Final Blog Post

Throughout this course I have gained a much more expansive perspective on writing. Writing is not just formal, educational papers but a comes in a wide variety of forms. A blog post has just as much value and merit as a research paper. The blogging was a very interesting take on a writing class. I have never had such a technology-based approach to a writing class and it was a very interesting experience for me.  The blog style writing has forced me to make my writing a bit more conversational rather than formal and has made me much more comfortable with my classmates reading my work. Andrew Harris has provided me with insight on the ways in which many people write.  He essentially tells us that we use the ideas of others and change and transform it into something that is our own. We can create a new opinion by countering the opinion of another or create a new work by forwarding someone else’s ideas. The course has also taught me that writing and literacy are culturally relative. They take on a different meaning depending on the context that they are found. Another focus of the class is the impact that technology is having on writing and the news. Some say that technology is advancing the news and writing while others claim that it is destroying them. We cannot be sure but we do know that technology is definitely changing the way we perceive and interact with writing and the news. Knowing these things will help me keep a broader perspective of writing and literacy as I progress in writing courses and in life.

Sandy Hook Elementary School Shooting: From Small Town Story To National News

 The media is a very complex and expansive system. There is not one single news source or one single perspective or bias. No story is ever reported on just once and then forgotten about. Stories go through multiple stages and are written about through countless lenses and viewpoints.  A news story can be written about thousands of times in thousands of different ways. We can see the development of stories from their uninformed infancy to their stage as an archive when we can look back on them with informed hindsight. At each stage the story changes and becomes something new. Every story goes through this process and countless aspects of every story are explored.

            Just a few short months ago on Friday December 14^th, 2012 a devastating tragedy occurred in the small town of Newtown, Connecticut.  A gunman, Adam Lanza, entered Sandy Hook Elementary School armed with semiautomatic pistols and rifles and killed twenty-six innocent people.  With this high victim count, the Sandy Hook shooting was reported as one of the deadliest school shootings in the United States. The nation was shaken by the shooting and the tragedy spurred a period of national outreach and condolences and was the topic of conversation for quite a while. I vividly remember the day it occurred and receiving the information through various news sources – word of mouth, Facebook, television news programs, and the newspapers. Almost every type of news outlet was scrambling to report on the tragic event and provide insight into what had happened that day.

            One of the earliest articles that I found was by CBS News. The article, Connecticut School Shooting: Police investigating reports of a shooting at elementary school, written just around an hour after Lanza had entered the school, reported very general, uniformed information regarding a school shooting in Newtown, Connecticut. The article is extremely brief and explains that the Connecticut State Police were assisting the local police at an elementary school shooting. The only information they had about victims was that there were several injuries and unconfirmed reports. At this point the media believed that there were two shooters involved (Crimesider Staff). This underdeveloped local story just proves how inaccurate stories can be in early stages of development. Reporters are simply trying to get out any information they can as quickly as possible. The early articles are all about the scarce information that can be gathered at such an early stage.

            One of the first news sources to publish a complete story of the school shooting was the New York Times article, Nation Reels After Gunman Massacres 20 Children at School in Connecticut, by James Barron. As with any story reported within twenty-four hours, the purpose of the Times story was to let the public know what happened and to give details about the event. But this article was far more informed than the previous local article. It provided the name and age of the shooter, twenty-year old Adam Lanza, and gave the details of the weaponry he used in the shooting. A Sandy Hook Elementary School parent tells reporters “There is going to be a black cloud over this area forever. It will never go away” (New York Times). The article aimed to create emotion, sympathy, and understanding among the readers.

            As time progressed more and more information came out concerning the victims, their families, and the shooter himself.  The day after the shooting the Huffington Post released the names of those who lost their lives inside Sandy Hook Elementary School the day before. The article by David Lohr detailed the first name, last name, age, and gender of the “12 girls, eight boys and six adult women” whose lives were taken by Adam Lanza. (Lohr). Another local newspaper, The Hartford Courant published an article the day after entitled, Who Are They? Stories About The Victims Of Friday's Shootings. In this article the author spends fifteen pages providing much more detailed, intimate, and personal information about the victims. The personalities, likes, dislikes, and memories of the children and adults were described in vivid detail. The purpose of the article was to personalize the tragedy and make it less distant from our lives. But the victims were not the only ones receiving news coverage. Details also emerged about the infamous shooter, Adam Lanza. Many news sources published stories on Lanza and what led him to commit such a horrible crime. One of these stories was Adam Lanza’s Path to the Sandy Hook Tragedy by PBS Frontline that detailed the course of Lanza’s life leading up to the day of December 14, 2012. The article described Lanza as a quiet and withdrawn child who seemed to have a pretty normal life and “somewhere along the way… made the fateful decision that ended in the second deadliest school shooting in American history.” The article continues to detail the struggles Lanza had with social interaction throughout his life and constantly switched schools.

