Diamond In the Severe Rough (Essay Two, Draft One)

In my second draft, I'm going to be seeking more research to back my points up, and I'll be incorporating some of Harris' techniques, along with pointing them out within the shifts themselves. My word count is also short, but that will correct itself with further back-up and support. I will also shift to MLA format with time, and completion of research.

Alan Cohan (Cohan) once noted, “It takes a lot of courage to release the familiar and seemingly secure, to embrace the new. [sic] But there is no real security in what is no longer meaningful. There is more security in the adventurous and exciting, for in movement there is life, and in change there is power.” His quote embraces the idea of change, of morphing, and of modification. The raw power behind the living nature of news stories is absolutely astounding. Morphing minute by minute, and day to day, as long as there is someone, somewhere, with something to say, they will continue to grow. We all realize the impact the news can have on us, whether it is a direct impact or not. What we often fail to realize, however, is the impact we can have on the news. I'm not necessarily talking about personal impact, but more of a collective impact. We shape and change stories as they break, giving them the multiple lives that will, eventually, come together to form on story.

A very potent, and dark, example of a living story is that of the Virginia Tech shootings. This story was reshaped minute by minute and piece by piece as each detail and viewpoint was sought out. Breaking on April 16th, 2007, the initial report stated that two individuals had been found shot to death in a dormitory. It was, at this time, believed that the incident was isolated and was a result of a domestic dispute. That's not any less tragic, of course, but this story was about to evolve into a far more gruesome and in-depth tragedy than any could ever imagine.

The spree began at 0715. It was, at that time, not known as a "spree", simple a dispute. According to National Public Radio Online, as of 0730, "police believe the double homicide stemmed from a domestic dispute and was an isolated incident." It was also not believed that the gunman was a student. As a matter of fact, Chief Flinchum, the chief of University police, strongly believed that the gunman had left the campus, and possibly even the state! Little did they know. . . .

A little more than two hours later, this story took a turn for the worse. Another shooting was reported. The shootings had been going on for awhile, but the officials involved were busy behind the scenes. Trying to decide how to respond and alert students, faculty, and staff to the first shooting, they neglected to consider the possibility of a second tragedy. Arriving at Norris Hall, a science and engineering building, the police were forced to break in because the doors were chained shut. Upon entering the building, the gunshots ceased. Screams rang throughout the building as police walked into the worst shooting massacre in American history.

As of 12 o'clock noon, Virginia Tech police believed believed 22 dead. However, this story continued to morph. At 1630, the final report came through. The final count ended up being 33. 32 of those dead were victims, and one was the shooter himself. Unable to be identified on the spot due to severe damage to facial structure, the shooter was later identified as Seung-Hui Cho.

Once the "breaking news" was complete, this story began to take on a life of its own as news spread across the nation. The Virginia Tech campus community was in shock and in shambles. Support immediately began to pour in from every state, and from all levels. From elementary schools to major corporations, the United States of America sought to bear the weight of the tragedy, and to assure Virginia Tech students and families that they were not alone.

This was a national catastrophe that affected everyone on some level. Anyone who knew someone in college, or who had a family member away was wracked with fear. Universities went into a panic mode in order to figure out what they would have done differently. Everyone scrutinized Virginia Tech, and their reaction, amidst their pain and anguish. There was a reoccurring thought: How do we prevent this in the future? Perspectives began to pour in, from the students, the families, the survivors, and from the post-mortem words of the killer. This puzzle was beginning to come together slowly and painfully. There was quite a bit of backlash, for where there is fear, there is always anger. When people feel out of control, they seek someone to blame. According to Daily Om, an online resource for natural healing, "Intense emotions demand intense modes of expression. " Families sought a scape goat, someone to blame, someone to lash out at.

An overwhelming sense of guilt, pain, and horror rang out from the witnesses and survivors. As the students and faculty began to come forward one by one, their personal stories and takes began to pour forth. This is forwarding in and of itself, as the baseline facts of the story were taken, and shifted upward a notch in intensity with a bit of personal touch. The guilt and total randomness of the wanton violence left many survivors with an unwillingness to accept life, and left others with an ability to embrace life. In an article written by Greg Esposito, survivor Kristina Anderson brings to light this simple of joy of life.

The other half of her message is an appreciation for life and of each day's value. This includes obvious things people take for granted, such as a loving family, she says, as well as more mundane moments.

"I'll be in traffic and I'm, like, so happy," she said. "I'll sit there and think about how grateful I am to be able to do this."

The process of healing brings about yet another twist. Approached from the perspective of psychologists and behavior analysts, the Virginia Tech shootings left a swath of pain few could imagine. Talking seemed to be the highest recommended way to begin the process. Reach out, desire to live again, and process the horrific events of that grim day.

Across the country, the Virginia Tech shootings began to modify security and preparedness. Schools developed a safety plan, and a means of notifying students. Schools across the country sought to learn from Virginia Tech's ghastly mistakes. Security systems and back-ups were implemented, and careful identification of students ensued. Notification and alert systems began to be wide-spread, and on-campus help for student suffering adjustment issues were offered.

I remember the Virginia Tech shootings extremely vividly. I was at another college campus called Sweet Briar, a mere 100 miles away from Blacksburg. I was sitting in a German class when we were told to evacuate the edge rooms, and to sequester in internal rooms of the building. No one was to make any sudden movements, and professors were to begin taking immediate attendance. All students were separated from their bags and belongings. Those were to be left in the external rooms as we all moved inward. At this point in time, very few of us were aware of anything going on. News began to trickle through the campus grapevine as parents frantically began texting and calling, trying to ascertain if their child was alright. Officials began to release information, saying they feared a state-wide situation. Huddled in that dark room with 100 other students, I wondered what I was doing 700 miles from where I needed to be. As the tale began to unfold, and I headed back towards my home campus in South Carolina, the horror and fear struck deeply. Upon arrival at my home campus, we began to offer prayer and support for the students and families, and began creation of a banner to send to the survivors. Over the next several months, on-campus security began to shift. Doors now were locked remotely. ID cards must be carried at all times. Text and email notification systems were implemented. A general wariness settled over campus as everyone re-evaluated who they did, and did not, know.

Watching this story untwist and unfold held special meaning in my own life, as I experienced a taste of the fear, and possibility, first hand. Over the next two years, the support blossomed, and the plans were enacted, in order to ensure a tragedy of this magnitude never happened again. The multiple lives of this new story wove, and interwove, into stories of greater, and differing, magnitude.

Essay Prompt 2

Here we go again. :-) I'm sick of looking this up repeatedly, and want it easily accessible.

The Multiple Lives of News Stories

Unit 2 Extended Essay


At least 1,500 words


Draft due Nov. 23

Revised draft due Dec. 7


Essay Rationale

In order to critically read and engage public discourse, we need to understand how that discourse circulates. The rhetorical moves in such circulation broadly reflect the rhetorical moves we make as writers working with any texts. This essay offers an occasion to investigate and, in your own way, take part in reading and writing the multiple lives of a news story that has attracted your interest.


