Final Writing Project

The Future of Reading: Interactive Reading

Technology has permanently changed the way that we read; a circumstance that many have embraced, but some still resist. In The Medium is the Massage Marshall McLuhan traces technological advancement throughout history and its effects on how we read. He argues that such change and progress is ongoing and unstoppable, so society must refocus and learn to use technology to its advantage. Janet Murray in her introduction to Hamlet on the Holodeck: The Future of Narrative in Cyberspace takes a more specific look at how technology can improve the way that we read, with interaction.  However, in The Gutenberg Elegies Sven Birkerts contends that technology is breaking down literary culture, and making the future generations unable of clear communication and close reading.  From my personal experience I have witnessed my own reading habits change due to ever-advancing technology.

            I believe reading should be a balance between private analysis and public discussion; however, it seems that technology has disrupted this balance and created an entirely public sense of reading. Moving from print towards electronic media, it is almost impossible to read a piece of text without being able to view others’ opinions on the matter. For example, almost every article I read online has a comment section immediately following the article. Most of the time I find that I read the article, rather than analyze it and immediately scroll down the page to see what others had to say about the text. Also, I find that I read online mostly for surface information gathered from an article, rather than for any real analysis of it. However, that does not mean that in depth reading in privacy is impossible online, and it does not mean that private reading which followed the advent of the printing press is the only way to effectively read. Electronic media allows interaction, and interaction is the key to the new way of reading.

            Birkerts uses his life experience to reason that with electronic media there is a move away from private reading, which is the most effective form of reading; however, he is limited in his view of the possibilities of technology and he generalizes the issue. When he was young, he used books as an escape, “When I went to my room and opened a book, it was to seal myself off as fully as possible in another place… I was there body and soul, living vicariously (Birkerts, p. 37).”   His father did not approve of his son spending his time reading rather than going outside so for Birkerts reading was “private” even “a secret” as he was not free to discuss his reading openly. Knowing his experiences helps to understand his view of reading and to see why he would think that private reading is most effective, it worked for him. Without printed text he feels that we have lost our individuality, our attachment to our past, and therefore our direction for the future. Also he feels that younger generations have shorter attention spans and ability to read closely (p. 27). He uses the example of an American short stories class he taught to explain this apprehension. He had his students read the Henry James short story “Brooksmith.” They were unable to apprehend the meaning of the text and many expressed an unwillingness to analyze the text in order to properly understand it (p.17-18).Birkerts was shocked by his students’ opinions; however, he very well could have blamed his teaching method rather than the effects of technology. He began the class by asking his students whether they like or disliked the short story (p. 17). The point of the class seemed to be about analyzing American short stories in order to bring in a larger view of what it is to be American, but Birkerts began the class as a book review. He should have helped focus his students, rather than become agitated with them for not understanding literature as well as he did. He could have asked more pertinent questions about the plot and the characters to help them come to their own conclusions. Also, one college class of 25 students does not represent the entire generation of youth. Birkerts lets his narrow experience prevent him from seeing the possibilities of electronic media.

            Marshall McLuhan in The Medium is the Massage follows technological progress throughout history and its effects on how we read; he argues that moving towards the electronic millennium is inevitable and we must adapt to the new technology rather than expect it to do the same thing as print media. “When faced with a totally new situation, we tend always to attach ourselves to the objects, to the flavor of the most recent past. We look at the present through a rear-view mirror. We march backwards into the future (McLuhan p.74-75).” Human beings are creatures of habit, so we all fear change. In this case, McLuhan believes that we are holding back the technology of tomorrow by constraining it to do the same work as the technology of the past. Critics like Birkerts need to accept that electronic media is not print, so it will not be able to accomplish the same effect in the same manner as print; however, this does not meant that it is automatically inferior to print.  As both McLuhan and Birkerts pointed out, the printed text we hold so dearly in the present was once reviled as new and unnecessary technology that would make society less intelligent by no less than the likes of Socrates, “The discovery of the alphabet will create forgetfulness in the learners’ souls, because they will not use their memories; they will trust to the external written characters and not remember of themselves… You give your disciples not truth but only the semblance of truth; they will appear to be omniscient and will generally know nothing (p. 113).” And looking at the pinnacle of print technology, no one can say that Socrates was entirely wrong. It is true that people generally rely on what is written down rather than their own memory after all “seeing is believing”, but it is untrue that we know nothing.  Human civilization has advanced a great deal, and progressed ever faster as the technology for print improved. The printing press allowed people all over the world to read the same exact texts and share ideas more efficiently. We have accepted print technology as it moved us towards the future, now it is time to accept electronic media so that it may do the same. “The dominant organ of sensory and social orientation in pre-alphabet societies was the ear- ‘hearing was believing.’ The phonetic alphabet forced the magic world of the ear to yield to the neutral world of the eye. Man was given an eye for an ear (p. 44).” We are now in the unique position where we can combine the written word with the spoken word, “Electronic circuitry is recreating in us the multi-dimensional space orientation of the ‘primitive’(p.57)” We can take the best parts of text and interaction and integrate them into how we read, with electronic media.

               Electronic media has the potential to immerse us more thoroughly than reading has ever done before through interaction, we just have to take control of the medium. In Hamlet on the Holodeck: The Future of Narrative in Cyberspace Janet Murray envisions the potential of electronic technology, “Although the computer is often accused of fragmenting information and overwhelming us, I believe this view is a function of its current undomesticated state. The more we cultivate it as a tool for serious inquiry, the more it will offer itself as both an analytical and a synthetic medium (Murray p. 7).” Like McLuhan, Murray maintains that the key to the future of reading and the effective use of electronic media is to accept it as a new format and treat it as equal in value and importance as printed text. Murray perceives the potential of computer technology to revolutionize how we take in information. She talks about creating “microworlds” that allow people to interact with a fabricated universe with characters and events in order to absorb information and understand concepts. She even worked on several projects that helped students learn through interaction with created microworlds (p. 6), “The knowledge of a foreign language, for instance can be better conveyed with examples from multiple speakers in authentic environments than with lists of words on a page. The dramatic power of Hamlet’s soliloquies is better illustrated by multiple performance examples in juxtaposition with the text than by the printed version alone (p. 7).”  Murray recognizes the potential for innovative use of modern computer technology to combine pre-text and post-text learning styles to improve how we absorb information.

