a little bit behind on the posts. Here is the post concerning the reading notes for last Tuesday (I apologize about that).

So last week in class, we discussed this idea of Modernism and post-Modernism and what the differences are. For instance, we (as a class) decided that Modernism would encompass individuals such as Wright and Taylor (in the grid and the network piece). But somewhere in th mid-20th century (give or take) a new genre gave way, that of post-Modernism. In our reading, it seems as though post-Modernism is a type of movement away from the absolute truth (maybe to get away from the horrors of what happened previously?) For a post-Modernist, things just aren't black and white, there is a bit of a grey area.

Thus, in terms of Modernism, we decided that language can perfectly account for the world as we see it. A post-Modernist, on the other hand, would state that language cannot perfectly account for the world as we see it. We are using something man-made to explain things that are beyond ourselves-something that a simple word like "sky" can't begin to account for. But, the post-Modernist would also agree that language, even with its short-comings, is all we have and we develop such meaning through language.

I think that the discussion of such terms was one that was incredibly interesting. Although I mostly think about it in terms of art and artistic movements, the concepts of Modernism and post-Modernism mean something more and can have a greater meaning within our lifetime. Such concepts coincide with political movements and socialist movements. It links with the idea of anti-foundationalism and sets the stage for issues of identity and difference. I think we will definitely see more ideas of post-Modernism and how it relates to the world on a larger scale, not just one of art.

Am I a Cyborg?

For this weeks reading, we studied a piece by Andy Clark entitled Natural Born Cyborgs. Although we only read the introduction, the argument Clark seemed to be trying to make was that we are "thinking and reasoning systems whose minds and selves are spread across biological brain and nonbiological circuitry" (p 3). Basically, his mission is to convince us, through a series of evidence, that we are a sort of natural-born cyborgs.

To be honest, when I was reading the introduction, I really didn't buy his argument, at least in the beginning. One of the first examples that he used to demonstrate his point that we are these natural born cyborgs was the fact that we use pen and pencil to figure out long-handed multiplication problems. Somehow, by acting in "concert with the pen and paper" and not being able to do such mathematical problems without these devices, our brain interacts with these external resources. In some sense then, I believe what Clark tries to do is connect this use of a pen and paper and the fact that we have evolved to not being able to do difficult math in our brain and are thus propelled to use external resources, makes us a sort of natural born cyborg. Is this true? I think it's quite a leap. Afterall, we don't really need a pen and paper for our survival, right?

But maybe I'm just mistaken on what the author means when he uses the term cyborg. In the first few pages of the introduction, he tries to make the point that we are becoming sort of highly-developed. We have an ability (one that is solely a human capability) to enter into "deep and complex relationships with nonbiological constructs, props, and aids" like a pen and paper. But even more than this, Clark makes the point that many of our tools are not just "external props and aids, but are deep and integral parts of the problem-solving systems we now identify as human intelligence." So I am a little confused. Have we always been cyborgs, unique to other species, or have we just recently became them, as our technology continues to grow and we become more dependent on it? It was hard to determine what he meant within the reading.

Lastly, Clark tries to make the connection of the cyborg issue with that of a "wired world" or the connection age.

Some More on Cool

Last week we never really got a chance to discuss the readings nor the cool hunt that we all went on, but I have my chance to develop my thoughts here. I think that Jeff Rice's next few chapters in his book about cool and the cool hunt are very interesting and thankfully, enjoyable to read. Never before did I think that cool played such an important part in not only business, but also our culture and Rice does a good job of this by not only laying out the criteria, but also making sure we are aware of it and that we beware of what it can do.

One of the key terms that Rice discusses in Chapter 5 of his book is this idea of interpellation-how we quickly 'identify our own attitudes with a product.' Learning and understanding this process is very important, because it pinpoints what will sell in a market and what won't sell. But as a customer, we must be aware of this, because if we are not we can easily be manipulated and taken advantage of. As Rice puts it on page 37, "they reduce cool to a ploy, a trick to convince youth to purchase items they might not necessarily need or want" ...I've been there before. It is hard to understand what this actually is though, and Rice simply states that it's a process that is very 'subtle.'