Essay Prompt

Follow the multiple lives of a news story through the press and blogosphere. To do this, you may choose a story that you previously blogged about or you may choose an entirely new story. You are welcome and even encouraged to support your reading with academic research. Note how the story changes and is rewritten as it passes from site to site or source to source, and note the uses and limitations of each iteration. You will likely want to refer to the rhetorical moves discussed by Harris. Finally, end with your own addition to the life of the story, your own take on it based upon your experience, your interpretation, how you see the story in your personal life, or why you think the story matters. As in other essays for this course, feel free to draw upon any of the texts you have read or written throughout the semester.

Taking a Stance

Well, my friends, we've had an awesome semester! This class has been full of learning, laughs, and some hardship, but we're better for all of it! While we've always written, we've not always known what we've done. Now, we do. We have a name to the processes that we've chosen to follow, and a bit more of a technique, not to mention practice at pointing out flaws and strong points in others' writing.

Taking an approach. . . . Aptly named, this concept appears to be a re-working of someone else's ideas. It has nothing to do with your own thoughts and ideas, although those do enter in. Everyone has their own worldview, and their own stance on life. Our writing often reflects that. (For instance, I'm a quasi-liberal, straight, American female with some serious quirkiness. My writing reflects that.) That's how I approach my life. I run another blog, and everything I write is from MY point of view. However, another blogger may take my post, and approach the ideas it contains from a male, British, conservative stance. They're my ideas; they remain my ideas, but he is taking a different stance with them. He is adding to my thoughts, but in a different means. He is taking a viewpoint different than my own in order to continue the possibilities of my thoughts.

It also seems that this is an adaptation of style. "I really like so and so's style of writing; I'm going to use it in my own, or, at least, attempt to do so." You have taken their entire work, or overarching theme, and have adapted it for your use. Here's where it can be a bit touchy. . . . Plagiarism is taking someone's words or ideas. It is imperative that credit be given where credit is due. If someone's entire philosophy is the groundwork for YOUR work, then make sure you say so! Taking an approach is a give and take between author and writer. The original idea influenced the writer's take on it, but the writer ALSO has something to add and an expansion process to go through. The idea is not original, but the approach the writer takes is.

I have not been able to find a blog that uses this concept. All of my blogs are very firmly planted in their viewpoint; they have no need to consider anyone elses'.

Concise Countering

I've thought about this post for quite some time, and have definitely struggled with it. There is such a volume of material to draw from, and I wasn't sure exactly which part of myself I wanted to argue with. However, I finally chosen one line that I have decided to counter.

We can drive our lives forward with a concision like no other generation, and we have the internet to thank for it.

I wrote that quite some time ago, and I've since come to realize how limiting it is. The internet is a large part of our skill-set that wasn't present even a generation ago that has shaped our way, and mode, of thinking. However, there is so much more that is a driving force, as well. Think about how much you text. How many of you have a character limit of 160 characters while sending a text? Point proven. You have learned to cut down on anything unnecessary, and get your point across quickly and concisely. Everything nowadays, online and otherwise, is focused towards a rushed, get-to-the-point pace. Efficiency is valued above all else. We have 1 minute microwave dinners, fast-food restaurants, 30 second news bites, and a "see all" function with statuses and updates. We want all pertinent information, and we want it NOW. . . . but that's not only driven by the internet, it's driven by all of life.

Countering Countdown

This was a bit of a difficult concept for me to get a handle on. I understand EXACTLY what he's saying. . . . Countering is NOT ripping another writer to shreds, nor their work. It's not SLANDER. Countering must be purposeful, and one must not be looking to start a fight. However, to me, countering appears to be another kind of forwarding. It's taking someone else's work, and adding to it in some form or fashion, even if you don't agree with the original text.

That seems to be the cornerstone of countering. . . . . Disagreement, or a differing opinion, on some level. You can't just say, "I'm right; You're wrong." You actually have to understand the other position, and have a valid REASON that you disagree. You must be able to state and maintain your position without it deteriorating into a petty squabbling fit. (Many of us did this with Hedge's. We didn't actually say WHY we disagreed with him; We simply tore him, and his ideas, to shreds.) That was NOT countering; that was a loathing of the very air Hedges breathes.

I still can't get past the idea of countering being some kind of forwarding. It is, at it's basest level, taking someone else's work, and adding to it. Harris seems to be restating his theory for forwarding, but in a different manner. He's added another criteria, which is that of needing to further it through disagreeing, somehow. So, perhaps it is a SUBSET of forwarding. . . . . I don't really know. Perhaps I'm countering Harris slightly by making that observation. ;-)

Countering is rampant in blogging, if one looks for the "Well, I agree with this piece, and this one, but not this one, and this is why. Consider this, instead."

And thus, my friends, ends my countering on countering.

Then It Hit Me

"I didn't know why that Frisbee was getting bigger. Then, it hit me!" This is a quote that is quite commonly, and humorously, found on T-shirts or bumper stickers. What, you may ask, does that have ANYTHING to do with Post 7? *grins* Well, I shall tell you.

Joseph Harris explains in his book "Rewriting" a concept he calls "forwarding." It derives its name from the "foward" function of email, and it could not be more aptly labeled. Forming the basis of nearly all academic writing, forwarding embraces the concept of continual discussion. I propose that an original text is much like a Frisbee, laying on the ground. A text is usually written to be read, and not to lay stagnant. A reader comes along, picks the Frisbee up, and slings it in another direction. He has taken the text, digested it, and given it a new spin. There are many ways to do so. Harris outlines four main ideas, but, basically, one may add to the original ideas, embrace the original ideas, think about the original idea to develop your own point, or use the idea as back-up for your own. Every single time we make a blog post, in some form or fashion, we forward another thought. We must read something, and provide our own thoughts. We may or may not directly incorporate the ideas (via quoting or what-not), but we did form the basis of our opinion through something else. We have picked the Frisbee up, and tossed it to the class at large.

I found a rather interesting piece of Frisbee slinging over at Hot Air. John Cook wrote an interesting article about a scandal involving the governor of New York, John Spencer. Cook has assumed that there would be a squabble-fest between the PR individuals and the press, and in order to prove it, he and a buddy accessed a massive stack of emails between the two crowds. (PR and press). He was astounded at what he found. Far from a cut throat battle, the PR and press were attempting to help each other out and prevent a blood bath! In order to prove this, Cook directly incorporated the emails into his articles. Note, not quoted, but directly incorporated scanned copies of them. After showing the actual emails, he briefly explained each point the email made, and how it proved his point. He has kinda stopped his Frisbee from flying. He caught the journalist's Frisbee, and now, he's plunked it down on a picnic table, and is daring anyone to move it. *grins* I guess, in retrospect, I have now jerked his Frisbee away from him and have slung it to you.

Two Ships

"They were like two ships passing in the night." This is a common phrase used to say, "They were going in two totally opposite directions, and they really didn't even SEE the point the other was making!"

The New York Times is a force to be reckoned with. Functioning as both a printed paper and an online medium, it delivers the news in a powerful, moment to moment, intriguing way. The journalists know how to best capture and maintain attention, something many papers could care less about. It's extremely easily accessible, and it seems to set the baseline for delivery. Covering both massive, over-arching topics that impact the world and the smaller, gossipy news that everyone WANTS to read, it is one of the biggest powers in the press sphere today.