            There are several ways that contemporary technology has changed how we read. Like in my above-mentioned personal experience, often we glean basic information through short articles where we can immediately see others’ views on the matter. But what about fictional texts? One of the ways that printed fiction and electronic media has melded is through hypertexts. Hypertexts are often fictional stories that are not linear like a book and require reader interaction. In chapter eleven of The Gutenberg Elegies Birkerts navigates a hypertext. Birkerts hates it. He feels that the required interaction from the reader complicates rather than benefits the story. He prefers the strong guidance of linearity in a novel. After trying to get through the hypertext “The Museum” I have to agree with Birkerts. The main story was lost in the format. The choices sent me around in circles so that I needed to pull myself out of the story and head to the map to get to an unrelated part of the narrative. It’s difficult to get into the story when it jumps about in a non-linear way and without an end to the story. He uses a quote that perfectly describes my issue with “The Museum,” “Navigational procedures: how do you move around in an infinity without getting lost? The structuring of the space can be so compelling and confusing as to utterly absorb the narrator and to exhaust the reader (Birkerts p. 161).” However, I had a much better experience with the satirical hypertext, “Frequently Asked Questions about “Hypertext.” The story is entirely fictional but is presented as true. It revolves around a poem called “Hypertext” which consists of every known word that can be created with the letters in hypertext.  The rest of the hypertext tells the story of the poem’s author as well as the many different and equally convoluted theories behind the meaning of the poem. In the end, it comments on how hypertexts should be read. Hypertexts are not books and will not give the reader the familiar comfort of linearity and guidance. It is up to the reader to decide how to navigate a story and what they gather as the overall meaning. Looking back at “The Museum” I was equally unfair to it as Birkerts was to the hypertext he read. We both went in with the expectation of an experience similar to that of printed text and lost ourselves in the mire of choices. We set hypertext up for failure, instead of keeping an open mind and appreciating its value. “The Museum” had very interesting anecdotes and once I was able to navigate through most if not all of the choices, I was able to better understand the complications of the characters, which was the point of the main story and all the side stories. Just as some texts require multiple read-throughs to comprehend them completely, hypertexts need multiple play-throughs.  Hypertexts are just the beginning of what electronic media can do to revolutionize reading.

            Although it may seem useless to argue over the effects of technology on reading because such changes are inevitable and unstoppable, they really aren’t.  If you recognize that change is occurring, then its results are not inescapable. Rather than letting technology control us, we must control technology. Electronic media is the future of reading and will combine written text with oral tradition. It is up to us to decide what our future will look like. It could easily become the mess that critics like Birkerts anticipate, but it could also be the revolutionary ideal that Murray and I foresee. First, we need to accept the changes that come with advancing technology, rather than clinging to the past. Second, we need to take control of technology and turn it into something positive. Movies and television shows seem to be the new way most people are absorbed into fictional universes and story lines, but it has become an exceedingly passive pastime that does not require much thought. Hypertexts offer a little more opportunity for analysis, but are often still very close to printed texts. I see the future of electronic media through games. Murray wrote about the opportunity that interactive games provided students to learn concepts in a more engaging and effective manner. Games can have story lines as thoughtful and intriguing as many novels, we just need to create more of them. One of my favorite examples of such a game is the Bioshock series. While it may seem that these games are typical video games on the surface, they actually require some thought. The story actually incorporates philosophical elements from the likes of Ayn Rand in the first game and includes a major plot twist that has players looking back at all the parts they already played through in a new light, noticing slight hints that they did not pick up before. It is also somewhat of a societal commentary, on how easily human beings can collapse into chaos and how human nature would destroy any utopia. Plus, throughout the game there are hidden audio diaries that do not need to be found to progress the game, but add information and understanding to the story that hints at the plot twist. Through interactive games that incorporate text with video and audio, we can create a new engaging way of reading and absorbing information that requires us to make choices and not only forces us to analyze but also to make connections between seemingly unrelated information. The future of reading will not make us stupid, but rather force us to connect smaller bits of analyzed information to create a big picture thus making us smarter than printed text alone ever could.

 Honor Code statement: I pledge my honor that I have completed this work in accordance with the Honor Code.

Self-Reflection

                     I decided to re-do the very first writing project and incorporate some of the research, topics, and writing techniques used in the third writing project. I originally wrote the first project on the balance of reading and use Birkerts’ and Graff’s opposite arguments for extremely private and extremely public reading to reason that there needs to be a balance between the two, in order to for reading to be most effective. I want to combine it with my third writing project which was about technology’s effect on reading. I hope to incorporate the technology issues from the third project and re-focus my thesis on reading and how technology affects it. I want add to my conclusion from my third project and prove that electronic media is the future of reading. I will try to be more specific about what exactly can be done to take control of technology and turn it into a useful tool that will innovate how we read and make us smarter rather than stupider.

                     I chose this project to re-write because the original topic of reading intrigued me, but I saw a good opportunity to incorporate the arguments about technology and the counter-argument technique from the third project.  I first had to re-focus my thesis to in order to include the technology argument. I have to broaden the paper to move from not just a definition of reading, but also how technology has affected me reading experience and therefore my definition of reading. In the end it will become a completely different argument from the original paper, but I will keep the basic concept of reading as a personal experience while moving towards the argument from the third writing project. I also improved my conclusion from my third project, going further with the solution that I put forth. By re-writing this project I hope to improve some of the techniques that I’ve had some difficulties with; counter-argument, clear and effective topic sentences, and better indicators of where I’m going in an argument.

                  I have achieved a lot in my writing, through this course. I have learned better sentence structure and overall writing style.  My biggest accomplishment is my ability to write conclusions. Before this class, I was clueless on how to write a conclusion and usually ended up with a boring re-statement of my thesis statement and every argument throughout the paper. But, now I can write a conclusion that actually moves the paper forward rather than stopping the momentum and demonstrates that my argument made throughout the paper is important and has an ultimate point. I also feel that I’ve become much better at revision. In the past, I was always a one draft writer and did not feel the need to edit my work beyond basic style and grammar checks. I have now realized how important it is to revise my arguments and examples to truly improve my papers, although I have a ways to go.

                Still, there are some aspects of rhetoric that I would continue to work on.  I would work on my topic sentences, so that each one indicates clearly the argument I will make throughout the entire paragraph. Also, I will write better indicators for shifts in the argument, so that the reader won’t get lost within my argument. Also, I’ll try to be more concise and clear with my argument and cut out any extraneous examples or information. I still need to work on revision, a tough task because it was something I never before attempted. Overall, I am happy with how I’ve grown in my writing, but I look forward to improving the aspects of my writing that still require work as well as perfecting the aspects at which I’m proficient.

 

Works Cited

Bikerts, Sven. The Gutenberg Elegies. New York: Faber and Faber Inc., 2006. Print

McLuhan, Marshall, Quentin Fiore, and Jerome Agel. The Medium Is the Massage: An Inventory of Effects. Corte Madera, CA: Gingko, 2001. Print.

Murray, Janet Horowitz. Hamlet on the Holodeck: The Future of Narrative in Cyberspace. Cambridge, MA: MIT, 1998. Print.

 

 

Reflection: I think that combination of personal narrative and textual examples is effective, but I think that the organization of the narrative might need work. If I returned to this paper in the future, I would add in more textual examples to add more emphasis to my personal example.

The Balance of Reading

No specific experience caused me to change my view of reading; there was more of a gradual change, which started in my high school years. In high school, we began reading more complicated texts. I found that, while decent at deciphering hidden meaning, I could not pick up on every little subtlety. Class discussion helped me. It not only brought in different perspectives, lending new ideas I would never have thought myself, but I was also forced to share my views more effectually. Therefore, I believe reading is initially private; you read something yourself and develop your own views, rather than being fed somebody else’s. Then reading is public as you share your ideas and listen to and incorporate other peoples’ ideas. Reading either completely privately or completely publicly reading does not lead to the crucial balance needed to best understand a text.

