To thine own self be true.

From Sherry Turkle's book Life on the Screen, I was quite surprised by how many people admit that they create multiple characters online that they describe as their true selves. They believe that these characters (personalities) reside within themselves always but are not free to come forth until they are in the online community setting. This really made me start to think about what these multi-user domains are doing to people's social skills. At first I thought that by allowing these people to express who they really are behind the comfort of the computer screen, they would be more able and willing to express these true parts of their personalities in the real world. From the reading though, it seems that the opposite is true. There is all this talk of having many selves within us, but there is absolutely no evidence that this comes forth in the real world.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that there is a large disconnect between how people express themselves online and how they do so in the real world. I would attribute this difference to the inability to feel comfortable with our true selves even though Turkle argues that this MUDs help us to discover our true selves. What good is discovering who we really are when we can only act that way in the online community. Sure more and more of our lives are spent on the computer, but this will never totally replace the need for interpersonal skills and for being able to be true to ourselves when we are around other people. If people need the internet to finally realize their worth and their identity, great. I just think that they need to be able to translate this knowledge to their everyday lives when they're not stuck on the couch for hours on end playing World of Warcraft.

Don't treat only hubs.

In Albert-Laszlo Barabasi's reading for last week, he uses several examples to illustrate the presence of viruses and fads in our culture. He discusses everything from early corn hybrids in Iowa to computer viruses to the AIDS epidemic. Along the way, he says that there are specific people in society called hubs that function to spread a fad or virus to many other people. In the case of the AIDS epidemic, Barbasi discusses the hubs that were responsible for spreading the HIV virus to tens or hundreds of people. Gaetan Dugas, patient zero, was known to have about 250 partners, no doubt functioning as a hub to easily spread the virus to many other men. Barbasi then goes on to describe how he thinks that "as long as rescources are finite we should treat only the hubs." What?

First of all, there is no treatment that is going to prevent the spread of the virus from one person to another. Maybe, then, Barbasi was talking hypothetically, about a time in the future when a cure becomes available. But alas, he states that "despite the several-billion-dollars-strong international fund, there will not be enough money to buy treatments for everyone, even at cost. (referring to programs offered by drug companies) So who gets them?" So it seems quite clear that he is taking about the situation now when the only treatments we have do minimize viral count and prolong livlihood, but they don't stop transmission. Furthermore, I think that appropriating money to AIDS patient hubs alone is like rewarding their behavior of spreading the virus, rather than treating the problem at hand which is their disrespect for stopping the spread of it. Sure the hub theory works well for other situations, but contrary to what Barbasi and those researchers cited in the text believe, treatment of only the hubs with HIV is a mistake and has not been too well thought out.

Damn technology.

With all the talk lately about the importance of technology and how it aims to make our lives better, I would like to take a few moments to rant about this very same topic. Technology, when it functions, is great. In the case of the computer alone, it allows us to keep neat and detailed records; communicate with friends, family and people at school; make purchases from an ever-expanding national and global marketplace; and waste our free time like never before. More and more, we are required to use the internet for class, whether to make an appoitment to meet with a T.A. or view lecture materials through Learn@UW. All of this is great. I consider myself technologically saavy and I use the internet just as much as the next Joe. My problem begins, though, when the technologies that are supposed to make our lives better do little more than cause frustration nearly unparalleled.

My old trusty HP desktop is now in its sixth year of use and abuse. With each passing day, it brings excitement to my life in the form of contemplating how many seconds it would take to hit the ground if I were to throw it out of my second story window. Most recently, I was advised by Adobe that I needed to install the latest version of Reader in order to open a certain .PDF file. I did what was expected of me by visiting the Adobe website and downloading then installing the program. Once I had everything completed I attempted to open the file again only to be told that a 'fatal error had occured.' The file wouldn't open, and neither would any of the others that had no problem with my old version of Reader. A couple restarts later and it still didn't work so I was forced to deleted what I had installed, and I have yet to have the time to attempt to reinstall the version.