The next term that Rice makes important is that of "cultural jamming," which is the appropriation of advertising slogan and images for resistance purposes. This seems like it is a way to fight interpellation. As Rice states, it allows people like us to voice alternative ideas "regarding consumerism and governmental control." I think this is also what Rice was getting at when he used the term subvertise. This term is also a way to demonstrate the sponsors' true intentions of an advertisement. Subvertising can be used as a critique of specific advertising campaigns. Thus, subvertising is the first form of cultural jamming.

A second form of this cultural jamming concerns Adbusters. According to Rice, this site "specializes in spoof ads." (pg 40). Even more importantly, it targets the ad and advertisers who use the concept of cool for "commercial purposes." Some examples of these spoof ads would be those made to critique cigarette ads (like Kools) and other major trademarks.

But what's the point of this cultural jamming? As stated by Rice (and what I got out of the reading), the main point is that cultural jamming allows one to critique the use of cool in our culture and specifically the use of cool in advertising campaigns-those campaigns that are targeted at the most vulnerable age group. By allowing such critique, Rice suggests that this "opens up debate and new opinions can form." In the long run, this can have impacts on media itself and maybe even change the face of advertising.

Reading Notes: The Hunt for What's Cool

For this reading post, we were suppose to conduct a search of "what's up" just as Baysie and DeeDee did within Gladwell's piece The CoolHunt. To begin with, what I found interesting with Gladwell's piece was the emphasis that was placed on the concept that 'cool,' especially when it has to do with fashion, is not something that is a "trickle-down" phenomenon. What is cool is not determined by the designers and then moved into mainstream subcultures, but rather is a trickle-up activity. As Gladwell states, it is now about the chase and flight-designers picking up on the next 'big thing' and grabbing hold of it before it fades.

But if this is true, then what is the difference between something that is cool and something that is simply a fad? Cool follows a series of rules. First of all, the first rule of cool is, "the quicker the chase, the quicker the flight." Once something is discovered as cool, what is cool moves on. Secondly, cool cannot be manufactured out of thin air. This is not to say that a company cannot interfere in a cool cycle though. Thus, a fad does not follow these rules. A fad is like a trend, that has a mass amount of followers but no real innovator, such as piercing your own belly button in middle school. A fad is not picked up by the market and manufactured on a large-scale, like Nike's Air Jordan.

So on my coolhunt, I went to a few different places. First, I went people watching in Memorial Library (right outside the computer lab). In my opinion, I did not see many people in fashion or items that could be considered as 'cool' (but, maybe I'm just not cool myself, so I can't point it out). Furthermore, I think it would have been easier to do this assignment if it were warm out, so I could actually see what people were wearing. But nonetheless, I did see some things that could be considered as 'cool,' or at least in the last stage of cool, the last majority. Some of these items that I saw almost everyone with were:

1. Northface Jacket
2. Jansport Backpack
   
3. Cell phone, especially flip phones/camera phones
4. Ipod
   
5. Tight-fitting winter cap

Almost every single individual that walked into the library had all of these things and the ones who didn't had at least a majority of the items. Other items that were noticeable were big sunglasses and even particular notebooks, like Fivestar or notebooks that looked like Fivestar.

If I were to interpret my findings using the readings, I do believe that these items I have listed could be considered as "cool" and were manufactured in this manner, especially to our age-group. But, I don't believe that I found anything, at least in these categories, as something new and cool nor did I see an innovator at the library. I believe all the cool items I observed were in fact in the final stages of cool, as many individuals have owned a Northface jacket, ipod, and cell-phone since they came to this campus. Thus, I believe that all I saw was at the final stages of cool, the last individuals to adopt it.

Lastly, I went to the King Club on Monday night (for Funky Mondays-live music) and saw some new and interesting things that I was not able to see in Memorial Library. I saw girls wearing big jewelery/big-beaded necklaces and noticed that when I go out, there are always a few girls sporting the same type (though slightly different) jewelery. Furthermore, I have noticed more and more girls getting back into the whole head-band thing, whether it be the thick plastic ones or scarves made into headbands. I think that some of these things that I have seen lately might be indicative of the "early-adopters," individuals that saw the style when they were traveling or at home over break, and brought it back here. I think it will be very interesting to see if this picks up more and more in the spring.

