March 2010 Archives

If on a Winter's Night, a Traveler.

I'm starting to think Calvino has invented a new perspective, the omnicient author. The speaker can know everything and even a character, but Calvino is demonstrating a new type of perception...which is coming straight from his eyes.

To begin, I must say that Ruedi (the Swiss) is my favorite character. He is hilarious and I don't even feel bad for Jojo since Ruedi is so funny. Or is that Calvino's intention to want me to feel no sympathy for Jojo?

I keep coming up with multiple conclusions about why Calvino has written this book the way he did. I'm starting to think he wants us to know that sometimes you cant control what happens next, not even in a linear structured book. So why does this writing technique bother you? I got this vibe from a few different quotes, "Anyway, the conclusion to which all stories come is that the life a person has led is one and one alone, uniform and compact as a shrunken blanket where you can't distinguish the fibers of the weave (Calvino 104). And then Calvino comes right out and says, "I'm producing too many stories at once because what I want is for you to feel, around the story, a saturation of other stories that I could tell and maybe will tell or who knows may already have told on some other occasion, a space full of stories that perhaps is simply my lifetime... (105).

As contradictory as it sounds, Calvino's book is more realistic than a traditional story plot. Fiction or non-fiction conversation, events and stories do not happen in order. I think he just being very, very blunt about this point.

And then, there are several references to truth of writing and storytelling which reminded me of the bibliography chapter in Darnton. "This is a true book, even if its author has written so many false ones. So it comes to us" (126). [This coming from Marana's writing]. Then, another example when Calvino is inside of our minds again, offering options, "Your eye falls on the beginning of th ebook. 'But this isn't the book I was reading...Same title, same cover, everything the same...But it's another book! One of the two is fake'" (155).

I take these quotes as the readers of this book assuming the Calvino is writing an imposter. It's not a real book because it follows strange conventions. And if we want to get extremely philosophical, it is the book of our lives, which will always be ever-changing due to past, present and future events. If I am totally off the wall on this one, I'm sure we'll be finding out the real answer soon. Or maybe not. He's fairly unpredictable.

Classroom discussion,,,continued.

The Case for Books: Past, Present & Future by Robert Darnton

Donald McKenzie devoted his life to studying the manuscript culture. There is more to writing than the text itself. We know that today, plagerism and unreliable sources linger throughout the internet. But what I found surprising was that these problems are not just new-age problems.

What i found ironic is McKenzie's ability to find errors accuracy problems in past printings. I thought that the history in which we knew was permanent, whether it was right or wrong. I never thought it was possible to investigate history. "The search for reliable texts of his plays drove the whole discpline (Darnton 137). What we thought we knew about Shakespeare proved to be wrong. Missing copies? Two different versions of King Lear? Hamlet has subtracted scenes in another version?

Through bibliographies, we are able to establish some sort of credibility, however these same bibliographies are drawing more than that. There are discoveries of mystery texts and new additions to old versions.

Now there is more added to the problem. Because of these unpublished additions and mystery texts, plagerism is bound to hop in at some point. There has to be another taking credit for others' work. Because bibliographies do not have the power to omit wrong information, discovering plagerism has to become a deeper and even longer process.

It seems that inaccurrate information and plagerism was easier back in the day even with the lack of resources. With today's technology, there is software available to detect plagerism and inaccuracies. It's a bit contradictory.

Back to class

The Case for Books: Past, Present, and Future

"...because Americans have been told that the sky is falling, the ocean rising, the earth quaking, the economy recessing, the presidency degrading, the family disappearing, and the cosmos running out of time. How can they work up a lather about old newspapers and books?" (Darnton 125).

A great question ^^ and even more questionable now in the year 2010 as technology is far more advanced than it was nine years ago. More and more people have computers and the internet today to access online news. I assume microfilm was before my time, since I had no idea what it was before I read this. What I found interesting was librarians wanted to preserve history and they attempted to do so by "copying" onto microfilm in hopes to save space. A good thought in my opinion. So why do we care about what happens to the old books that are "litterally turning to dust?"

It's evident that the original form of these books are not as important as the content within them. Anything in writing is or will become history...it is the foundation of our existence. Some documentation that we cannot save isn't in our power, but willingly erasing historical writing and references is like erasing our past. Our roots are found in writing especially since the digital age is just now developing and we have the opportunity to store more than just writing.

