Essay

Here is my essay:

http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0Af6i16cwRwAqZGNwM3I1a2JfMWdxOG1uNmR2&hl=en


A New Age of Technology:
A Revolution in Reading and Writing
Since the creation of the internet in 1990, the World Wide Web has transformed the way we communicate. The technological progress that has been made within the last few decades will continue to affect our society for generations. The question is not whether it will affect us, but how. Studies, along with countless anecdotes, and personal experiences have shown me that the internet has changed the way we read and write. Opinions about whether this change is good or bad range from one extreme to the other. It is nearly impossible to understand the far reaching consequences of this literary transformation; however, by trying to address the negative and positive results, we may be better prepared to deal with the issues that will face our generation and generations to come.
Before one can address the negative and positive attributes of the internet, he or she must understand what the internet actually is. Tim Berners-Lee was a computer scientist working at CERN in the late 1980s. CERN is a particle physics laboratory near Geneva, which houses thousands of scientists using countless different computer systems. At the time, documents were stored hierarchically. The system was inefficient and complicated, so Berners-Lee proposed a new system that would solve CERN’s documentation problems. This proposal became what we now know as the internet.
Many people believe that the internet has had a negative effect on the way we read and write. It is difficult to deny their rationale when we begin to closely examine some of the changes happening today. One of the major problems facing the United States is the astonishing illiteracy rates. In his article, American the Illiterate, Chris Hedges states the over 42 million adults in the United States cannot read, and 50 million have the reading comprehension level of a fourth or fifth grader. That is nearly a third of the population of the United States, and the number of illiterate or semi-literate adults is increasing at an alarming rate of nearly 2 million a year. The fact that the illiteracy rates are so high is frightening in and of itself, but when one considers some of the other statistics, the picture begins to look very grave.
According to Chris Hedges, when people read the New York Times, they spend about 45 minutes with the physical paper. The average viewer of the New York Times website is about 7 minutes. There is a fundamental difference between reading and skimming. In the article, Is Google Making Us Stupid?, Nicholas Carr relates a conversation he had with Bruce Friedman, a pathologist at the University of Michigan. Friedman told Carr, “I can’t read War and Peace anymore. I’ve lost the ability to do that. Even a blog post of more than three or four paragraphs is too much to absorb. I skim it.” I have even noticed myself skimming rather than reading. When I was younger, I was an avid reader. My mom used to make me go to bed at 9:30pm, and there were many evenings that I pretended to be asleep until I thought she had gone to bed. As soon as the coast was clear, I would slip my reading light and book out from under my pillow and silently find my page. I spent countless nights curled up in bed reading until I began to see sunlight creeping through my bedroom window. Today, I find it difficult to even make it through my required reading for class. If the illiteracy rates are increasing, and literate people are having more and more difficulty reading long texts, what does that mean for the literacy of our country?
Another concern is that we are becoming too overloaded with information that may, or may not, be accurate. Every time we got online, we are flooded with new bits of information, like which movie star just got divorced and wear to buy the cheapest, designer purses. After being online for just a few hours, I often feel like my brain is weighed down with useless information. In Nicholas Carr’s article he quoted the playwright, Richard Foreman, who stated that we risk becoming, “‘pancake people’—spread wide and thin as we connect with that vast network of information accessed by the mere touch of a button.” Even accurate or useful information can be misleading when read improperly. In Bad Days for New Rooms, Chris Hedges states, “Those who rely on the Internet gravitate to sites that reinforce their beliefs.” There is nothing wrong with blog posts and websites that are based on opinion. The danger is when people believe these opinions as if they are fact, and then use them to justify their own misguided views.
The concern that we are becoming too overloaded with information goes one step further. Sergey Brin and Larry Page created Google while they were working towards there doctorates at Stanford. In Is Google Making Us Stupid?, Carr quotes them saying: ““The ultimate search engine is something as smart as people—or smarter,” Page said in a speech a few years back. “For us, working on search is a way to work on artificial intelligence.” In a 2004 interview with Newsweek, Brin said, “Certainly if you had all the world’s information directly attached to your brain, or an artificial brain that was smarter than your brain, you’d be better off.”” The idea of an artificial intelligence, let alone one attached to my brain, makes me feel rather uneasy.
I have a tendency to get wrapped up in conspiracy theories. I never get too carried away, but I enjoy contemplating the future and what it may hold, for better, but especially for worse. In my opinion, there is a fine line between individuality and the blogosphere. I am of the opinion that we are what we read. As the illiteracy rates in the United States begin to climb, the public is less able to educate themselves. They can only believe what they hear and are therefore cut off from the knowledge available to literate people. As we begin to skim rather than read, I am afraid that we will lose the depth of knowledge that comes from reading and analyzing a full length novel. The more people interact on the internet the more similar their writing, reading, and thinking will be. At first we may sound individual, but what happens when our thoughts and words become a series of hyperlinks to be skimmed over? Joseph Harris discusses his views of academic writing in his novel, Rewriting. I agree with his view that academic writing is rewriting what other people have already written. I believe that this concept includes all types of writing. Everything we do, think, and write has a basis in someone else’s ideas. As people become more apt to skim than read and summarize rather than write, what will happen to that sense of individuality that can only be truly expressed through long, eloquent prose?
On the other hand, the internet has become an intricate part of our everyday lives. There are an overwhelming number of benefits that even a cynic like me cannot dismiss. Through the internet, we are able to access an unlimited amount of information. With a few clicks of a button, I can find out anything from the current weather in China to who is the Senator of Oklahoma. The majority of interactions in businesses and even on campuses like the University of Louisville take place through e-mail or on a website. In addition to the accessibility of information and the ease of communication, everyone is able to write online. In his article, Why I Blog, Andrew Sullivan states, “It was obvious from the start that it [blogging] was revolutionary. Every writer since the printing press has longed for a means to publish himself and reach—instantly—any reader on Earth”.
In the end, all we can do is speculate. It is impossible to know today what the lasting consequences of the internet and our changed literacy styles will be. There are many valid concerns; however, I believe the majority of people are too determined and strong willed to allow the internet or Artificial Intelligence to consume their individuality. I have always loved to read and write, but the way we think and therefore communicate has been changing and evolving for thousands of years. There has been a fear of change throughout the ages. Carr writes, “The arrival of Gutenberg’s printing press, in the 15th century, set off another round of teeth gnashing. The Italian humanist Hieronimo Squarciafico worried that the easy availability of books would lead to intellectual laziness, making men “less studious” and weakening their minds. Others argued that cheaply printed books and broadsheets would undermine religious authority, demean the work of scholars and scribes, and spread sedition and debauchery.” Without the printing press the world would be a much different and less educated place then it is today. Although I would hate to see the eloquence of prose get lost in the crossfire of modern technology, sometimes things must get lost for progresses sake.