This is just one of the several examples I encounter nearly weekly and it leads me to say 'damn technology.' I know you mean well, but sometimes you cause me such problems that I wonder if we would be better off without you. I was around for the time when we scheduled classes with the old telephone lady and she never gave me any attitude. Letter writing didn't used to be too bad either. Sure it was slow, but I never felt like burning the paper and pencil for all of the grief it was causing me. I guess somedays I just feel like we all have so much stress in our lives already that the additional frustrations that technology bring seem in a way counter intuitive to what we expect of technology itself. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for technology, but can somebody please figure out how to get rid of those glitches? I would be forever grateful.

That's so cool.

In Writing About Cool by Jeff Rice, I was perplexed as to how businesses were incorporating the word “cool” as a way to entice teenagers into their websites. Maybe it’s because I would never think of searching for cool sites on the web. I mean, don’t these people have something better to do with their time than to sit around on the computer looking for “cool” stuff. It just goes to show how the original intent of the internet has been lost to one of time-wasting and over-consuming. Along these lines, I was wondering how these teenagers are able to purchase things over the internet. Rice mentioned how several of the search engine sites have links to “cool” sites wherein unsuspecting web surfers encounter attempts at soliciting clothing, music, etc. Is there some new magic form of money that these kids can use to buy the things that Yahoo! and others so cleverly sneaks into these “cool” sites?

Furthermore, all of this talk about the importance of incorporation of cool hypertext into websites makes me wonder why it would be so important for us. If we are designing websites for ourselves, friends, family, whatever, why do we need to worry about incorporating cool into them (maybe we don’t?). I’m not looking to have some strange teenager stumble upon my website solely because it came up in a search engine because I’m such a “cool” guy. Clearly, that was a joke. I look forward to reading through the rest of Rice’s book to fully understand how this idea of writing cool applies to me. There must be an underlying message that I haven’t been able to decipher in the first several pages of the text.

More to it than networks.

For me, it was a relief to see that we were going to read an article that questioned what college English should be. That’s why I was a bit disappointed when Jeff Rice maintained that English should be about teaching networking and learning how so many parts of our lives are interconnected. I mean, doesn’t our generation, more than ever, already understand and take advantage of this fact? We’ve been there for the birth of the internet, e-mail, eBay, Amazon.com, Wikipedia, blogging and instant messaging. We understand perhaps better than any other generation, the effects and prevalence of globalization. We’ve seen the rise of social networking through such entities as Speedating, groups like MAGNET (Madison Area Growth Network) and networking sites Facebook and MySpace. Novices to the idea of networking we clearly are not.

So what should college English be? Clearly there are several possible answers to this. After all, English is a department and College English is not the winner-take-all English course that every college student would choose. I believe that it is still important to read from the Cannon, to appreciate all literary works and to learn to think about a writer’s words critically and analytically. I do think that College English, like other courses taken at a university should serve to prepare students for their lives post-college. Incorporating new technologies into the classroom would be essential to bridge the gap between what we think as a traditional English course and what we would think of a more modern one. Even a course on classics could take advantage of the most modern forums for student interaction and production.

College English should be about a lot of things, but simply networking? I don’t think so.

The times they are a-changin'.

When I enrolled in English 201, I envisioned that the course would go something like the following. On the first day, we would be introduced to the overall theme of the course, and we would briefly touch on the nature of each of the sub-themes. In the subsequent days, would we read various texts relating to sub-theme one and hold discussions on what was read, what we thought of the reading, etc. After a number of weeks of doing this, we would be assigned to compose a clear, concise thesis statement relating to the sub-topic. Most likely, said thesis would be introduced in the first paragraph of the written composition and would probably state some of the main ideas of the paper. In the following three paragraphs, the argument would be further developed using evidence, examples and counter examples. Paragraph five would sum up the gist of the paper and resolve and questions posed in the earlier paragraphs. The rough draft would be due on day X, a peer review might be held on day Y and on day Z the final draft would be turned in to the T.A. This process would repeat for each sub-theme of the course until arriving at the final paper that would encompass the entire scope of the course. Result? We become better writers. But in the real world, how far is writing that five paragraph essay to your T.A. really going to get you?