            But as with every tragedy the initial shock and sadness eventually fades away and the event is discussed in a new light. Rather than being seen as just a tragedy, the shooting was being seen as the catalyst for a variety of political debates.  The Sandy Hook shooting sparked discussion and debate over gun control, mental health issues, and security of schools. Shifting away from discussing the events of the day, various forms of social media were putting the shooting into a different context. The most recent school shooting has forced the government to take action to address these pressing social issues. A CNN article entitled Gun violence plans: What's in the works describes what the White House has in store in terms of gun laws. The President planned to strengthen existing gun laws, limit magazines to ten rounds, and tighten up the background checks on all gun buyers. The ultimate end goal is to "dry up the supply of these weapons over time." Says California Senator Diane Feinstein (CNN Politcial Unit). Regarding gun control, there are a wide variety of opinions ranging from those who want stricter gun laws to those that cling to their second amendment rights. On one end of the spectrum many people agree with a statement made by President Obama in his Newtown vigil speech, “Are we prepared to say that such violence visited on our children year after year after year is somehow the price of our freedom?” (Huffington Post). These people feel that tragedies like Newtown strongly reinforce the fact that gun laws are not strict enough. Supporters of stricter gun control believe that our nation’s love of Second Amendment Rights is not at all worth the damage it is causing. Those on the other end of the spectrum agree with the statement made by President of the National Rifle Association, Wayne Lapierre, when he said “When it comes to the most beloved, innocent and vulnerable members of the American family – our children – we as a society leave them utterly defenseless, and the monsters and predators of this world know it and exploit it.” (New York Times). Supporters of this viewpoint claim that mental health, video games, and school security are the true issues to focus on. From this perspective it is not guns that are causing the problem but rather how people choose to use them. Neither of these speeches and none of the debates about these social issues would have even existed had it not been for the shooting in Newtown.   

            However, in Newtown there is not much of a divide on the issue of gun control. In a USA Today article by USA today travel editor and reporter Gary Stoller, it seemed that “people on all sides of the political divide” expressed support for President Obama’s plan to ban assault weapons and ensure tighter background checks on gun buyers. It comes as no surprise that in a town so tragically affected by this monstrous weapon, most of the residents would fully support its ban. Local Newtown school bus driver and Democrat Marsha Moskowitz explains that instead of making this a democratic or republican issue people should realize that "It's a human issue. It's about humanity." Alan Brown a Sandy Hook resident, gun owner, and life-long republican agrees that Obama’s proposals make a “whole lot of sense.” Brown supports gun rights yet never felt comfortable with assault weapons and after the shootings stated that he is “now strongly opposed to these types of weapons.” The common sentiment in Newtown seems to be that these assault weapons are extremely dangerous and absolutely unnecessary and if there had been a ban on these types of weapons then many of the victims lives would have been spared (Stoller).

            The Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting has gone through quite a development in the news and blog world: from its beginnings as a freshly reported elementary school shooting to its explosion into an endless supply of articles and opinion blogs. The shooting transformed itself into a countless number of stories ranging from gun control to the life of Adam Lanza. Almost three months have passed and people continue to write about the shooting and its memory continues to live in political debates and tribute articles. First Selectman of Newtown Pat Llodra stated, “Many have said that this awful happening in Sandy Hook has changed the world — changed the way we think and act and made us more committed than ever to stem this kind of violence.” Sandy Hook has changed the way we think and given us a new perspective on violence. A perspective that is continually present throughout the news world and will continue to be present for a long time. We may no longer be talking about the events of that day but the Newtown story continues to evolve in the news sphere.

Taking an Approach

-->

As I continue to read his book, I am getting the feeling that Harris is getting a little repetitive. Most of the concepts he explains seem to have a lot of similarities. His Taking an Approach concept sounds very similar to Forwarding, Coming to Terms, and Countering. In all of these we as writers are using works that have already been writer and points that have already been made and making them our own. Creating something original from something original.  “The original does not go away but is remade into something new.” Taking an Approach is working in the mode of another writer adopting their style. Taking an Approach can have various forms depending on the choices the writer makes when they read any given work. The New York Times most often does not take an approach because they are reporting news and facts and these are more important to its readers than the style of writing. But in blogs and the opinion section of the Times taking an approach is most likely widely used. Because these types of writing are opinion based people often attempt to create original thoughts or ideas based on the work of another, essentially Taking an Approach. Many opinion articles will read fact based stories and create unique opinions and perspectives based on the unbiased sources. This is a way to Take an Approach on something which improves the quality of the writing. In any opinion or argument based writing, it is extremely difficult to avoid Taking an Approach because this is essentially what one has to do in order to form a unique opinion or argument.

