For this final blog for English 201, I am going to discuss how technology influences my own writing. I don't really consider myself to be a person who sticks to either technology or writing things out by hand. There are some things that I enjoy writing out by hand, and there are some things that I'd prefer to type out. For more personal pieces, such as poetry, journal entries, or notes, I prefer to write by hand. I love the feel of a pencil to blank notepaper. I love how the pencil feels in my hand. It is a way of releasing my own thoughts, and there's just something comforting about it that I really enjoy.
This is not to say that I don't enjoy typing things. In fact, I take pride in how well I type (I think this is partially due to taking 10 years of piano lessons, but I digress...). In today's day, many times it is simply more practical to type things rather than write them out by hand. Typing is cleaner, neater, and with today's tools like spellcheck, it definitely helps the reader understand what the writer is trying to say. This is especially useful to me when I am composing things of a longer nature. Writing out term papers is much easier when you can type out your thoughts quickly and then go back and add more. Composition on a word processor allows (for me) a much more fluid thought process.
Ong talks about the separations that writing has. He mentions that "writing divides or distances more evidently and effectively as its form becomes more abstract..." (28). I completely agree with this. As writing moves to typing, it becomes more abstract. When things are hand-written, it is more difficult to critique than when it is typed, simply because I feel that writing by hand is more personal. It's more intimate. If your mother were to hand write a letter to you, you would find it more difficult to respond in a more honest manner than if she were to just send you an e-mail.
For the last part of 201, we were supposed to do all of our journaling online. This was quite an interesting experience for me. I thought it was a challenge. It was difficult to figure out the technicalities of actually navigating through the blog site and figuring out how to 'follow' prople and post entries. (I still have a hard time with this!) Once I sort of figured out those basics, I found it easy to type about the essays we read. My thoughts were easy to capture because typing made me get them out more quickly than if I were to academically journal by hand. So while there were some minor challenges with blogging online, I did find it enjoyable. The spontaneous-ness of being able to type more fluidly and record my thoughts definitely made it easier than writing journals by hand, so I think it was more useful than writing a final paper. I also felt a lot less pressure to make everything absolutely perfect-- my thoughts were more important than things like paragraph formatting and page numbers. The lack of formal structure was liberating in a sense that I don't normally get the opportunity in classes to express my own opinion.
In conclusion, blogging was fun :-)
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
NY Times Literacy Essay
Overall, I really enjoyed this essay. It was easy to read and very insightful. It seemed like there was a lot of research done with all the statistics that were given throughout the article. It really helped back up what the author was saying, and it helped strengthen the overall content.
One issue that I had was with the article was when the author was talking about the young girl, Nadia. The author quoted her as saying "No one's ever said you should read more books to get into college." I strongly disagree with this. Reading more books is great preparation for college, because once you get into an upper-level educational environment, the expectation is that you often read many books. By starting this before you advance into a college-level environment, I think you actually improve your chances for success. The expectation is set very high, and the more you prepare, the better you do.
I didn't really enjoy reading this online. It was a very long article, and I would have much rather enjoyed reading it in paper-format. Because of the online format, I had a hard time staying focused and following along with what was being said. I think that while short articles are good to read online, long articles are more difficult.
One issue that I had was with the article was when the author was talking about the young girl, Nadia. The author quoted her as saying "No one's ever said you should read more books to get into college." I strongly disagree with this. Reading more books is great preparation for college, because once you get into an upper-level educational environment, the expectation is that you often read many books. By starting this before you advance into a college-level environment, I think you actually improve your chances for success. The expectation is set very high, and the more you prepare, the better you do.
I didn't really enjoy reading this online. It was a very long article, and I would have much rather enjoyed reading it in paper-format. Because of the online format, I had a hard time staying focused and following along with what was being said. I think that while short articles are good to read online, long articles are more difficult.
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
Baron Essay: "From Pencils to Pixels..."
Quotes:
1. "When we write with cutting- edge tools, it is easy to forget that whether it consists of energized particles on a screen or ink embedded in paper or lines gorged into clay tablets, writing itself is always first and foremost a technology." (71)
Writing is a technology in all forms. It doesn't really matter what that form is- from ancient to modern- every single type of writing requires some form of technology. I think this quote sums up the entire article, because Baron goes on to talk about all sorts of different technologies and writing.
2. "We cannot be exactly sure why writing was invented, but just as the gurus of today's technology are called computer geeks, it's possible that the first writers also seemed like a bunch of oddballs to the early Sumerians. who might have called them cuneiform geeks. Surely they walked around all day with a bunch of sharp styluses sticking out of their pocket protectors and talked of nothing but new ways of making marks on stones..."(74)
Just as we have people who contemplate technology now- geeks, if you will- we forget that they probably had some people who did the same thing in ancient times. The people back then weren't all that different from the people that are here today.