However, blogs are almost equally powerful, but in a different capacity. The New York Times delivers the news with a slightly liberal, factual bent, but the blogs interpret it for us. I'm reading CurrentNews and HotAir. HotAir has a HUGE following. It's got a conservative bent, and it almost always touches the subjects that the Times does. It is, however, very satirical, yet informative. It is appealing to audience of a different kind, yet it delivers the same news. CurrentNews is a bit of a different subject. . . . I didn't really like it when I began to read it, and I don't like it now. It covers petty subjects that I don't really care about. . . . . but it occasionally touches the topics the Times cares about. In this instance, the blogs and the Times are NOT like two ships passing in the night. . . . more of a ship communicating with another one.

The Times provides the baseline for topics in the sphere, more or less. If it matters, the Times is going to at least mention it. The blogs take the information, process it, and spit it back at us, and we, the readers, get a chance to digest it, and respond via comments. Blogging provides us with a way to interact with the news, which follows Jarvis' model of the press. So, the Times and blogging function side by side in the press sphere in somewhat of a cycle. The Times delivers the news, or the big news happens, which the Times will comment on, and the blogs re-deliver it. The blogs really can't act until the actual news is released, which puts them slightly lower in the sphere than the actual givers of news . . . . whoever that may be. *slight grin* News can start in any place, and progress to anything. . . . . so who really knows where the waters begin or end?

Sullivan, Meet Jarvis.

Wow, what a combination! When I first saw this prompt, I must admit that I was not thrilled. Jarvis? Sullivan? Huh? Upon re-reading "Why I Blog", I have developed a bit more enthusiasm. While initially the forms of "reporting" are different, both Jeff Jarvis and Andrew Sullivan maintain the idea of an "open forum". Both believe that writing does not end with the author; it continues to expand and grow once it reaches its readers. Upon reaching the reader, the journalist/blogger's ideas are expounded upon, added to, and often tossed back. Sullivan notes that a blogger "is similar. . .to the host of a dinner party. He can provoke discussion or take a position, even passionately, but he also must create an atmosphere in which others want to participate." Jarvis, however, finds that ". . . at some point in the life of a story, a journalist (working wherever) may see the idea and then can get all kinds of new input."

The main working difference between a blogger and journalist, I believe, is the focus. A blogger's focus is on himself in relevance to the world. He is the focal point, a tangible point of non-change from which to base his observations off of. However, a journalist has his topic handed to him, and must seek out confirmation outside of himself. This prompt is asking us to mesh, somewhat, apples and oranges. Blogging and journalism are inherently different, even though one may be a subset of the other.

Sullivan and Jarvis both marvel in the immediacy of the here and now. I think that Sullivan expands Jarvis' model to a degree, even though Sullivan never really presents a model of his own. Jarvis basically says, "The power is shifting from the writer to the reader." and Sullivan is saying, "My reader provides constant and needed feedback". I think the two complement each other, but don't inherently add anything, nor take away. They're different, even thought the ideas are similar. They're meant to be considered in varying realms, and not meant to be meshed.

Power Play

I find this topic horribly ironic because I just did an analysis of the constant give and take of power in another venue. Jeff Jarvis did a beautiful job of pointing out the morphing that is going on within the press, and the media. *simply* If we've learned nothing else from this class thus far, it's that times are changing. We think differently, we seek information differently, and we EXPECT information to be delivered differently. Jarvis' main point is that power is shifting. In times past, the press held all the power, but in today's day and age, there is a constant flow and give/take of information. There is an ever so subtle shift in the balance of power from the journalist to the reader. The reader can just as quickly turn around and spit the exact information out, but differently. The witnesses on scene become journalists in and of their own right. There are no longer clearly defined limits, or boundaries. The model that Jarvis proposes is extremely loosely defined, and a system of constantly flowing information.

I was immediately struck with the perspective of news being a "power play". However, I read the article again, just to make sure my first impression was correct, and the second reading drove it home. I didn't find anything confusing, per se, but his model did strike me as unusual. Taking the power out of the hands it had been in for so long, and freely distributing it the way Jarvis did struck me as a bit out of place. Upon further examination, his thoughts began to merge with my own.

Blogalyst

So I have become a self-proclaimed Blogalyst. . . . *parades around* *quickly puts on a serious look* No, but, seriously, I'm here to analyze a couple of blogs that I'm currently following.

First, Hot Air. I have absolutely got to say that I LOVE this blog. I'm not particularly conservative, but neither am I particularly liberal. I don't align my views with any one group, really. However, this blog is conservative beyond all belief, and its purpose is to combat the liberal spewing that is so readily present in all media. It's incredible satirical and dryly sarcastic. I've laughed more than once while browsing the wide selection of topics. It started as personal project, and quickly evolved to three friends doing their best to provide alternate viewpoints on the news of the day. It continued to expand as guest writers began to write in. Designed to reach a conservative audience, Hot Air is sure to bring in right-wingers from all over. However, I'm sure it also has a big selection of readers that are there solely for the entertainment factor. It is very much a rallying point for conservative news, and it's a new-found part of my routine that I hope to have for quite some time.

Current World News doesn't thrill me nearly as much. It seems to be a venue for popular gossip, either of the celebrity or political kind. I honestly could care less about who's doing what with who or who's a man/woman/combination of both, and what that could potentially do to the world of sports. (I hyperlinked that because I know that caught several of y'all's interest. :-D) The author varies, post to post, and there's no real way to keep track of who's who. The articles are well-written, but are often about trivial bits of gossip. Like I said. . . not my favorite.

*moment of silence* I hope Friday goes well for you, Eric.

Times Reflection

This is the first time in my life I've had anything to do with a newspaper for any length of time. While the impact hasn't been life-changing, it's been one that I've enjoyed, for sure. Reading the Times every afternoon has given me a change to poke through the news that I find interesting and intriguing, and ignore what I don't.

I've noticed that I tend, as do most people, to to stick to what I'll enjoy, or get something out of, personally. I won't read something because I feel it's my civic duty to do so. We all have varying interests, and I'll stick to mine. Call me selfish, but it's my world, and what impacts me is what I'm interested in. *winks* I go for the BIG news, the WEIRD news, or news relating to personal interests, including eating disorders, children, and science. Such an article was The Cookie Diet.

There is not a doubt in my mind that I'm missing a whole lot of peripheral or dry, un-entertaining news, but there's also not a doubt in my mind that I'm not missing anything that's not important to me. Meaning, if it's going to impact my life, and I missed it, someone will talk about it. If it doesn't come up in day to day life, or I wasn't interested in it to begin with. . . who cares?

I have always been an avid reader, so this pursuit of newsly knowledge isn't really changing much about me. I'm used to assimilating and poking through various viewpoints, and having to then turn around and analyze them. Go debate! It has, however, given me a few more things to talk about around the dinner table. . . . The news is far more social than I've ever noticed.

Lead, Follow, or Get Out of the Way

Since I can't lead these, and getting out of the way wasn't really an option, I suppose I'll follow them. :-)

My first choice is Hot Air, a blog that I believe I will greatly enjoy. The list provided had many blogs that sounded, by their titles, very interesting. As I clicked through them one by one, I didn't find anything that was even REMOTELY appealing. They were dry, bland, and media-oriented, meaning, videos, bulleted points, and rote reporting. I was searching for something catchy, entertaining, yet factual, and I found it with Hot Air.