 Before high school, I read for my own enjoyment. I hated reading in class because I didn’t see the point in sharing our ideas. Most of the time the books we read could not spark debate. Even at home I would hole myself up in my room and read, which is similar to how Birkerts’ described his reading experience.  In fact, I acted much like Birkerts in my approach to reading. I was only interested in my personal analysis, but when writing middle school book reports I could never quite put forth my thoughts. The story might have interested me, but I could only accomplish writing a dry rehash of the story.  For me books were about personal escape; not something worth discussing, but something to experience for myself. 

Birkerts has an exceedingly private view of reading, like I used to; he suggests that only personal analysis of a text is of any use. He had the same passion I did for using reading as an escape, “When I went to my room and opened a book, it was to seal myself off as fully as possible in another place… I was there body and soul, living vicariously (Birkerts, p37).”  He felt that he had to hide his reading from his father and refers to his reading as “private” or “a secret (p.38).” This type of hidden reading doesn’t bring anything to a text beyond what one person can study and like me, he had trouble conveying his reading in his writing. In the end, he could not write fiction like he dreamed, but he found success in writing essays, which contained only his opinions (p.65-68).   However, private reading still has its uses.

In high school, I developed the skill that I lacked in writing those middle school book reports; I could effectively put into words what I noticed in my reading. Now I discuss what I read all the time because exchanging ideas helps me. If I read an interesting text, I want to share it. My parents and my sister have gotten very used to me discussing things that they probably don’t care about, but they still tell me what they make of the information anyway. They also sit politely as I teach them what I learned in school because it helped me consolidate the information for myself. They often ask questions, pointing out gaps in my knowledge that I would otherwise discover, unfortunately, during a test. In fact, when I read the first chapter of The Gutenberg Elegies I knew I didn’t like what he said, but after I called my boyfriend and explained it to him I was able to pick out specific examples that caused my reaction and I was better equipped to write my blog.

Harris also has a decidedly public view of reading; texts are meant to be read, they are meant to be commented upon, and used by the reader to further their own arguments. “Academic writing is often described as kind of conversation. You read a text, you talk about it, you put down some thoughts in response, others respond to your comments, and so on (Harris, p. 34).” Harris firmly focus on the public aspect of reading, that a person must share what they read as a continuation of the discussion the author of the original text put forth, a process that he calls “forwarding (p. 37).” This style of “re-presenting” a text is useful in getting the most out of it, but it also has its limits (p.32). Without personal analysis, a reader will be unable to truly bring in a different way of viewing or interpreting a text. If one interpretation was forced upon every other reader of a text, there would only be that single analysis. Obviously no one analysis is completely right and even Harris admits that “conversation” is needed to extend the usefulness of a text (p.35). That is why there must be a balance between public and private reading.

            Reading is both private and public. It takes both the private reading and the analysis of a text and the public discussion of it to fully understand the text. I realize this now and found that in college I have found the balance between private and public reading. I can read assigned text in my room and begin my own analysis. Then, the next day, I can share my views in class or in a blog. Usually I present my views and it helps others see things that they never noticed and helps give words to ideas they had trouble voicing and others do the same for me. I find that in college I am able to draw more information out of texts than I ever could have hoped to do before; I found a balance between private and public reading.

 Honor Code statement: I pledge my honor that I have completed this work in accordance with the Honor Code.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Works Cited

• Bikerts, Sven. The Gutenberg Elegies. New York: Faber and Faber Inc., 2006. Print.
• Harris, Joseph. Rewriting. Logan, Utah: Utah State University Press, 2006. Print.

 

Into the Electronic Millennium
Is Google making us stupid? Throughout history how we’ve communicated ideas, media, has consistently changed. Oral tradition transferred to written text, which was made even more available through the invention of the printing press. Now we are speeding full force into the millennium of electronic media. However, there has been a fight against this change. Critics like Birkerts feel that the move towards electronic media and its resulting effects on how we read and take in information is making us stupid. According to him, electronic media has shortened our attention span and made us incapable of individuality, close-reading, and deep thought. But, technology has the potential to be amazing and innovate how we learn, absorb, and interact with information; we just have to put it to proper use.

Sven Birkerts, in his book The Gutenberg Elegies, lashes back against the rapid advancement of technology. In chapter eight he expresses his apprehension, “Next to the new technologies, the scheme of things represented by print and the snail-paced linearity of the reading acts look stodgy and dull. Many educators say that our students are less and less able to read, or analyze, or write with clarity and purpose (Birkerts p.119).” Birkerts used to manage a used book store with a friend, and as result often appraised and bought peoples’ private libraries. He twists the example of English professor selling all his books to represent people burning the bridges connecting them to text. “The whole profession represents a lot of pain for me,’ he said. ‘I don’t want to see any of these books again (Birkerts p. 118).” Birkerts decides to interpret this to as the English professor being frustrated with working with text and trying to teach it to students. “I’m changing my life,’ the ex-professor was saying. “This is definitely where it’s all going to happen (Birkerts p. 118).” The professor sees the potential of electronic media and chooses to follow it rather than resist it like Birkerts.
Near the end of chapter eight Birkerts lists three issues he believes that the move towards the electronic millennium causes: 1) language erosion, 2) flattening of historical perspectives, and 3) the waning of the private self. 1) Language is continuously progressing. We communicate in a much different way than we did in the past because electronic media engages other senses besides sight and it is just as effective. 2) Birkerts considers the printed page our sole connection to history and its lessons. However before print, history was passed down orally and history was easily transcribed from oral tradition to text. Same as text can easily be transcribed into electronic media. 3) Birkerts declares that as we lose the private self no one will be able to or want to exert their individuality. However, electronic media has allowed people to show off their individuality to the world, one need not to look further than YouTube for proof of this.

Marshall McLuhan in The Medium is the Massage argues that the move toward electronic media is an organic evolution of human advancement. McLuhan believes that opposition (like Birkerts shows) is inhibiting any real accomplishments with technology. As McLuhan and Birkerts himself point out, there was a move from oral tradition into print that was initially resisted, “The discovery of the alphabet will create forgetfulness in the learners’ souls, because they will not use their memories; they will trust to the external written characters and not remember of themselves… You give your disciples not truth but only the semblance of truth; they will appear to be omniscient and will generally know nothing (McLuhan p. 113).” It is true that people write things down to remember them, but it is also true that people still are required to rely upon their memories to accomplish tasks. Many great discoveries have been made and many great inventions invented since the dawn of print. As we change from print to technology, the transition will be difficult for some, but it holds just as many opportunities for advancement as print did, “Rationality and visuality have long been interchangeable terms, but we do not live in a primarily visual world anymore (McLuhan p. 45).”