Article

http://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B_6i16cwRwAqMmEwNWFjYmMtYThjYy00NGI2LWI4ZGYtNzlhMWRkMTg3NWZi&hl=en

I am doing a project in my JA 200 about the effects of divorce on juvenile deliquency. This looked like a reliable article to get some back ground information on the science behind juvenile deliquency.

Blogging Reflection

On my first day of English 105, I was rather hesitant about blogging. I had a lot of common misconceptions: that it was whiney and too personal, to name a few. After reading and writing multiple blogs, my views on internet writing has completely changed. The most challenging part of these posts was to look at them objectively. Some of the pieces I found infuriating and completely one-sided. Others were closer to my own opinions, but sometimes it is even harder to read those impartially, because I agree with the author. I was surprised that a lot of bloggers are very well informed in their fields. I always assumed bloggers were a cheap version of journalists who only pretend to know what they are talking about without any substantial research or support. Andrew Sullivan shattered that view in the first article we read. Even the articles by Hedges, though I firmly disagree with him, were well thought out and well written. My web habits have not really changed that much, but I look at the internet differently. I pay closer attention to what my friends and I write, because I wonder if the internet really is changing the way we think. I also try to read everything, rather than skimming an article or e-mail, because I enjoy reading and I do not want to lose the ability to focus on a novel. It may seem a little bit silly, but a little bit of precaution can go a long way. For the most part, I still chat on Facebook and check my e-mail like every other teenager.

Blood on the floor? or Revolution in writing??

In his article, “Bad Days for Newsrooms—and Democracy”, Hedge states his opinion in the first paragraph: “The decline of newspapers is about the rise of the corporate state, the loss of civic and public responsibility, … the intellectual poverty of our post-literate world, a world where information is conveyed primarily through rapidly moving images rather than print”. The more I read by Chris Hedges, the less I like him. However, he does have some valid points. It is undeniable that the news we hear and read today is quite different than that of our parents’ generation or even of my childhood. News is now designed to amuse rather than inform. From sizzling gossip columns to snappy news anchors, vessels that used to relay information have become yet another form of entertainment. Out of curiosity I visited Yahoo and MSN to see what news headlines popped up first. On Yahoo, the headline was “NFL player fined for message on shoes”. On MSN, “The New Hair Club for Men” which discussed which stars have bad hair implants, was front-and-center. This is news? What about the War in Iraq or the recession? To me, that seems a bit more prevalent then celebs’ hair and stunts by NFL players. I do have to agree that the rise of corporate states have a major part to play in the decline of newsrooms. Time Warner, Disney, Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp., General Electric and Viacom control virtually everything we read or hear. In my opinion, this is more to blame than the literacy rates in America. Thompson’s view of the effect of the internet on literacy is opposite of Hedge’s. Thompson argues that the internet is changing the way we write, but not making people illiterate. According to a study, over 30% of the writing that occurs is outside of school. This has forced writers of my generation to focus on their audience rather than pleasing a professor. On the other hand, I think it is important to remember that this study was conducted with students, which, when you consider Hedge’s arguments about people who are semi-literate or uneducated, is not really applicable when comparing their opinions.

