stickiness

To me stickiness is basically the definition in the article. It's the aptitude at which certain things are remembered based on how well the ideas are created. The article starts off with the organ thief story, and to be honest I didn't catch on until it was established that it was an urban legend. Right from the beginning the Heaths made the comparison between the urban legend story and a random excerpt from a paper by a non-profit organization. The argument was that if you took a minute to read both, you could remember the overall gist of the urban legend, but next to nothing on the excerpt from the boring paper. The urban legend just leaves you with a sense of "interesting" while the other does not; It has that "stickiness." Then there was the example about the elementary school teacher who is just trying to get her kids to understand the curriculum. "She knows how to speak effectively — she's a virtuoso of posture and diction and eye contact." This is interesting because it relates back to the article about the dog whisperer. You must make an impact or create a strong presence if you want people to listen to what you're saying or doing.

To create "stickiness" you can't just say it, you must prove it and show it. "Both made use of vivid, concrete images that cling easily to memory." Minds are able to cling to these "images" much more than a statistic or someone preaching that something is wrong or right. We must be concise and to the point. "The Golden Rule is the ultimate model of simplicity: a one-sentence statement so profound that an individual could spend a lifetime learning to follow it."

objectification of library subject

I spotted my subject out of the corner of my right eye. He looked to be an average teenage male, I'd guess about 19 years old. He was on the shorter side and dressed casually in dark jeans and a plain polo-like shirt. He also wore a green hat, along with an unattractive, marshmallow-like winter coat. He was sitting at a table facing the stairs of the Axinn Library. His positioning was a bit slouched and relaxed, giving off a "chill, go with the flow" kind of vibe. His feet portrayed the same feeling because they sat relaxed, one on top of the other.

My subject was clearly in the library to study and get work done in peace and quiet. He was not interacting with anyone because his attention was completely consumed by his apple laptop and headphones, which created an illusion of total concentration. He looked as if he were researching something, perhaps for a paper. I also noticed that the subject seemed antsy, because he didn't stop shaking his leg.

Overall my subject performed the average actions of a student in the library. Honestly he was not that interesting to watch, because he barely moved and interacted with absolutely no one. I'm pretty sure he knew I was observing/"stalking" him because soon after, he got up and left..but then returned 10 to 15 minutes later in a new seat. Who knows.

reflection on library stalking

I think this activity would be useful for writers because it pushed us out of our comfort zone and made us try something different. It also made us pay close attention to the little details of a person's movements and presence (much like the article of the dog vs. human interaction). This activity got us to stretch as if we were about to run a race or write a paper, by getting us to think and generate adjectives and metaphors that pertain to our subject. The idea of stalking someone seemed weird in the beginning, but it actually related to the article we just read because it had me looking at people in a completely different light. You can tell how approachable someone is by their position. Are they slouching? Sitting upright? Is there outfit laid back or put together? There are so many details it's almost overwhelming. I think that this exercise was supposed to train us to be as descriptive as possible, because in writing we must paint a picture and tell a story to get our point across. Details, details, details. Thinking of metaphoric equivalences for our adjectives and descriptions helped us better understand what we were really looking at and it gave us a wider pool of options to choose how to illustrate our subject.

dog vs. human or human vs. human?

This article was all about a dog whisperer named Cesar Millan. There was a lot of talk about presence; whether it’s regarding your arms, face, or overall body. The beginning of the article is describing Cesar’s experiences and how his presence can calm dogs and make them feel comfortable by letting them know that he’s not a threat. It’s amazing how a slight movement of your arm can show so much to another person (or dog).

The article goes on to talk about how Cesar was able to work with about 47 dogs at one one time. During this time he was able to show dogs that had attacked their owners and dogs that killed another dogs, that he was not the bad guy. He took control of the situation, not through aggression, but by understanding how the dogs were feeling. Since dogs are the only animals that actually learn and feed off of human movement, they are constantly reading and trying to understand their owners. I liked the example about the dog vs. the chimpanzee. It had to do with a person showing each animal three upside down cups, with only one containing food, and if this person pointed to the one that in fact contained food, a dog would realize and understand this concept every time while the chimpanzee would not. The ending about the child with autism was also very interesting. It was the same concept of the presence of dogs, but it also proved true with human vs. human interaction. The dance teacher, Tortora, said, "I'm standing above him, looking directly at him. I am very symmetrical. So I'm saying to him, I'm stable. I'm here. I'm calm. I'm holding him at the knees and giving him sensory input. It's firm and clear. Touch is an incredible tool. It's another way to speak." By creating stability and comfort through her presence, Tortora was able to get through to this child like no one else could.

