Forum 2: Scarcity and Knowledge in the Medieval Era
The chosen reading for my presentation is, You Can Always Look it Up—Or Can You? By E.D Hirsch, Professor Emeritus of English at the University of Virginia, Charlottesville.
Although my main points come from that essay, written in 2000, I will also be referencing his essay Reading Comprehension Requires Knowledge—of Words and the World, written in 2003.
Introductory thoughts:
"The progressive theory that students should gain knowledge through a limited number of projects instead of by taking courses in separate subjects is based on the following reasoning. If you learn a bunch of facts in separate, academic courses you will passively acquire a lot of inert, fragmented knowledge. You will be the victim of something called "rote learning." But if you engage in integrated, hands-on projects you will achieve integrated, real-world knowledge. By this more natural approach you will automatically absorb the relevant facts you need."
"Any specific facts that you didn't gain you can look up later in a reference book or, nowadays, on the Internet. Broad, factual knowledge, it is said, is mostly pointless because the facts will be "out of date" within five years. Last January, an education professor was quoted as saying that "detailed information need no longer be taught because it can easily be garnered from the computer and the Internet. "You can always look it up" has always been a watchword of the progressive approach."
...
"But the important question is, how do we best prepare our students for lifelong learning? Is the in-depth study of a few topics, practice with a variety of "thinking skills," and access to the Internet the best formula? Cognitive psychology suggests it is not"
So...
"There is a consensus in cognitive psychology that it takes knowledge to gain knowledge. Those who repudiate a fact-filled curriculum on the grounds that kids can always look things up miss the paradox that de-emphasizing factual knowledge actually disables children from looking things up effectively."
Basically we're presented here with two types of learning, progressive and cognitive. Progressive learning is schooling focused intensively in two or three subjects at a time, over the entire year or semester. The learning process is gradual, and is thought by it's supporters that it is a more natural learning process therefore we absorb the information more quickly--and we're preparing ourself for a lifelong learning. As mentioned in the quote above where Hirsch explains that progressivism gives the student a broad bank of knowledge and whatever he doesn't learn he can look up.
How does this apply to the course? Well, that main argument for progressivism of "you can always look it up" wouldn't apply if print culture (and today, digital, too) didn't exist.
However, the argument against progressivism wouldn't exist without references-- dictionaries, encyclopedias, academic articles, etc. Cognitive learning supports deeper knowledge of many subjects as opposed to a broad knowledge base. Because, according to Hirsch, "the novice has this difficulty...the human mind is able to assimilate only three or four new items before further elements evaporate from memory."
Hirsch is arguing here that cognitive (or Core learning) learning allows students to gain more than novice knowledge on the subjects their being taught, therefore when they go to look things up they do so more efficiently because they know what they're looking for, and because they already have a grasp of the subject they're looking up. What he says in the statement above translates to: people who already have a deeper knowledge of the subject can absorb information from reference tools better because they're not learning many new things at once. Take Hirsch's quote from the second article:
"Domain knowledge enables readers to make sense of word combinations and choose among multiple possible word meanings. A typical newspaper article shows why it’s important to know in advance something about the subject matter of a text in order to understand it. If we are reading a story about a baseball game in the newspaper sports section,we must typically know quite a lot about baseball in order to comprehend what is being said. Think of the quantity of baseball knowledge that has to be already in mind to understand the simple sentence “Jones sacrificed and knocked in a run.” Strung together in this fashion, the literal words are almost meaningless. A baseball-ignorant Englishman reading that sentence would be puzzled even if there were nothing amiss with his fluency or general knowledge of words like “sacrificed.” Words have multiple purposes and meanings, and their meaning in a particular instance is cued by the reader’s domain knowledge."
I personally know a lot about figure skating since I participated in the sport for 15 years. I would gain a lot more from reading an article on how to execute a clean double axel (not spelled incorrectly, named after a man who invented the jump) than my little brother, or probably most of my professors even, because I already know what key words I want to look up, and I already have a deep rooted knowledge of the sport. So I'll also retain the information better than they would because I'm not learning a ton of new things at once.
[sidebar]
I wouldn't be writing this blog entry, especially not on this topic-- heck, I wouldn't even be in this course, if it weren't for the evolution of print. Hirsch wouldn't have expertise on this subject if it weren't for print culture. Personally, from what I've been learning in this course, I now believe manuscript is man's greatest technology, because it lead to the need for print (and thankfully, the Internet). Who cares about the wheel.
