Final Reflection

I would like to think of myself as a fairly capable writer. I came into college with the desire to write creatively and turn those words into images on film. I have taken writing courses for advertising, feature films and the Web and I worked as a newspaper reporter for a year. Each discipline presents it's own challenges and restrictions but one idea is universal: in order for a piece to be effective its elements must be harmoniously composed.

This course has made me think of composition as the writer's voice. Throughout the semester the class has been presented with an arsenal of weapons such as rhetoric, the Toulmin Model and logos, ethos and pathos. Each of these methods of reasoning provides the writer with a framework for effectively communicating an argument or idea.

One aspect of the class that I never gave any thought to before was the Selfish Gene Theory and the idea that language is the great technology that separates us from animals. It makes sense that a species that has developed an advanced system of communication could suppress it's cannibalistic instincts. That said, I agree with Lanham to the degree that the use of language has digressed in recent years. Lanham says that jargon can be a joy, but more often than not it merely serves to separate people more. Watch an interview with the average famous musician or athlete and you soon realize why they do what they do and don't have a career in public speaking. I suppose it is true to say that language separates us from animals, but some people act like talking animals on a regular basis. So maybe what really separates us from animals is simply the ability to express our animalistic instincts more clearly and with greater detail.

I think language and writing should unite people. This is the reason behind the strict structure of newswriting. It's all about the who, what, when's with very little flair. This type of writing can be easy to read, sometimes boring and almost never offensive. This is not the type of writing I am interested in. During my time as a reporter I tried to give my writing some "juice" every chance I got and usually those specific lines of text were highlighted and deleted by my editors.

Scriptwriting takes language to the other extreme. Now the writer is allowed, even encouraged to be creative and write something nobody has ever heard of before. The formatting may be rigid, but other than that anything goes. No matter what type of writing is being attempted, the key to effective communication is the composition.

As a mass communications student I have always been technology savvy, but I never gave much thought to its place in English classes at any level. Kamerin did a presentation on interpreting poetry using digital media that explained it well: kids comprehend things better through the use of multimedia because that is what they have grown up with. Sounds, images, colors and movement stimulate students who are accustomed to this type of entertainment. Simple words on a page, beautiful in their own right, aren't enough to excite many students.

Technology can also be counterproductive, as we all learned during the MOO experiment. If anything I think we proved that under normal circumstances there is no substitute for good old fashioned face-to-face discussions. The great thing about it is the ability to link teachers and students in real time from miles apart.

The blogs we have kept over the semester were a great supplement to our discussions. Without really realizing it, they were a great weekly exercise in composing with limited space. This was often a struggle of mine while newswriting. It's challenging to cover even the smallest subject with a couple hundred words. I think a weekly blog would be a great way to mix things up in a high school English class.

As a non-English major squatting in a class full of future teachers, it was interesting to see how concerned the class was with the student-teacher relationship, whether it had to do with grading systems, gender issues or simply being able to get some honest reaction out of them. I'm very encouraged by what everyone has had to say.

Composition can basically mean any type of arrangement of items that forms a whole. Through my endeavors with photography, I have learned how framing my subjects in a certain way attracts the eye and how different colors and shapes can affect the overall composition.

Writing requires even greater attention to detail. The elements at the artist's disposal are vast, almost endless. Even with photoshop, a photographer is limited by the physical world and what he can and cannot achieve visually. The writer's only limitation is himself and how finely he can hone his ability to compose words into something meaningful.

Glad I signed up...

I signed up for this class because I needed a 3000-level english class and it fit my schedule. I would have never imagined I would get so much out of it, both educationally and personally.

I had a healthy respect for the power of language before and this course has only strengthened my respect. During my time as a newspaper reporter I learned how stating something incorrectly causes a million voicemails before 10 a.m. or how going to extra mile to make something genuine and sincere will make people you have never met seek you out for a hug. Unlike spoken words, which often fall from our mouths and die soonafter, the written or printed word is there forever and must hold its own.

I was happy to take a class with mostly future teachers. I think our generation has a lot of fresh ideas for teaching young people. As a big bro with two little sisters in the Texas school system, I'm encouraged to hear at least the young ladies in our class talking about how they want to mix things up in the classroom. The way kids are bombarded with images and ideas these days, they need teachers who were once in similar shoes and can reach them.

After absorbing all the theories we have discussed in class, the biggest thing I will take away is an increased awareness of subtext and underlying meaning in a literary work. I might want to write for a living and I think this course has added a new aspect to my juice. I have found myself thinking about the words I choose more carefully and it has made my writing projects this semester evolve into something more meaningful...I hope.