"You practice exercise and affection. But you're not practicing exercise, discipline, and affection. When we love someone, we fulfill everything about them. That's loving. And you're not loving your dog." This says that you must love and care for your dog or loved one, but you also must discipline to a certain extent. You don't want to be like Cesar and have the idea that the woman is supposed to do everything in a relationship, with not even love as a return, and that's just how it's supposed to be. But you also don't want to be like the woman who allowed her dog to attack her son, with no discipline towards the dog, but if it had been in reverse the child would be punished. It's all about finding that happy medium.

I think that the overall objective of the article was to realize how much the little details count. Dogs read us just as we, as humans, read other humans. It's all about knowing how to present yourself in a manner that is non-threatening and at a common ground. Cesar was brilliant at finding this equilibrium with dogs, but not so much for his own wife. And then there was mother who could nurture and care for her dog that was once tortured, but couldn't find it in herself to care for her own son.

response to peter's question

Who, or what, is a hypertext?

Hypertext is simply a form of writing that incorporates references to other texts within the body of the paper. This form of writing is also not-sequential, which means you can come in at any time and be able to understand what's going on (you don't need to start from the beginning).

How can the body be fully paralleled to writing?

The body is able to function because each and every part is working in accordance. If we were to have only a liver or only a spine, we would not be complete. Shelley talks about how writing is about piecing different paragraphs and sentences together to create something that is beautiful in the end, much like that of our body.

questions for stitch bitch

Why does Shelley Jackson refer to herself as Shelley Shelley?
What does Shelley Jackson mean when she says that hypertext is "equally weighted?"
When Shelley Jackson says, "to make room for what hasn't been voted into the club of stuff," what exactly is the club of stuff?
Why should we desire to be monsters or create monsters?
Do you use hypertext?

shelley jackson

Wow so right off the bat I'm confused. This Shelley Jackson sure knows how to write in circles. I'm going to blog as I read because I feel like I'll forget something if I try and read the article fully then write. ---> So let's start with Shelley Shelley. The first two paragraphs are really confusing because you're sitting here asking yourself, "who is writing to us?" Shelley Jackson is Shelley Shelley and "Stitch Bitch" is the monster she has created?..I'll also mention Mary Shelley, who I'm assuming is not her real mother, but maybe her influence or inspiration for writing this piece. I think that it's interesting how Shelley talks about how the body is not whole. She talks about how "we can't feel our liver working or messages shuttling through our spine." It's wierd to think because as a whole our body can fulfill everyday functions, but if we were to lack certain parts we'd be at a loss. --> I just came across the whole idea of "hypertext." Shelley describes it by saying: "A hypertext never seems quite finished, it isn't clear just where it ends, it's fuzzy at the edges, you can't figure out what matters and what doesn't, what's matter and what's void, what's the bone and what's the flesh, it's all decoration or it's all substance." So that makes sense...not. What is hypertext?! I'll keep reading... --> So now I have this : “Normally when you read you can orient yourself by a few important facts and let the details fall where they may. The noun trumps the adjective, person trumps place, idea trumps example. In hypertext, you can't find out what's important so you have to pay attention to everything, which is exhausting like being in a foreign country, you are not native.” This just makes me believe that hypertext can’t be understood. I think I’m going to google it…

Hypertext, according to google, is simply: “A system of writing and displaying text that enables the text to be linked in multiple ways, to be available at several levels of detail, and to contain links to related documents.”

I think it’s interesting how Shelley describes her writing as a machine…”Such a machine can only do two things: convince or break down.” She’s talking about how gaps in texts such as these can be dangerous because they can lose a readers attention..and to be honest, she’s kind of losing me. Maybe it’s because I’d rather be sleeping right now, or maybe I’m just not as interested in this piece of writing…
The next thing that caught my attention was the fiction vs. reality part. Shelley is talking about how fiction allows us to break out of the norm and step outside of reality. Shelley makes fiction seem so daring and adventurous..It’s all about pushing the seams and picking out the stitches to find something that is new and unknown. “Hypertext just makes explicit what everyone does already.” This is true because I am hypertexting as we speak.

So overall I thought the article was kind of confusing but I think I understand the gist of it all. Shelley is basically saying that writing, and specifically hypertext, allows us to break free from this "novel norm" or the idea that writing must be a full bodied text. You can have a piece of writing that is not fully together, and still find beauty within it.