Here is a link to the essay we read for week nine, I think it is. Maybe ten? Anyway Here. It is called "Our Celebrities, Ourselves.
I thought this essay was super well-written and thus, almost entertaining. But at the same time, it's boring. I find that a lot, especially on the internet and in magazines: little articles or essays or whatever are very, very well-written, but they're still just so many words on nothing. On one hand, I'm tempted to say "What's the point?" because, well, that's what I say to EVERYTHING. But, on the otherhand, I guess sometimes these boring non-articles are simply super articulate versions of our own thoughts so I can almost see the appeal. I mean, they're just kind of wandering and pointless, just like our thoughts, and explore... exploratory? Is that a word? Can I make it one?
But just how very articulate and well-worded they can be can really be the appeal. I wish I could make my pointless thoughts that clear.
Or do I?
Why I am not a Christian or Why I Am Not a Christian
Sunday, December 5, 2010
This is an essay by a guy named Russel. And for some reason, it bored me to death. My classmates all commented about how he used humor to keep it from being too inflamatory (omg, where is spell check!) but apparently I was too bored by it to even notice. I don't know. I just felt like it was somehow super dry and dull.
Intially, I was really interested and dare I say even excited to read it because I myself am not a Christian and it's so rare to have people admit that and... like... talk about it that, you know, it caught my attention.
And certainly he made some good (haha. I just typed 'god' like four times in a row trying to correct my initial misspelling. Is it a sign?) points and he must have done a pretty good job since, judging by the discussion board, none of the Christians in the class were super pissed or annoyed by it. They didn't even say it was stupid or silly.
But it's not something you can really rationalize out. So what is the point? I guess his title makes it better. It implies that the purpose of the essay is just to defend himself and explain why he is not a Christian. It doesn't say why Christianity doesn't make sense to me or why you shouldn't be a Christian, he just centers it on himself.
But still. It's just not something that lends itself to rational thinking.
It reminds me of a story I heard about that awful, terrible Peter Popoff guy. So he was basically completely torn apart and exposed as a fraud and I think even legally punished in some way or another, yet he continues to sell faith-healing holy water or something on tv.
Anyway, so this one time these people (who were not into the faith healing thing and were more into the debunking thing) were just kind of talking with and interviewing people who had been 'healed' during one of his 'performances'. He did his typical "oh you're healed. I'm going to break your wheel chair now" type of thing and the woman walked. These guys had noticed that the woman had walked a bit to get in and out of her car and to move around in the aisles here and there. Though she was primarily using a wheel chair, she could walk if needed. So when Peter Popoff says "Walk now, you're healed" she gets up out of her wheelchair and takes a few steps and calls in a miracle. So the interviewers were like "Well, couldn't you kind of walk before?" and she said "Well, yeah, I suppose so." and they continued kind of asking her a few more questions which pointed out that maybe he wasn't so magical afterwards. She admited that it was all true and good points but then at the end she claimed "But I still believe!"
I mean, when you're dealing with blind faith like that, what's the point in using logic. It's just kind of silly.
Intially, I was really interested and dare I say even excited to read it because I myself am not a Christian and it's so rare to have people admit that and... like... talk about it that, you know, it caught my attention.
And certainly he made some good (haha. I just typed 'god' like four times in a row trying to correct my initial misspelling. Is it a sign?) points and he must have done a pretty good job since, judging by the discussion board, none of the Christians in the class were super pissed or annoyed by it. They didn't even say it was stupid or silly.
But it's not something you can really rationalize out. So what is the point? I guess his title makes it better. It implies that the purpose of the essay is just to defend himself and explain why he is not a Christian. It doesn't say why Christianity doesn't make sense to me or why you shouldn't be a Christian, he just centers it on himself.
But still. It's just not something that lends itself to rational thinking.
It reminds me of a story I heard about that awful, terrible Peter Popoff guy. So he was basically completely torn apart and exposed as a fraud and I think even legally punished in some way or another, yet he continues to sell faith-healing holy water or something on tv.