I'm not sure that I've taken a class outside my major where I had so few complaints, but honestly this course was fun. Not to sound too suck-uppy but I think the English dept. loses a great instructor when Dr. Garrison departs.

Lanham's anti-text

I haven't quite decided whether or not I actually like this book. I enjoyed much of it, but it was also tough reading. My favorite chapter was The Delights of Jargon. There were plenty of excerpts from other works, both literary and as simple as an office memo, that showed how the use of language can affect (or not affect) the reader. Lanham quotes Northrop Frye who says, "Literary education should lead not merely to the admiration of great literature, but to some possession of its power of utterance." It seems that Lanham would like to see English student speak with more tact and rhythm (learned from the great texts they study) that students of math or science. I've started to notice more when people use "like" or "you know" excessively. I'm guilty of it myself sometimes. I won't name any names, but I do it in class sometimes when someone is talking. I count the "likes." No one is that bad about it.

While Lanham bashes some for their "mumblespeak," he also seems to revel in interpreting it. As a man who obviously enjoys the literary arts, why wouldn't he. He notes that America is the king of jargon, which makes sense given the diversity of the country. Language is only getting older and the only logical progression is the advent of new words.

I think this book is worth assigning in composition classes. It can be tiring to read, but the payoff is usually pretty good and I will definitely remember some of the concepts presented by Lanham and the authors he quotes.

I know this is long, but give it a chance, you're an English major for goodness sake

So I went to see Frank Warren speak at the SUB tonight and it was awesome. If you don't know, he is the guy who has compiled thousands upon thousands of postcards sent to him by anonymous people from around the world, confessing their deepest, darkest secrets that they have never told anyone. There's also much more to Frank and what he does than just that. He's a really amazing guy and the experience was truly moving.

Aaaaannnyyyway, that was just a set up for what I'm going to say about my experience with distance learning. I've never really talked about it with anyone because I feel really dumb and embarrassed about it. I have taken two online courses at Tech: English and Spanish. Both were a few years ago, before I took a break from school. I completely failed both because I just did not do anything. Little homework. Never studied. Did bad on the tests. I just didn't do anything because nobody told me to. I never saw a teacher except for during a few examinations. I would like to think that if I took an online course now the result would be different. I'm more mature, more responsible, more motivated. But who knows. I might just be the kind of person who NEEDS the personal interaction with an instructor. I enjoy that. At Mass Comm we really become friends with our professors and instructors and I think the learning experience is richer and more thorough because of it.

On the topic of TOPIC, I guess I'm one of the lucky ones. I CLEPed the freshman english courses and never had to mess with that. I remember going to freshman english the first couple days and thinking, this is gonna suck. Then someone told me I could take a test and skip it so I did. I do wonder if the experience could have been valuable. Like Kevin said, no matter what you learned something from TOPIC, even if all you learned was that "TOPIC is the DEVIL!"

The MOO day was probably the least fun I've had in class this semester. Not to say it wasn't sort of entertaining and yes, I learned something, but it was not as good as sitting around the table and listening to Kevin lecture (which I think he is quite good at) or discussing the day's topic amongst each other.

"Actively composing the world." That sounds very dynamic and exciting doesn't it? I don't know. I think that is what our generation should be doing. I think the world, especially this country, is suffering from a lack of youthful opinions and ideas. I think the old dudes who are running things are way out of touch. It's great that there are outlets for our thoughts. Of course this can also be dangerous if the people pushing their thoughts the hardest have ulterior motives. It's just like the comic that Keen talks about in the reading for today; these dogs are on the internet and one says, "On the internet, nobody knows you're a dog." It's hard to know what is the truth and what is shiny graphics and animation with a false message, perpetrated by lowly dogs.

the internet machine, cellular telephones and other wonderful inventions of the future

I have mixed feelings about the internet. On one hand, it rocks. If I hear a good song on the radio in the morning, I can usually have it on my iPod in time for my walk to class. I almost never have to use a stamp and I barely get any paper mail. I can research pretty much anything and even use the school's resources remotely. It's an awesome tool that I can't imagine not having.

I do think kids lose part of the whole experience of education when it becomes so easy and passive to collect information. I remember when I was in elementary school and I would go to my grandma's house at night to use her encyclopedia's to do research for a paper. I remember taking the bus to the public library in junior high. When I got my first computer in high school, I didn't have to go anywhere anymore and I found out very quickly that it's much less fun to sit in one place and be able to accomplish the entire assignment. There is something much more satisfying and organic about getting out into the world and learning something.

