SeanMaiolo

"My goal is to stop people from talking so much about the inherent nature of these media and start them talking more about the different ways we can use them. In particular I seek to celebrate the flexibility of writing as a medium, and to show that we need to develop more control over ourselves as we write so that we can manage our writing process more judiciously and flexibly." Peter Elbow, page 151

Although I didn't quite follow this goal throughout Elbow's essay, stating it at the conclusion and rereading the text really helped this point stick out for me. There are several different means of communication available to people today more than ever. Obviously, each individual will have their own preference on which means they would use to most often communicate. But there are those who stubbornly reserve their communicative expression to a single form, and it's these people who I believe Elbow is addressing.

Communication isn't a one trick pony like it was before the ancient Greeks first devised an alphabet over 2,500 years ago. Even in the several centuries that followed, some of the most effective and respected communicators were those who could express their message both orally and in writing. Today, many people see those forms as archaic and useless. They get transfixed in the belief of the new technologies swallowing up the old and becoming not just the new but also the only way. There are others who look back at the old forms with a sense of nostalgia and will retell stories of when they thought that was high tech, only to revert back to the newest forms and endlessly sing their praises.

The best communicators today are like those of Rome and Greece some 2,000 years ago. They can utilize all mediums of communication and spread their message to many, many more people. Isn't that what communication is all about anyway? Even if only half of the people your message reaches care about what you say, the other half that do will anoint you a great communicator who is a master at spreading his ideas across all borders and boundaries. Some of the best journalists and commentators that I look up to spread their message in several formats and do so almost seven days a week. Many will have a column or news story published during the week and host a weekday television and/or radio show. Some also post their reporting and commentary on renowned websites and also decorate their pages with webcast videos to appease even more viewers.

The bottom line is today's technologies provide a litany of ways for anyone in the field of communications to not only succeed but excel. You can dominate one part of the industry but be invisible in the others and therefore never achieve more than mediocrity. That's not to say that isn't okay to shine in one medium and be modestly successful in the others. But to really stand out, you need to take full advantage of all the avenues technology has provided and tirelessly work to outclass competitors in each field. 

"If you do not see your main characters there in simple subjects, stated in a few short, concrete words, you have to look for them." Williams, page 43

Character and characters are very important in life. They're also pretty important to clearly identify in sentence structure. They aren't like deer or other game that many people enjoy hunting for. When the characters crucial to the purpose of the sentence are scattered randomly throughout a sentence, then the whole thing becomes opaque and unclear. People don't want to hunt for characters in sentences and don't enjoy those characters doing nothing active in a sentence.

Seeing as characters should most often be the central meaning of sentences, they need to fall in the subject so readers can clearly distinguish their critical importance. It's also not a bad idea to make that subject simple and clear. Don't hide it somewhere in the middle of a sentence to sound more academic. Most likely it will have the opposite affect and it's just a generally annoying thing to see.

When your characters are clearly distinguished, make them do something. Passive voice can become very redundant and monotonous. Too much of it indicates laziness or a general lack of effort from the writer. Can we 'is' or 'are' anything? NO! I can run, jump, play, read, write and any other litany of active verbs. Obviously writing differs significantly from the physicality of the active verbs actually doing something in real life, and there exist plenty of instances where linking and helping verbs are necessary. Avoiding their use altogether would actually damage your writing. But too many seem to have a sad reliance on them and that's terrible for your writing.

The characters are supposed to be reflective of reality. Their actions should be actions and as much as possible be written in an active voice. Make it simple and make it smart. Put your characters right out there and make them do something. You might find your writing will be doing something with that, too; improving.

I don't like to be embarrassed in anything. Most of my friends and acquaintances feel the same way. It's probably a safe bet to say that 99% of everyone out there in the great land we call the Internet would also agree.

Lately, standards at the Setonian have been sorely lacking. Our most recent edition was unfortunately quite exemplary of the lack of focus and attention paid to the paper. There were a litany of mistakes throughout and to writers like myself who fell victim to poor editing and lack of focus during the compilation process this is flat out embarrassing.