Reading Notes: Cool Advertising

For this week's reading notes, I chose to write my post on Chapter 3 of Rice's book Writing About Cool. So far, I've enjoyed this chapter the most and I feel that it puts a lot of the book that we've read so far, into perspective, at least for me.

First of all, Rice still starts out his chapter by pointing out the dichotomy between the use of the word 'cool.' As Rice states on page 23, Rice makes the point that "cool serves advertising's financial needs by providing an attractive forum for youth culture." But a sentence later, he also makes the point that "certain groups use cool in order to resist the lures of advertising." Thus, as he has suggested earlier in the book, the use of cool can be used in a good way or a way that's not as good-to make the money. Furthermore, he goes on to discuss in what ways cool is used in the area of advertising.

Rice suggests that terms familiar to us can be used in order to serve their own interests. In other words, terms familiar to "youth culture can be appropriated and redone in order to serve their own economic interests." So what is this concept of appropriation? Appropriation, according to Rice, means taking a concept out of its original context and redoing it in order to serve an individual's own interests. Basically, what comes to my mind here, is that it is simply taking something out of context purposely for individual gain. An instance of this idea of cool and advertising is that by attaching 'cool' to a product or action, an individual believes that by purchasing a product or partaking in that action, they too are cool. The advertisers persuade you of this and change your attitude to make one believe so. Furthermore, to help their cause, advertisers associate certain 'cool' actors or sports stars to solidify this idea of cool, which Rice explains through his example of Nike.

Alright. So this is basically easy to understand, because we have been growing up with major advertisers putting 'cool' in our faces not to mention a MTV culture. But does this concept of 'cool' actually work. Are advertisers responsible for starting trends like the ipod craze or clothing styles simply by their association of the word 'cool' with such items? Basically, does this advertising and appropriation work, especially when many of us grow up being told not to be a part of the crowd and to be an individual? Or do we simply follow the individual by jumping off the bridge right behind him?

Open Post-So Much to Do

As spring break approaches, I realize how much stuff I have to get done and how little time, not to mention that senior year brings with it a lot of dates and deadlines which put more pressure and stress on an individual. I'm starting to feel it. And this flu/cold thing going around sucks and needs to go away.

But anyways, to prepare for a huge interview that I have on Friday, I was sent a lot of new articles and studies that I have to read and be prepared for. Although I don't know exactly what the form of the interview is going to be, I'm thinking it's going to be some form of question and answer session where I have to think on my toes and be prepared for what they ask.

Thus, I am reading and re-reading these articles, trying to prepare myself. But they are not the most up-lifting. Many of the articles consist of closing the gap between the poorer, minority children and other younger kids. What baffles me is how a gap like this can still exist in schools today in America, in which government money is being frivolously spent and politicians preach to solve such problems, but once elected into office, seemingly have their hands tied.

Thus, we've come to the day in which schools that have the highest performance go private and even the best teacher's potential is wasted in a low-funded, un-controlled environment in which children already feel as though they will amount to nothing. It bothers me that in a society seemingly so connected, we ignore the fact that those who aren't connected are those that need help the most.

But anyhow, the educational gap is something that many people have not only been struggling with, but have been trying to solve for years before my time. One blog post by me just seems to belittle the problem, which I know has a lot of causes and involves so much more that a quick-fix. Yet in some ways I believe that it is our responsibility as soon-to-be grads from UW-Madison to help out and become active in such a problem. As computer networks grow, so too is the educational network growing. How can we turn it into a network that is more successful for everyone involved in the system?

How Connected are We?

After finishing both chapters of Watts book, Six Degrees, I started realizing how connected that we, as a generation, truly are. And furthermore, the point that I think Watts tries to make is that we are connected by many different things, things we don't even think about each day. We are no longer a grid network, but we are vastly connected. And again, I ask, is this a good thing? Or does this connectivity and vast network create problems that we do not even begin to see?

One of the main reasons why I ask this question here, is because of the issues that Watts raises in his opening remarks of the chapter, The Connected Age. Right in the beginning Watts states that "Americans have become increasingly reliant on a truly staggering and ever growing array of devices, facilities, and services that have turned a once hostile environment into the lifestyle equivalent of a cool breeze." He points out things like the power grid and the loss of power in major metropolitan areas like New York city in the 1970s. But what really amazed me through this whole discussion was the fact that people couldn't not handle the loss of such a 'vital' network and rioting, etc ensued. In a world where we, as Americans, are so connected, is it a good thing?