In chapter eleven of The Gutenberg Elegies Birkerts endeavors to navigate a hypertext. Like with all things technology, Birkerts hates it. He could not be absorbed into the story of a hypertext like a book. He feels that it is too impermanent and the interaction from the reader confuses rather than helps the story. He prefers the strong guidance of the story by the author rather than the choices of hypertexts, which is the main point of the format. After trying to get through the hypertext “The Museum” I have to agree with Birkerts. The main story was completely lost in the format. The choices sent me around in circles so that I needed to pull myself out of the story and head to the map to get to a completely different part of the narrative. Also, it’s difficult to get into the story when it jumps about in a non-linear way, seemingly without a point and without an end to the story. He uses a quote that perfectly describes my issue with “The Museum,” “Navigational procedures: how do you move around in an infinity without getting lost? The structuring of the space can be so compelling and confusing as to utterly absorb the narrator and to exhaust the reader (Birkerts p. 161).” It would be easy to see how text is superior to electronic media. However, even though it’s Birkerts favorite thing to believe, one example does not represent the entirety of its group.

I had a much better experience with the satirical hypertext, “Frequently Asked Questions about “Hypertext.” The story is entirely fictional but is presented as true. It revolves around a poem called “Hypertext” which consists of every known word that can be created with the letters in hypertext. The rest of the hypertext tells the story of the poem’s author as well as the many different and equally convoluted theories behind the meaning of the poem. In the end, it comments on how hypertexts should be read. Hypertexts are not books and will not give the reader the familiar comfort of linearity and guidance. It is up to the reader to decide how to navigate a story and what they gather as the overall meaning. Electronic media is not print and should not be forced into the same role, or else it will fail miserably.

Although the effect of evolving technology may seem to be the concern of a few scholars and critics, it will shape our society’s present and future. Technology is far from being a replacement for text like McLuhan claims, but it is also not that gray-matter-rotting monster Birkerts portrays. Moving into the future, we must take control of electronic media rather than letting it control us. Technology has the potential to revolutionize how we learn and how we present and take in information; it’s just a matter of using electronic media to our advantage rather than stubbornly rejecting it or trying to make it the same thing as print.
Honor Code statement: I pledge my honor that I have completed this work in accordance with the Honor Code.
Reflection: I feel I did a pretty good job with the conclusion and looking forward. I used to argument signal to explain why the topic of electronic media even matters. I use too many prepositions and I prefer longer, more complicated sentences. I need to work on changing the pace of my writing and making it more active. If I came back to this project I would look at more examples of electronic media and give a more specific conclusion on what we can do to use technology to innovate media. I would also find a way to incorporate multimedia element.

http://www.wordle.net/show/wrdl/5210134/Into_the_Electronic_Millennium

Works Cited
Bikerts, Sven. The Gutenberg Elegies. New York: Faber and Faber Inc., 2006. Print
McLuhan, Marshall, Quentin Fiore, and Jerome Agel. The Medium Is the Massage: An Inventory of Effects. Corte Madera, CA: Gingko, 2001. Print.

Hypertext FAQ

In chapter 11 of The Gutenberg Elegies Birkerts actually brings in the other side of the argument and attempts to get through a hypertext. This, however, does not mean he goes in with an open mind. In the end, he concludes that true literature can only come in book form. Hypertext does not draw him into the world of the story and it lacks the guidance of the author that Birkerts likes. For him, hypertext is too all over the place and choice driven that it tends to lose the narrative in the form.

For once, I find that I can agree with Birkerts, to a degree. My experience with “The Museum” was pretty similar to Birkerts’ experience with the hypertext he read. “The Museum” was all over the place in narrative and there was no end to the main story. It was a story that was lost in the possibilities of the hypertext form. It jumped around to random stories and that never clearly related back to the main story and the main story was never resolved. For all I know everyone was doomed to spend the rest of eternity wandering in museums arguing about religion and telling stories about museum exhibits. It did not draw me in and it only served to confuse me. The choices I made either sent me to moments of the narrative I had no context for, or it trapped me in an endless ring of the same stories. Like Birkerts it seemed that hypertext didn’t contain the aspects that I think make a good story: a clear plot that goes from beginning to end, if the plot isn’t linear the events need to relate back in a semi-clear way, it needs to have character developed enough to care about, and it needs to have some sort of action or event to further the story and to make it compelling. Birkerts used a quote his argument that perfectly describes my experience with “The Museum”, “Navigational procedures: how do you move around in infinity without getting lost? The structuring of the space can be so compelling and confusing as to utterly absorb the narrator and to exhaust the reader(p.161)…”

What changed my mind; however, was the second hypertext I read, ” Frequently Asked Questions About ‘Hypertext.’” I was drawn to the title immediately, because I was trying to define hypertexts in literature. It is set up like an FAQ, so it’s not one of the more complex hypertexts. There was no movement, text input, or sound, just links to other points within the “story.” it was very confusing at first, until I accepted that none of it was real. It begins with the 69 word poem about hypertext and then goes into theories behind the poem and the story of its author. This hypertext is a satire, the author says about some societal views, but I say of hypertext itself. The poem is a stilted, random grouping of words, much like Birkerts and I have viewed our hypertext experiences. But with the various explanations of the poem, that go into great detail and make a series of tenuous connections. But in a way, it states the purpose of hypertexts: the reader is meant to make the connections. They take what they author gives them and the they must decide what to make of it, its meaning. It’s not something we are used to after reading books, where the author controls the narrative and makes plot connections for us. Hypertexts is a new type of media, and we have to read it in a new way. Both Birkerts and I gave hypertexts an unfair try because we expected it to be a book and constantly compared them to books. Hypertexts are not trying to be books, we cannot expect to read them like books and have them make sense. Like McLuhan often says in The Medium is the Massage, we are forcing today’s tools to do the same work as yesterday’s.

We have to step back from the situation, in order to see it best. We need to accept change rather than resist, but also take control of the situation and turn it into something positive. We cannot expect future technology to be the same thing and to do the same things as the the technology we are comfortable with; we have to stop resisting where technology is taking us, but also not let the technology grow out of control, we have to turn it into something beneficial.

Is Google Making Us Stupid?

In this article “Is Google Making Us Stupid?” Nicholas Carr expresses some of the same concerns as Birkerts in The Gutenberg Elegies. He wonders if the the move towards the electronic millennium is causing people to lose some of the abilities we previously had because information is at our fingertips in short forms. Janet Murray in Hamlet on the Holodeck: The Future of Narrative in Cyberspace she provides a more hopeful view of electronic media. She believes that the new technology could enhance learning and literature and improve upon texts by adding features that would be impossible to integrate into print.