I don't want to put the onus on any one single person because it's unfortunately on a much grander scale. Things really are that bad I fear. Some people are more at fault than others and I hope they recognize that.

The problems have a wide range of severity and description. Most of them result from not spending enough time looking over the work and just general carelessness.

Again, without naming names, some copy editors attempted and successfully altered several quotes in the last two issues. This is not only embarrassing but completely unethical and damaging to the writer who used the quotes. Changing quotes is completely UNACCEPTABLE. It should never happen, period.

In some stories, the leads have also been altered. For those who are unfamiliar with journalism, the lead is the most important part of any story. When somebody seeks to change it and turns it into two separate fragments, there need to be some serious changes. A fourth grader knows not to fragment sentences. Why can't a college student who studies English notice this?

Many of the headlines and captions have been pathetic at best. This also reflects poorly upon the photographers and writers. It's such a simple problem to fix with just a little bit more effort. It's also one of the most obvious problems and really makes the paper and all those involved in its production look like numbskulls.

I don't see the point in pointing out any specific stories or photos where any of these problems arose.  I'm sure any person reading with half a brain can recognize the litany of mistakes.

To our loyal and supportive audience, consider this my personal apology on behalf of everyone for our carelessness and lack of attention to deal.

To those on the staff who are guilty of these errors or have been the victim of them, consider this a wake-up call. We need to work together and fix these issues. And we most definitely can address and solve them all.

Changes need to be made and they need to be made now. I don't have all the solutions, but I do know all the problems and know how to fix many of them. Let's not let anything like this ever happen again. 

"The preacher speaks only to those who are present; the scribe preaches to those still to come. The sermon, once it is heard, vanishes into thin air; its text, if written down and read even a thousand times, does not lose its impact. The preacher's office dies with him. The scribe may have passed away long ago, but the book he copied still provides moral instruction." Trithemius, page 473

So if I'm dead, nobody will be able to hear me speak? And I was so sold on the talking to dead people thing, too. While Trithemius' point is rather obvious and simple, it demonstrates the one clear advantage that writing and manuscript holds over the spoken word.

People aren't very trusting these days. Any account of a story or event that was simply witnessed by a person within earshot is instantly scrutinized as hearsay. If you don't record it or have a written account of it then your version must be false. Whether this kind of criticism is right or wrong is beside the point. It's more important today than ever to have written concrete evidence supporting whatever it is you're telling in order for it to be accepted by the general population.

I'm also of the belief that when you write you are offering it up, consciously or otherwise, to an audience to read. Therefore, it's best to have your writing be as accurate as possible. Imagine how many legendary and mythical tales there are in human history that were never written down and have now been long since forgotten. Even those that were transcribed are not necessarily original as many were passed down from one person to the next allowing for the intricate details to be muddied. Everything is written for a purpose, and we should take a similar approach with what is said and write it down for others to read.

"By the nineteenth century, many people firmly believed not only that every person's handwriting was unique, but that handwriting was 'an unfailing index of...character, moral and mental, and a criterion by which to judge of...peculiarities of taste and sentiment.'" Baron, page 58

 I still think today that you can tell a lot about a person by their handwriting, especially men. I doubt that some of the other tells Baron mentioned are really legitimate today, such as potential spouses and employees. However, handwriting remains the most authentic expression of an individual through written communication.

We all learn to write at a very young age. In my experience, a person's handwriting evolves most significantly between kindergarten and the second grade, and after that period it really doesn't change much more. Sure, I do notice little tweaks in my letters from year to year but it's not enough to draw any conclusions from. The speed at which you write may alter the style some, but exterior time constraints do not comprise normal handwriting circumstances.

Handwriting is something that, once you have a feel for it, becomes solely yours. The irony is that everyone is essentially taught to write and formulate the same set of letters in the same fashion yet no two students develop identical handwriting. Individual handwriting can display a person's approach to life or their very nature in making decisions. Unfortunately, with nearly everything being typed on computers, individual expression through written communication is often limited by a set number of fonts, in some cases fewer than others, when dealing with strictly academic or business related work. I know my handwriting reflects a lot of my personality and I take pride in that. It's too bad people are losing sight of that.