Watts continues to discuss the development of networks or their 'emergence.' For Watts, this emergence is the question of how individual behavior aggregates to collective behavior. Some of the examples he writes about are things like the human brain, the human genome, or the power surge in the UK that occurred as everyone watched the soccer game and made tea. Through this idea of emergence, or the way in which interactions can have profound consequences for the emergence of new phenomena brings about this idea of networks.

Networks, in Watts opinion, consists of a collection of objects connected to each other in 'some fashion' (p 27). But on that same note, it is hard for us to truly pin down what a network is because it is used for a vast array of different things: computers, systems, travel, friends, etc. Furthermore, Watts makes the point that in the past, networks have been viewed as objects of "pure structure whose properties are fixed in time." That doesn't necessarily hold to this day, in which networks are changing and evolving overtime, which is the whole point of a network.

But, more interestingly, and the question that I have not yet answered (and we as a class have not yet had the time to discuss) is a network's impact on society. Once we rely whole-heartedly on a connected society, what would it do to us? I mean, even in a loosely connected office of computers, a virus or worm could wipe out years of work off a computer. A few hours of no electricity in the streets of New York at night could cause mayhem and when airports or buses (transportation networks) shut down it causes pure chaos. Even scarier, a disease that starts in one continent, could span the world and disrupt it in a matter of less than a week.

So with this new emergence of network cultures, is it a good thing? I don't know if Watts has given us a definitive answer. I myself believe that we need to look at it with distrust and make sure we have safe-guards in place.

Cool: Revisited. Reading Notes

After having time over the weekend to re-read Rice's introduction and first two chapters, I thought that it would be a good idea to revisit the idea of cool and what cool writing it. First off, I think it is important to show the dichotomy between the two types of cool that he is discussing. Secondly, I want to write on what he really is saying. Did he ever give us a clear definition of what writing about cool is? And do I agree with it?

What was very noticeable throughout the reading was that Rice was trying to define this idea of cool, realizing that the word "cool" itself has since (from its initial use) changed in meaning. For example, Rice was stating that back in the day, or at least the '60s, cool was a term used to rebel against authority, to question it. It was associated with people of that time who did do things different, like James Dean he stated. It was a way to act out and get attention but the things that were associated with "cool" were just those things that went against the times--they weren't too provocative.

But then somewhere along the line, as Rice admits, this definition or idea of what cool is changed. Cool became associated not with defying authority or thinking for oneself, going against the masses, but rather it turned into something rather negative. Cool became a word captured by writers and advertisers and used in very specific ways to get children, young adults and the like to do what they wanted. Cool became a word that could change a person's mind, made a person buy something, do something, change something about themselves, etc. This is why we see "cool sites" popping up and the word cool in advertisements and on posters. There is something about the word cool that makes us stop and think, because cool has changed to mean what's "in" or "hip."

So how is Rice using the word cool though?

Cooooooool.

This semester, I'm taking four classes: Utopia: The Temptation of Hope, History: Italian Renaissance, Latin America: Perspectives, and this English Class. Considering that these courses cover a wide array of areas, you'd think it'd be easy to come up with common words, themes, and concepts, but it is not (or maybe I just don't get it).

I think one common word/concept between the courses would be culture. In English, culture is used to define/categorize things. As stated in the Rice book, culture asks questions and allows us to define ourselves. In history, I am studying a specific culture in a specific time period--the Renaissance. The specific questions have already been asked and I am simply reading about it. My Utopia class discusses a mystical or non-existent culture, one that individuals hope for but can never achieve. Finally, my Latin American class also describes a specific, yet present-day culture. We not only ask questions in that class, but we try to come up with answers as well. Culture can mean many things, it can talk about the past, present, or future; a real or imaginary thing; and it can ask as well as answer specific questions.

As far as other common themes, I really can't think of any that overlap all classes. Media would be a close second, but the only way it differs is the use of media, learning about media, and all the different types of media, which I learn about in this class. Another common theme might be people, which links all of my classes together, but that seems simply too obvious.

I think I might revisit this post once I fully understand what writing about cool really is.