Short Essay 1

I decided to use an article from Townhall, the Fox News online site, concerning same-sex marriage. The article was written from a very conservative standpoint and describes how it feel that same-sex marriage will threaten the institution of marriage and the dangers that redefining marriage will have for us in the future. The original article argues that recognizing same0sex marriage as legitimate will sacrifice the best interests of children.  I rewrote the article for a more liberal, pro same-sex marriage audience. I changed the language to suit this new audience and replaced skeptical, negative opinions about same-sex marriage to opinions reflecting a supportive view of same-sex marriage. The rewritten article endorses an acceptance

Redefining Marriage Raises Concerns For Children and Society

http://townhall.com/columnists/austinnimocks/2013/02/14/redefining-marriage-raises-concerns-for-children-and-society-n1511868/page/full/

Much of the discussion around same-sex marriage involves the impacts it may have on society. The advocates reassure us that redefining marriage will not bring harm to anyone and this is a reassurance that we can confidently trust.

The concept of traditional marriage as a social institution is something that is becoming increasingly outdated. The family is the social institution that holds true significance and it is in institution that comes in various types and forms. Altering the definition of marriage to include all forms of marriage will positively impact the public’s understanding of the institution and affect society’s acceptance of the cultural norms associated with it. The redefinition will shift the institution from a child-centric to an adult-focused institution. 

Children are still held at the utmost importance and are loved and cared for by same-sex couples in the same way as heterosexual couples.  Same-sex couples are still able to create a traditional family by adopting children who cannot be cared for by the so called ‘traditional’ heterosexual couple. Solely because a marriage is between a man and a woman does not mean that they are fit to raise a family.  The interests of children are not being sacrificed by the new definition of marriage.

The decisions of court reflect these beliefs that children are still being valued. The California court declared that children derive no benefit from having both a male and female parent, and that genetic relationship between a parent and a child is irrelevant in a child’s upbringing. Additionally, the court puts the force of the constitution behind a conception of marriage that (1) severs it from any inherent connection to procreation and children, and (2) transforms marriage from a public institution with child-focused purposes  into little more than a private self-defined relationship focused on adults. It denigrates the importance of mothers

Officially changing the public meaning of marriage sends a message to the public that we all need to learn to be more open to broader definitions of marriage and that love and marriage transcends gender.

We as Americans stand on a precipice regarding marriage – an age old and fairly outdated social institution. Just as we evolve in so many other aspects of society – civil rights, women’s rights, etc. – we need to evolve in our acceptance and legalization of gay rights as well. It will not destroy the institution of marriage but instead create a countless number more happy, loving families and create a much more accepting and tolerant nation. We need to let go of these traditional institutions that we so desperately cling to and change along with the times.  We should move forward with confidence that endorsing same-sex marriage will not have any negative ramifications on us as a nation.

Fascination With Photographs

I found the article, “Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire,” by Errol Morris, to be very insightful and thought provoking. He brought up points about the nature of photography that I had not given much thought to. Morris focuses on the contextual nature of pictures and how the meanings of each photograph can be changed based on our knowledge of the context. The example he provided of the Lusitania was very interesting to me especially because in my AP American History class my teacher provided us with an alternative context for this exact same picture. He explained that it was suspect that Americans wanted to become involved in the war but since we always have to play the victim we could not attack another country so we sent a boat into a line of German fire that we were well aware was present there, thus giving us a reason to enter into the war because we were ‘attacked.’ Now I am not saying this theory is true but it just goes to show how many different meanings one photograph can have depending on the context that is provided. Another concept I liked from the article was when Morris was looking at pictures of his own family and he inquired to himself “Who are these people? Do they have anything to do with me? Do I really know them?” The simple fact that we can be a completely different person than we were in an old picture is fascinating to me. The fact that we cannot ever really remember or know what that version of our self was thinking or feeling in that moment captured by the camera. I have an absurd amount of pictures from high school and middle school due to my picture-obsessed friend and going back to look at these pictures is really entertaining and interesting to me. In so many of these pictures my friends and I will be doing something weird and I wonder to myself ‘Honestly, what were we thinking?’ or there are a bunch of pictures of us doing some inside joke that I cannot even bring myself to remember anymore. Morris does a great job of capturing the transitory and contextual nature of photographs that fascinates me so much. One thing Morris says accurately sums up, I believe, the main message of his article, “Pictures may be worth a thousand words, but there are two words that you can never apply to them: “true” and “false.”’

Don't Fight About Fighting

Harris describes the idea of countering as pointing out shortcomings and arguing with an author not just for arguments sake but only if your purpose is to add something or give an insight of your own. The example he opens with reminds me of times when I have actually had fights with my siblings about whether or not we were in a fight. Its completely useless and that is exactly what Harris is saying; you need to have a purpose for pointing out the flaws in another’s work, other than the fact you believe yourself to be smarter and want to prove them wrong. Instead we should use other authors arguments not to prove them wrong but to create an intellectual counterargument of our own. A place where countering is often unavoidable is any context that politics is involved. For example the blog, http://hipsterlibertarian.com/ entitled the Hipster Libertarian. The tumblr page is description reads, “I like freedom, peace, and property. I don’t like corporatism, war, and the government telling us how to live, no matter who is in office.” There is a clearly defined argument and opinion running through this page created by Bonnie Kristian. Throughout the blog there are numerous online discussions and arguments in which she engages her followers about various topics that they may agree or disagree on. I think this countering style adds something to her pages because she is not just stating what she believes she is interacting with people who possess different opinions than her own and not just saying ‘anyone who believes differently than I do is wrong.’ The term that Harris came up with for the concept is very fitting and something that all writers can benefit from using. 

