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."
Sunday, November 29, 2009
Thursday, November 19, 2009
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.
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.
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
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.
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.
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
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.
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?
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.
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.
Friday, November 6, 2009
six questions
1. Why does Collin's tone of voice start out somewhat light and airy then slowly turn bland and boring?
2. Why did Collins choose to "borrow" the first two lines of the original poem in his re-invented version? Was there meaning or was it simply convenient?
3. Was Collin's re-invented version supposed to be humorous or mocking of the original love poem?
4. Are Collins' stanzas really a collection of inner questions, based on a beloved, like, "do I really love this person?..Yes I love this part, but not this part"
5. Or perhaps, could Collins be talking about himself? A love/hate relationship poem based upon his own feelings?
6. Or is the poem simply just a collection of metaphors based on random objects with absolutely no meaning whatsoever?
2. Why did Collins choose to "borrow" the first two lines of the original poem in his re-invented version? Was there meaning or was it simply convenient?
3. Was Collin's re-invented version supposed to be humorous or mocking of the original love poem?
4. Are Collins' stanzas really a collection of inner questions, based on a beloved, like, "do I really love this person?..Yes I love this part, but not this part"
5. Or perhaps, could Collins be talking about himself? A love/hate relationship poem based upon his own feelings?
6. Or is the poem simply just a collection of metaphors based on random objects with absolutely no meaning whatsoever?
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
lethem: take 2
So take 2 of this analysis..Right from the beginning I googled "cryptomnesia" because who knows what that is? Google replied with two words: "inadvertent plagiarism." I like the straightforwardness. Is that a word? Doesn't really matter since this is a blog, but anyways..After re-reading the article I still came to the same conclusion: Lethem feels that the ultimate end to "plagiarism" would be hurtful to the creation of new and innovative art.
"Burroughs was interrogating the universe with scissors and a paste pot, and the least imitative of authors was no plagiarist at all."
---> Lethem uses the example of an author named Burroughs, who wrote "Naked Lunch." Lethem explains his work as "Nothing, in all my experience of literature since, has ever had as strong an effect on my sense of the sheer possibilities of writing." Eventually Lethem learns that Burroughs actually took bits and pieces from other author's work to create his own writing. But Lethem says he doesn't care because why should he decide to dislike this work that was so influential and inspirational, just because the author borrowed from others ideas. I agree. I feel like people should focus more on the outcome of this borrowing (art or a piece of good writing) rather than the copyrights and legal stuff that follows it.
In response to: "But the truth is that with artists pulling on one side and corporations pulling on the other, the loser is the collective public imagination from which we were nourished in the first place, and whose existence as the ultimate repository of our offerings makes the work worth doing in the first place." I think that Lethem is basically saying that we need to get back to the beginning when legal aspects weren't even thought of. We need to remember why we have art in the first place and why it is such a widespread phenomenon. Less accusation, more appreciation.
"Burroughs was interrogating the universe with scissors and a paste pot, and the least imitative of authors was no plagiarist at all."
---> Lethem uses the example of an author named Burroughs, who wrote "Naked Lunch." Lethem explains his work as "Nothing, in all my experience of literature since, has ever had as strong an effect on my sense of the sheer possibilities of writing." Eventually Lethem learns that Burroughs actually took bits and pieces from other author's work to create his own writing. But Lethem says he doesn't care because why should he decide to dislike this work that was so influential and inspirational, just because the author borrowed from others ideas. I agree. I feel like people should focus more on the outcome of this borrowing (art or a piece of good writing) rather than the copyrights and legal stuff that follows it.
In response to: "But the truth is that with artists pulling on one side and corporations pulling on the other, the loser is the collective public imagination from which we were nourished in the first place, and whose existence as the ultimate repository of our offerings makes the work worth doing in the first place." I think that Lethem is basically saying that we need to get back to the beginning when legal aspects weren't even thought of. We need to remember why we have art in the first place and why it is such a widespread phenomenon. Less accusation, more appreciation.
Monday, November 2, 2009
jonathan lethem
Lethem's article basically validates the "plagiarism" and borrowing in art and music. The beauty of music or lyrics is that you can interpret it in so many different ways. Some people may find inspiration in a song and build off of that idea; Artists are artists purely for this reason.
---> “Beautiful as the chance encounter of a sewing machine and an umbrella on an operating table” is an expression of the belief that simply placing objects in an unexpected context reinvigorates their mysterious qualities.
I like the idea that art can be any given object in a different position or perhaps a different color. People who can see the beauty or importance in one object or word, can take that same idea and create something completely new and different...Yes, they might have stolen a few words or ideas here and there, but the end product is something to be appreciated. Art is meant to be shared and experienced and it cannot evolve without the ideas of others. Basically Lethem says that most work is at least somewhat influenced by plagiarism, but if we were to ban plagiarism completely we wouldn't be able to experience all of the creativity the world has to offer.