Anyway, so this one time these people (who were not into the faith healing thing and were more into the debunking thing) were just kind of talking with and interviewing people who had been 'healed' during one of his 'performances'. He did his typical "oh you're healed. I'm going to break your wheel chair now" type of thing and the woman walked. These guys had noticed that the woman had walked a bit to get in and out of her car and to move around in the aisles here and there. Though she was primarily using a wheel chair, she could walk if needed. So when Peter Popoff says "Walk now, you're healed" she gets up out of her wheelchair and takes a few steps and calls in a miracle. So the interviewers were like "Well, couldn't you kind of walk before?" and she said "Well, yeah, I suppose so." and they continued kind of asking her a few more questions which pointed out that maybe he wasn't so magical afterwards. She admited that it was all true and good points but then at the end she claimed "But I still believe!"
I mean, when you're dealing with blind faith like that, what's the point in using logic. It's just kind of silly.
Regarding Technology and How We Think
Friday, December 3, 2010
I never know if you're supposed to capitalized two letter words in a title. I usually don't, but sometimes I do. I'm not sure what my thought process is. I think the rarer the word is (for titles,) the more likely I am to capitilize it. Like I never capitalize words like "to" or "in" but for some reason I paused for a moment and ultimately capitilized "we" above. Isn't the state of grammar education in this country disgusting? I remember constantly being embarrassed in my Russian class because my Russian teacher knew far, far more about grammar (and the English language in general) than any of us native speaker, college students did. Totally nuts.
I'm pretty sure two letter words aren't supposed to be capitalized, but whatever. I'll leave it. I'll call it a stylistic choice. Artists can pull that crap all the time. It's great.
Anyway, this post isn't really about grammar. At least, it wasn't supposed to be. It's about the internet and computers and how the effect education because that is kind of sort of what Turkle's essay entitled "How Computers Change the Way We Think" is about. Whoa! In the PDF, 'We' is capitalized!
Anyway, I am very interested in the ways computers change how we think. However, I know very little about that. I did read one study type thing once where it was mentioned how multitasking is basically destroying our ability to think, and that was semi-related technology and computers, but I don't really remember much of the study itself other than it made me want to quit multi-tasking so much. I did try for like three days, but I couldn't handle it. I HAVE to have like six browser tabs oopen at once. I just do.
Anyway, what I do know a bit about is how computers have changed education. I mean, look at this. I'm 'blogging' for extra credit. I'm taking a class online. I've never even seen my instructor or any of my classmates, at least not that I know of.
And have you noticed any spelling errors in this post? That's because I am borrowing my friend's laptop and she uses internet explorer (eww) which apparently doesn't include a built-in spell check. I hardly even ever learned how to spell because I've just always relied on spell check to do the spelling for me. It's wonderful and terrible!
And do you know what else? It would probably take me about 8 seconds to learn whether or not words like "We" or "Me" should be capitalized in titles. I just have to type it into the Google search. Look. I'll go do it right now just to prove my point. If my computer had a seconds timer readily available, I would even time myself. But I"m too lazy to do that.
Ok. Results. Well, it took a few more than 8 seconds, only because the 'rules' regarding capitalization in titles are annoyingly complicated, not because the technology let me down. Basically, there is no consensus. I hate the English language. Could you imagine trying to learn it from another language? "Oh, well you do this and this. Always. Well, except half of the time. And only when this happens." The rules are such... non rules. It's really frustrating.
Anyway, I lost interest in learning about that. It's too annoying and complicated and inconsistant and really, it hardly even matters. Who cares, as long as it looks like.
Anyway, this was a fun little experiment in learning with the help of Google!
I'm pretty sure two letter words aren't supposed to be capitalized, but whatever. I'll leave it. I'll call it a stylistic choice. Artists can pull that crap all the time. It's great.
Anyway, this post isn't really about grammar. At least, it wasn't supposed to be. It's about the internet and computers and how the effect education because that is kind of sort of what Turkle's essay entitled "How Computers Change the Way We Think" is about. Whoa! In the PDF, 'We' is capitalized!
Anyway, I am very interested in the ways computers change how we think. However, I know very little about that. I did read one study type thing once where it was mentioned how multitasking is basically destroying our ability to think, and that was semi-related technology and computers, but I don't really remember much of the study itself other than it made me want to quit multi-tasking so much. I did try for like three days, but I couldn't handle it. I HAVE to have like six browser tabs oopen at once. I just do.