Unlike Birkerts, Carr does bring in the opposite view and consider it rather than summarily dismissing it and it brings more credibility to his argument. He does not concede to the other side in the end, that would also take away his credibility, but he does admit that he could possibly be wrong, although he doesn’t think he is wrong, “Maybe I’m just a worrywart. Just as there’s a tendency to glorify technological progress, there’s a countertendency to expect the worst of every new tool or machine. In Plato’s Phaedrus, Socrates bemoaned the development of writing. He feared that, as people came to rely on the written word as a substitute for the knowledge they used to carry inside their heads, they would, in the words of one of the dialogue’s characters, ‘cease to exercise their memory and become forgetful’.” One of Carr’s biggest issues is how electronic media has changed how we read. He does a much better job of explaining by giving example after example of people, professionals, who find that they can no longer read long texts because they are used to receiving their information in bite-sized bits. He even cites a study done that shows people’s Internet research habits. There was a tendency to skim information and then move on to another source without returning to the previous sources. I admit that I am guilty of both of theses things. I have a harder time reading long texts and I tend to only skim sources for the information I need, small facts or quotes. However, I can break these habits, as I did with reading this article. One of the places I felt he went too far was in his conclusion when he brought back the scene from 2001:A Space Odyssey when HAL is being shut down. “HAL’s outpouring of feeling contrasts with the emotionlessness that characterizes the human figures in the film, who go about their business with an almost robotic efficiency. Their thoughts and actions feel scripted, as if they’re following the steps of an algorithm. In the world of 2001, people have become so machinelike that the most human character turns out to be a machine.” He believes that Google and electronic media are changing how humans think, turning them into machines. While this implication is as haunting as Carr says it is, I do not fully agree with it. I agree that how we think, and therefore how we read, is much different, but I do not agree it is turning us into machines.

Janet Murray is decidedly more optimistic about the possibilities of the electronic medium. At the same time, she acknowledges how such change can be frightening and cause some people to backlash against the move toward electronic millennium. “It is not surprising, then, that half of the people I know seem to look upon the computer as an omnipotent, playful genie while the other half see it as a Frankenstein’s monster.” I think that these puts perfectly the some people’s reluctance to concede to this new technology; some people see only the negative consequences rather than the potential benefits. Murray sets up an idealized reality in which computer technology is used to add interactive elements to education and to broaden the possibilities of adding other types of media to creative writing. She even sees the use of hypertexts as a way to better integrate footnotes to link related texts and articles. She sees the possibilities of the technology in the future, and addresses McLuhan’s theory of people trying to use force today’s technology to do the same thing as yesterday’s. “We cling to books as if we believed that coherent human thought is only possible on bound, numbered pages.” She uses a funny example at the end when her grandmother thought the voice coming from a radio were ghosts, to show that progress has always occurred and has always produced fear. She is pushing people to let go of their fear of change and accept the possibilities for the future that this new technology creates.

I agree with Murray that we need to let go of our fear of change because the possibilities that electronic media provide lead to the future. However, I don’t believe that we are using this new technology to the full extent that Murray imagined. I do agree with Carr that the way we are going, Google is making us stupid. But I also agree with McLuhan that nothing is inevitable, we can pull back and take stock of a situation and change it. I think that is what we need to do; we need to capture the “hacker spirit” that Murray talks about and stop leaving technology to the “suits.” We need to innovate our use of the technology, not just the technology itself and turn it into the immersive media tool as Murray imagined, and not Carr’s information-pushing efficiency machine that turns us into computers.

Into the Electronic Millenium

In chapter 8 of Sven Birkerts’ The Gutenberg Elegies, he expresses his concern over the movement toward electronic communication and media. He feels that overall we are losing our private selves and we are suffering from a loss of  historical connection, language erosion, and loss of individuality and independent thought. On the other hand, Marshall McLuhan in The Medium is the Massage argues that the move toward electronic media is a natural progression of human advancement that has continued throughout history. McLuhan believes that resistance to this movement (like Birkerts shows) is holding back what this movement could actually accomplish.

Birkerts seems to write in a very antagonistic way, I think what bothers me the most is that up until the end of the chapter all his “examples” and “evidence” are sweeping generalizations and often twisted to be interpreted into his argument. His first example of the English professor selling all his books in order to start a computer-based career, seems a little stretched. He uses the professors’ sentiment, “The whole profession represents a lot of pain for me,’ he said. ‘I don’t want to see any of these books again (p.118).” as an example of people not just moving away from print towards electronics, but also burning bridges connecting them to print. The professor could have been unhappy about his career for any number of reasons besides suddenly hating books (which seems unlikely for an English professor). It truthfully sounded like perhaps he wanted a career that paid better or had more reward for him. “I’m changing my life,’ the ex-professor was saying. ‘This is definitely where it’s all going to happen (p. 118).” It seems to me like the professor was trying to follow the electronic inevitability, something McLuhan would have commended. Also, Birkerts has issues with generalizing, and he often doesn’t provide any source for his evidence. For example, “Many educators say that our students are less and less able to read, analyze, or write with clarity and purpose.” He gives no citation for this and it seems more like a broad generalization he made up to fit perfectly into his argument. How is the reader supposed to believe Birkerts when he appears to make up facts to prove his argument. I’m not saying that he is wrong, but I’m saying that he lacks credibility. Near the end of the chapter he lists three issues he believes that the move towards the electronic millennium causes: 1) language erosion, 2) flattening of historical perspectives, and 3) the waning of the private self. 1) We no longer speak how we used to speak, but people 30 years ago did not speak like people spoke 50 years ago. Language is ever-evolving and communication today relies not just on words, but pictures and sounds as well. I feel we communicate as effectively as we ever did, but in a much different way. 2) Birkerts feels that the book, the printed page is the connection to the past and if it disappears, history is lost to us. However, as McLuhan and Birkerts himself point out, there was a move from oral tradition into print that was initially resisted. Stories and poems that were the history of oral tradition were translated into print, so can the history found in print be translated into electronic media. 3) Birkerts says that the loss of the private self is leading towards a collective mass with the same exact thoughts and no individual will be able to or want to express themselves. I simply do not see the loss of individuality. McLuhan would have us believe that a little collectivism and teamwork is a good thing, and I think it is against human nature to stop trying to individuate themselves from others in some ways. I feel that nowadays people are more interested in their own interests than in fitting in with the collective interests. It’s just that electronic media helps us find people similar to us and I don’t see what’s bad being connected like that. Overall, Birkerts may have good points but they are hidden in the stubborn refusal to see anyone’s point but his own, which is why I have been equally stubborn back.