Technology cannot replace the teacher. Kids will always need to congregate together to recieve instruction from an educated shaper of minds. I think teachers need to come up with ways for their students to use the technology to their advantage, but without sacrificing the physical act of gaining information in person.

It's hard to say that technology isn't convenient, fun and extremely useful, but it can get annoying. My cell phone feels like a ball and chain every now and then. It's like I can't hide from anyone and sometimes it's nice to be unreachable.

Wikipedia rocks because anyone can contribute or challenge the information. Who says the guys who put encyclopedia's and other reference materials together know anything. I like that some guy in Montana who might be a little off his rocker, but knows how to make a bomb out of household chemicals and cow manure, can get online and share with us his invaluable knowledge. Obviously that is a joke, but you get the idea.

A scalable world?

After skimming over the Lanham stuff the thing that stuck out to me was the idea that new technology makes it possible to change scale of information, be it a book, letter, painting or anything else you can see on the screen. I think there is a lot of value in experiencing something more tangible in the way it's creator intended it. Every book, unless part of a volume, is different. I never judge a book by it's cover, but I do like analyzing and admiring it. To see a famous painting on a 17" monitor is a very different thing that seeing it in person with nothing between it and your eyes but air.

The digitizing of society has also caused a decrease in physical social interaction. The computer and the internet makes it possible for us to stay at home and accomplish a multitude of mundane tasks, such as research, bill paying and shopping. I believe our overall intelligence and understanding of the world around us suffers. We need to get out and inteact with people. We need to make connections with others. That is where real education happens.

Part of me would love to see what would happen if all high technology was taken from mankind. Some people would not be able to function, but everyone would realize how important and permanent physical print and art are. There is nothing wrong with taking advantage of new inventions, but we musn't lose our connection with the physical world outside this little box you are currently staring into.

Can't we all just get along?

Humanism is a fascinating idea. Hopefully we all attempt to better our lives and the lives of those around us, but do we actively think in terms of humanism? To say it another way, do we think about how our impact on the world around us can help the overall progress of humanity?

I think every good-natured person in the world is a humanist.

When I think about humanism as a religion, I immediately want to compare it to Christianity, just because it's a big, popular religion that I can relate to. Like any other belief system, Christianity is not without it's flaws, contradictions and practitioners with ulterior motives. I am a "person of faith" without a doubt, but I can see the logic of uniting people under an idea that is more tangible than the belief in a magic man in the sky.

I also think Humanism works against itself more than other belief systems. The advent of numerous technologies over the past 100 years have both progressed mankind and hindered it. Everything is becoming automatic. People are losing the ability to do things manually. I think we deny ourselves the physical and mental exercise we need to really progress as people. But I suppose the argument could go either way...what is more important to mankind; the ability to do something for yourself and expand your horizons, or to do something easier and faster while being less involved.

The ability to write and transfer ideas to others effectively is key to meeting the goals of humanism. No matter what technology comes forth in the future, getting your ideas across starts with putting pen to paper (or fingers to keys). I'm always thinking in terms of communicating to the masses, where real changes in thinking can be accomplished. So much depends on today and tomorrow's English teachers to start kids off in the right direction. If students will think about the content of their writing in terms of changing the way people think, then they are already thinking humanisticly. The message doesn't have to be a pleasant one, but if it causes people to progress and better themselves, then the ideals of humanism are being honored.

Sorry if this blog is a little all over the place.

in the year 2000...

I guess I have always given alot of thought to what people are really trying to do when they speak. At a young age I learned very quickly that even the people closest to you can let you down. It made me very careful and attentive. It made me a good judge of character. It made me somwhat guarded. It really made me examine what others say.

I'm not going to be a teacher, but no matter what media field I enter I will always be in the business of selling myself and my skills. There are so many people looking for a handful of jobs that it often comes down to who you know. Getting your name out there with a positive message is crucial. In the movie business, you may be convincing someone to fund your project. In news or sports writing, you are convincing the reader that you and your publication are the best and most reliable source of information.

Diggin' class...

To be honest, I didn't really think about my expectations for this class when I signed up in the fall. At this point, in my fourth year, it's a struggle to find classes that fit in with my daily shedule, and this english class was one of those. I had already taken a few different literature classes and was looking for something different, so I went with this and I have not been disappointed. Most of my other english classes were heavily lecture-based with minimal interaction between students. This class is great because it encourages us to voice our opinions in a safe environment. I'm still waiting for that issue that causes a major debate in class.