[End sidebar]
Think about how much more you'd gain if you actually took the time to look every word up that you didn't understand. That's a lot of work, and a lot of extra time invested. You'd ultimately gain more from the reading; you're obviously already a literate person if you're reading, so you know the context the word is in. When you look that word up, chances are you'll never forget the meaning again.
Hirsch mentions a growing gap in vocabulary on page 186 in WM, "It's hard for a child or adult to look things up if vocabulary limitations keep them from making basic sense out of the words in a reference book or on the Internet."
Now to my questions:
Do you often use references outside assigned readings when they're not required?
I usually don't, because I sometimes find it just confuses me more. This is often the case with topics that are new to me, like when I go to write the first paper for a course in a semester.
When you're reading and cross-referencing, do you use the Internet, or hard copies of references?
I use hard copies, because it's actually easier for me personally. I like to lay in bed or get away from my computer when I read. There's something about being front of a complex machine that has billions more possibilities from the book in my hand that's distracting while I'm trying to read. It's more convenient for me to have a dictionary to reference beside me then having to wake my computer up and point/click to dictionary.com.
Hirsch states on page 189 that, "One of the most important principles of psychology is that knowledge builds on knowledge." This brings me back to a question Dr. Jerz asked me in a comment on Ex 1 this semester: "When you read online, are you flitting from site to site following whatever intersts you, or are you looking for an answer to a specific question, or deeply exploring the depths of a particular site or issue?"
Hello, and welcome to my first portfolio for EL336, an English course offered at Seton Hill University.
This course is broken up into three modules: oral to manuscript culture, manuscript to print culture, and print to digital culture. The formal title for this course is Topics in Media and Culture--professors who teach this course switch up the material covered from semester to semester as they see fit. The topic that Dr. Jerz chose for this semester is the history and future of the book.
So far in this course I've learned that these transitional phases in technology (yes, the book is a form of technology, though some of us fail to realize it) were frightening for those living during these phases and experiencing them first hand. Writing wasn't always considered a skill that every human needed to learn, and technology hasn't always been embraced the way it is in today's world.
Below are links to my blog entries discussing my thoughts on the assigned readings for this course:
Di Renzo- the transition from oral to manuscript culture reminds me of the transition from print to digital.
Havelock- does your personality change with the medium you use to communicate? Mine does.
Rodriguez- Cell phones, simplicity, and sincerity.
Timethius- Scribes spread the word before writing became necessary in education.
Homer- My thoughts on two translations of Iliad.
Havelock- On writing and memory: does one help the other in a literary sense?
Plato- Chris, Leslie and I engage in some discussion about Plato's thoughts on writing.
Baron- Rachel comments on viewing personality through handwriting.
Eisenstein- Dani and I discuss standardization.
Birkerts- Chris discusses literacy and technology.
Reingold- Ahh, the Amish--technology's just so taboo.
Havelock- The changing outlook on illiteracy.
Elbow- Reading things out of context.
EL336: Written VS. Oral Word. Is Anybody Right?- Orality of higher intelligence than the written word?
Let our powers combine- Again, we see speakers depending on writing to amplify their studies.
Ong, Writing Materials- Can humans have external memories?
EL-336; Radio and the Rediscovery of Rhetoric. Ch. 4- I get a chance to play devil's advocate.
I will post a longer entry sometime tonight or tomorrow; however, I'd like everybody to read E.D. Hirsch 'You Can Alwaqys Look It Up'...or Can You? in Writing Materials.
It's a quick read and one that Dr. Jerz suggested those of us who are presenting on Thursday to use.
Thanks everyone!
The current event: An arrest of a St. Peter's College (Jersey City, N.J.) student. The campus went into lockdown mode after a threatening note surfaced.
Breaking news: St. Peter's College ends lockdown
Local story: St. Peter's College reopened after lockdown
National story: St. Peter's president: Threat note 'sent chills down my spine'
All of these articles were basically similar in content. The first two even included the same quote from a student's mother (which comments in response to the article states was an over-exaggeration). All the articles focused on how many students were evacuated, the note itself (which no story goes into much detail about aside from the national news coverage from Newsday), and the premier usage of St. Peter's text message alert system, very similar to the alert system our own Seton Hill University recently put into practice.
The articles are very similar in content and organization, but the Newsday coverage goes a little more in depth by including pertinent facts such as the type of paper the threat was written on as well as quotes from St. Peter's staff.