The Continual Nature of Writing

“Academic writing is often described as a 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. Compares this idea to a person entering a room during a heated conversion that cannot be stopped to explain and yet every person has walked in and has not received any explanation of what they have missed. The individual takes part in the discussion and when they leave the discussion still continues. To me this reflects that writing is not being meant to have a definitive beginning or end but to just be a continual flow of information, ideas, and discussion. Something that anyone can pick up in the middle and add something of their own and then allow the next person to contribute another continuous thought.“It suggests that the goal of such writing is not to have the final word on the subject.” We do not want to end the conversation; we want to perpetuate it. I do not think any blog or any writing can really exist without the concept of forwarding. People have been writing for so long that most of what people can think to originally say has been said. Now it is just a matter of adding to the conversation, then other people adding to what you have contributed and so on and so on.

The Press Sphere

               In his article “The Press Becomes the Press Sphere” Jeff Jarvis explores the concept of a ‘press sphere.’ According to Jarvis, this press sphere is the future of news. It replaces the way we used to get our news, “news through the filter of the press to us,” with a world of various sources, hyperlinks, and reader interaction. This reflects the way that most people get their news today. Nobody gets the news from just one source by watching one television show or reading one newspaper. A variety of sources are used such as the radio, television, newspaper, social networking – which encompasses a wide selection of websites to choose from. But that is pretty much where he lost me in a sea of web and technology lingo. I was a little confused by his models and his further explanations of a press sphere. I feel like I would need to be more knowledgeable on the subject matter to fully understand his argument. I do understand that he is following the pattern of most of the authors that we have read – that the internet is changing the way we interact with the world around us. And soon the internet may be our only source for the news.

My Experience With the Times

            Reading the New York Times has throughout this term has been a very beneficial experience. Because reading the news is now a homework assignment it gives me the push I needed to stay updated on what is going on in the world. I am starting to become an informed member of society rather than someone who is completely oblivious to the world around me and when anyone asks “have you heard about this?” the answer is always no. It is forcing me out of my uninformed bubble. The stories that I have noticed the most are the headliners stories, the ones that the newspaper wants the audience to see first. The stories about the various shootings and the fiscal cliff and that sort of thing. And I usually investigate stories that interest me which leaves out a lot of sections of the Times including sports and politics. Using the Times as opposed to the Denver Post or my hometown newspaper the St. Louis Post Dispatch has put more of a focus on national news rather than local news.  The New York Times has not really influenced any of my other habits but it is helping to move me in the right direction for becoming more informed.  Hopefully read the Times can be something I can continue after the end of the course and throughout the rest of my life.

Comparing News Sources

                    One thing I noticed while reading the posts of my classmates is that we all have something in common: we get our news from a variety of sources. With the advancement of social and electronic media there are so many available news sources that most people do not use just one. The dominance of Facebook often has a huge influence on the news people are informed about. People use Facebook so often that whether they like it or not they read something about a news story on Facebook before they see it on the actual news. And the news cannot be avoided because there is a constant stream of information on the news feed that we cannot control. The news is coming to us rather than us seeking it out. Social networking often dominates reputable sources as the place for my generation to get their information. Facebook and other social networking sites as a source of media has both benefits and drawbacks. Some benefits are the efficiency and immediacy it provides, you get a lot of headlines quickly and get a sense of what is going on. But on the other hand these sources definitely do not provide reputability and there is not a lot of depth to the stories. But the stories are also much more personal which could go both ways. Another commonality I found is that the majority of my classmates and I are not as up to date on the news as we would like to be. We have so many things going on in our lives and so many distractions that the news is not often our top priority. But as we get older we come to realize that the news are more important and hold more relevance in our lives. Another thing I noticed is that people much prefer the more emotional and entertaining aspects of the news rather than reading a story about the stock market or complicated politics. I think this would not surprise Hedges and Carr at all and attribute this concept to the rise of social media and search engines as our outlets for information.

The News in My Life

            Throughout my life I have never been one to closely follow the news. I never watched the evening news or read the newspaper. I would usually get tidbits of information from a variety of sources. I would hear news from my family, classmates, teachers, and even Facebook, unfortunately. These sources are often not reputable because I was getting my information through word of mouth and never checked the facts directly from the source. Throughout most of high school I wasn’t all that interested in knowing what was going on. I was too absorbed in school and going out with friends. I lived in my own little bubble and what went on outside of it did not really seem to affect me so why should I care? Of course I would take a slight interest when huge news stories came up and everyone around me was talking about it but other than that the happenings of the world did not really concern me. But as I creep closer and closer to being an adult and becoming part of the ‘real world’ I am trying to take more of an interest of what is happening in the world around me because these events that couldn’t seem to penetrate my ‘high school bubble’ are much more relevant to me as a college student. This class has facilitated this desire to be informed about the news and current events.  Using the New York Times online for this class has been a really useful and reliable source to get my news from. The Times is a source I can trust and one that I feel is relatively unbiased on most of its stories. Although reading some New York Times articles weekly is much more than I have done in the past, it is not nearly enough. Hopefully college is a time in my life when I make keeping up with the news a habit that I can stick with for the rest of my life.