My second choice is Current World News, which can be found here. This blog is a quick and easy way to see what's happening in several realms, including sports, celebrities, politics, science, and others, world-wide. Once again, it's punchy, concise, and easily digested.

Merging Media Venues. . . . .

As a group, we vary significantly. We are all college students, yet we put varying degrees of significance upon staying in touch with what's going on in the media. In today's day and age, it's impossible to avoid the news. In times past, if you didn't pay for the paper, and you didn't watch the news, it was pretty easy to be completely out of touch. However, things have changed! We have all definitely proven that we spend time online, and as such, we're all familiar with the HUGE headlines that occur. (You know, the world coming to an end and all. . . .) At the same point in time, how much time we put into the smaller items totally varies. Most of us appear to be a "snippet" newser. We pick up what we can going through our day, but we don't really seek it out. That's how I am; that's how it appears the majority of my classmates are. How we get our snippets, however, varies greatly. There's the newspaper crowd. . . . but they're really small. There's the TV posse', and they seem to lean towards that bent for the mindlessness of it all. Then, there's the online group. We all seem to be a member of this one. We catch the headlines when we hit up a search engine, and from there, we delve deeper if we so desire. If it's interesting, we'll check it out. . . . if not, we'll move on. A few of us (and I am one of them) use word-of-mouth. A special friend, or a parent, makes sure that we aren't left out of the loop. Radio is another venue that many lean towards. About the only time this group seems to have to themselves is the time spent in commute. :-)

Ooo, civic literacy! Time to pull out the big words. . . . . . Civic literacy seems to imply an "active" participation, and most of us do NOT seem to actively seek the news out. The big bits worm their way into our lives, and we assimilate it as we will. What we get, we get, and if we don't. . . . who really cares? Certainly not us, the college aged crowd; we've got life going on!

So we welcome the bloggers of past back into our midst. . . . Hedges would probably call us lazy, stupid, and self-absorbed, since we were too involved with our own lives to seek out what's going on in any other venue. Sullivan would more than likely encourage us to stay a bit more connected, since this is life as we know it, and it's the only we'll have. . . . live it in the moment!

As far as an actual discussion, this one is a bit difficult to facilitate, being completely honest. It's hard to compare and contrast such a personal matter. Some of us prefer to listen (radio), some prefer to read (paper), some prefer to watch (TV), and all of us must be online, and, at least on occasion, emerge from our cave and interact with others. Sullivan and Hedges obviously hold the news in high regard; that's part of their living. However, a discussion of OUR habits boils down to just that. . . . . a preference. We're all different, and while we might seem to follow the same pattern as someone else. . . . in the end, it's just a preference.

NEWSFLASH

I will be the first to admit that I'm not exactly "current events" literate. I catch it as it comes, really. Many people I know sit down every night to watch the evening news. I believe that's a really good, and quick, way to get depressed. I'm not one to watch TV anyways; I'd rather be reading! However, the news is so often full of doom and gloom, or events that don't matter to me as a real person. Another common venue is that of the newspaper. Definitely fading in popularity, the newspaper is NOT a venue I seek, either. It's big, crinkly, and it takes a personal trainer to learn how to read it without it engulfing your head by folding over. . . .

I do, however, use Yahoo News quite a bit. These are written articles or videos that come up every time I sign into Yahoo. Since I compulsively check my email, I log in quite a bit. I very rarely, if ever, miss out on the BIG things. The little things. . . . I could care less about. I also have a wonderful friend who is VERY much into the news, and if I miss something, he'll keep me up-to-date.

*musing* Now that I think about it, I'm more into tune than I thought I was. There is a definite give-and-take of information between groups of friends and myself. More of a factual gossip session than anything. . . . "Did you hear about that kid in the balloon?!?" "No, I didn't, but the mayor of Russia says he can prevent it from snowing in Mascow!" "Really!?!? I didn't know that! How's he planning that?" So on and so forth. . . .

Upon second glance, most of my news knowledge comes from word-of-mouth, with some knowledge being gained from brief glimpses online.

Conference Location

So I've noticed that there are a few people who have NO idea where the conferences are. . . . They're in the library coffee shop. That's the same little corner where Eric holds his office hours. It's a warm, welcoming environment, with great opportunities to grab some hot chocolate on the way. . . .

Draft Two . . . . Two Heads Are Better Than One

I'm finished, muahahahaha! It wasn't really all that bad, but it came at a bad time. :-) Timing is everything. . . . In any case, here's the link to my current copy. Google Docs did some REALLY interesting things to my formatting, and as such, I've also got the Word file for anyone interested.


FINISHED!!!!!!!!!!!!

Rough Draft, Take Two

Two Heads Are Better Than One

Here is an actual rough draft, as opposed to a panicked free-writing session done at midnight. I have plans to draw my conclusion and title into my intro, and thus pull it all together, and I will add documentation and bit more back-up as soon as I feel up to it. I'm having a bit of a rough couple days. :-) If you edit it, please do so in a different color, and if there are multiple edits, please choose a different color than the person before you.

**EDIT** Problem solved. . . . . I'm sorry. :-( It's been a very rough few days for me, so I apologize for my lack of watchfulness, and making you guys wait.

NEW LINK

Two Heads Are Better Than One, Rough Draft 1

This is more of a really long, involved free-writing episode than anything planned and thought-out. We've got a long way to go!


The UNESCO Institute for Education, based out of Hamburg, Germany, said, "Literacy arouses hopes, not only in society as a whole but also in the individual who is striving for fulfillment, happiness and personal benefit by learning how to read and write. Literacy... means far more than learning how to read and write... The aim is to transmit... knowledge and promote social participation." This quote backs my personal thinking on literacy. Many seem to assume that literacy is the simple ability to read and write, yet it encompasses so much more. While that is a working, everyday definition, it doesn't include the aspects that actually make up literacy, and that is the ability to UNDERSTAND and INTERPRET. UNESCO agrees that literacy is not only the ability to read and write, but that it also encompasses the ideas of indentifying, understanding, interpreting, creating, and communicating ideas not only in a written medium, but via any medium society may demand. (Wikipedia)Literacy inherently involves the assumption of "able to function". Now, granted, if you can read this, you are more than likely literate. Note the phrase, "more than likely". A child may very well be able to sit down and puzzle their way through the sounds of the words themselves, hence, "reading" this, but that doesn't make the child "literate." It makes them "able to read." In order to become truly literate, this child must be able to draw upon his knowledge quickly, and without fail, in order to be able to function as a citizen of today's society.

Throughout this class, we have puzzled our way through many interpretations of literacy, and through many thoughts concerning literacy in regard to technology. The main question seems to be, "Does technology help or hinder literacy?" As is with every debate, we seem to have split cleanly into two camps. I've yet to notice a "fuzzy" area that says, "Well, it helps here, but hinders over here." No, it's either the hell-fire and brimstone of Hedges, or the slobbering appreciation of Thompson. I find myself standing with both feet firmly planted in Thompson's camp. I have a great appreciation and need for technology in my life, and believe it helps me, and others, far more than it hinders.