Anyway, what I do know a bit about is how computers have changed education. I mean, look at this. I'm 'blogging' for extra credit. I'm taking a class online. I've never even seen my instructor or any of my classmates, at least not that I know of.
And have you noticed any spelling errors in this post? That's because I am borrowing my friend's laptop and she uses internet explorer (eww) which apparently doesn't include a built-in spell check. I hardly even ever learned how to spell because I've just always relied on spell check to do the spelling for me. It's wonderful and terrible!
And do you know what else? It would probably take me about 8 seconds to learn whether or not words like "We" or "Me" should be capitalized in titles. I just have to type it into the Google search. Look. I'll go do it right now just to prove my point. If my computer had a seconds timer readily available, I would even time myself. But I"m too lazy to do that.
Ok. Results. Well, it took a few more than 8 seconds, only because the 'rules' regarding capitalization in titles are annoyingly complicated, not because the technology let me down. Basically, there is no consensus. I hate the English language. Could you imagine trying to learn it from another language? "Oh, well you do this and this. Always. Well, except half of the time. And only when this happens." The rules are such... non rules. It's really frustrating.
Anyway, I lost interest in learning about that. It's too annoying and complicated and inconsistant and really, it hardly even matters. Who cares, as long as it looks like.
Anyway, this was a fun little experiment in learning with the help of Google!
UGH
Sunday, November 21, 2010
Do you know what I hate about blogs?
I hate that I just wrote an entire post on Franzen's "The Comfort Zone" and then the ethernet cable fell out of this laptop I am borrowing and now the whole thing is gone.
I'm too angry to rewrite it.
UGHHHHHHHHHH.
I hate that I just wrote an entire post on Franzen's "The Comfort Zone" and then the ethernet cable fell out of this laptop I am borrowing and now the whole thing is gone.
I'm too angry to rewrite it.
UGHHHHHHHHHH.
On Franzen's "Comfort Zone"
False Alarm! This post was saved!
I didn't much like "The Comfort Zone" upon initial reading. However, I REALLY liked it after I read it a couple times. I'm not sure exactly why that is the case. I guess it may partially be that it's a rather complex story and it takes a few readings to really appreciate all the different aspects.
My favorite aspect? Definitely the humor. We had to discuss this story in another class I'm in and most of the class said that they didn't like it because it was too dark and not funny. They commented that they liked this Sedaris story more because even though it was a sort of dark subject, he used humor to retell it. I, however, thought Franzen's piece was quite funy in some regards.
One of my favorite parts was the one about Chris Toczko and the spelling bee. One line in particular stood out: "Toczko was annoyingunaware that I, not he, by natural right, was the best student in the class." I guess I can't quite articulate why I love this line, but I really do. I suppose it might just be my sense of humor. I can certainly relate to that line, for one. There's almost always those one or two people who are annoying unaware that they are inferior to you in some way or another. At the same time, it's a ridiculous line. It's a ridiculous thought and Franzen both admits that he thought it, but also throws in a splash of what I take to be sarcasm to also admit that it is ridiculous (even if he really IS the best student in the class and Chris Toczko really SHOULD know that.)
We've all been there, right?
Or is it just me? And him?
I didn't much like "The Comfort Zone" upon initial reading. However, I REALLY liked it after I read it a couple times. I'm not sure exactly why that is the case. I guess it may partially be that it's a rather complex story and it takes a few readings to really appreciate all the different aspects.
My favorite aspect? Definitely the humor. We had to discuss this story in another class I'm in and most of the class said that they didn't like it because it was too dark and not funny. They commented that they liked this Sedaris story more because even though it was a sort of dark subject, he used humor to retell it. I, however, thought Franzen's piece was quite funy in some regards.
One of my favorite parts was the one about Chris Toczko and the spelling bee. One line in particular stood out: "Toczko was annoyingunaware that I, not he, by natural right, was the best student in the class." I guess I can't quite articulate why I love this line, but I really do. I suppose it might just be my sense of humor. I can certainly relate to that line, for one. There's almost always those one or two people who are annoying unaware that they are inferior to you in some way or another. At the same time, it's a ridiculous line. It's a ridiculous thought and Franzen both admits that he thought it, but also throws in a splash of what I take to be sarcasm to also admit that it is ridiculous (even if he really IS the best student in the class and Chris Toczko really SHOULD know that.)