I believe that Daniel Anderson touched on this idea in his “Prosumer Approaches to New Media Composition: Production and Consumption in Continuum.” Although I believe he was trying to stress how being a consumer and a producer go hand-in-hand, the underlying theme of producing for an audience is one that ought to be stressed more in modern English courses. For one of his classes, Anderson gave his students the option of turning in a final paper or creating a movie that would address one of a number of prompts that he created (much like what is done in a ‘typical’ writing course.) One example was “A standardized curriculum that includes performance testing should be discouraged in Language Arts classes because…” I think that a student could convincingly create both a movie and a thesis paper showcasing this prompt, but here is where an important distinction should be made between the two genres. If I was to write a paper on the subject, I could do a lot of great research on the subject, look at statistics, interview teachers and students, and relay that information into a paper that would grasp the reader. The problem is, what reader? While I’m sure that my T.A. would be delighted to know why I think standardized testing should be discouraged, at the end of the day, after putting all of that effort into the paper, I would feel that I lost out on a potentially much larger audience. On the other hand, if I was to do the same research, the same interviews (on tape) and combine it into a digital media format, I could reach an audience of potentially millions. Not only this, but I think the feeling expressed through the two genres would be totally different. I would struggle to put into words the feelings expressed by a student struggling to pass a test or the anxiety that the teacher feels after devoting a large portion of her curriculum to teaching the students how to prepare for taking an exam.

For these reasons, I believe that modern day English classes should allow students to use new forms of media. In creating a thesis paper-turned movie, the structure would be conserved, and therefore I think it would still be important to teach how to create a good thesis, how to support it with evidence and how to cite the sources used. Plus I think that the typical format of a five paragraph thesis does have standing in creating a good speech or other work for public consumption.

In addition, I would argue that the traditional view of an English course is important to maintain in certain courses. Perhaps when reading and analyzing certain texts from the literary cannon it would be impractical to create a movie or share your feelings about it through a blog. Then again, maybe not. Only once we begin to shift our thoughts toward using new media will we then see the adaptability and potential that they posess.

Perhaps I’ve gone a bit off course of the scope of this blog, but I really wanted to get out what I felt after watching Anderson’s video. Let me know what you all thought.

STS class well worth it.

On Saturday, February 3, I attended the Software Training for Students (STS) class Dreamweaver in a Day. This was the first time that I utilized this free software training service and I will happily take another of the courses. Not only will I be able to apply what I learned in to the creation of a webpage for English 201, I now have the basic tools to create a website should I need to do so in the future. For example, about half of the students taking the class were graduate students assigned to manage their respective departmental websites with no prior experience or knowledge.

Admittedly, I questioned whether it would be such a good idea to (a) take four and a half hours out of my Saturday and (b) miss the Badger game. I reasoned that (a) it was only from 1-5:30 and that it hopefully would give me the tools I was hoping for and (b) it was just Northwestern. If you don’t have such an expanse of time to put into a software training class, there are plenty of other options that are only two hours long. Dreamweaver in a Day was designed to cover three two-hour classes in four and a half hours, which seemed well worth it to me.

Although they recommend that you sign up for a class as soon as possible, being on the waiting list should permit you entrance to the class that you sign up for. I signed up for the class earlier in the week and was placed on the waiting list. We were told that rarely do they turn away a student who shows up for the class. More common is to have students double up on computers to make room for extra students, but don't worry if you want your computer all to yourself. Once you've selected your computer, they won't have somebody work with you unless you volunteer. In the class I took, I think four computers were shared, including mine, and I don't feel that I lost anything as a result of working with another person. Rather, that person often can help you in the event that you miss an instruction or just can't seem to get the results you intended. Just be sure to show up about 10-15 minutes before the class begins.