The Setonian could cover an emergency on campus via the Setonian Online. Many of the news stories I found on the St. Peter's lockdown were strictly online versions. It would be difficult to cover any breaking news in the Setonian unless that news happened during production week, as the paper only comes out once a month. It would be nice to have staff members strictly used for writing breaking news stories to post on the Setonian Online. Right now it's difficult to find enough writers for the print version, as the New Media Journalism program continues to grow and bring in new students The Setonian staff will grow and this will allow more opportunities to cover breaking news.
I'm upstairs cleaning my room, enjoying my first day off EVERYTHING in 5 weeks. It's amazing...
My father is downstairs on the phone with a friend and I just heard him say, "no matter how smart you are, you can always learn a little something from everybody."
How true, daddy. How true.
Homework, here I come.
Enjoy your weekend everyone!
Oh good, an anti-technology guy.
I did find Birkerts' points interesting and legitimate and again I like the fact that he mentions other authors we've read thus far in the course. Birkerts first mentions the long term effects of technology in the academic world. Just as Plato felt writing made man lazy and less-able to memorize things, Birkerts feels that technology makes students bypass learning the primal communication basics of reading and writing in order to delve into the world of technology...
" Many educators say that our students are less and less able to read, or analyze, or write with clarity and purpose. Who can blame the students? Everything they meet with in the world around them gives the signal: That was then, and electronic communications are now." -Pg. 63
Considering my major is New Media Journalism, I wholeheartedly feel technology enhances my education. I don't think it is right to disprove of technology in the academic world, because students still need those basics in order to successfully use technology. Students must be literate and have motor skills to make the most of technology not only in the academic sense but in everyday life. Think about how difficult using a computer would be if you were illiterate.
Later...
"Nature was then; this is now. Trees and rocks have receded. and the great geographical Other, the faraway rest of the world, has been transformed by the pure possibility of access. The numbers of distance and time no longer mean what they used to. Every place, once unique, itself, is strangely shot through with radiations from every other place. "There" was then; "here" is now." -Pg. 64
Birkerts also says later on page 66 that, "spin doctors and media consultants are our new shamans." At this point in the reading he is again referring to the impact of technology on education. We need to remember this was written in 1995. He states that students are less able to read and their aptitude scores are lower than past generations--but really, can technology be blamed for this? Until a certain point parents and teachers still have control over the minds of our youth. Those influential people in a child's life should be exposing him to technology only after exposing them to reading and writing basics--the old school way. Using technology should not become a substitution to teaching children how to read and write. We still have power over technology as individuals because we have the choice to embrace it or not, just as parents and teachers have the choice to not use technology at home or in the classroom. I think the general population now embraces technology in the classroom, we certainly have at Seton Hill.
I found while reading this assignment that Eisenstein makes initial points and continues to support them throughout the essay. I found her discussion about standardizing writing particularly interesting.
Page 128:
"Concepts pertaining to uniformity and to diversity--to the typical and to the unique--are interdependent. They represent two sides of the same coin. In this regard one might consider the emergence of a new sense of individualism as a by-product of the new forms of standardization. The more standardized the type, indeed, the more compelling the sense of an idiosyncratic personal self"
This is certainly true. If there wasn't standardization, there would be no need for individualism because technically everybody would be an individual with no standards existing. Then I guess in a way everybody would be a standard individual. Hmph...
Page 130:
"The individual features of emperors and kings were not sufficiently detailed when stamped on coinds for their faces to be recognized when they traveled incognito. But a portrait engraved on paper money enabled an alert Frenchman to recognize and halt Louis XVI at Varennes."
(Trust me, you'll want to click the Wikipedia link.) My little brother, Dougie, who is 17, knew what was on the front and back of every bill and coin denomination by the time he was two. Imagine never seeing George Washington's, or if you're lucky, Benjamin Franklin's, face appear the same way twice on a bill or coin. Almost sounds a little ridiculous doesn't it? We take standardization for granted; after this reading I learned that even being an individual is a form of standardization
"Just as the act of publishing errata sharpened attention to error within the printer's workshop, so too did the preparation of copy pertaining to architectural motifs, regional boundaries, place names, details of dress and local customs/It seems likely that a new awareness of place and period and more concern about assigning the proper trappings to each were fostered by the very act of putting together illustrated guidebooks and costume manuals."
Texts with a strong focus on religion and I don't get along well. I tend to find them repetitive, and I can't relate to them since I didn't have a solid religious foundation growing up. I really have no desire to start building one now. Anyway, I did see the point in this reading and how it fit into the unit. I just don't have as much to say about it as I did the first reading for today. But here it goes:
Pg. 470 continued from 469:
"It is the scribes who lend power to words and give lasting value to passing things and vitality to the flow of time."