Extended Essay Rough Draft

Sammi Petite

Professor Leake

Rhetoric & Academic Writing

27 January 2013

Extended Essay

            What kind of writers are we becoming? Many authors that we have read have taken positions of the effects that technology has on us as writers and as literate individuals. These positions have ranged from the belief that Google is making us stupid to the opposite end of the spectrum that technology is helping us advance as writers. But something that Andrea Lunsford, writing professor and Director of the writing program at Stanford University, points out is a more appropriate standpoint, “the changes brought about by the digital revolution are just that: changes.” This essay will explore varying standpoints and address the concept that no perspective is right or wrong, there are only changes. And it all just depends on what lens is being used to examine literacy.

            One end of the spectrum explores the drawbacks of technology on literacy. There are clearly negative affects that the excessive use of technology is having on our skills as readers and writers. Esteemed writer about of technology, culture, and economics, Nicholas Carr explains the effects that Google and other Internet research is having on us. He explains “Over the past few years I’ve had an uncomfortable sense that someone, or something, has been tinkering with my brain, remapping the neural circuitry, reprogramming the memory.” Using Google as an information source rather than books and encyclopedias seems to be changing the way that we think. Carr reveals the phenomenon that himself and many people are having concerning their ability to read and their attention span; problems that I am experiencing as well. Carr says he used to be able to immerse himself in “long stretches of prose” but now finds his concentration starting “to drift after two or three pages.” This problem seems to be a very relatable one that my classmates and myself are experiencing now as a result of our heavy use of electronic media. I used to read books all the time but now I can only get a chapter or so before I get the desire to listen to music, watch TV, or browse on the computer.  Even while I was reading Carr’s article I began to experience exactly what he was describing. My concentration started to drift after a paragraph or so and it was a struggle “dragging my wayward brain back to the text.” Chris Hedges, an American journalist specializing in American politics and society, takes a similar but much harsher standpoint. Hedges utilizes harsh language to describe his view of America as “radically distinct, unbridgeable and antagonistic entities.” According to Hedges, technology isn’t just causing some problems in our literacy skills, it is literally dividing the country into the literate minority and the illiterate majority. And it not only is affecting us individual it is affecting the nation as a whole as well. Playwright Richard Forman sums up what is happening: [But now] I see within us all (myself included) the replacement of complex inner density with a new kind of self—evolving under the pressure of information overload and the technology of the “instantly available.”

            At the other end of the spectrum is a much more positive take on the effects of technology on literacy. Andrea Lunsford directly opposes Carr and Hedge’s opinions. Lunsford wants to sketch an alternative picture of literacy than those who think Google is making us stupid and Facebook is frying our brains, such as Carr and Hedges. Lunsford has collected thousands of pieces of student writing and come to a few conclusions after analysis of these works. Contrary to the popularly held belief that with the rise of technology the literacy level drops, Lunsford found that “students were writing A LOT, both in class and out.” As well as continuing to write, these students are “increasingly aware of those to whom they were writing and adjusted their writing styles to suit the occasion and the audience.” They truly cared about their writing and wanted it to “count for something” and hoped their writing could be the kind that “made something happen in the world.” To them writing was not a solitary, individual practice but rather something that is “collaborative, social, and participatory.” Lunsford’s experiences with analyzing these writings have led her to make a strikingly different conclusion that Carr or Hedges made. While they see electronic media and similar activities as dooming Americans to a future of illiteracy, Lunsford argues that, rather than leading to a new illiteracy, these activities seemed to help them develop a range or repertoire of writing styles, tones, and formats along with a range of abilities.” Lunsford challenges the commonly held belief of growing illiteracy as a result of technology use and offers us another alternative. In her opinion, “the participatory nature of digital media allows for more—not less—development of literacies.” Lunsford explains that, “These changes alter the very grounds of literacy.”  Yes, literacy is changing but not necessarily, as Lunsford so accurately points out, in a bad way. And Lunsford points out “young people are changing as well, moving swiftly to join in this expanded culture of writing.” The changing concept of literacy calls for a change in us as well, to broaden our perspectives. Lunsford calls for us to shift away from “a single static standard of correctness” and towards a more complex view that expands our definition of literacy.