If you plan to take notes, make sure to bring a notebook or print out the manuals that are available on the website before attending the class. The manuals that they provide are to be returned, and therefore, they do not want them written in.

As I said, I really enjoyed the class. Both of the instructors were great. One ‘lectured’ in the front of the classroom while the other was on hand to answer any questions and resolve problems. That afternoon, I learned everything from formatting a basic webpage to linking between internal and external sources to accessibility issues to CSS (cascading style sheets.) The instructors also touched briefly on HTML, noting that this was not an HTML course and throwing in a quick plug for the HTML courses that STS does offer.

The most surprising thing was how easily a website can be created. All twenty-something of us students were able to a website in as little as an hour or two. The remaining time was spent learning how to personalize webpages, making them more attractive and cohesive. Once you understand the basic concepts of layout and linking, you are free to play around with the numerous formatting tools to make your webpages look inviting and professional. [Note: webpage ≠ website]

I plan on taking another course—perhaps on iMovie or Photoshop. Both of these are potentially powerful tools in creating webpages and will greatly complement my training in Dreamweaver. Having training in these programs looks great on a résumé, and can do nothing but to better my academic and professional careers. Plus, since I’ll only be able to take advantage of these courses for free as a student for a short time, I better start doing so.

What is writing?

A few thoughts on Faigley.

Though I do not agree entirely with his argument, I did enjoy reading Lester L. Faigley's thoughts on rhetoric in Rhetorics Fast and Slow. Faigley takes the stand that we need to slow our lives down and seek out the places where 'slow' rhetoric should be utilized. At this point, it is important to make a distinction. Fast rhetoric refers to the latest genres of writing and communication. Examples of fast rhetoric include the internet web-pages, blogs, digital photographs, e-mails and text messages. On the other hand, slow rhetoric encompasses the more traditional forms of communication and writing.

Faigley argues that the digital age has fallen short on some of its earlier promises and that, when measured against more classical methods, technology doesn’t always come out on top. Near the opening of the article, we are made aware that for the 2000 Presidential election, Oregon chose to use paper ballots cast solely by mail. I could not believe that a state would choose to use such a low-tech method that I thought was only reserved for reality TV shows like Survivor. But after a brief bit of contemplation, I got to thinking. Perhaps Oregon knew exactly what they were doing. Perhaps using a pen to select candidates on a ballot would’ve alleviated all of the problems of counting and recounting and deciding what to do with hanging chads and dimpled chads. It took Floridians months to finally decide on a final vote count, and I find it hard to believe that it would’ve taken much longer to count the ballots one time had they been on paper and selected with ink. This brings up another interesting anomaly of our society. We have shifted toward such a fast-paced lifestyle that I would hate to think how America would react to having to wait to find out the official results of an election. One can assume that the networks wouldn’t stand for it either—they would have too much to lose. Perhaps those days of no recounts and mail-in ballots are things of fantasy.

It is pointed out in the article that history has shown that new technologies seldom stick to their original intentions. It is of little surprise that the internet has not created world peace nor has it abolished racism and prejudices in our country—all of which were envisioned during its creation. The internet has, however, allowed many people to learn about societies in a way that they never could before. Faigley states on page six of his article that “the glut of information that is readily accessible has not led to a broader global understanding but instead to increased fragmentation, confusion and exhaustion.” Really? He fails to note the instances when the internet has led to better understanding and enrichment and success. The internet has opened doors for many who have lived in closed-off societies. I’m sure it has helped many homosexual men and women who struggled to explain their feelings to see that they are not alone and are not freaks or perverts. It has given victims of rape a place to seek peer counseling when they have felt too scared or ashamed to come public with their histories. The internet is allowing disadvantages peoples in many countries to seek out a world market to sell their locally-produced goods on which their livelihood depends.