Reading Notes #2

Networks and New Media & How We Process the Media

Last week, we read one article and viewed a media clip that again addressed the question of new media, what college English should be, and networks. We also viewed a media clip that addressed some of the same questions.

The writing, by Jeff Rice, was very though-provoking. It addressed questions that I had on the previous readings, but was also a more realistic piece addressing what the new curriculum might be.

One of the most memorable lines of the text was the statement Rice makes in which he states linking is a new form or type of connection. I agree with this statement and believe that this is precisely why we have to change the English curriculum to entail these types of new media. This new media is different then simply sending a letter or a paper memo out in a business. It is a new form of communication, where interaction and networking are key. It is important to teach these types of new media, because later in life, you will rarely send someone a letter. You will email, or text message or something such as that. In a business meeting you will not simply lecture, but you will give a powerpoint presentation, make a webpage, or use some other new media form. If we are not taught the proper way to incorporate this new media and still be professional, we will be in the dark just as much as our parents were when computers became widely adopted.

But as the other readings, Rice still brings up some criticisms. For example, will the rise of the network just further globalization and therefore lessen equality? Furthermore, he brings up the point that networks also impose a new wave of intellectual stagnation "as dominant holders of intellectual work establish larger chains of control." Isn't this what we saw in the early '90s as computer companies such as Microsoft and Intel were on the rise? And what will the effect of this be not only economically, but on the intellectual community?

Thus we are still left with the question: will the rise of networks connect us more? or cut us off from one another and leave us more alone? Will it further the gap between the haves and the have nots? Will it create repercussions that we still haven't seen? And how will these networks change our socialization process? Are they just more responsive, open-edited, and open-ended? And what's the benefit of that?

Writing....What?

So, what is writing?
Writing, especially academic writing, can mean many different things these days. But prior to the computer boom, along with the coming of blogs, email, facebook, and all the other new technology, I believe that writing has not only changed the scope but academic writing is changing altogether.

Academic writing, in the most sincere form, is an in-depth process, one in which you can't simply flush out a paper over night or turn in a first-draft. In fact, we still follow this process in many of our college classes still today, whether a dissertation is being written or a term paper, or some lab write up of our findings or results. Thus, the process is as follows: you brainstorm, outline, prewrite, write, revise, edit (whether it be with a peer or professor) and finally, publish. And this is done with many things, as indicated by the collage above: a poem is even revised, whereas a personal diary imitates the beginning stages of the writing process in which the author is brainstorming and simply putting in print whatever comes to his/her mind first.

But I think what is interesting, is that given our new technology, the face of academic writing is changing. We are brainstorming in blogs and online, we write and prewrite on the computer instead of paper, and we partake in the peer review process via email or other ways. Although this doesn't necessarily mean that the whole process of academic writing is changed, but the ways in which we do it are different. I think that this changes our conception of writing because it connects us more and becomes more interactive. Changes and revisions can be made at a split second and information (although we must be weary of the source and the validity) are at the click of a mouse.

But what about the consequences? Is this all good? In a sense, I think we still must be careful. With the vast information and the connectivity that academic writing now brings with it, we have to be careful of things that the YouTube video said we should be weary of. For example, what are the new indications that this brings about for copyright, plagiarism, piracy, privacy, and intellectual property rights in general? Yet, I believe that as long as we have the old protocol in place (brainstorm, prewrite, write, revise, edit, etc) some of these things can be mediated and we can understand how to handle them.

Thus, I believe that even though some of the academic writing as we were taught are in fact, outdated, the process itself must still stand in place as a check of the new and fast-paced media that is constantly in our face. We must have a curriculum that strikes a balance between the old and the new, because with out the old process itself, academic writing could turn into a informal, unchecked, and unethical process.

Reading Notes #1

"Rhetorics Fast and Slow"
Lester Faigley

To begin with, I thought that this article was very interesting and although I enjoyed both of the articles we had to read for last Thursday's class, I agreed slightly more with the points that Faigley was not only trying to iterate, but the underlying concepts he was presenting.