And backtracking to microfilming. This process allows condensing information but it also has its negatives. Microfilm "fails to convey the texture of the printed page-the way headlines, layout, touches of color, and th etactile qualities of braodsheet and tablioid orient the reader and guide the eye through meaningful patches of print" (118).

I kind of see a repitition of history here. With each advancement in writing and communication, there always negatives and always positives. In this case, I think the original documents are better because of the way newspapers were are frozen in time and culture.

Whatever the case may be, to me, it is just important history has a meaning to most people in the world and it is worth preservation.

Flash Back to the class.

"'I'm a reader, only a reader, not an author,' you hasten to declare, like a man rushing to the aid of somebody about to make a misstep" (Calvino 94). --> True story. That's exactly how I felt through pages 53-99 of If on a Winter's Night a Traveler. This man....is fantastic at messing with my mind. I'm going to pretend to not be completely confused by his novel and make a useful hypothesis about it.

Basically, Calvino flat out said, I'm trying to confuse you. At least that's what I got from the paragraphs and cited quote from page 94. Halfway through the book, he knows his readers are confused and I feel like he is trying to answer our questions through a new plot each time. He is not just preaching his message, but creatively making up new characters and story plots in hopes we can read between the lines and figure it out for ourselves. Calvino is placing his reader in the story and offering solutions.

"You realzie at once that Mr. Cavedagna is that person indispensable to every firm's staff, on whose shoulders his colleagues tend instinctively to unload all the most comples and tricky jobs (92).

Still...clever...but I'd rather him tell me more about what I'm thinking...perhaps that has gotten old, but will show up again later. But, one of the most fascinating things in this portion of the book was his quote on page 98,

"Some books will remain famous but will be considered anonymous works, as for us the epic of Gilgamesh; other authors; names will still be well known but none of their works will survive, as was the case with Socrates; or perhaps all the surviving books will be attributed to a single, mysterious author, like Homer."

I think Calvino is being very realistic here, assuming that some works will live on for hundreds of years and others will slowly fade out of existence. He provided examples and we all know history repeats itself. I think Calvino is on to something and he realizes he is no Shakespeare. Everyone in the modern day writes exactly the same but with different topics and genres. As I said in my previous blog, I think Calvino has founded a new way to approach writing and interest his readers, rather than the linear storyline. Peter Washington mentioned in the introduction that Calvino believed there was more than one way to approach a problem. And that is typically true. There is the normal way someone would provide a solution and then there are wacko solutions. And we all know which kind of technique Calvino is using.

Check out my peers' blogs.

Where to even begin with this one. After reading 50+ pages of "If on a Winter's Night a Traveler," I came to find the plot is really not important to the story, since there are several plots completely unrelated to one another. I actually find this book to be very interesting since Calvino can get inside of the readers' mind and present multiple options. This tactic, is not typically found in novels. Each reader is different and each author seems to be writing about what is in their head and their perceptions of the world, issue, topic, etc. Relating to an author's voice can be challenging especially if you don't see things the way they do.

Calvino demonstrates several scenerios which engage the reader and he will flat out tell you that he has you trapped...and then prove why. "Then from the very first page you realize that the novel you are holding has nothing to do with the one you were reading yesterday (Calvino 32). You're picturing yourself meandering around a bookstore, satisfying your curiousity, and BAM your outcome has just been predicted by the author of this book. A bit frightening, but also in my opinion phenomenal.

Calvino also has a gift of describing characters with so much and even with unnecessary detail and in the end they illuminate this huge sense of mystery that leaves you as the reader pondering even more. And then BAM again, he will tell you "your attention, as reader, i snow completely concentrated on the woman, already for several pages you have been circling around her..." (19).

Calvino has demonstrated several ways to grab the readers' attention and the most intriguing way is to present a foreign term and describe it in such a complexity that the reader will still not understand what the word actually means, but they can sense it, smell it, and even imagine it. He did this wil the schoeblinstjia. Calvino can make you swear on a made-up word's actual existence in the world, and believe it.

Calvino's other writing tactic that still confuses me is my wondering if he studies and plots every detail of his writing and then picks his potential readers' brains for their reactions and thoughts, or if he simply "still has not made up his mind" (12) which he subtly brings up at the beginning of the book.

So far, the thrill of his book hasn't been the plot...a bit unusual. The thrill is his ability to pick your brain and know exactly what his reader is thinking by submitting several options. I'm curious to see what he has in store for the rest of the book.

Back to the class.