At first I got mad and my response was: Really, people who are copying already written texts, or even live speeches, are the ones who give power to the words? I think the brain which initially formulated the given words into logical sentences gives them their power.
Then I re-read the statement and realized it was the scribes who "lend" the power. And they do. Scribes gave power to words by expanding their potential readership. Scribes were an asset to the Catholic Church because they were silent, labor intensive messengers of scripture.
Stream of consciousness again...
Here are the notes I wrote in the margins for this reading by Naomi Baron and the corresponding quotes:
Page 58:
"Style in penmanship was also used to differentiate among the highly literate. In the seventeenth century, while a gentleman's private amanuensis generally wrote in "secretary hand (that is, the older Gothic script), gentlemen themselves were likely to use the newer Italic humanist hand. More generally in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, 'a fully literate stranger could evaluate the social significance of a letter--from a male? a female? a gentleman? a clerk?--simply by noting what hand it had been written in.'"
I found this fascinating. Not because of the sheer fact that people could be identified by their handwriting--I know my mother and father's handwriting instantly when I see it--but the fact that the social class of the writer could be determined by the type of handwriting they used. Today, there are two basic types of writing for most Americans: printing and cursive. In the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, there were numerous ornate forms of both printing and cursive such as Roman, Old English, Round Hand, and Square Text to name a few. I can relate to this because personally I am good at determining gender when I look at handwriting, as I'm sure a lot of us are. Girls tend to write more in cursive, and their printing is usually more flowery and round looking aside from being generally more legible than male handwriting.
"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."
I'm wondering, then, if the distinct styles used by the different social classes became moot. Or, was the uniqueness adapted to the varying styles of writing? Were the different styles still recognizable in this time, or was it just generally accepted that each person wrote in their own manner as long as the letters were legible and identifiable? I discovered as I read on that the uniqueness in writing in the nineteenth century was the fact that any style of writing was now acceptable for any class rank.
Page 59:
"'The letters should be analyzed and studied until the pupil can shut his eyes and see a perfectly formed letter on his eye-lids.' ...Such lessons in conformity proved useful not just in instilling handwriting skills but in disciplining the American student body..."
What constituted a perfectly formed letter according to Spencer's method? I find Spencer's method to be a bit overkill, but I do think it was necessary in order to form a standard of modern writing. And I was right...
Continued from page 59:
"In mechanically based skills (from multiplication tables to the correct stroke order in forming Chinese characters), lack of practice of slack standards tend to make for poor performance."
I found Dani's entry for her presentation very interesting. I related this to my thoughts about manuscript culture--we can't see body language, it lacks interaction, therefore it is less effective.
Dani's points and her knowledge of the studies of noise as it applies to speech really opened my eyes.
"Improper accents or mispronunciations in words make us sound uneducated and unprofessional. this is why so many business men have to take speaking classes. In may universities, voice and speech is part of the required curriculum." -Dani
I never took into consideration that we can be misunderstood orally just as easily as we can when we write. I also never took accents and dialect into consideration. I have a dear friend from Scotland whom I've talked to since I was 12 online. I still have the bouquet of roses he sent me one year for Easter, and the card that came with it. I've spoken to him on the phone several times and we used to do net meetings. Some of the words he used I would laugh at him for because they were considered offensive in America. I feel it's inappropriate to give examples, but trust me, you'd find it hilarious as well.
I suppose misunderstanding in the oral sense is just brushed off because of the obvious fact--a different set of language mechanics for each person, which heavily depends on individual combinations of linguistic and cultural roots. Writing is so much more of a generalized practice, I think, than speaking, but still the same problems with choice of diction is often the cause of misunderstanding in reading more so than the actual theories of the text are.
Am I making any sense?
I am a lifelong officer of the grammar police, and I wholeheartedly agree that mispronunciations and poor word usage makes a person sound less intelligent. After reading Dani's entry and writing this one, I feel that speech cannot really be taught. It's inherited by the environment and culture we grow up in to an extent. Writing, on the other hand, can be taught. But only if the writer is first a proper speaker. Hmmm....
Just some thoughts.
Leslie's pre-write to her presentation reminded me of my own struggles. I also found the assignment to write an essay defending oral culture rather difficult. I struggled to defend oral culture especially because we could not relate it to digital culture.