The internet gives us all a chance to seek understanding that older, slow rhetoric simply could not provide. It’s no wonder that China chooses to censor the internet. I believe they fear what may happen if their citizens become better informed of how other societies are able to live.

Faigley’s article goes on with the hopes of getting us to see the importance of slow rhetoric in modern society. I have fought to try to agree, but each time I delve deeper and deeper into one of his arguments, I find myself rooting for technology and fast rhetoric. Let’s face it, we’re at a point where technology has consumed our lives and I find it difficult to think that we will ever again separate ourselves from it. Rather, we need to embrace fast rhetoric and utilize its full potential. Faigley himself says that our human ancestors had an evolutionary advantage over other primates because they were able to communicate more and more complex subjects effectively. I believe this is true. We should take that notion along with modern genres of fast rhetoric to communicate those evermore complex issues we face.

I've a cado problem.

I'm known to enjoy a good avocado every once in a while and seeing that nice, round pit always thrown in the trash I decided a few months ago to make something of it. Last September, I took it upon myself to get an avocado pit to sprout (initially it was growing in water then I transplanted it to a make-shift soda bottle pot). I set it in the window to grow and inverted a jar over the bottle to act as a greenhouse. Now, four months later, the plant seems to be doing ok although it hasn't been growing too much lately and the leaves are showing some browning.

I know that this plant will never produce fruit, but I just thought it would be a cool idea to have a small avocado tree as a houseplant. If there is anybody out there who thinks I'm wasting my time, that this plant will not continue to mature, etc. please let me know. Alternatively, if you think that there is something I could be doing to get it to grow better, I would appreciate that information as well. Thanks.

What is rhetoric?

Before enrolling in English 201, I didn't have a very clear understanding of what the term rhetoric meant. Based solely on the context in which I've heard the word used, I would say that rhetoric is the way that somebody uses language when speaking to somebody else. More specifically, I would say that rhetoric is a form of using propaganda orally; it is the clever use of language to persuade others. For example, when somebody asks a rhetorical question, they don't really expect a reply but rather use it as a way to get you to agree with what is being said.

Having read Chapter One from James A. Herrick's The History and Theory of Rhetoric: An Introduction, I now realize that that is much more to be said about what the term rhetoric encompasses. First of all, it is important to note that the term has had a history of ups and downs. As we look through the past few thousand years, rhetoric has been an important tool in society for some, while for others the idea of using rhetoric has been so potentially harmful that its teachings have been banned from many colleges and universities. Based on the recent interest in this discipline, it seems that more and more people are beginning to realize that rhetorical work does have an important place in society. For example, Herrick states that the use of rhetoric is paramount in everything from shaping our economy to figuratively selling ourselves to potential lovers to taking those horse pills the doctor prescribed. The importance of rhetoric doesn't stop here. It is monumental in shaping policies on the communal, local, national and world levels.

Perhaps a better definition of rhetoric is the study of using symbols in a carefully thought out manner to attempt to persuade. More simply put, it is the study of how to use symbols to effectively transmit your argument to those people who need convincing. These symbols can be inanimate or not, ideological or real, simple or ornate. When carefully planned out, these symbols can be highly affective and persuasive. The key to maximizing the effectiveness is to study your audience and prepare for dialog both for and against what you have said.

Welcome.

Bienvenidos. Welcome. You've stumbled upon Chach Chat (catchy, huh?). My real name is John though I am referred to as Chach by my closest of friends. This nickname was given to me by Johnny O and his then girlfriend as a way to distinguish between us roommates of the same name. Why the university housing people thought it was appropriate to place two people of the same name in the same dorm room is beside me, but I'm happy they did.

I'll be straight forward to say that I don't consider myself a blogger, but alas English 201 at UW-Madison is changing that. That said, this is a place for me to post class-related 'stuff' along with whatever else I see fit. One thing is for sure, Chach Chat will continue to evolve. Charles Darwin strikes again.