---> “Beautiful as the chance encounter of a sewing machine and an umbrella on an operating table” is an expression of the belief that simply placing objects in an unexpected context reinvigorates their mysterious qualities.
I like the idea that art can be any given object in a different position or perhaps a different color. People who can see the beauty or importance in one object or word, can take that same idea and create something completely new and different...Yes, they might have stolen a few words or ideas here and there, but the end product is something to be appreciated. Art is meant to be shared and experienced and it cannot evolve without the ideas of others. Basically Lethem says that most work is at least somewhat influenced by plagiarism, but if we were to ban plagiarism completely we wouldn't be able to experience all of the creativity the world has to offer.
Sunday, November 1, 2009
mark twain
"We write frankly and fearlessly but then we “modify” before we print."
---> I think this is simply saying we always second guess ourselves. We go into a piece of writing with confidence and write diligently, then when it comes to the end we go back and find all these negatives. I'm not referring to editing, because I think we can all agree editing is a major part of a good paper. But I think this person is saying that we go in and modify what doesn't need to be modified (this also ties into the filler words or adjectives).
"When you catch an adjective, kill it."
---> I am very guilty of over-using adjectives. Even though I know that it's usually better to just say what I'm trying to say, I'm always attempting to sound as intellegent as I can..so what's better than using multiple descriptive words? I think it's important to remember that we must not "kill" all adjectives but like the article says, "they weaken when they are close together. they give strength when they are wide apart."
---> I think this is simply saying we always second guess ourselves. We go into a piece of writing with confidence and write diligently, then when it comes to the end we go back and find all these negatives. I'm not referring to editing, because I think we can all agree editing is a major part of a good paper. But I think this person is saying that we go in and modify what doesn't need to be modified (this also ties into the filler words or adjectives).
"When you catch an adjective, kill it."
---> I am very guilty of over-using adjectives. Even though I know that it's usually better to just say what I'm trying to say, I'm always attempting to sound as intellegent as I can..so what's better than using multiple descriptive words? I think it's important to remember that we must not "kill" all adjectives but like the article says, "they weaken when they are close together. they give strength when they are wide apart."
AT&T commercial
The AT&T commercial uses two commonly known characters, Hansel and Gretel, to make us remember their product. The commercial creates a story of the two children exploring New York City. They follow the story of Hansel and Gretel with the bread crumbs and at the end of the day, the bread crumbs are missing and they need to find a way home. So what do they whip out? A handy dandy AT&T touch screen phone equipped with an amazing GPS.
Overall I'd have to say that AT&T did a good job of advertising their product. A company's main goal is to get you to buy the product, or at least have their company's name in the back of your head for future purchases..And I can definitely say that AT&T's orange symbol and escalating signal bars are easily recognizable.
I think the commercial is directed towards parents of young children. AT&T is letting parents know that they should buy these phones and in return, their children will always be able to “find their way home.” I know that a lot of parents think, “Why does my six or seven year old need a phone?” but in reality I think it’s a pretty good idea. I don’t think they necessarily need these high tech phones but if I was a parent I'd want my child to have some form of communication for emergencies, at the very least.
Overall I'd have to say that AT&T did a good job of advertising their product. A company's main goal is to get you to buy the product, or at least have their company's name in the back of your head for future purchases..And I can definitely say that AT&T's orange symbol and escalating signal bars are easily recognizable.
I think the commercial is directed towards parents of young children. AT&T is letting parents know that they should buy these phones and in return, their children will always be able to “find their way home.” I know that a lot of parents think, “Why does my six or seven year old need a phone?” but in reality I think it’s a pretty good idea. I don’t think they necessarily need these high tech phones but if I was a parent I'd want my child to have some form of communication for emergencies, at the very least.
Monday, October 26, 2009
writing online?
So here I am at Hofstra, and I am blogging. Writing online makes me feel somewhat vulnerable, yet also intrigued. I prefer the typed entries compared to the freewrites that we do in class because I am much better at expressing myself via typing. I am not usually one who likes to have their work posted for everyone to see, but it's comforting to know that I'm not the only one. I think the idea of blogging online shows how much our generations have evolved. I remember writing in diaries adorned with bright colors and sealing my random thoughts with the dangling lock and key...Now I can simply log on to one of the many online blog systems and design my page to reflect my personality with specific fonts and colors. I've honestly never really gotten the whole "blogging" thing because from my experience it's just a place for people to ramble on and on about how their day went. I say this because back in the day (8th grade) LiveJournals were the "in" thing and everyone did just that. These blogs literally looked like this: "so I went to school and hung out with my friends then I went home and did homework and now I'm here blogging..so yeah it wasn't a super exciting day, I guess I'll let you know how tomorrow goes, bye!" To me, this pointless. But if this makes a person feel important and heard for one second of their day, who am I to criticize? I definitely prefer this more digital aspect of writing because I text, e-mail and facebook constantly. So if I'm getting graded for typing on this blog instead of writing an essay, I'm content.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)