"I then began to think about the regular telephone and its uses. Honestly I never use a regular telephone!" -Leslie
My father and I both have cell phones, and we got rid of our land line well over a year ago. Sometimes people find it odd that we have no land line, but very rarely. Only when my cell phone dies and somebody suggested I use my house phone do they seem somewhat shocked I don't have that option.
Right now it's inconveniencing me. It's almost 3 in the morning, my boyfriend's car is stuck in my mother's driveway, and I forgot my cell phone there as well. Forgetting my cell phone is like forgetting a child to me. My brain was fried from spending the majority of my visit at moms working on case studies for Managing Public Relations and then pushing a large hunk of metal around in 17 degree weather for 40 minutes with no avail. When we got back here, we both realized we had no way of calling a tow company. Now I'm entrusting my precious Chevy Cobalt to him while he drives to his house to get money and use the phone-- he's been sans a cellular for quite some time. I consider it much more odd to not have a cell phone than a land line.
I agree with Leslie when she makes the point that cellular telephones differ from landlines. I tried to work telephones into the portion of exercise two when I spoke of technology and oral culture in my essay--but I couldn't get it to work without a long winded defense of my case. Landlines are indeed simply an extension of oral culture because they serve no other purpose other than the act of talking. Cell phones bring other forms of communication into play, such as text messaging and e-mailing. Most phones even have instant messaging applications. In essence, cell phones have become hand-held computers.
Questions to consider:
1. Are you more prone to use a cell phone to carry on long conversations (over 10 minutes) while at home?
Yes, because, as I mentioned I have no other option. Plus, it's less costly to talk long distance over a cell phone--especially (for me) if the person I'm reaching is a Verizon customer. Then it's completely free! Gotta love the network.
2 .How often do you use a land line telephone to communicate? Do you call friends or use it for business purposes only?
Never. Okay, rarely. I use one at my moms because my cell doesn't get service there. I used a landline in the pubs office during production as well!
3. Do you find that cell phones are a tool of convenience that has distanced you from the human interaction of oral culture?
I certainly feel like they're a tool of convenience, but not one that has distanced me from oral culture particularly. Sure I'd rather text a person about establishing a meeting time or place instead of calling them, but that's just because it IS more convenient for my busy lifestyle. If anything, cell phones connect me to people more than if I didn't own one.
4. How many times a day would you estimate that you use a cell phone? Landline?
Cell phone..I probably physically use it at least 30 times a day calling and texting combined. That's being lenient. I look at it WAY more than 30 times a day, though.
5. What was your life like in regard to communication prior to owing a cell phone? Would you describe it as simpler?
Yes, simpler I'm sure. Cell phones are just another bill payment, something to break, something that needs to charge and have the battery replaced eventually. I'm dependent on my cell phone now, and that's complicated. =)
How refreshing it was to listen and watch about the relationship between oral and manuscript instead of reading about it, Chris. Thanks so much for taking the time out to find that for us.
The points they make, especially the first two quotes in your initial entry really go back to the argument supporting manuscript culture because of its concreteness. Although I do agree with Plato's argument that the written word makes us somewhat lazy and can often be misinterpreted, I disagree that it's a less intelligent form. The concreteness of words heightens our intellect because of that reflection we gain from it. The permanence of our thoughts allows us to questions ourselves, share our ideas, and deepen our knowledge.
Pg. 136:
"Writing, on the other hand, stays there-- "down in black and white." Once we get it on paper it takes on a life of its own, separate from the writer. It "commits us to paper." It can be brought back to haunt us: read in a different context from the one we had in mind--read by any audience, whether or not we know them or want them to see our words." -Elbow
This is exactly one of the points I used in my paper defending oral culture. This quotation from Elbow agrees with the concept of Plato saying once words are written down, they simply tumble from person to person waiting to interpret them their own way. This is a problem with manuscript culture. I think the problem with this lies in individualism. Even in the States, where we're all united, oral culture differs from state to state, and even city to city. Where a "crick" might mean a muscle pain to most, to Southwestern Pennsylvanians, it's a small stream. Of course, we don't write "crick"-- the word is creek, but it's still the same concept. Different cultures write differently just as they speak differently. There's no standard for the meanings of words, even dictionaries contain multiple definitions for one word. This lack of standardization I think is why manuscript culture was feared, and will forever be its weakness.
I agree with Elbow when he says we often write forcefully because we're worried about "getting it right." We want the reader to understand our words, therefore we question our writing skills instead of their reading skills. I find this very true. I often write and re-write sentences, as well as move them around within paragraphs, to try to organize my thoughts more clearly for the person who will read them. Elbow is correct in saying that without reading and writing, these levels of thought wouldn't exist in the first place. Reading and writing lead to critical thinking-- which Ong calls a "noetic economy."