Response:
I really enjoyed this article. Baron writes with humor and in a way that I can understand. He really draws wonderful correlations between writing and technology. He also makes everything really relateable when talking about older things - like cuneiform, pencils, typewriters, etc...- in a way that someone in 'modern' times can understand. Writing is, indeed, a technology- and a very complicated one at that! Just as it's complicated with computers and word-processing now, Baron emphasizes that even simple things we might have taken for granted, like pencils and paper, are really complex tools of a technology. For example, look at this blog... it took me forever to get the hang of and figure out how to use. Now that I've become accustomed to this form of technology (blogging) I can utilize this for writing and communicating. :-)
1. "When we write with cutting- edge tools, it is easy to forget that whether it consists of energized particles on a screen or ink embedded in paper or lines gorged into clay tablets, writing itself is always first and foremost a technology." (71)
Writing is a technology in all forms. It doesn't really matter what that form is- from ancient to modern- every single type of writing requires some form of technology. I think this quote sums up the entire article, because Baron goes on to talk about all sorts of different technologies and writing.
2. "We cannot be exactly sure why writing was invented, but just as the gurus of today's technology are called computer geeks, it's possible that the first writers also seemed like a bunch of oddballs to the early Sumerians. who might have called them cuneiform geeks. Surely they walked around all day with a bunch of sharp styluses sticking out of their pocket protectors and talked of nothing but new ways of making marks on stones..."(74)
Just as we have people who contemplate technology now- geeks, if you will- we forget that they probably had some people who did the same thing in ancient times. The people back then weren't all that different from the people that are here today.
Response:
I really enjoyed this article. Baron writes with humor and in a way that I can understand. He really draws wonderful correlations between writing and technology. He also makes everything really relateable when talking about older things - like cuneiform, pencils, typewriters, etc...- in a way that someone in 'modern' times can understand. Writing is, indeed, a technology- and a very complicated one at that! Just as it's complicated with computers and word-processing now, Baron emphasizes that even simple things we might have taken for granted, like pencils and paper, are really complex tools of a technology. For example, look at this blog... it took me forever to get the hang of and figure out how to use. Now that I've become accustomed to this form of technology (blogging) I can utilize this for writing and communicating. :-)
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
Ong Part XI
Writing has the power to liberate us more and more from the chirographic bias and confusion it creates, though complete libearation remains impossible. For all states of the word...impose their own confusions, which cannot be radically eliminated but only controlled by reflection. (p.30)
I agree with Ong's statement. Indeed, writing creates confusion. Many times I write things that I don't think make any sense. My words can be jumbled or incomplete. Yet they do create a record. I can look back on that record and decipher that confusion. As for when Ong says complete liberation remains impossible, I would agree again. He goes on later to say that confusion can only be controlled -not liberated- by reflection. Reflection is quite importatnt. That reflection of jumbled words on a page become controlled to a point where understanding can take place. Liberation of a word would indicate that it does not need to be deciphered. It is completely impossible for every single word to be readily decipherable.
I agree with Ong's statement. Indeed, writing creates confusion. Many times I write things that I don't think make any sense. My words can be jumbled or incomplete. Yet they do create a record. I can look back on that record and decipher that confusion. As for when Ong says complete liberation remains impossible, I would agree again. He goes on later to say that confusion can only be controlled -not liberated- by reflection. Reflection is quite importatnt. That reflection of jumbled words on a page become controlled to a point where understanding can take place. Liberation of a word would indicate that it does not need to be deciphered. It is completely impossible for every single word to be readily decipherable.
Ong Separations
Separation #7: Writing separates past form present (p.26)
I can understand the point that Ong is trying to make here- that writing causes allows those with past knowledge to not remember things anymore- yet I disagree with what he is saying. Perhaps it is in his phrasing Writing separates past from present that makes me disagree with him. I believe that writing can unify the past and present. Having written records helps connect things that have happened long ago with things that happen now. Those written records are then able to be referenced back to if need be for any occasion.
Separation #13: Writing divides or distances more evidently and effectively as its form becomes more abstract, which is to say more removed from the sound world into the space world of sight (p.28)
I agree with Ong in this separation. When writing the alphabet, the more complicated things become, the more you have to rely on pure sight and memorization to recognize and identify what those words or letters are. In some languages, words are actually pictures as representations of things (like heiroglyphics). The more complicated languages use collections of letters to represent what is trying to be said. These letters are very abstract and complicated.
I can understand the point that Ong is trying to make here- that writing causes allows those with past knowledge to not remember things anymore- yet I disagree with what he is saying. Perhaps it is in his phrasing Writing separates past from present that makes me disagree with him. I believe that writing can unify the past and present. Having written records helps connect things that have happened long ago with things that happen now. Those written records are then able to be referenced back to if need be for any occasion.
Separation #13: Writing divides or distances more evidently and effectively as its form becomes more abstract, which is to say more removed from the sound world into the space world of sight (p.28)
I agree with Ong in this separation. When writing the alphabet, the more complicated things become, the more you have to rely on pure sight and memorization to recognize and identify what those words or letters are. In some languages, words are actually pictures as representations of things (like heiroglyphics). The more complicated languages use collections of letters to represent what is trying to be said. These letters are very abstract and complicated.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)