I'm finding that the more time people dabble in the digital sphere, the more open they're willing to become. Public speaking is the number one fear of the average American, and when asked why, that person will often note, "I'm afraid to share my ideas. I'm afraid of being thought stupid, or judged for my thoughts." While posting something online isn't exactly public speaking in the traditional sense, it is, nonetheless, a venue for sharing one's personal thoughts, ideas, and opinions. Ever noticed that people take on a "group mentality" no matter where they are? Think about the time you spent at camp as a child. . . . When asked for volunteers, everything froze for one brief second until one brave soul raised their hand, then hands started popping up everywhere. The same holds true online. We notice others who are not afraid of the societal norms, and who are wiling to voice themselves. The more time we spend online, the braver we become. We become outspoken, opinionated, and willing to share our thoughts. Not only are we more wiling to open ourselves up for criticism, but we are far more willing to question someone else's thoughts, as well. No longer do we hide within our head, bowing down to a few strong personalities who override us with their loudness, forwardness, and strength. No, we, too have the ability to be ourselves and speak out! We are finding that we have a "niche" in this world, and that it is ours to claim!

Now, the true question is. . . . does this help us or hinder us? What makes someone a "good writer?" Is it the ability to communicate with perfect grammar? Perhaps it's the ability to capture, with photographic clarity, a visual or emotional moment in words. Perhaps, more to the point, it's simple the ability to put thoughts on paper with clarity. Now, more than ever, we are learning to share our thoughts simply and concisely. Via a medium such as Facebook, or Twitter, we write all day long. Not only do we write, but we perfect the art of writing in an extremely understandable and attention-grabbing way. Gone are the days of flowery, long, obnoxious prose, and in are the days of the haiku! Andrea Lundsford, a professor of writing and rhetoric at Stanford University, very strongly believes that technology is pushing literacy in bold new directions, and that we're "in the midst of a literary revolution." (New Literacy) She goes on to note that we college-aged students write more than ANY generation before us! Clive Thompson agrees with Ludsford that this "life writing" is helping enhance literacy. Because we are constantly catering to an audience, and attempting to better maintain their attention, we must constantly re-address and re-learn our writing style. Our statuses must be cooler than the next one, our description of the day that much more captivating, and our blog post have better and newer ideas!

Thompson's main belief centers around the fact that online writing is teaching us to address our audience in a form that teachers have never been successful in doing. Whether we are attempting to persuade a peer group towards a particular pizza joint, or we're addressing societal issues on an online forum, we adapt in a fashion that academic writing precludes. Academic writing takes on a life of it's own, especially in relation to the "liveliness" of the online sphere. With our new-found ability to examine, process, and expound upon other's ideas, we become more able, and more willing, to put our own thoughts out for examination. In the National Forensics League, there's a saying that abounds during tournaments. "Your only goal is to convince the judge. If your judge is a moron, then you've gotta learn how to convince a moron." Our constant give and take of information online teaches us how to do just that.

I have thus far addressed writing, but have yet to touch reading. There's a reason for that. . . . I'm not exactly sure what to say. It stands to reason that if we're writing more, we're reading more, too. However, we're not reading nearly as "in depth" as we once were. We constantly scan and "fish" for new information. As Carr beautifully noted , "Once I was a scuba diver in the sea of words. Now I zip along the surface like a guy on a Jet Ski." He couldn't have said it any better. Years past, when one wanted information, one had to go on a deep sea exploration mission. Now, any conceivable bit of information is shimmering on the surface, there for the taking, and for the finding. Not only that, but it is CONSTANTLY being expounded and added to by our brave, literate minions, just waiting to take over the world! *evil laugh* Ok, so I'm totally kidding there. . . . but the information super-high IS molding the way we expect to find information. The more we dabble, the more impatient we become. I wanted my information, and I wanted it YESTERDAY, darn it! Since we are learning to express ourselves shortly and succinctly, we are also allowing our thoughts to follow the same pattern. We want things to get to the point, quickly and without error. Don't bother me with all that background and superfluous jazz. . . . just tell me what I need to know, in one sentence, and starting with a being verb. Carr worries that we are becoming stupid because of this new-found need for brevity. I disagree. We are functioning on just as a high a level as we were BEFORE the net, but we are functioning under a whole new skill base. No longer do we have to dig and sweat and strain to find our information, nor to share it. No, it's a simple matter to have it served on a silver platter, and that is what we've come to expect. We're not stupid; we're spoiled.

Long story short, what kind of readers and writers have we become? The answer is easy. . . . different ones. We're no longer the prosaic lawyers of years past, and we're no longer willing to go on deep-sea expeditions when we can find bigger and better fish "zipping along the surface." (Carr) An old saying says, "Two heads are better than one", and when it comes to the communication of ideas and thoughts, that couldn't be more true. The more we expound and share our ideas and thoughts, the more willing we are to put ourselves out. The internet provides us with the perfect medium to learn and grow, and without it, our ability to adapt to varying factions of society would definitely be stunted.

Essay Prompt

So I am totally sick of pulling this prompt up in Microsoft Word, and so, I'm going to post it here.

Essay Rationale
The writers we have read offer varying approaches to literacy concerns in a digital age. You have read and responded to these texts on the web and in class. You and your classmates have also conducted limited personal research of your own web practices. This essay provides an occasion for you to draw upon that all of that work in addressing the relationship between the digital age and literacy practices. This essay serves as the culmination for our work in this unit, as a chance to pull all of these ideas together in writing.


Essay Prompt
Address this question: What kinds of readers and writers are we becoming as we read and write on the web? You may consider your response as taking positions relative those of Sullivan, Harris, Carr, Hedges, and Thompson on the personal and civic implications of internet reading and writing. (You do not have to include all of these sources, but you are expected to include some of them.) You also should include at least one source outside of those you read for class. You are free to draw upon personal experiences and reflections in this essay, and you may revisit and revise your blogs posts to contribute to your response. I encourage you to try to have fun with this essay and to focus upon interesting questions rather than easy answers.

Emotional Intelligence and the Internet

I haven't yet had a chance to read this article, but it looks thoroughly intriguing. I seems to be about how excessive use of the internet and cell phones stints emotional development.

My Awesome Article I Found This Morning

*grins* Such an original name. . . . . I am in DIRE need of some coffee. . . .

Facebook

Hey, I noticed that we all had Facebook profiles, and that we were all quite active. I'm just tossing this out. . . . anyone who wants to add me can find me under Cortney George.

Last Day

"Against the grain should be a way of life. . . .
What's worth the price is always worth the fight"

These words from a song called "If Today Were Your Last Day" by Nickelback sum up my thoughts concerning blogging. Ever since I began blogging, I've noticed subtle shifts in my thought patterns. I've sought out controversy, and I've sought a means to expound, to process, to add to it. I've been more apt to share my own opinion, and to be willing to stand behind it. While I will, at times, allow my emotion to override my logic, I've learned much about myself, my classmates, and the world via blogging. The ability to share my thoughts without fear of repercussion (hence, against the grain) is a huge plus for me. Somewhat like a patriot in a sea of normality, bloggers often seek a venue to share their radical ideas. . . . . for the ideas often are quite different. It's been said that if you ask a room full of 10 people about one thing, you'll get 11 answers. That's never more true than with blogging. All 14 of us read the same articles, yet we come up with interpretations from all angles. That free-form aspect of blogging is one that I've come to love. Now, with traditional blogging, I find nothing challenging, really. In this particular blog, Chris Hedge definitely tried my patience. Although, if I get into the nitty-gritty details of it. . . . even that wasn't all that trying, simply expounding. I learned much about the different viewpoints and factions concerning the internet and intellectual spheres of America. I find myself delving a bit deeper into the academic side of the internet, if only to dabble a bit in thoughts other than my own. On the basest level, though, my true habits haven't changed much, if at all, beyond seeking out a bit more in the realm of theoretical knowledge. I have definitely gained an appreciation for spell-binding writing, for it is much easier to process and expound on writing that is well-thought-out and interesting. My recognition of the shortness of the number 250 also intrigues me. I knew that 250 wasn't all that much. . . . but neither did I regularly expect my posts to hit the 800 word mark! I suppose that I'm a rambler by nature. So. . . . . fellow classmates. . . . . intellectuals. . . .literates. . . . bloggers. . . . . consider the thought that you know have a venue with which to comment on, and view the world. . . . . and that it is your right to go against the grain. What will you do with it?