I found all three points Elbow present to be interesting, but this first one I agree with most, probably because I relate to it the most. In his conclusion, I agree that we should strive to be all three different types of writers. Doing so will help us communicate more effectively. I also agree that we should focus less on "meaning-making and hearing" and more on portraying the message as generally clearly as possible, whether in speech or in writing.
"In contrast, the illiterates who continues to exist in societies where literacy is practiced, either by a few as in the Middle Ages or by a majority as in modern America, are by definition outside the field of the education."
-Havelock
It's true, today illiteracy is astounding to us. Many people who are illiterate hide it very well, but when others find out, it's extremely embarrassing for that person. In these days, knowing how to read and write is like knowing how to feed and clothe yourself. It's commonplace, an accepted nugget of knowledge everybody should possess in the modern world. When I read this, I found it interesting because of the drastic shift in accepted social norms. In a world before manuscript culture existed to it's full extent-- it was feared. Manuscript culture was even looked upon as unintelligent.
Today, and as Havelock says, even in the Middle Ages, the outlook on literacy is the opposite. Being illiterate automatically lowers the perception of one's intelligence in the minds of others. Many of us cannot even fathom being illiterate because we're taught to read and write at progressively younger ages over the years. My little brother was memorizing books at two years old. Sure, memorization is different than actually reading, but he was shaping his mind for a literate culture, and I'm sure memorizing his favorite Little Golden Books helped him learn to read and write when he started school. He associated the illustrations on the page with the lines of text that accompanied them, and that's how he was able to "read."
I think it is important to mention that Havelock distinguishes between nonliteracy and illiteracy. Nonliteracy is successful acoustic communication-- speaking. Illiteracy is the inability to communicate in a way other than acoustically-- through writing. Havelock refers to literacy as an altered communication condition. Many times it is difficult for humans to adapt to altered conditions, and yet, as Havelock continues to say, too often are people judged based on their level of literacy.
Clinton shuffles campaign team, by Caren Bohan
&
Clinton replaces campaign manager, by Katharine Seelye
(for this assignment)
First of all, I noticed a difference right away just by the titles. Shuffling the team sounds much less threatening to Clinton's campaign than replacing the manager does.
The introductory paragraphs for both articles are straightforward and introduce the topic right away. They are similar in the sense that both writers immediately mention Obama's success compared to "the biggest shake-up" of Clinton's campaign to date, according to Seelye. Bohan takes a slightly less intimidating approach by saying that Clinton is struggling "to blunt Barack Obama's growing momentum."
Bohan continues to say that the staff switching done by Clinton isn't a sign of trouble, according to Clinton's aids. Seelye's article goes a little deeper, saying the reason for the swap was to send signals that the campaign is holding strong.
Bohan's article spends 5-6 paragraphs discussing Clinton's decision to replace her manager and longtime aide, while Seelye's only really gives news about Clinton's decision in the introductory paragraph, then goes on to praise Obama for the remainder. I also just realized that the Clinton switching her campaign team around is called a shake-up not once, but twice, by Seelye. This gives a very negative connotation to Clinton's decision, which I'm sure she made in attempt to better her campaign as a whole, not disrupt it.
Bohan's article (also calls the switch a shake-up) includes an important quote from a political science professor at the University of Virginia backing the point that switching members so late in the campaign "can't be a good sign." I'd would have liked more proof such as this in Seelye's article. Instead she includes good news about Obama's campaign for paragraph after paragraph, including quotes from him refuting Clinton as the next possible president. Bohan at least gives a glimmer of hope to the Clinton campaign by adding another quote from the professor saying, "it's not over."
Overall, I found Bohan's article much more informative and less bias than Seelye's who, I think it's safe to say, is an Obama supporter.
Don't get me wrong, Seelye wrote a quality article; however, I think the title should reference Obama, not Clinton, considering the bulk of the article is about Obama's latest success. Her article is more controversial as well. She mentions Clinton's secret meeting with John Edwards as well as Bill Clinton losing an Academy Award to Obama. This provides more interest than Bohan's straightforward article, an more information about the campaigns in general, but I feel Bohan stayed on topic better than Seelye.