Illiterates or animals?

I believe it is safe to say that this is by far the most depressing blog we have read for this class. At first when I read it, I was offended. I have worked with a lot of different people from all walks of life. I have done a great deal of volunteer work through church and the refugee center in Bowling Green. I have worked with a lot of illiterate people. While reading this article, it reminded me strongly of my time working in Louisiana over the summer. I absolutely loved working down there. I worked with the renovations on Fort Polk. The first day I went to work I was petrified. All the guys I worked with were huge, and most of the girls looked like they could beat the tar out of me without batting an eye. It did not take me long to realize that they were not as bad as they appeared. Once I got to know them, I realized they were some of the most sincere, generous people I have ever met. Most of them were illiterate or semi-literate. When I started reading this article, I was livid. It seemed like Hedges was stating that illiterate people should not be allowed to vote, or it is their fault there are so many problems in America. After re-reading it, I think he was not so much trying to blame the illiterate population, as much as point out an alarming social problem facing Americans today. All the same, I think his article is very one sided. The tone makes illiterate people sound like helpless animals rather than human beings. In my opinion, an effort should be made to improve education and political awareness. That is the only way this country will get turned around. Although he had some data, it was not very concise and rather misleading. His opinion was expressed so strongly that I felt immediately on the defensive. Hedge and Carr have similar views about how technology is detrimental to the public. They both think that the internet is making people think differently. Although, ironically enough Hedge seems to think it is making the public more stupid than Carr does, which completely contradicts the title of the last blog we read.

Google-not stupid, just robots

Nicholas Carr’s article, “Is Google Making Us Stupid?”, is more than a little bit disconcerting. I have to admit; I have a tendency to get wrapped up in conspiracy theories and outlandish speculations. I am not one of those people who have a secret bunker in their basement, but I enjoy contemplating the future and what it may hold, for better, but especially for worse. Although the title is eye-catching, I do not think it conveys Carr’s opinion very well. His point is not necessarily that Google is making us stupid; he believes it is changing the way we read and comprehend information. The accessibility and ease of information on the internet is creating a generation of readers that skim rather than immerse themselves in texts. In the golden age of literature, full length novels were hundreds of pages long. Now, it is rare if a text can keep our interest for more than a few pages. I have even noticed this pattern in my own life and reading. I began reading at a very young age. By the time I was in eighth grade, my standardized test scores stated my reading comprehension was equivalent to that of a college sophomore. Until a few years ago, I was an avid reader. It was unusual to see me without a book when I was growing up. Now, I have difficulty focusing on books like I used to. I still enjoy reading, but the books the capture my interest have to be much faster paced. I used to love reading Jane Austen. I still enjoy her works, but it requires a lot of coffee and ‘cell phone breaks’ for me to make it through even a few chapters.
I can relate better to Carr’s article than any of the other articles I have read in this course. The other articles have valid points, but I share some of the same fears as Carr. When I was in high school, I wanted to be a writer, and part of me still clings to that desire to write and be read. The accessibility to an extensive audience found through blogging is an amazing opportunity, but is it worth the cost? Are truly talented authors being drowned in the mayhem of the blogosphere? Another concern of mine is the fine line of individuality. Sullivan argues that blogging is a great way to express individuality, but is it? At first our blogs may sound individual, but what happens when our thoughts and words become a series of hyperlinks to be skimmed over? I agree with Harris’s view of academic writing- it is rewriting what other people have already written. I believe that this concept includes all types of writing. Everything we do, think, and write has some basis in someone else’s ideas. As people become more apt to skim than read and summarize rather than write, what will happen to that sense of individuality that can only be truly expressed through long, eloquent prose?