McLuhan in The Medium is the Massage takes the exact opposite view towards the electronic millennium. The book is strange in its form, but I feel that it only fits its function. This book is supposed to be more than a book it is itself a movement from print to electronic media in a way, it doesn’t just rely on words it relies on pictures and the forms that the words come in. Even from the cover page it is clear that this is different from a normal book because ” it says “produced by Jerome Agel” giving more of a sense of electronic media than a book. It is more of a production of media than a written text. Overall, McLuhan is in favor of moving toward the electronic millennium. As he often says in some form, trying to stick with past nineteenth century ways of seeing and doing things is trying to answer today’s problems with yesterday’s tools. McLuhan uses much of the same historical context as Birkerts, where early oral tradition initially resisted the move to print. He uses this quote from Socrates to show this, “The discovery of the alphabet will cause forgetfulness in the learners’ souls, because they will not use their memories; they will trust to the external written characters and not remember of themselves… You give your disciples not truth but only the semblance of truth; they will be heroes of many things, and will have learned nothing; they will appear to be omniscient and will generally know nothing (p. 113).” In some ways Socrates was right and in some ways he was wrong, and in many ways it’s funny that this quote is written down. It’s true that memory has decreased from when people were required to hear and memorize things orally, it is often a habit to write things down so as not to forget them. But I don’t think that it’s true that people learn nothing when they read or write them, or else there would have been no advancement and no passing on of ideas through text. McLuhan, unlike Birkerts, does not think the natural advancement and change should automatically stop at the printing press. He believes that further advancement into the electronic millennium is not only right, but necessary. Things will change as they always have and it cannot be stopped. Who’s to say this move towards electronic media is negative when we have not all yet succumbed to it and let it run its course for a little bit.

The Invention of Hugo Cabret:a novel in words and pictures

The Invention of Hugo Cabret is a novel about a an orphaned twelve year old boy who tries to fix an automaton to save himself. After his horologist father dies in a museum fire, Hugo is taken in by his drunken uncle who is the clock keeper at the Paris Train Station. He is taught to maintain the clocks, but then his uncle disappears. He is shocked by his father’s death, but manages to go back to the museum and get the automaton that his father found in the attic and started to work on. He hopes to fix it using his father’s notebook and get some message from his father that will save him. He is caught by the old man, Georges, at the toy booth stealing toys in order to get parts to fix the automaton. The old man takes back his parts and steals the notebook, with drawings of the automaton and its parts. He pretends to burn the notebook, but his goddaughter, Isabelle, tells Hugo that it isn’t. Hugo confronts Georges who won’t say either way, but agrees to let Hugo have it back, if it isn’t destroyed, if he helps at the toy shop. Hugo finally fixes the automaton, without his father’s notebook, and it opens another mystery. It turns out that Georges used to be a magician and filmmaker, but had turned his back on the past. In the end, Georges embraces his talent and takes Hugo in. At the end of the book, it is revealed that Hugo has grown-up and created his own automaton that wrote the words and drew the pictures of the story that had just been read.

I really enjoyed this novel even though it could be argued that it is only a picture book and therefore childish. I feel that this book combines the media forms of novels and films in an effective and interesting manner. I’m not trying to say that this was a book with hidden complexity that actually makes it an adult novel, but there is some hidden intellectuality. The pictures are not simplistic, rather they are greatly detailed which makes them more effective than words the situations they were used. It works like a movie in that the “camera” focuses on parts of a scene to imply significance. For example, the heels of shoes which are shown to be significant because it reminds Georges of films, both the sound of the end of a film reel and that he had to sell his movies which were melted down to make shoe heels. The pictures are there to work where words cannot, because it would take too many words to describe or to help create focus on certain images. This book, like Frankenstein is about creation, however it takes an opposite argument. Creation in this novel is not monstrous, but rather it is beautiful. This is shown in the reference to the myth of Prometheus, which is used in both novels. Prometheus in Frankenstein is used as a warning, you will be punished for creation. In Hugo, Georges painted a picture of Prometheus (p.44) that implies that he created film by giving humans fire, and therefore light, which is essential to film. On page 370-371,Hugo and Isabelle discuss the myth of Prometheus found in her Greek mythology book and he immediately thinks of the painting and fears that he will be punished for fixing the automaton. Hugo is punished when he is caught by the Station Inspector, but he is saved by Georges and given a new start. When Hugo discusses the painting with Georges, he tells Hugo that, in the end, Prometheus is saved from his punishment. Hugo was saved like Prometheus, which implies that creation is not monstrous and should not be punished, but rewarded. In fact, according to the story, the book is the creation of a creation.

I wonder how the new hybrid media that this book has experimented with will fair in the future. Will anyone else bother to try to create a novel like this, and will this type of novel, which seems so childish, ever be able to effectively translate into more serious literature? I’m looking forward to the future of this new medium.

Writing Project #2

Creating Monsters

“Did I request thee, Maker, from my clay/ To mould me man? Did I solicit thee/ From darkness to promote me (Shelley p. 20)?” This quote from Paradise Lost is used as an epigraph on the title page and it begins the intertextuality between the epic poem and Frankenstein which lasts throughout the book. In the book the characters of the novel view Victor’s creation as a monster. Victor is treated as the hero while the monster is the villain. By bringing Paradise Lost into the text, Shelley frames Frankenstein and his creation as several different characters from the poem. This intertextuality paints Victor as the true monster of the book. The monster would not exist if Victor had never created him, therefore the monster’s actions would never have occurred. The monster never asked to be created a thought echoed in the above epigraph as well as the monster himself, “Cursed, cursed creator! Why did I live? Why, in that instant, did I not extinguish the spark of existence which you had so wantonly bestowed? (p. 121)” Victor created a being which he abandons immediately. His creature can find no place in society because Victor did not think before he fashioned life. Victor, as the creator of the monster, is ultimately responsible for his actions and is the true monster for not taking responsibility for him.

The reader first feels compassionate towards the monster when Frankenstein and his creation first meet and the monster is a thoughtful and emotionally vulnerable creature:

 Oh Frankenstein, be not equitable to every other, and trample upon me alone, to whom thy justice, and even thy clemency and affection, is most due. Remember, that I am thy creature; I ought to be thy Adam; but I am rather the fallen angel, whom thou drivest from joy for no misdeed. Every where I see bliss, from which I alone am irrevocably excluded. I was benevolent and good; misery made me a fiend. Make me happy, and I shall again be virtuous (p.93-94).

At the same time, while Victor is still the protagonist, the reader can feel the monster’s pain over being abandoned by his creator and left without any knowledge of the world. The reader can understand the monster’s anger. There is a negative impact of Victor’s actions. The monster strives only to find happiness, a very human pursuit, which is denied by Victor through his abandonment. He produced indiscriminately without thinking first what kind of life his creature would be able to live. Victor selfishly composed life and doomed his creature to wretchedness through his carelessness.

The monster, in a not so subtle reference, actually speaks about how he read Paradise Lost while he was living in the abandoned cabin in the woods:

Like Adam, I was apparently united by no link to any other being in existence; but his state was far different from mine in every other respect. He had come forth from the hands of God a perfect creature, happy and prosperous, guarded by the especial care of his Creator, he was allowed to converse with, and acquire knowledge from beings of a superior nature: but I was wretched, helpless, and alone. Many times I considered Satan as the fitter emblem of my condition; for often, like him, when I viewed the bliss of my protectors, the bitter gall of envy rose within me (p.116-117).

He makes connections with Adam. They are both created as completely new life, unlike any other. However, he goes on to say that he believes that Satan is a fitter emblem of his role because like Satan, he was abandoned by his creator and exiled from society, although he has committed no sin. Even as the monster compares himself to Satan, he is still a sympathetic character because he is treated as an outcast. In fact, Victor could be considered to be Lucifer. He plays God by making perfect life but instead generates a miscreation. He is rejected by his creator for no sin. It seems that Victor’s desertion is responsible for shaping his creation into something much more monstrous than it should have been.