            Sylvia Scribner, American psychologist and educational researcher, takes a different viewpoint than Carr, Hedges, and Lunsford. Rather than viewing the changes as positive or negative, Scribner focuses more the fact that nobody truly knows what literacy is and that we “have yet to discover its boundaries”. And how can anyone label literacy as improving or worsening when nobody has a concrete definition for literacy. Scribner points out that attempts to create an “umbrella definition” have been futile and unsuccessful. Scribner does side with Lunsford on an important concept, that people “aim to describe constituents of literacy in terms of individuals achievements but the single most compelling fact about literacy is that it is a social achievement.” The two women agree that literacy is “an outcome of social transmission.” Scribner explains a very important concept that Carr and Hedges neglect when describing the growing illiteracy of our nation. “Individual literacy is relative to social literacy. Since social literacy practices vary in time and space, what qualifies as individual literacy varies with them” This is very important to consider when defining someone as literate or illiterate. Different communities and cultures have varying definitions of what literacy is. “Literacy has neither a static or universal essence.” So, “the enterprise of defining literacy,” Scribner describes, “becomes one of assessing what counts as literacy in the modern epoch ins some given social context. Literacy means two completely different things in urban New York than in rural Africa. In New York, to be an active and integrated member of society the literacy requirements are much higher than in farming communities in Africa. But neither is better or worse, just different. Being able to read a lengthy intellectual novel is neither necessary nor useful in rural Africa just as knowing agricultural practices is unnecessary and useless in urban New York. This comparison explains how “We may lack consensus on how best to define literacy because we have differing views about literacy’s social purposes and values.” If literacy means something different everywhere how can we define a person or peoples as illiterate or literate? Literacy is too complex of an issue to be boiled down to simple dichotomies such as literate or illiterate.

            In my opinion, technology is having an extremely mixed effect on my literacy skills. The internet has both helped and hindered my ability as a writer. The hindrances mostly lie in my lack of attention span and motivation. The instantly available nature of the internet has made it a challenge to read lengthy research to support my writing, Because of the internet I have become less relient on my own original thoughts and ideas and instead often resort to Googling “analysis of “ whatever book or subject that my paper or writing is about. On the other hand the Internet has provided me with endless information to incorporate into my essays and responses. I do believe that the technology culture which I find myself so immersed is damaging my ability to read as much as I used to but I also believe that computers and other forms of media are incredibly powerful tools that can aid the quality of my writing. The challenge is to not let technology weaken my literacy but to embrace all that it has to offer and using it just as one tool but not as the only tool.

         Lunsford seems to have some unbiased glimpses of the changing nature of technology and accurately sums up the topic of this essay when she says, “But with technology, you win some and you lose some.” A simple but extremely accurate phrase perfectly sums up the impact of technology on literacy. The concept of literacy is changing with some affects perceived as negative and some perceived as positive. The truth is, we do not yet understand what the future holds for literacy in our society. And rather calling the majority illiterate, or claim that technology is advancing literacy, or struggling to form a concrete definition of literacy, we should instead broaden our horizons and be patient with the metamorphosis of literacy. Because as Carr reminds us that Plato said that written word would make us “ignorant” and rob us of “real wisdom.” But now with hindsight we see the tremendous benefits that the written word has awarded us since its conception. So maybe we are to quick to judge the changing nature of literacy just as Plato was to quick to judge the art of writing.  What kind of writers are we becoming? We do not yet know, but with the combined perspectives of intellectuals such as Carr, Hedges, Scribner, and Lunsford, and with the passage of time, we may soon find out. And the result will most likely not be what we expected.

Reflecting Upon My Experience

         The experience of writing blog posts has been very strange for me. I do not have a lot of experience in responding to readings in a blog format and beginning the process I was not eagerly anticipating blogging as an educational outlet. I much prefer writing in a formal tone than a casual, conversational tone. Strangely enough I feel that a formal tone comes more natural to me than an informal tone because I do not write the way I speak and I do not speak the way I write. My writing and speaking tones are two completely separate entities that I have never considered combining. It has been a challenge to attempt to transform my writing to a blog style rather than a formal essay or paper style. I usually shy away from using the first person because all throughout high school I was taught and I believed that using the first person makes a work less educational and less valid but the informal blog posts of myself and my classmates has proved me wrong. This challenge has provided more variety and richness to my writing style and made it much more dynamic. I am now forming the ability to write in a more creative and entertaining way as opposed to my usual objective style. It has also been very challenging to post my academic writing publicly on the Internet for everyone to see. I usually tend to keep my writing private and do not really enjoy having others read my work. Each time a write a new post I am hesitant to press the ‘publish’ button. But with each additional blog post I feel more comfortable and take less notice to the fact that what I write will be readily available to public scrutiny. These posts have pushed me to take on a more conversational tone in my writing and have brought me to the realization that not only formal writing is valid. Blogs serve as a very important source for opinions and information and this is something that I never really considered before this class. I still do prefer a formal writing style but I now see the merits of both formal and informal writing.

What Does Literacy Mean?