And the War Begins. . . .

I am obligated to start this post by announcing my personal bias. I do not like Chris Hedge. I ROYALLY do not like Chris Hedge, nor his writing style. His pessimistic, elitist tone annoys me like nothing else in an academic setting ever has. When I saw his name crop up in connection to this assignment, my first thought was, "Oh, no, not again. . . ." I, however, resolved to keep an open mind and attempt to analyze his writing separate of him. However, I failed. His choice of propogandic writing leaped out at me once again. With words chosen to elicit emotion where none was necessary (such as "largely parasites" and "blood on the floor") and the direct attacks on internet news casting, he has once again spewed his cynical opinions, for I am loathe to call it "knowledge".

However, Hedge's basic personal view is as follows: Newspapers, apparently, provide unbiased opinions on what goes on, day to day, in a city, county, or country. People of these locals, apparently, are not smart enough to think for themselves and form their OWN opinions without the help of a newspaper. ("They provide, at their best, the means for citizens to examine themselves, to ferret out lies and the abuse of power by elected officials and corrupt businesses, to give a voice to those who would, without the press, have no voice, and to follow, in ways a private citizen cannot, the daily workings of local, state and federal government.") People also, apparently, cannot get an unbiased view of the places beyond the American border. . . . He states, and I quote, "Reporters and photographers showed Americans how the world beyond our borders looked, thought and believed. Most of this is vanishing or has vanished. " He then goes on to note that the internet is not going to replace REAL newspapers. No, it's just not good enough. . . . . He blames the news producers for not knowing how to use the internet, and then he calls them paranoid. As I recall, when we, as a class, did an evaluation of our internet habits, nearly all of us turned to an online venue to seek out the news. We did not find "Cult Maker International" or "mybiasedview.com", but, instead, we turned to well-known online newspapers. Hedge notes that these websites bring in little revenue, but, nonetheless, they are newspapers. . . . . The venue and opportunity for reporting remains the same. He further solidifies his darkness by informing his readers that the American public lives under a "happy illusion that we can transfer news-gathering to the Internet." Newsflash, Hedges!!!! The internet does not gather. . . . . the people, working for the newspapers with websites, POST the information. . . . the opportunity for gathering remains the same!

Hedges is attempting to instill some kind of mass panic by stating that bloggers are replacing reporters. It just isn't so, people! The New York Times, Wall Street Journal, and hundreds more newspapers function beautifully, still! If reporters WERE being replaced by bloggers, then I would be quite fearful over much of what I read. But, at this point in time, his views are nothing more than a conspiracy theory, and while he's welcome to his opinion, he's also welcome to be wrong.

I enjoyed Thompson's piece quite a bit more, both for the simplistic presenting of ideas, and for the back-up it came with. He had an idea; he found someone who did REAL research to back it up; he presented it. End of story. However, his back-up IS a bit limited. . . . . it was drawn from one school.

Before reading this article, I had never considered how much I truly write via texting, Twittering, and status updates. I have learned a new skill via Facebook, and that is summarize any activity, emotion, feeling, or thought in a single sentence, often using the a "being" set-up! (Keagen is. . . . ) Because of the new push of technology, we have learned to approach writing in an entirely different way, and that is from the standpoint of writing being moment to moment, day to day. We constantly change our status, twitter our activities, and text 10 people at once. We can drive our lives forward with a concision like no other generation, and we have the internet to thank for it.

Compare Thompson and Hedges??? From my standpoint, there is NO comparison. There is not a comparison in writing style, in ideas, in tone, in nothing. However, they both seem to have a wonderful grasp of the English language. . . . The two of them have a squaring off of ideas, at best. . . . and when we throw Sullivan and Carr into the mix, we REALLY have a brawl on our hands. These two factions split and stare at each other over a gulf of words. . . . The ideas war with a brutality like no other academic battle has. . . . Is the internet making us stupid, or is it teaching us merely to think and process differently? That, my friends, is the ultimate question. . . . where do you stand?

I realize that I have allowed my serious dislike of Hedges to overshadow much of this post with an antagonism and passive aggressiveness that is probably sickening to many of you. I apologize for the overtone, but not for the feeling.

All That's Gold Doesn't Glitter

The feelings of outrage, disgust, and contempt rolled through my body as I read and processed this article. While it was very well written, I do NOT agree with the message, at all. The same disgust and revulsion that I feel when faced with modern-day racism hit stronger and stronger the deeper I dove into the assigned reading. While this is not racism in the traditional sense, it is discrimination and segregation of a different sort. I felt fiercely protective of those that Hedge directly attacks, and that, my friends, is exactly what this was. . . . an attack. He shears America into two parts, and he labels one very clearly as "inferior." He notes that they "remain powerless" and remarks that they "watch helplessly and without comprehension." Words such as that applied to my fellow country men just absolutely and totally rub me the wrong way. The gall! Hedge appears to sit on a pedestal, looking down his nose at those he considers beneath him. There's not one quote I can pull out to say, "See! That's what he SAID!" It's an overwhelming tone of superiority and haughtiness through the article from which I draw my feelings. While I don't find much of his article confusing, at all, I find most, if not all of it, troubling. While I do find it troubling that I have fellow country men struggling to read, I find it more troubling that Hedge looks down on them the way he does. There once was a time when NO ONE could read, and society functioned just fine. Reading is not a requirement for life, liberty, or happiness, nor does it make one a lesser mammal if one cannot read. *supremely frustrated* The more I consider this article, the angrier I get. The first paragraph of the article sets the tone for the entire set-up.

"We live in two Americas. One America, now the minority, functions in a print- based, literate world. It can cope with complexity and has the intellectual tools to separate illusion from truth. The other America, which constitutes the majority, exists in a non-reality-based belief system. This America, dependent on skillfully manipulated images for information, has severed itself from the literate, print-based culture. It cannot differentiate between lies and truth. It is informed by simplistic, childish narratives and clichés. It is thrown into confusion by ambiguity, nuance and self-reflection. This divide, more than race, class or gender, more than rural or urban, believer or nonbeliever, red state or blue state, has split the country into radically distinct, unbridgeable and antagonistic entities."