What I like most about this piece, was that although Faigley was making a clear point that we have to be aware of the new media, or this rhetoric as it is changing but also that we cannot forget about the slow rhetoric and the underlying basis of or English curriculum. Fast is good for certain things, but not at the expense of losing the meaning of rhetoric itself or leaving individuals behind. In a world in which everything seems to be 1000 miles per hour, slow rhetoric, too, is something we much still be aware of.

pg. 50, left: Faigley makes the point that fast rhetoric dominates our world. Especially for us (people my age and younger) this is a valid statement. I could not live a month without internet and if it were dial-up, I don't think I could deal with it. I think with this statement he is truly capturing not only his personal definition of this fast rhetoric, but is allowing us to see how much it consumes our lives.

pg. 51: This statement of the dominating character of fast rhetoric is again revisited with the list he supplies discussing cell phone, checking email, the money we waste, and the overall resentment we have for all that is slow and the seconds within the day that we feel we are losing.

pg. 51, left: Although Faigley understands the importance of such fast rhetoric, he also takes into consideration how such an input of vast information, coming at us from all directions and at a fast pace, leads to less understanding. Is this good? In a world where decisions are made that affect the whole, can we really afford to have more information but less understanding? And is this necessarily better?

pg. 51, right: Faigley reiterates this (previous) point by stating that "Fast has overwhelmed slow." and "Speed brings risks." Personally, I think that because this fast rhetoric is so new, we have not seen all the implications that it might bring yet. Although fast rhetoric I believe, can be a good thing and connects us through networks, etc, I believe that it can't just take over the basic frameworks in place or the slow rhetoric. I feel that this will just serve to make individuals more unequal and can even serve to make society less rather than more connected.

pg. 52, right: Finally, I think that Faigley truly captures what he means by stating that "the fate of the future generations will depend on how well the students we teach can use slow rhetoric." Languages, writing, constructing a poem, or even a letter on a piece of stationary are all things that I fear might be lost if fast rhetoric continues to not only take over, but as it continues to overwhelm. As a society and as learners and teachers these things are all still very important, at least in my view.

Discussion
Although I tend to agree with Faigley more than some of the other readings we have had thus far, I still think that fast rhetoric is something not only important to but vital to place in our curriculum. Especially in a world of growing people, globalization, more complicated technologies and just the basic disconnect we have with one another, I think that slow rhetoric will be an important component. Although even more importantly though, I think that we need to find a way to teach this fast rhetoric and non-textual components in society (such as this wikipedia, etc) in a way that is more efficient and understood (rather than just a compilation of information without explanation.

Furthermore, as I discussed in class, we also need to find a way to make such a fast rhetoric available to all, not just to those that can afford it. In doing so, we can help ameliorate this divide and disconnect that such fast rhetoric threatens to do.

Questions
1.) Should we value more information or simply a better understanding of the information already available to us?
2.) Will fast rhetoric truly help globalize the world in which we live, creating a network that links us all to one another, or will it create a greater divide that threatens to make us more individualized and disconnected?
3.) Can a curriculum be made to include both slow and fast rhetoric? And how can teachers not trained in these types of rhetoric teach their students the trade? And if they can't, will this be a problem for future generations or will they figure it out on their own?

Open Post: Not much to say....

It truly amazes me of how much homework we all have at the beginning of the semester, it seems like once we all begin, the first month is a catch-up game followed quickly by midterms and then another round of catch-up as a lot of us stop caring....

But truly, I like my classes this semester, and the readings are enjoyable, which is probably why I'm actually doing them. For instance, I am taking a very unique class entitled Utopia: Temptation of Hope and is part of the ILS Department. Granted, it is the first ILS class that I've taken and on the first day, it was clear that a lot of other people in the class know a lot more than I do, but I am determined to keep at it. I mean what really is Utopia anyway? Isn't the direct translation "no place," meaning it doesn't exist? And if "Utopia" can never be found, even though we all yearn for it, then truly what is the point? Reality is that you'll only be as happy as you let yourself be anyways, and some sort of ideal commune where you only work 4 hours a day is not going to help your situation if you, yourself, are not already happy. But I guess that's only my opinion, and considering I've never taken a class on Utopia, it doesn't mean very much. Well, I can deal with that though....