Page 80: "It is of some interest and relevance that this memory function commemorated by the early poet, but only symbolically and indirectly, achieved more explicit recognition later, after the passage of a century or more, at a time when the extended use of the alphabet had produced a rical means of remembrance in competition with the oral." -Havelock
This goes back to what I discussed about Homer's use of literary mechanics to help him remember his lengthy epics. I'm still not quite sure why the shift from oral or written culture was such a frightening time period.
I can't imagine how much of a strain on the mind it must have been to remember anything before writing. Laws, things to do, stories, myths, any wordage passed on from person to person. On the other hand I suppose that not having the ability to write things down also strengthened the memory. Perhaps, like the Amish worrying about tecnhology causing social separation, they were probably worried that the inclusion of writing into their daily lives would weaken their memory.
I absolutely loved this reading. I enjoyed Reingold's casual, yet immensely informative writing style. For this agenda item, I'm going to do things a little differently. I always write my thoughts or jot down notes in the margins of my books when I'm reading. I'm going to copy those thoughts into my blog for this selection. Observe the big gaps in pages or paragraphs-- I tended to write much more in the beginning of the reading, before I started doing so more intensely as I became more interested and thirsty for further explanation. I found myself quite angry with the Amish while reading this...
From Look Who's Talking by Howard Rheingold as published in Writing Materials by Tribble and Trubek:
Page 379, paragraph 1: "Technology is my native tongue. I'm online six hours a day."
Hah! As am I, some days even longer. Yesterday I estimated at least 2.5 hours were dedicated to e-mailing alone.
Page 381, paragraph 1: "'It's not just how you use the technology that concerns us [Amish]. We're also concerned about what kind of person you become when you use it.'"
I can see their point here. My boyfriend is constantly yelling at me because when he comes to visit I'm often on the computer. Heaven help me if I send more than one text to a friend while he's there, which I usually do, or I'll never hear the end of it. Jokingly of course, but I know it's rude yet I can't tear myself away from technology for longer than a few hours at a time without becoming restless. As soon as I get home at night from school and/or work I drop my bags and swish my mouse around to wake my precious Dell.
Page 381, paragraph 1: "Calling attention to oneself, or being 'prideful,' is one of the cardinal Amish worries."
Just sounds to me like the didn't want any fun or excitement permitted.
Page 381, paragraph 3: "Several men and young boys in identical black trousers, suspenders, and straw hats were operating horse-drawn equipment in the fields beyond."
Almost like slavery, who would voluntarily choose to live this way in this era?
Page 381, paragraph 5: "...primarily to the "English" (the Amish term for non-Amish)..."
It seems strange Amish would even stay in this country where their kind are clearly outnumbered, not widely known about, and are generally looked upon as outsiders and even strange for their lack of technological use. They don't even call their fellow countrymen Americans, personally it's almost belittling for some reason. Why would they want to continue living here?
Page 382, iine 1: "The price of good farmland and the number of Amish families are both increasing so rapidly that in recent decades they have adopted nonagricultural enterprises for livelihood--woodworking, construction, light factory work."
What, like an Amish industrial revolution of sorts? How will they continue to support themselves when technology becomes even more advanced? The majority of the population relies on technology to survive on a daily basis. Technology's where the money is, or so I'm told. We live in a survival of the fittest society, and frankly I don't feel the Amish can win that battle with their current lifestyle. On the other hand, I guess the whole Amish belief is surrounded by refutation of practicing "keeping up with the Jones'." in today's society this practice demands embracing technology.
Page 382, paragraph 2: "'Connecting to the electric lines would make too many things too easy. Pretty soon, people would start plugging in radios and televisions, and that's like a hot line to the modern world.'" -Amos, and Amish craftsman.
You're living in the modern world!
Page 382, paragraph 3: "They [Amish] started out as radical religious libertarians..."
In no way would I ever associate the word Amish with the words radical and libertarian. They say the Bible teaches them not to conform, yet they are, to one another! In an extreme sense, I think.
As I read on, I began to understand that the Amish are mostly concerned with family, and togetherness. I agree that incorporating technology as heavily as most of us do into our daily lives causes social separation. When I was younger I had limits on the time I could spend on the computer. Although I still think some of their beliefs about technology are hypocritical.
Chris and I agreed on the translations of Homer's Iliad. We both felt that Lattimore's translation stuck very closely to Homer's traditional language. Fagles' translation was more modernized and easily understood.
I commented on Chris' entry that Lattimore probably had the same intent as Homer- that the epic poem would be listened to more as a story rather than a short read as we know poems to be. Granted, Iliad is an extended poem to begin with, but the word choice makes the poem even more elongated.