We've all been there, right?
Or is it just me? And him?
Regarding "Against School" and design and typography
Thursday, November 11, 2010
Our class readings for week three in Critical Writing II were "Against School" by John Taylor Gatto and Colter's Way by Sebastian Junger but for this entry, I'm just going to be focusing on "Against School."
I could tell immediately that this essay had some potential because it's title sounded more like a Ramones song than an academic essay. Intriguing, isn't it? However, my hope was soon disappointed when I found that the first Google search result for "Against School Gatto" is the full text of the essay written in Comic Sans font on a salmon colored background (as viewable by the link above). I'm under the impression that nothing great can be written in Comic Sans on a Salmon colored background. It just doesn't happen. It's a strange, unexplained law of the universe.
Hmm. I was going to use this paragraph to dive right into the essay. I would have provided a brief summary and then gave my own thoughts and response to it. However, now I'm suddenly more interested in the presentation of this essay that I just described.
I really did not like the essay that much. Though I primarily agree with the author's thoughts and I very much agree that out school system has some problems, I though the essay was rather poorly written and quite boring. However, now that I think about it, I also REALLY hated the presentation. I hated that poorly used salmon color and I absolutely detest Comic Sans. Seriously, just think of all the utter CRAP you have read in that font in the last decade or so. That has to leave an imprint on your mind.
So now I'm left wondering what I would have thought of Gatto's "Against School" had it been presented in the clean Times New Roman on white of the NYtimes website or perhaps under that slightly flamboyant heading font of the New Yorker website, all nicely formatted, surrounded by links to other interesting sounding essays. Surely it would have at least SLIGHTLY changed my perception of the essay.
Perhaps, in general, I would have felt the same way about it. Or maybe, I would not have gotten that feeling that it was somehow poorly written, even though I can't quite explain why. Perhaps, in a setting like NYtimes or the New Yorker, I would have though it was silly and pretentious and I would wonder where they get these people.
I guess what I'm saying is that I have absolutely no ability to take things out of context and view them for what they are. I'm also a sucker for good design and if people are able to manipulate me because of that, good for them! I deserve to be manipulated!
I could tell immediately that this essay had some potential because it's title sounded more like a Ramones song than an academic essay. Intriguing, isn't it? However, my hope was soon disappointed when I found that the first Google search result for "Against School Gatto" is the full text of the essay written in Comic Sans font on a salmon colored background (as viewable by the link above). I'm under the impression that nothing great can be written in Comic Sans on a Salmon colored background. It just doesn't happen. It's a strange, unexplained law of the universe.
Hmm. I was going to use this paragraph to dive right into the essay. I would have provided a brief summary and then gave my own thoughts and response to it. However, now I'm suddenly more interested in the presentation of this essay that I just described.
I really did not like the essay that much. Though I primarily agree with the author's thoughts and I very much agree that out school system has some problems, I though the essay was rather poorly written and quite boring. However, now that I think about it, I also REALLY hated the presentation. I hated that poorly used salmon color and I absolutely detest Comic Sans. Seriously, just think of all the utter CRAP you have read in that font in the last decade or so. That has to leave an imprint on your mind.
So now I'm left wondering what I would have thought of Gatto's "Against School" had it been presented in the clean Times New Roman on white of the NYtimes website or perhaps under that slightly flamboyant heading font of the New Yorker website, all nicely formatted, surrounded by links to other interesting sounding essays. Surely it would have at least SLIGHTLY changed my perception of the essay.
Perhaps, in general, I would have felt the same way about it. Or maybe, I would not have gotten that feeling that it was somehow poorly written, even though I can't quite explain why. Perhaps, in a setting like NYtimes or the New Yorker, I would have though it was silly and pretentious and I would wonder where they get these people.
I guess what I'm saying is that I have absolutely no ability to take things out of context and view them for what they are. I'm also a sucker for good design and if people are able to manipulate me because of that, good for them! I deserve to be manipulated!