On another note, I am also taking my first and only International Studies course, which is very interesting and just makes me wish I was anywhere but here. Mostly, we discuss current events of Latin America...the corruption, stereotypes, but also the good parts. I mean, if you take a survey on campus, you will find that a lot of people have studied or traveled abroad, most to Latin America. It makes me wonder what Latin America or these other places offer that we all can't seem to find here. Is it the sense of excitement or adventure? Maybe being on our own for the first time, having to make new friends and truly put yourself out there? The new living conditions? I often ponder what makes us leave the U.S., the land of opportunities....but moreso, I ponder why we always want to go back and discover more.

Besides that, my course are pretty standard (and I'm not giving a description of this course because I figure you guys already know the deal). I'm taking a history class...it's ok. Not sure if I like the style of the class, but whatever, I try to live on the edge. So, to sum it up, I'm looking forward to my classes this semester although I hate being behind, even though I feel that it will pass. For the most part though, I'm looking forward to the semester ending and to be on my way, utilizing what I learn and hopefully making some sort of difference in the world that I'm about to step into. We'll see...

Rhetoric Is....?

I think that rhetoric is a very tricky subject, let alone word to define. For instance, rhetoric mean a lot of different things for many different people. For some, rhetoric takes on a negative connotation. For other people, they realize the use of rhetoric is not only unavoidable, but actually helpful and meaningful, whether giving a speech in front of an audience or simply having a discussing (over the phone or otherwise) with a best friend.

So how did I view rhetoric? I, probably like many of you, saw rhetoric as something negative. When asked what rhetoric is, I usually think of the statement that a kid in my class always used to say, "That's just empty rhetoric." To me, before reading any of articles discussing what rhetoric was, I thought it was simply the use of persuasion and words/speech to make other (maybe less intelligent or easily swayed members of the public) change their mind and join the bandwagon. Although I thought that rhetoric may, in fact, be useful (i.e. if you were a politician, lawyer, etc.) it is not, necessarily, good.

But after the readings, I realize that this is not the full story. Although rhetoric is very much involved in the use of persuasion, it can also be defined as the study of effective speaking and writing (Silva Rhetoricae). The same source also states that fundamentally, rhetoric not only involves perceiving how language is at work, but also how one becomes proficient in applying rhetoric (or effective speaking and writing) in their everyday functions.

Furthermore, to understand rhetoric, a point must be made to make a distinction between form and content or between what's said and how one says it. Yet, this difference between form and content is not always easy to distinguish between, because it is said to be "artificial and conditional." As Aristotle put it, it's the difference between logos or logical content of a speech and lexis or the style and delivery (Silva Rhetoricae). It's so important now to understand what rhetoric is, because the forms of communicating with each other are always changing.

Finally, today's readings have also changed my perception of the use of rhetoric-it's not just "empty talk." Rhetoric is used everyday, whether we know we are using it or not. Not only do we plan it, but we also adapt it to the audience that present it to. For instance, me writing in this blog to the members of the class. Furthermore, as stated by James A. Herrick in The History and Theory of Rhetoric: An Introduction, rhetoric can also reveal human motives (such as a professor's true feelings on an issue) and provokes response from an audience. Thus, rhetoric (as stated by Herrick) not only tests ideas, but also assists advocacy, addresses contingent issues, distributes power, discovers facts, shapes knowledge, and finally builds community. Thus, rhetoric can be a very useful tool to not only find the truth, but to allow the truth to be known and acted upon. Rhetoric, in fact, can be a good thing.

Thus, my definition of rhetoric, since the readings, has changed. Rhetoric is something that we, as individuals who communicate with one another in any way, use everyday. It is not necessarily negative or "empty speech" nor is it necessarily always good. Rhetoric is used in the formal as well as the informal settings and has a new-found importance today, simply because of all the new forms of communication that we have. Rhetoric is the use of certain symbols (language, writing, signs) to convey what one means effectively.

Myself.

Hello Everyone!
My name is Staci and I am a first time blog user. There's not too much to know about me except that I am pretty much a typical college student ready to graduate, leave this town, and see what I become. I have many interests, including everything from reading a good book to playing basketball. I recently got a cat name Jinx, who is my first real pet and ended up being a real handful. I recently (about a year ago) took a trip to Colombia, South America which truly expanded my horizons. I made many life-long friends and hope to return in the near future. The trip also opened my eyes to traveling, which I also enjoy, and hope to do more of. So basically, that's me! I will not only post little pieces of info about my life, but also some assignments for my 201 class. I'm hoping to have an excellent semester...