I agree with the comment Daniella left on Chris' entry as well. Fagles was clearly trying to modernize Iliad with his translation. There is a lot more action as Chris points out, and I agree that Fagles' translation is more upbeat. In my comment I likened this to a stage performance, it's a very theatrical translation.
Needless to say I prefere Fagles' translation. For one, I can actually comprehend the translation, and secondly, the colorful diction in combination with its rhythmic qualities make for a more exciting read, or listen, whichever time period you're from. :)
Jeremy's entry on this reading gave me the opportunity to raise a question. Jeremy feels that "speech relies on writing, one needs the other." I raised the question of how, then, was any attempt at communication successfull before writing was discovered and widely used? Of course people adapted to soley oral communication because that was the only method they were aware of. These days, our lives would fall apart with the inability to jot things down or send a quick e-mail. Are you one of those people who signs on to an instant messaging service simply to check people's away messages?
So technically I'm not disagreeing with Jeremy's argument. All I'm saying is that during the time period when orality was the only form of communication, it worked for them. There were people designated to run for miles on end to deliver a message by word of mouth, like a telegram. They were used to living without writing, they adapted to the fact that messages may not be recieved for days depending on the distance the messenger needed to travel.
In the medium of radio, I agree that a written script is the perfect form of preparation and guidance for a radio host. Jeremy made an excellent point when he said reading from a script is much more efficient and newsworthy than a disc jockey's random rambles. It's important for the radio host (this applies to television also) to have his/her ideas organized, and writing is the perfect way to do so.
Page 192: "We do know that t he poems bear the hallmarks of orally composed poetry; Homer uses careful patterning and scripts, repetition and balance, and formulaic or set phrases that aid recall."
I find this interesting because even before the extensive use of writing, tools were implemented as memory aids for oral communication. Writing is the main strategy in our everyday lives which helps us remember important information. The "oral poetic conventions" Homer uses in Iliad included repetition of key words, storytelling, and rhyming, of course.
On to the translations...
The Lattimore version I can barely understand. The language Homer (I know it's a translation but it's the closest to Homer's version) uses is so uncommon in today's culture that it almost makes the poem unreadable to me. There's a flowery excess of words that was no doubt common in his time that makes my mind ache while reading it. I feel the need to have a dictionary present with me at all times when I read Homer. Thanks to AP English in high school, when I look at poetry I automatically want to examine it line by line for any patterning the author may have done intentionally. I found nothing exceptionally special with Lattimore's translation- each line was somewhere between 13 and 17 syllables, the majority being 13 and 14, respectively. I didn't find anything in the language that particularly struck me.
Fagles translation was much more my style. I could instantly tell that it's more focused on rhythm as the text says. When I broke the syllables down per line there were only two which weren't either 10 or 11 in length.
I suppose I notice an abundance of "s" and "r" sounds in both translations. I could be over-thinking that though.
Whew, what a wordy, but fulfilling read. It definitely took a while to get through, but I like how all of the readings are somehow connected to one another whether by mention of another piece we've read or an author we've discussed thus far.
With that said my agenda item comes from page 24, the first page of chapter 3:
"What happens to the structure of a spoken language when it becomes a written artifact? Does anything happen? From this, one can proceed to the philosophical (or psychological) level and ask: Is oral communication the instrument of an oral state of mind, a type of consciousness quite different from the literate state of mind?"
Personally I'm more occupied with the second question. For me, my literate state of mind is indeed quite different from my oral state of mind, speaking in terms of communication. When I speak in the classroom or among people whom I don't consider family or close friends I often feel heightened levels of anxiety and loss of assurance. I especially notice this in the classroom. I often wonder if I effectively communicate the points I'm trying to make orally.
On the other hand, when I communicate via e-mail or instant messenger, or even notes I'm leaving for my father in the morning, I feel confident that I'm communicating successfully. By successfully I mean, clearly and intelligently. I'm the kind of person who will write a letter to somebody when an argument occurs rather than attempting to talk to them. I text message at least the entire 160 character limit each time, without fail. I prefer text messaging to phone calls as well.
I feel like my persona differs dramatically from when I communicate orally to when I communicate in any form of text. Sometimes I wonder what a person thinks after speaking to me if their initial correspondence with me was via e-mail. This happens more frequently than you'd think-- with interview and meeting times, etc. After I hit send on an e-mail I've just written, no questions linger in my head or butterflies in my stomach, wondering if the person I've just sent the message to will receive it with the same intent I had in writing it. This is much different than when I give a presentation or participate in class, for example.