Regarding "Me Talk Pretty One Day"
Monday, November 8, 2010
It is my understanding that the 'assignment' for this blog project is to respond in some way to readings we do in class. This post will be in response to David Sedaris' essay, 'Me Talk Pretty One Day.'
An 'appropriate' response is kind of difficult to come up with because I've already done multiple responses to this essay, each in different forms and now I feel obligated to blog or journal or whatever with some original content. I guess that might be a problem with a lot of these blog entries.
Well, at the risk of sounding like the super negative person that I probably am, I feel like David Sedaris is kind of overrated. I know? How pretentious and annoying does that make me sound?
I mean, I do like him. I hadn't read much of his writings until recently (well, I still haven't read 'much' of his stuff) but I had heard him on the radio quite a bit. And he's funny, I suppose. And I tend to like that kind of self-deprecating humor that he seems to employ. In short, I like him. But I feel like America REALLY TOTALLY COMPLETELY OBSESSIVELY loves him right now, and I'm not sure why.
After at least some very small amount of thought, I've decided there are a few options here.
Exactly! Well said, Stuff White People Like.
An 'appropriate' response is kind of difficult to come up with because I've already done multiple responses to this essay, each in different forms and now I feel obligated to blog or journal or whatever with some original content. I guess that might be a problem with a lot of these blog entries.
Well, at the risk of sounding like the super negative person that I probably am, I feel like David Sedaris is kind of overrated. I know? How pretentious and annoying does that make me sound?
I mean, I do like him. I hadn't read much of his writings until recently (well, I still haven't read 'much' of his stuff) but I had heard him on the radio quite a bit. And he's funny, I suppose. And I tend to like that kind of self-deprecating humor that he seems to employ. In short, I like him. But I feel like America REALLY TOTALLY COMPLETELY OBSESSIVELY loves him right now, and I'm not sure why.
After at least some very small amount of thought, I've decided there are a few options here.
- I'm totally off in my perception that everybody is super in love with this guy. This is a very likely option.
- It's just a matter of the right place at the right time type of a thing. I mean, since I admit myself that him and his work are very likable, it's not hard to see how a bit of the right exposure could really make him mega-popular.
- He's just really 'accessible'. It really doesn't take a lot of effort to read his work and it immediately pays off by being funny. Additionally, he's not limited with the type of audience that might be interested in him. He doesn't write in some obscure style that would limit him to only fans of that obscure style, he just... I don't know... writes.
I just skimmed his wikipedia page because I really don't know much about him. This part was particularly interesting:
While working a string of odd jobs across Raleigh, Chicago and New York City, Sedaris was discovered reading his diary (which he has kept since 1977) in a Chicago club by radio host Ira Glass, who asked Sedaris to appear on his weekly local program The Wild Room.[19] Sedaris later said, "I owe everything to Ira....My life just changed completely, like someone waved a magic wand."
Can you imagine? I guess Ira Glass is to wealthy-ish, educated, 'socially conscious' people as Oprah is to housewives and soccer moms. Everything he touches turns to gold.
Anyway, that's a really cool fairy-tale/movie-ish story. And I like it. And I wonder what would have happened if he hadn't been 'discovered' reading his diary (who the hell reads their diary in public, really?) Probably nothing.
Sometimes I think I should spend more time hanging out in hipster pubs waiting to be discovered.
And, lastly, I'll conclude with this other page I stumbled across through a series of time-wasting/link-clicking. It's a 'Stuff White People Like' page on David Sedaris. Here's what they have to say on David Sedaris:
His stuff is kind of funny, but white people go crazy and will pay hundreds of dollars to hear him read from his own book. Let me say that again, they will pay money to see someone read from a book they have already read. They know the jokes are coming, they know the punch lines, but they feel the need to hear the author actually say it.
White people universally love David Sedaris. So if they ever ask you “who are you favorite authors?” you should always reply “David Sedaris.” They will instantly launch into a story about how much they love his work, and the conversation will go from there, and you don’t have to talk about books any more.
It is also safer than saying Jonathan Franzen, Dave Eggers, or Shakespeare. White people are very divided on these authors and might actually ask you questions about why you like them. Stick with David Sedaris, you can’t lose! If they do you press you, just say “I read a lot, and I never laugh out loud from a writer, but Sedaris is just brilliant.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)