There is so much raw superiority in that paragraph alone to choke an elephant. I know that at this point, I sound like a broken record, and as such, I will move on. I just cannot get pass the absolutely disgusting, overwhelming, simpering sense of power Hedge gives off. . . . . While his article focuses on "literacy", the man never bothers to define it. Overall, he seems to fall on the broader sense of "understanding", as opposed to the traditional, narrower definition of "able to read." He cites a ton of statistics stating who can and cannot read, and then goes on to discuss deeper thinking that is apparently supposed to be connected to the idea of literacy. He can't just end it with, "These people can't read." No, he has to go on to actually insult their intelligence, as if reading was a measurement of intelligence. . . .

Hedge and Carr share few, if any, characteristics. The two of them are two opposite ends of the spectrum. While Hedge has a right to his opinion, he is very offensive in the way he presents. Carr offers his opinion, allows that there might be error, and is almost submissive in his expression. Hedge directly attacks the population, whereas Carr simply offers his ideas up for examination. Hedge is the elitist, and Carr is a member of every day people with a thought to share. Even the topics vary, even though, at first glace, they appear similar. "America the Illiterate" and "Is Google Making Us Stupid?" seem to follow the same subject line, but we've always been told, "Don't judge a book by its cover." These two diverge in tone, subject, and intent within the first sentence. While I didn't particularly like either of them, Hedge gave a me a new appreciation for the humbler side of humanity, and Carr gave me an appreciation for those with support. As always, there's something to be learned from everything. . . . and perhaps the oldest lesson of all was driven home. . . . . all that's gold doesn't glitter. . . . In specific terms, reading isn't the end all of the elite. . . . .

Sea of Knowledge

"Once I was a scuba diver in the sea of words. Now I zip along the surface like a guy on a Jet Ski." With that one phrase, Nicholas Carr summarizes his feelings concerning the internet, and the advances of technology. I ran into this phenomenon all night long! I sat down to read this article around 3 or so in the afternoon. . . . . and I just now finished the entire article. The propensity to multi-task and get distracted strikes again. . . . .

However, I wouldn't call this "stupid". . . .simply lazy or distractable. Nicholas Carr never really answers his own question. . . . .he simply states that the internet is changing our thought processes and the way our brain works. Moreso, he has nothing to back up his theory other than personal experience. While personal experience can be a wonderful contribution to an article or paper. . . . . it should never be one's sole support. His logic is a bit fuzzy, but thought-provoking.

While I find his theory interesting, I'm not planning on putting much stock in it. It was an intriguing idea, and it certainly got me thinking about my own habits, which do not mirror Carr's. While I am an exceptional skimmer, I also retain my ability to delve deeply into the sea of knowledge, and it appears as if my classmates retain that ability, as well. Here would be the typical spot to place a crack on the age of the reader. . . . .but I shall refrain. :-D After I read this article, I quickly went back and re-read some of my classmates posts about their internet habits. While many of the entries where surface level, there was the potential for much deeper diving, as well. We all use the internet frequently, yet we obviously are not stupid. We retain the ability to analyze, discuss, and interpret ideas freely.

The fact of the matter remains that the deeper one can dive, the more the opportunity for escape exists. There's an enticing new world that exists, right beyond the barrier of knowledge and not-knowledge. Breach the barrier, and an entirely new life has the potential to open. . . . .and the internet provides the battering ram to breach it.

Expansion Pack

Once again, I am astounded by the reading selection for this class. Joseph Harris tackles the world of writing with an entirely new bent, and one that intrigues me. He talks not about writing itself, but "rewriting", a process he says is "drawing on, commenting on, adding to-- the work of others." Essentially, I can deduce from that that American education system is NOT out to make us good writers. . . . but to make us outstanding rewriters. The system frequently appears to fail in this goal, for we are taught the grammar of the English language, and thrown to the wolves, often starting with a first "book report." What educators expect from us, and that is to assimilate, process, and rework the text we have, is NEVER a concept that is taught. This presentation is the first I've heard of the idea. I have, of course, heard of paraphrasing . . . . which is very concentrated rewriting. We are very rarely, if ever, offered the chance in academia to purely free-write. We are always basing our thoughts, ideas, and facts off of someone else, which is the epitome' of rewriting.

The supreme act of rewriting seems to be UNDERSTANDING. Harris makes the point over and over that one needs to process, digest, and expound on the ideas an author offers up. If one doesn't truly UNDERSTAND the text being read, then re-working the text will be close to impossible. He offers several methods of digesting a text, but they all center around this key idea: understanding.

Harrison and Sullivan share some interesting connections, and the biggest of which is that writing is alive. Harrison speaks of the exciting new ideas that can be found in an ancient text, whereas Sullivan speaks of the moment to moment thrill of blogging. Both find exhiliaration in examining, processing, and mulling over, a piece of text. Many think that once the words are on the paper, they are forever stagnant. . . .yet these two strongly believe elsewise.

Friendly Fiends

Who am I, and what do I do? If you think about it, those are the questions that truly define a person. However, what defines an age-group? A defining characteristic of our generation is the dependence on technology. After a close examination of my own digital habits, I'm going to broaden my horizons a bit, and examine my classmate's habits as well. In all reality, we've all got close to the same habits. . . . . Facebook, email, academics, and the personal realm. For each of us, the person realm exists, but varies, obviously, due to what we do and do not like. There are two common factors with actual website groups, and that is Facebook and various email providers. Our desire to not only stay in contact with those that we know, but to connect with those we don't know, appears to be a driving facet of this generation. The academic websites seem to be straight across the board as well, but that makes perfect sense, as this IS a university. :-) Not only do we frequent them, but amazingly enough, we frequent the same ones! *gasp* The coincidence! In the personal realm, we appear to split into three catagories. . . . . Funny, news, and knowledge. We seek entertainment or laughter, we seek current events, or we seek personal knowledge. As noted earlier, our realm of personal knowledge varies person to person. Reoccurring themes seem to be music, finances, and sports. As far as actual habits, we all appear to be compulsive multi-taskers, with an ability to be constantly learning. With a quick trigger finger for Google and Wikipedia, we shall conquer the 21st century!

I Was Planning On Putting It Off!!

I was PLANNING on putting it off, which is a VERY legitimate kind of planning, so PLEASE stop calling me a procrastinator.

*sigh* I wish it were true. While I do plan for my procrastination habits, it is procrastination nonetheless. The past few days, I've kept track of my internet habits, and it had DEFINITELY been enlightening. I have discovered that I have an astounding knack for being able to be "productive" while doing absolutely nothing. I've also learned that I am addicted to the instantaneous nature of the digital sphere. There seems to be a repeating pattern in how I spend my time online.

I am always running Yahoo Messenger in the background. It is almost as sure-fire a way to contact me as texting me is. At any time that I'm on the computer, one can count on me also IMing. The first thing I do every single morning is check my email. . . . all four accounts. I have a Gmail for personal use, a Hotmail that I use for keeping in contact with certain friends, a Yahoo for work, and my Novell Groupwise account for school. For the rest of the day, I will perpetually cycle through each account since it would be HORRIBLE for an email to sit in my inbox for longer than 10 minutes! From there, I'll provide a breakdown of my "main" sites.

Facebook. I am addicted to Facebook, and can waste hours here. (It's not actually wasting time if you're spending quality time with those that matter. . . .) *grins*

MySpace. While I've got one, I am rarely, if ever, on it. It's there for the sake of having one, really.

CD Universe. I am an obsessive iTunes organizer, and at this site, I can get all the information I need in order to sort and slot all of my music, including artist, album, release date, and album artwork. I am often on this site, an academic site, and running Messenger at the same time.