            Throughout the course we have been exploring literacy through numerous lenses and I have come to the conclusion that literacy can be defined in so many different ways. This becomes obvious when you take into account the vastly different ways that all the authors we have interacted with have described literacy. There is no concrete, universal concept of what literacy means. In her article, Literacy in Three Metaphors, Sylvia Scribner explains that scholars and researchers have set out on a “quest for definition and measurement of the concept” but have come up short. There are so many limitations to constructing a universal definition for literacy. The limitations arise when we take a moment to understand the different requirements for literacy in different communities and countries. An urban New Yorker may consider the require literacy level to be much higher than a person living in a small African. Both individuals require completely different levels of literacy to be a functional member of their community. But both literacy standards are completely valid and appropriate in their respective societies. Therein lies the difficulty of defining a standard level of literacy. In this way, Scribner challenges the black and white split that Hedges creates between the literate and the illiterate, as if a person can only fall under one of these two categories. Because as Scribner reveals to us, those who would be considered ‘illiterate’ in American society are seen as literate in their communities if they can memorize a sacred text or write down a simple family history. Scribner really forces us to rethink what our definition of literacy is. 

            Andrea Lunsford paints a drastically different picture of literacy in the technology age in her article, Our Semi-­‐Literate Youth? Not So Fast, than Carr and Hedges describe in their articles. Carr and Hedges take a rather pessimistic standpoint and view the Internet and Technology as deteriorating our skills of literacy but Lunsford possess a very positive viewpoint of the effects of the media on our writing. In direct contrast to Carr and Hedges, Lunsford argues that the media is actually improving writing unlike “those who think Google is making us stupid and Facebook is frying our brains.” Lunsford would disagree with the fact that “Google is making us stupid” or that “the internet is making us illiterate.” Instead she argues that social networking is contributing to collaborative literacy and students are writing just as much outside of class as they are inside of class. Lunsford argues that, “rather than leading to a new illiteracy, these activities seemed to help them develop a range or repertoire of writing styles, tones, and formats along with a range of abilities.” Students gain the ability to easily transition from formal to informal writing styles given the nature of in class and outside class transitions. On the opposite spectrum of Hedges and Carr, Lunsford would claim that, “the participatory nature of digital media allows for more—not less—development of literacies.” Lunsford asks us to shed our preconception that people of my generation our rotting our brains with mindless texting and useless website browsing, look beyond the view “ that paints them as either brain-­‐damaged by technology or as cogs in the latest race to the top,” and instead consider another alternative. The alternative is that “the changes brought about by the digital revolution are just that: changes.” The impact that technology has on literacy and writing is neither good nor bad it is simply a change and we do not know yet what this change will bring.

             Through reading the articles of Carr, Hedges, Scribner, and Lunsford I have learned that literacy is a relative concept and it is constantly changing. Literacy has a different meaning in every community and with every passing year and its meaning will continue to evolve. A quote from Lunsford’s article very accurately captures the transitory nature of literacy. She says, “These changes alter the very grounds of literacy as the definition, nature, and scope of writing are all shifting away from the consumption of discourse to its production across a wide range of genre and media, away from individual “authors” to participatory and collaborative partners-­‐in-­‐ production; away from a single static standard of correctness to a situated understanding of audience and context and purpose for writing.” Our most pressing concerns then are to avoid the temptation to constrict the definition of literacy. Instead we should allow it to change, grow, and expand, and the result might be pleasantly surprising. 

The Ripple Effect of Illiteracy

           In his article, “America the Illiterate,” Chris Hedges describes the daunting effects illiteracy is having on our nation. To Hedges, literacy is not the simply ability of reading words on a page but the ability to comprehend and critically think about what one is reading. The whole article was troubling for me because I was unaware how high illiteracy rates were in our nation. My mouth literally dropped when I read the paragraph about the statistics of illiteracy that revealed that nearly a third of the nation is “illiterate or barely literate.” These numbers become extremely concerning when Hedges illustrates the ripple effect it is having on our country. Every aspect of our culture is being dumbed down so the one-third can understand. Complex issues are replaced by simple dichotomies. Politics, books, films, and every aspect of our culture glorifies entertainment over substance. “Cultural products that force us to examine ourselves and our society are condemned as elitist and impenetrable.” We cannot address the complex, deep-seeded issues that plague our country simply because most people cannot understand. These people “lack the capacity to search for truth and cope rationally with our mounting social and economic ills. They seek clarity, entertainment and order.” One excerpt that I found especially disturbing was the opening of the last paragraph: "The core values of our open society, the ability to think for oneself, to draw independent conclusions, to express dissent when judgment and common sense indicate something is wrong, to be self-critical, to challenge authority, to understand historical facts, to separate truth from lies, to advocate for change and to acknowledge that there are other views, different ways of being, that are morally and socially acceptable, are dying.” We seem to be doomed to a nation of mindlessness where pictures replace words and entertainment replaces value.

            Many connections are made between Nichols Carr and Chris Hedges’ articles. Both authors focus on the dwindling mental capacity and intelligence of America due to a culture that has facilitated us becoming this way. The culture we live in wants everything to be quick and easy to understand. Nobody values anything complex or difficult to understand. People are losing the ability to be intelligent, critically thinking individuals and instead cling to easy to understand ideas and images. Hedges and Carr are both worried about the direction are nation is headed.