While reading through the introduction to If on a Winter's Night A Traveler, by Italo Calvino, my thoughts revolved around Peter Washington's description of Calvino's work. He said, "The Taste for brevity-which links him with that other Italian master, Primo Levi-was in part a metter of choice, in part dictated by the loggic of his material, andd in part by example of favoured writers such as Borges" (Intro xvii).

Calvino enjoyed keeping his writing short but paying attention to detail and description. I find this very relatable as I feel like I can show my work in a short amount of space but with enough detail. Fiction may be short with a few characters, but the plot is noticable and the characters are well-developed. There must be enough information to build up to make a lasting impression on the reader.

Nowadays it is not uncommon for novels to be published. After all, if you've got the talent, why not do it? Novels can be long, dry, and boring or they can be exciting and full of adventure. Though, I have never come across a poorly-written short story. I think it is difficult to mess that up in terms of developing plot and characters with enough details to make a story.

I even allowed my mind to wander back to the manuscript culture. Brevity was the answer to writing due to lack of resources. I see writing centuries ago as an art form and being able to contain a fantastic idea to a limited space which is what past writers had to do. According to the introduction, I think Calvino's writing displays that artisic ability to keep great ideas short and to the point.

Calvino's work also reflected originality. He was passionate about approaching different ideas and stories. Washington says, "Each book, each story, each article, is like an investigation into a new problem which demands a new solution; and, as befits an investigator, his approach is accordingly always calm, cool and scrupulous" (intro xiv).

I think it is very difficult to think of unique ideas that haven't already been produced and dissected 20 times. In Publications Workshop we are focusing on different ways of drafting original ideas, but I believe Calvino had a knack for it. There must be several tactics to doing so. I am now convinced his book will tell an interesting tale with new approaches unfamiliar to us.

Turn back to see what my classmates think.

Western culture is basically responsible for the literacy, stories, and even what we see in pop culture today. Eisenstein has a strong belief that printing has had more impact on what we know today. Some people relate the early printing to only be informative of government issues and documents. Even claiming that only stories and words have influenced today's world.

Eisenstein's quote:
"Sixteenth-century publications not only spread identical fashions but also encouraged the collection of diverse ones. Books illustrating diverse costumes, worn throughout the world, were studied by artists and engravers and duplicated in so many contexts that stereotypes of regional dress styles were developed. They acquired a paper life for all eternity and may be recognized even now on dolls, in operas, or at costume balls" (Eisenstein 128).

When studying literacy, books, and printing, we seem to divert our eyes to language and structure of information. What about illustrations? What about the warriors in their armor and the royalty in their heavy, ruffled clothing? There is a possibility that I have never read anything on 15th and 16th century royalty and their clothing, but I sure can describe it. I have seen images that depict their everyday lifestyles which can mean more than a chapter on someone's life.

Because of these documentations, present-day theatre still performs middle-age themed shows and their version of characters. Individuality is another aspect. We can take these images and dissect a meaning and present our own opinions of them. There is a lot of admiration to the way artists depicted people from their day. These illustrations are just as informative and creative as any form of fiction and writing of their time. Each person takes their own meaning. This gives opportunity to the art world to be creative and express themselves.

We are able to see and understand how others saw their world hundreds of years ago and printing allows us to do that. The printing press was not just an innovation for words and language, it began the expansion of art.

Back

Throughout Havelock's book, The Muse Learns to Write, we have literally defined language and linguistics and applied the system to everyday life and conversation. It is a way to better understand the world, emotions, and varied aspects around us. We are aware of everything that we know, but are we aware of those things that we don't know? Havelock says,

"What becomes of the metaphysics of mind, supposedly enjoying a cosmic supremacy over matter, over human history, and over the bodily sense? Does the special theory of literacy merely offer a barren behaviorism to explalin our human grasp of eternal realities?" (121).

For a simple example, as a class, we were unable to answer where our inspiration and muse actually comes from. We know it is there, but how did it come to be? We can't clearly map out and define it's origin. If one does not know how or where, how do they use language to explain it?

Those ideas that we simply cannot seem to grasp, that are completely beyond our imagination and understanding are reasonably left undefined. Our minds are not continuous; there are limitations to our thinking and understanding. It is inevitable that there are aspects of the world that no human can understand in our knowlegable minds. If we do eventually define and explain a complex unknown, we will still have our small box of information. Inside the four walls is everything we can explain with words, adjectives, and philosophy. Outside of the four walls is everything else in a jumble that we have yet to discover and place a name and explanation to.