Harris Blog

I found Harris’s first two articles in Rewriting to be a very unique perspective than what I am accustomed to. He explains academic writing as “in response to the work of others”. He goes on to explain that academic writing, or what he calls ‘rewriting’, is a process by which a writer analyzes and expands on the works of others. According to Harris, academic writing and reading are interrelated. A writer clearly has to read other works before he or she can expand upon it. When reading critically, Harris suggests four methods: coming to terms, forwarding, countering, and taking an approach. Coming to terms involves comprehending and re-presenting a text. Basically, to understand a text so well that you can explain its intent or purpose without directly quoting the author. Forwarding is the concept of recirculating texts or ideas while adding ideas or insights to them. Although countering typically makes one think of an argument or rebuttal, it is not quite the same according to Harris. He says that a proper counter-argument must recognize the positive attributes of a text and rethink or expand its weaker points. Taking an approach is similar to putting yourself into an author’s shoes. You try to draw from an author’s style and apply it to other texts. These four methods for critical reading apply directly to one of the most important parts of the writing process: revision. When an author is able to apply these principles to their own work, he or she can advance their writing tremendously. The purpose of writing is not so much to follow a strict pattern as much as to fulfill a certain function. Every text has a purpose. The value in a text is not in the form; rather, it is determined by whether or not it fulfills its function. Harris and Sullivan share some similar opinions in writing. I found it interesting that both seem more concerned with the function or purpose of a text than any other literary aspect. Sullivan likes that blogging is unstructured. This lack of structure is the reason that blogging is such a powerful tool of self expression, or as he stated, “writing out loud”.

Comparison of classmates internet habits

After looking over my classmates’ internet notes, I noticed a few interesting details. The majority of the sites they visited are either sites I visit frequently or sites I am nonetheless familiar with. Among some the guys, I often saw “ESPN” sprinkled in between Facebook and e-mail. Others, visited news sites, which at first surprised me, and then I remembered I am in an honors class, and not everyone in the world is as unsuccessful at keeping up to date with current events as I am. Many of my classmates listen to Pandora. At first, when I looked through the blogs everything seemed very repetitive. The majority of us visit similar, if not the same, sites. I started to reflect on the diversity of our class. All of us are honors students, but beyond that we are very different. We have different views and hobbies. Many of us live on campus, while others (like me) commute half an hour or more. If we all come from such diverse backgrounds, why are our internet logs so similar?? It reminded me of a comment one of my classmates made. (Turning this assignment in late, gave me the benefit of hearing others opinions first.) He wrote, “Saying what one does on the internet doesn’t really define one’s personality. Saying where one does it however speaks volumes about their personality.” This quote is a little bit misleading, but I think I know what he means. You can see a lot about our personalities by what sites we visit. One could safely say that the majority of my peers have an interest in social networking (Facebook and email), music (Pandora and YouTube), and schoolwork (Louisville.edu). The extra sites one visits, or what one does within those sites can give a lot of insight into their personality. For example, because I visit MapQuest, one could infer I like to travel or was traveling last weekend.

Internet Habits

Internet Habits
Saturday, 9/5:
10:15am- MapQuest Coxs Creek to Bowling Green
10:25- check Facebook
11:00- check MySpace
11:10- Google “Juvenile Delinquency” – research for Crime and Justice class
12:20pm - check Yahoomail
12:30- check school email
12:38- check Blackboard
1:00- check bank account

Sunday, 9/6
1:00pm- Tattoo/ Piercing parlors in Bowling Green (Dan’s iphone)
1:15- definition of obstinate (Dan’s iphone)
11:45- yahoo forecast (for drive home)


This doesn't neccisarily show my typical internet habits, because I still don't have internet at home. I drove to McDonalds on Saturday to get directions and do a little bit of homework. On Sunday, I was visiting some friends in Bowling Green.

Why I Blog Response

Andrew Sullivan’s article, “Why I blog”, was an insightful explanation of blogging. It was fascinating to read a famous blogger’s opinion and perspective. I found it extremely interesting that he did not think blogging would replace traditional writing. In fact, he argued that the blogosphere created a new generation of readers who are interested in nonfiction. He feels that the nature of blogging makes traditional writing invaluable. In the article, Sullivan gives a multitude of reasons why he blogs. One reason he blogs is because blogging is unstructured by nature. He states, “[Blogging] allows for no retroactive editing … and removes from the act of writing any considered or lengthy review”. Blogging is, therefore, a random expression of instant thought. It is a free-write that is informal and riddled with minor errors that are scarce in the realm of traditional journalism. Another fascinating aspect of blogging is the balance between individual voice and the collective mind. Blogs are personal and filled with emotion. Sullivan describes it as “writing out loud”. Blogs expose an author more than any other literary outlet. Because blogging demands a more spontaneous and passionate response than any other form of writing, the reader is able to look directly at the author. The author cannot hide behind layers of editing and revising. On the other hand, anyone can be a critic. Blogs are mercilessly scrutinized by their readers. This scrutiny allows readers to collectively dictate the direction of the blogosphere. The collective mind of bloggers and readers is constantly evolving. Blogging is a new form of writing, that rather than replacing traditional writing, has expanded the public’s definition of writing and civic literacy.