Wikipedia. I am a compulsive Googler, and Wikipedia provides an ability to get a lot of background information on any given subject quickly. I will wiki things throughout the day.

Google. Enough said. :-D It's a compulsive habit. . . . . we all have our vices!

Blogging. I have several friends who run blogs, and I greatly enjoy following their lives, and commenting. I also have a low-key blog of my own. . . . . more of a journal, than anything. I spend a good amount of time researching and writing various topics.

Infoplease. Instead of actually using my 180 dollar pre-med textbooks, I instead turn to Infoplease to get quick background information on academic subjects that my knowledge is a bit "iffy" in.

Discussion Boards. I am a member of several, with topics varying from photography to dog training. I love open discourse, and the forums provide the perfect venue for it.

That just about sums up my habits. . . . a very strange mixture of real life and academia combined with some obsessive compulsive habits. Excuse me for now; I have to go check my email.

Deja Vu'

For the first time, I have discovered the written enigma that is. . . . Andrew Sullivan! Before this class, I had never heard of the man. . . . had never examined his ideas, nor had any interest in doing so. (I guess that could be a life lesson. . . . there is no action without knowledge.)After reading his article, I have definitely decided that his voice is one worth listening to, especially in the realm of current events. While he might not be a legitimate authority on all matters, his thoughts appear to be sound and well-thought out.

It appears that Sullivan blogs for many of the same reasons I do. He greatly enjoys the thrill, the connectivity, the ability to be "real". He notes in his post, "Why I Blog" that, "Blogging is therefore to writing what extreme sports are to athletics: more free-form, more accident-prone, less formal, more alive." He also noted that blogging provided him with an "exhilarating literary liberation." I blog for much the same reason. I greatly enjoy the ability to share my thoughts and feelings moment by moment, and to receive feedback on the same. The fact of the matter is. . . . blogging is minute by minute, hour by hour, and day be day. People are not stagnant, nor is life. He greatly appreciates the ability of his blog to allow him to review and revisit a particular time or moment in his life. Perhaps he values his ability to review and adjust his view on his life even more.

He seems to find an almost perverse pleasure in the brutal feedback that readers provide, and in the cut-throat competition to find, and keep, readers. He was amazed, that "feedback was instant, personal, and brutal." One plays a careful line in keeping one's readers happy, but also maintaining one's personality. Controversy is often a key method of maintaining interest. Not trolling, mind you. . . . . but honest controversy. A provision for in-depth conversation and open discussion will attract more readers than anything else.

The amazingness of "real life" is another aspect that appeals to many bloggers, and especially Mr. Sullivan. I greatly enjoy re-reading my blogs and watching the progress I have made, or how a particular event effected me at any given time. Watching the patterns change is incredibly mesmerizing. He notes his direct involvement with his readers during 9/11. . . . and I can only imagine the emotional rush he gets every time he revisits that section of his life. Having the ability to track emotion, feelings, and development makes blogging one of the better venues for connecting not only with one's self, but also with others. The friendships formed via the give and take of ideas are very real. The blogger forms an easy-going comradeship with his/her readers. The exchange, sometimes heated, sometimes not, allows for one to truly express ideas, and expect REAL feedback. . . . . . which isn't always possible real-life. With the written word, it makes it easier to "hide" behind a screen. . . . to allow others to constructively (or not-so-constructively) criticize without hard feelings.

*simply* Blogging provides a quick insight into the writers mind, and gives an ability to track the changes in that insight. Those who track have the unique opportunity to shape and mold the blogger's perception of the world. Few other venues allow the instant, substantial thrill and feedback that blogging does.

Weaving a Web

Our ideas have the potential to weave, branch, and grow much more rapidly when combined than when they're simply individual threads.

I'm going to break out of the box a bit, and share an idea that just came to me. I was reading over some of the other posts, and I found myself noting, "Well, I don't really think that.", or "Wow . . . . I want to expound on that!" I especially found myself wanting to answer questions that were asked, or that weren't answered to completion. So. . . . the thought hit me: With these blogs, there is a TREMENDOUS possibility for what is called, "web weaving". . . . basically, the unplanned networking of several blogs. What basically happens is that someone in a circle of blogs refers back to someone else's post, and a discourse of sorts is begun, with references coming almost solely from within the circle. I've never worked with an academic community of bloggers before, but this idea especially intrigues me.

In answer to Eric's post concerning design choice, I would have to say that my reasons for choosing are personal. *grins* Now, I know, that sounds sarcastic. . . . and it was meant to! Seriously, though. . . . I chose my title "Kea's Korner" because I needed a title that was short, catchy, and personal. I'm an open and inviting kind of person, and I will jovially welcome anyone into my space. . . . and while this isn't a "physical" space, it is a corner of my being, nonetheless. My design. . . . I've got a bit of a dark, and mysterious side, and hence, the black background. I also know how much easier it is to read things on a darker background. I've also got a splash of vibrance in my personality, and the bright colors bring that out. Colors stand out SO much better on a background of contrast. . . . . and white just isn't cool enough! White tends to be known as "the absence of color". Well, my friends. . . . . I don't do well with the absence of anything! *grins*

I have every intention of doing the Sullivan post. . . . I'm not disregarding it. This idea just seemed cooler, for the moment.

So. . . . . the web begins. Will you weave, or will you merely watch?

Framing the Korner

My introduction to English 105 was sudden, abrupt, and all together unsought. I am a transfer student from a well-known Southern university. However, said school is not accredited, and as such, none of my credits transferred. So, I set out with a goal: avoiding freshmen English and the research paper. I'd suffered through that route once; I had no desire to do it again. English 105 was presented as a viable option, and so, here I am.

When I found out that this class was to center on blogging, I was especially intrigued. I had expected a rote literature course formed around discussion groups, or an in-depth study of English grammar. To be quite frank, I wasn't looking forward to it. Now, my view-point has changed completely. I am an avid writer, and have enjoyed various means of expression through out the years. I am a compulsive journaler, and have dabbled a bit in other venues. I'm ecstatic about this opportunity, and hope it will be a fun learning experience.

Since this isn't my first blog, I didn't experience any difficulties. However, there are few things that one must consider with every new blog, regardless of how many one runs. First and foremost, title. It has to be catchy, original, and easy to remember. Oftentimes, one's title is the first impression a visitor has of one's blog. The second aspect to ponder is blog design. Once again, one has to be conscious of the blog's readers. The design needs to be simple, yet catchy. It needs to be easy to read, and easy to navigate.

Those, honestly, were the hardest things for me while creating this blog. I chose a title that was personal, yet easy to remember, and I chose a stunning, yet simplistic, design.

There are a few differences between blogging and "normal" rote academic writing. Blogging is a bit more informal. It's more about the EXPRESSION of the ideas, feelings, and thoughts versus the actual FORM of the text itself. Basically, normal grammar rules and rules of syntax relax a bit. Blogs also tend to be much more personal. The format tends to follow a conversation, or a discourse, instead of a mindless, "Here are my ideas; I expect no feedback." The world of academia tends to be a bit "selfish" with her ideas. . . . . blogging is much more open.

So, welcome to the Kea Korner! If there's anything I can do to make your stay a bit more relaxed, fun, or easy, please let me know! :-D