Maybe Google Is Making Us Stupid

         Is Google making us stupid? After reading an article by Nicholas Carr discussing the effect Internet use has on us, I would most likely say yes. While I do agree that the internet provides so many benefits, the drawbacks are very significant. It may seem contradictory that something providing us with such a vast amount of information can actually make us less intelligent but Carr reveals that it is not. I found myself instantly aware that I share the same struggles as Carr with reading books or lengthy narratives. Before I had my own computer I used to read all the time and was constantly searching for a new book, but when I got a laptop for school I began to see the time I dedicated to reading steadily decrease as the years went on. Now when I pick up a book it does not take long before I have the desire to log onto Facebook or Tumblr or a number of various websites. Just as Carr describes, “The deep reading that used to come naturally has become a struggle.” Due to the speed and efficiency of the Internet our attention span for activities demanding a lengthier time commitment is dwindling. In the words of Carr, “what the Net seems to be doing is chipping away my capacity for concentration and contemplation.” Even while I read this article of only eight or so pages, I find myself experiencing precisely what Carr is explaining to us. My mind started to wander and skim and attempt to quickly weed out the most important parts. The ability to deeply read and contemplate the material seems to be a lost art. The metaphor Carr uses for this phenomenon is “Once I was a scuba diver in the sea of words. Now I zip along the surface like a guy on a Jet Ski.” All we care about now is just surface information. We want the main idea of what we are reading and we want it as fast as possible. Developmental psychologist and author Maryanne Wolf worries that the internets glorification of immediacy and efficiency “may be weakening our capacity for the kind of deep reading that emerged when an earlier technology, the printing press, made long and complex works of prose commonplace.” People often compare the inner workings of the brain to the most recent form of technology for example, “like clockwork” or “like computers.” But this comparison goes deep than just a metaphorical sense, the adaptation also happens on a biological level. Our constant Internet use may be affecting the way we think and the way our brains are wired. Internet search engines like Google view information as “a kind of commodity, a utilitarian resource that can be mined and processed with industrial efficiency” and believe that “the more pieces of information we can ‘access’ and the faster we can extract their gist, the more productive we become as thinkers.” These beliefs and views on thought completely disregard the complexities of the human mind. In the world of Google there is no room for “ambiguity” or “fuzziness of contemplation.” As Google and the Internet become more and more dominant we are losing our ability to “make our own associations, draw our own inferences and analogies, foster our own ideas.” Reading this article has made me realize that I should make more of an effort to close my computer and open up a book.

Defining Reading and Writing

        To me, reading is a personal interaction with words that others have written. Written, or typed, words can be read differently and have an entirely different meaning for every individual. Every person translates the words that they read to fit their personality and experiences and read through their own very specific lens. Reading is to actively consume words.

         Writing is a reaction to what we have read. To write is to read a book, story, article, etc. and add our own personal thoughts and opinions to the matter. As Harris puts it to write is essentially rewriting because often times we are taking someone else’s writing and “drawing from, commenting on, and adding to” others work. To write is to transform what you have read into your own thoughts. 

Sullivan and Harris on the Same Page

Joseph Harris, author of Rewriting, describes to us his own definition of reading and writing. Harris highlights the importance of embedding the words and thoughts of other writers into what we want to say. In other words, writing is responding to intellectuals who have already written about our topic and then adding our own opinions and our own voice.  Harris perfectly sums up the concept when he says,  “the job of an intellectual is to push and questions what has been said before, to rethink and reinterpret the texts he or she is dealing with.” In this quote we find the significance of the title, Rewriting; Harris encourages us to treat our writing as if we are adding, commenting, and utilizing the works of others in our own writing. Harris even gives us examples of how he has drawn from the works of authors in his book about telling us how to do exactly that. Another piece of advice Harris gives is that to understand a text we have to rewrite it and make it our own; to reveal the meaning of a text we need to actively make sense of them. Essentially we have to read texts through the lens of our own experience in order for them to mean something.  Harris agues that rewriting can also be seen as a coming to terms because we have to realize that writing is a negotiation between reader and writer. In the words of Harris,  "You come to terms with a text by translating its words and ideas into your own language, making them part of your own prose…”

            The way Joseph Harris describes writing is comparable to the way Andrew Sullivan describes blogging. The main connection I found was the similarities between how Sullivan said blogging was a combination of the writers thoughts, ideas, and research as well as his audience and the way Harris explained the writing is a combination of other writing and our own thoughts. Basically both men are saying that in both blogging and writing the writer reads a topic and then reacts to it in a way that is his or her own. Another similarity I found is the conversational nature of both Harris and Sullivan’s writing. Harris and Sullivan both make use of the first person which gives what they write a much more personal tone. Harris also reveals to use that he prefers his writings to be part of public life and aimed at a broad range of the general public readers, almost like a blog. Blogging follows almost all of the advice that Harris gives to us in the first couple chapters of his book, Rewriting.