Our language is simply a tool and system. It cannot possibly pinpoint each phenomenon and occurance in the universe. Little by little, the human mind may be trained to do so, but never will it be able to grasp and explain complete existence.

Back

EL336 The History and Future of the Book

The thought of the revolution of pencils seems...strikingly dull (no pun intended). Though reading through Baron's essay, From Pencils to Pixels, he describes the history of the pencil and its past value, which is a surprise to us since they've been around since our birth. I, at least was the generation that became ecstatic at the sight of a crayon sharpener. (Thank you Crayola). So I now better understand the pencil's revolution.

Aside from thouroughly explaining the pencil's existence, Baron's main point is that the the advancement of the pencil is just as complex as the revolution of the computer and digital age. Although computers are much more innovative and multifaceted, pencils were the advancement of the past. We may not even believe that it is fair to compare the two, but both have advanced our world into the future.

And the future technological productions are endless. Improvement is now a sure thing for the future as Baron quoted Henry David Thoreau in Walden "They are but improved means to an unimproved end" (Baron 42). Thoreau, referencing to the pencil's invention and impact on the world's literary abilities has given our generation the satisfaction and inspiration to continue advancements.

Disregarding the pencil's invention, even the development of writing and language has impacted the world. Communication used to be oral, reaching a small number of people who could hear the speaker. Writing, caught a few more audience members as a message could be passed on through many hands and ultimately now, one's message can be broadcasted to the entire planet in seconds.

In Baron's conclusion he says, "The effects of writing took thousands of years to spread; the printing press took several hundred years to change how we do things with words. Although the rate of change of computer development is significantly faster, it is still to early to do significant speculating" (51).

I believe it is worth speculating because we know that we learn from history and especially that history will ultimately repeat itself. Planning and brainstorming early never hurt anyone, it can only benefit. From my perspective now, I don't see a hiatus in technological advancement....or even a slowdown. The cycle will always from here on out be speedy and continuous.

Check out my classmate's thoughts.

Through every assigned reading this far in the course (EL336), we have been poking and proding at the differences between writing and communicating orally. Because their structure is entirely different, we are fairly confident that they are not the same thing. Benefits and negatives are another debate. What we haven't focused on is the similarities between the two and the processes that filter through our minds when we use them.

"Thus writing for most people is dominated by the experience of not writing: of elaborate planning beforehand to decide what to write and frequent pausing in midcourse to search for the right word or the right path" (Elbow 139).

This first quote. As I read it, I could just picture myself, sitting and staring at the blinking cursor on my Microsoft Word document. It's a very common occurrance for me and the image is easily illustrated in my mind. I sit there and wait for the perfect sentence to come to mind. I edit it in my head before I actually type it out. Because...that's what you do with a conversation right? A paper is communicating to someone about a certain topic or subject and you want the words to flow fluently and logically so the audience understands.

"We think of the mind's natural capacity for chaos and disorganization as the problem in writing" (140).

Our mentality to is to project a voice that is edited and perfect...even on paper. We believe that disorganization in writing has the same effect as it does with communcating orally. In fact it does have the same negative effect...if it is not edited as a final. With writing, we have the opportunity to correct a bad-sounding sentence or phrase, but with conversation, there is only so much time to think....and ponder.....and um....and uh...and well......decide what is coming next before your audience decides to walk away with a possible inner-debate of your insanity.

I have sat for 9 hours attempting to write what journalism and English majors would call a "simple, five-page paper," all because I write sentence for sentence as perfect as I can. I know that is the problem, but it is not easy to disregard, considering that tactic is used multiple times a day in oral conversation. It's difficult to ween yourself away from something that you do several times a day and in different forms.

In Elbow's conclusion, he illustrated an image of a writer,
"She is intensely self-critical, she tried to see every potential flaw, even the flaws that some unknown furure reader might find who is reading in an entirely different context from that of her present audience" (151).
This is the first phase he sees her in and secondly she begins to write furiously, incapable to catch up to her own thoughts and involved in her moment of flowing ideas. Lastly, she succeeds in her writing and has the ability to inspire her readers and has ultimately found her focus....but not on the perfection of words....on the perfection of her message.

I found Elbow's conclusion to be inspiring and as a little bit of hope that perhaps one day I won't spend all that time attempting to write perfect sentences straight away. Unfortunately, my furious, inspiration writing appears very infrequently and only for a few seconds at a time. Not long enough to build much from those moments. With the recognition that writing perfection does not have to come instantly may be the key to all the more, better communication.

Back