The confrontation between Victor and the monster after Victor destroys the monster’s mate shows the monster at his most Satan-like, “Shall each man,’ cried he, ‘find a wife for his bosom and each beast have his mate, and I be alone? I had feelings of affection, and they were requited by detestation and scorn. Man! You may hate; but beware! your hours will pass in dread and misery, and soon the bolt will fall which must ravish from you your happiness for ever (p.146).” He claims that he is superior to Victor, as Satan believed he was superior to God. Even at his most monstrous, one can still sympathize with the monster. He wanted a companion, as Adam did, someone to bring him out of his lonely existence, a seemingly small request that Victor denies. Even as he threatens revenge against Victor, it is hard not to believe that Victor somehow deserves it because he is responsible, through his act of selfish creation, for both his and his creation’s misery.

            Victor is the true monster within the novel because he formed life for entirely selfish and obsessive reasons and then cast out his creation. In the end, he is most monstrous for his act of creation. Shelley touches upon the sins of creation in her introduction where she says of her novel, “And now, once again, I bid my hideous progeny go forth and prosper (p.25).” She calls her own novel “hideous progeny” an ironic statement because usually writers are proud of their work. Shelly realizes that in the end all creation ends up hideous because one cannot control their creations forever. At some point creations have to be let go and when they are put forth into the world, there will always be controversy inducing interpretations of the creations. And there will always be people who don’t like what someone else has to say and raise disagreements. For example, I did not like Sven Birkerts’ arguments at all when I read The Gutenberg Elegies, but perhaps when he wrote it he believed that he did his best to convey his message in a helpful and appropriate manner. Maybe I unfairly interpreted his words. Perhaps I was too harsh in my criticism of his argument or maybe he didn’t convey his argument as he meant to do. That is the price and the risk of creation. Every time something is composed, it leaves an impact that cannot be revoked. The act of creation is monstrous because it puts forth something in the world that will impact it forever. However, it cannot be controlled forever and will inevitably cause harm.

 

Reflection: I think I used textual evidence effectively in this Writing Project. I had trouble organizing my thoughts at first, but I think I did a decent job. I also like how my conclusion opens up to an even bigger issue, but I’m not sure that I was able to integrate as effectively into the rest of my writing as I wanted to do. If I came back to this project I would probably find some way to better integrate the ideas in my conclusion. I would also find a way to bring in counter-arguments.

I pledge my honor that I have completed this work in accordance with the Honor Code.

 

Works Cited

• Shelley, Mary W., and Johanna M. Smith. Frankenstein. Boston [etc.: Bedford-St. Martin’s, 2000. Print.

Frankenstein and Intertextuality 2

 Frankenstein listens to his creation speak about what happened after Victor abandoned him in his apartment. The monster says he found a shack near a cottage in the woods that he hid in when he realized that human beings feared  and abhorred him because of his monstrous appearance. From the shack, he watched a poor family interact and he learned to speak and to read. He also observed the bond of love between family which made him resent Victor’s abandonment even more. He also read some books and pages from Victor’s diary that further formed his opinion of his place in the world. He asks Victor to create a female monster which he reluctantly agrees to do. Victor travels around with Henry until they part ways in Scotland so Victor can begin his work. He starts to make the new creation but he feels guilty and worries that the monsters could procreate, and when he catches his monster watching his work, he destroys his work in progress. The monster curses Victor and promises to be there on his wedding day. After dumping the pieces of his creation in a lake, Victor returns to land only to be accused of murder. When he is shown the body he falls into ill health again when he sees that the monster has killed Henry. Victor’s father rescues him from prison and takes him back to Geneva where he marries Elizabeth. On their wedding night, Victor looks for the monster, but hears Elizabeth scream and realizes that the monster meant to kill her all along. Alphonse dies a few days later from the shock of Elizabeth’s murder on her and Victor’s wedding night. Victor resolves to destroy the monster.

On of the books that the monster read was Paradise Lost.  He connects himself with Adam because both are creations of new life, not connected with any other life. He goes on to say, “Many times I considered Satan as the fitter emblem of my condition…” because he was shunned by his creator and has even come to resent him.  So far, I’ve been following the thread of the use of Paradise Lost in the novel and there seems to be a common theme where Victor is God and the creature is created like Adam, but treated like Lucifer.  In the epic poem, Lucifer is cast out of Heaven like the monster is cast out of society, and both of them have to live in their own Hell. Both of them suffer loneliness and the rejection of their creator. Like Adam, the monster asks for a mate to save him from his isolation. Victor initially agrees, but changes his his mind halfway through creating the mate. The monster than takes revenge much like Satan. Both were angry that they could not inspire love in their creator, so they worked to take that love away from others. Satan tricked Adam and Eve into eating the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil because he was jealous that they were God’s favorite creations and he wanted them to disappoint their Creator by sinning like he had. The monster systematically murders all of the people Victor cares about in order to force him to face the isolation that Victor forced upon him. It comes to my attention, however, that the monster performed no original sin that forced punishment on him, rather it was Victor who first sinned. He played God and created an ugly, but sensitive and emotional creature that he immediately abandoned. The monster’s actions afterwards could be construed entirely as Victor’s fault because he did not take responsibility for his creation. This begs the question of who is really the monster, Victor or the creature? The creature murders several people but, in the end, Victor is responsible for the creature’s existence as well as for the rage and pain that motivates him to kill. Therefore, I feel Victor is more monstrous than his horrifying creation. It follows the quote from the title page,”Did I request thee, Maker, from my clay/ To mould me man? Did I solicit thee/ From darkness to promote me?(p. 20)” The monster and everything he does is Victor’s responsibility because he created him.

 

Frankenstein and Intertextuality

The story begins with Robert Walton who’s on a journey to reach the North Pole. Once he procures a ship and a crew, he sets out on his journey. One night while the ship is stuck between blocks of ice,  the crew witnesses a figure, in the distance, on sledge, being pulled by dogs. The following morning they find a different man ,Victor Frankenstein, who Walton nurses back to health. Frankenstein forms a bond with Walton and agrees to stay on the ship and tell his story, in hopes that the ship can take him nearer to the mysterious figure the crew witnessed. Frankenstein tells the story of his childhood, his obsession with natural philosophy and a fondness for his adopted cousin, Elizabeth.  At age 17, after his mother dies, he goes to study at the university at Ingolstadt. There he becomes obsessed with anatomy and chemistry. He shuts himself off from the rest of the world and falls into ill-health while he creates a “new life.” Once his creation is complete, he is shocked by his appearance and flees his apartment. He wanders around and bumps into his friend Henry Cerval who is going to study at the university, and when they return the monster is gone. Victor suffers a fever and Henry nurses him back to health. Victor wants to go home. His father writes a letter to inform Victor that his younger brother has been murdered. Victor returns home and believes that his creation killed his brother, but instead the Frankenstein’s ward, Justine, is executed for the crime. Guilty, Victor goes to his family’s other home and is at ease amongst nature. On a mountain hike, he meets his creation who entreats him to talk to him and he demands reparation.