I'm not planning to be an english teacher, nor am I an english major, but I can see how this class will be helpful to me in the future, whether I go into writing of any kind or visual communications such as photography or videography.

This class has also made me think about the way I used language in jobs I have had in the past. When I was a newspaper reporter, I often had to interview people who were somewhat (and sometimes completely) unwilling to "let me in." I realize now that I was very conciously and actively trying to persuade them to like me and therefore, give me the best story. As a portrait photographer, I was responsible for selling a certain dollar amount of photos to each customer. Obviously, all salesmen are trying to persuade their clients, but you have to be tactful when convincing a young, single mother without much money to buy something she doesn't really need.

If there is anything I am skeptical about, it's the statement that all language is persuasion. Like I said in my last blog, rhetoric is a broad term. To merge this argument with the one about inherently selfish people, I think the world is lacking truly selfless people. It is definitely possible to help and speak to someone without having any motive other than that person's good fortune. My father is a perfect example; he helps others without asking anything and he always shows his true colors. Maybe he just doesn't care what others think, but I never felt like he was trying to persuade anyone of anything.

Rhetoric is a very broad term. All language has some persuasive element to it. If you possess the ability to emote, then anything you ever say to anyone should be persuasive. If you want to tell your girlfriend something nice, you say it in a way that expresses your desire to please her. You will not persuade her that you truly mean what you say if you say it like a robot. If you are talking to yourself, silently, in your head, you are always trying to persuade yourself to do, think, write or feel something.

I'm writing this blog late because I just got home from watching the new Clint Eastwood movie, Gran Torino. This film will win all the big awards this year. It was moving. Eastwood is a master rhetorician. He uses images, story, music and most importantly language to leave an impression on the viewer. He persuades you to think about the human condition; in this case, racism and its gray areas.

Politicians engage in a more direct form of rhetoric. They are actively and intentionaly trying to persuade you to think (and eventually vote) a certain way. Artists take a more creative route in evoking our emotions and usually the payoff is better. That's whats so great about Barack Obama; he's got that ability to move people. I'm just waiting for him to pull out a guitar and and sing us a song of change and freedom.

While politicians are often thinking about how to persuade others, most people do not. It's natural for us to speak with conviction and desire in order to get our thoughts across to others. This goes back to the story of Joseph. He was unable to think abstractly and therefore, unable to fully express himself to those around him. But even with spoken language, it is the ability to use the inflection of your voice as well as gesture and physical expression to fully communicate with others. We are emotional beings with the need to be persuaded by others.

...the better to eat you with, my dear!

It's a little hard for me to believe that all humans are born cannabalistic. I've spent a lot of time around young children from my many nephews, nieces and cousins to the hundreds of children I took pictures of as a portrait photographer. I've seen them bite each other, but never try to eat each other.

I was thinking about the many ways that human children are less independent and more needy than most animals. Many animals are capable of walking shortly after birth. Many have the ability to feed themselves. Many receive no parenting whatsoever and are forced to care for themselves their entire lives. Maybe the weakness and vulnerability of human children and the fact that they must be reared for a prolonged period before they can do much on their own is the reason behind the suppression of our natural cannibalistic instincts.

I definitely agree that language can change the way people think. It gives us the ability to attempt to reason with each other and "talk things out" rather than just running over everyone who has the nerve to cross our path. Then again, some people, like certain soon-to-be former presidents, have only hurt themselves with language. I know I'm in Texas and if he's got any fans anywhere it's here, but when Ol' Dubbya opens his mouth he only hurts his image. He would definitely be better off and make less enemies if he just shut the hell up.

And a thought on the whole good and evil disscussion we were having at the end of the last class...someone said you must define good and evil in order to answer the question of whether we are all born evil. If evil is anything that is no good, then we are all a little bit evil right? Can anyone in our class, besides perhaps the super mom (sorry I can't remember your name) say that they always do everything within their power to help other people? Do you always stop for someone who is broke down on the side of the highway? Do you always hold doors open for elderly folks? Do you always drop some change into the various donation jars around town?

But I do think we live very cushy lives compared to humans a couple hundred years ago, or even 50 years ago. If we couldn't get food so easily or if we were deserted on an island, who knows what some people would do to sustain life. To somewhat loosely quote The Joker as played by the late Heath Ledger, "When the cards are down these so-called civilized people...they will eat each other."