When we first began reading this, it was mentioned that there is a lot of intertextuality in his novel. One of the major texts alluded to and used throughout the book is Paradise Lost, which I’ve read and greatly enjoyed. This is my first time reading Frankenstein, but I can already see the parallels being drawn between the two stories. One thing that really sticks with me is the quote from Paradise Lost in the preface of the novel,”Did I request thee, Maker, from my clay/ To mould me man? Did I solicit thee/ From darkness to promote me?(p. 20)” This was a particularly poignant question for me, and I can already see its relevance to the story. The monster did not ask to be created, yet he is shunned by his creator, Frankenstein who will not take responsibility for his creation. The monster even directly alludes to it when he says,”Remember that I am thy creature; I ought to be your Adam; but I am rather the fallen angel, whom thou drivest from joy for no misdeed.”  Indeed the monster was created like Adam, but instead of being loved like him, he is treated like he is as evil as Lucifer. I also admit that I have skimmed a little farther ahead and I notice that as part of his reparation, the monster asks Frankenstein to make a female version of himself. This mirrors Adam asking for Eve, someone to be his companion and add humanity to his logic and reason. Actually, Elizabeth does that for Victor; he is caught up in his logic and reason, but she helps bring him back to humanity. I look forward to see how the connections between the texts play out further.

Yesterday, I started reading Wordsworth’s “Tintern Abbey” and noticed some similarities between the message of the poem and the events in the novel. Wordsworth believes that by passively observing nature one can gain wisdom. In the beginning of the poem Wordsworth is observing the scenery near Tintern Abbey, which he has not seen in five years. He tries not to think about what he sees, because it would ruin the beauty of nature. In the novel, Victor did think too hard about what he saw, from childhood he was already trying to see what drives nature. And because of this, he ends up ruining the beauty of nature when he creates the monster. I know there is further analysis to be done comparing these two texts, but I have to read further into both of them, and then I’ll try to come back to it in future blogs.

I look forward to being able to make more comparisons between texts as I read on. One thing that surprised me, since I’ve never read the book and have only seen other media portrayals of Frankenstein, is the description of the monster. It certainly seems more horrifying than to stereotypical square-headed green giant. Also, I think it’s unique that Shelley manages to make Victor look like more of a monster than the actual monster, because he shows no compassion for the thinking feeling creature he created. I just want to know how they managed to wind up in the North Pole.

 

The Balance of Reading

Reflection: I think that combination of personal narrative and textual examples is effective, but I think that the organization of the narrative might need work. If I returned to this paper in the future, I would add in more textual examples to add more emphasis to my personal example.
The Balance of Reading
No specific experience caused me to change my view of reading; there was more of a gradual change, which started in my high school years. In high school, we began reading more complicated texts. I found that, while decent at deciphering hidden meaning, I could not pick up on every little subtlety. Class discussion helped me. It not only brought in different perspectives, lending new ideas I would never have thought myself, but I was also forced to share my views more effectually. Therefore, I believe reading is initially private; you read something yourself and develop your own views, rather than being fed somebody else’s. Then reading is public as you share your ideas and listen to and incorporate other peoples’ ideas. Reading either completely privately or completely publicly reading does not lead to the crucial balance needed to best understand a text.
Before high school, I read for my own enjoyment. I hated reading in class because I didn’t see the point in sharing our ideas. Most of the time the books we read could not spark debate. Even at home I would hole myself up in my room and read, which is similar to how Birkerts’ described his reading experience. In fact, I acted much like Birkerts in my approach to reading. I was only interested in my personal analysis, but when writing middle school book reports I could never quite put forth my thoughts. The story might have interested me, but I could only accomplish writing a dry rehash of the story. For me books were about personal escape; not something worth discussing, but something to experience for myself.
Birkerts has an exceedingly private view of reading, like I used to; he suggests that only personal analysis of a text is of any use. He had the same passion I did for using reading as an escape, “When I went to my room and opened a book, it was to seal myself off as fully as possible in another place… I was there body and soul, living vicariously (Birkerts, p37).” He felt that he had to hide his reading from his father and refers to his reading as “private” or “a secret (p.38).” This type of hidden reading doesn’t bring anything to a text beyond what one person can study and like me, he had trouble conveying his reading in his writing. In the end, he could not write fiction like he dreamed, but he found success in writing essays, which contained only his opinions (p.65-68). However, private reading still has its uses.
In high school, I developed the skill that I lacked in writing those middle school book reports; I could effectively put into words what I noticed in my reading. Now I discuss what I read all the time because exchanging ideas helps me. If I read an interesting text, I want to share it. My parents and my sister have gotten very used to me discussing things that they probably don’t care about, but they still tell me what they make of the information anyway. They also sit politely as I teach them what I learned in school because it helped me consolidate the information for myself. They often ask questions, pointing out gaps in my knowledge that I would otherwise discover, unfortunately, during a test. In fact, when I read the first chapter of The Gutenberg Elegies I knew I didn’t like what he said, but after I called my boyfriend and explained it to him I was able to pick out specific examples that caused my reaction and I was better equipped to write my blog.
Harris also has a decidedly public view of reading; texts are meant to be read, they are meant to be commented upon, and used by the reader to further their own arguments. “Academic writing is often described as kind of conversation. You read a text, you talk about it, you put down some thoughts in response, others respond to your comments, and so on (Harris, p. 34).” Harris firmly focus on the public aspect of reading, that a person must share what they read as a continuation of the discussion the author of the original text put forth, a process that he calls “forwarding (p. 37).” This style of “re-presenting” a text is useful in getting the most out of it, but it also has its limits (p.32). Without personal analysis, a reader will be unable to truly bring in a different way of viewing or interpreting a text. If one interpretation was forced upon every other reader of a text, there would only be that single analysis. Obviously no one analysis is completely right and even Harris admits that “conversation” is needed to extend the usefulness of a text (p.35). That is why there must be a balance between public and private reading.
Reading is both private and public. It takes both the private reading and the analysis of a text and the public discussion of it to fully understand the text. I realize this now and found that in college I have found the balance between private and public reading. I can read assigned text in my room and begin my own analysis. Then, the next day, I can share my views in class or in a blog. Usually I present my views and it helps others see things that they never noticed and helps give words to ideas they had trouble voicing and others do the same for me. I find that in college I am able to draw more information out of texts than I ever could have hoped to do before; I found a balance between private and public reading.
Honor Code statement: I pledge my honor that I have completed this work in accordance with the Honor Code.

Works Cited
• Bikerts, Sven. The Gutenberg Elegies. New York: Faber and Faber Inc., 2006. Print.
• Harris, Joseph. Rewriting. Logan, Utah: Utah State University Press, 2006. Print.