I chose to use a PowerPoint for my presentation since I was familiar with the medium. While there are a number of other things I could have tried to go outside my comfort zone and presented the information in a different, albeit just as effective, way, but I didn't feel that taking that sort of risk would end up paying off especially since I think my project can be presented really well on a plain old PowerPoint. It allows for the focus to be solely on the information on the slides instead of say my voice in a podcast. Plus, physically saying things to add to the slides allowed me to keep them minimalist and not present too much on each slide. I think that my audience can really use the information I presented to improve their content. Ideally, this would be a presentation given to a company like Sports Illustrated on how they can improve their content, especially online, and I think there are some insights that go beyond sports and can be used in all facets of online journalism. People are craving more personalized interaction and want to just get the news on their feed that they want to see, so tailoring content towards specific demographics is the way a lot of online content is trending, and I think sports media especially can tap into that, whether it be different age groups, genders, or geographic regions. What's important is the innovation keeps coming and brands don't get stuck doing one thing, as they will quickly be passed by. One comment that really helped me on my blog was from Paige during the Unit 2 Portfolio, when she said: "Awesome job, your unit 2 work has greatly improved since the draft. I think your extensive use of factual sports information and examples allows readers to really understand your topic and it helps to support your thesis." I think the fact that people responded well to the sports theme and the use of specific examples really influenced what I put into the final draft, talking about Scott Van Pelt and specifically Barstool Sports. I really felt that my thesis was a strong one and seeing someone else respond to that and think that it has potential made me keep going strong with the topic.
Wednesday, April 24, 2019
Unit 3 Portfolio
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/17FaSnOQoHoSWvuDeTZbYp4BeCcmuFHkEOxaoLqIYIdU/edit?usp=sharing
Wednesday, April 10, 2019
Graphic Novel
Monday, March 25, 2019
Unit 2 Reflection
The genre was something I had struggled with. I was originally going to aim this towards people around my age. However, as I began to write my portfolio, I noticed that I didn't think that would work. I don't think my generation particularly cares about the history of sports journalism and how it has changed. Instead, I think my piece would be better aimed at an older audience, probably 30 and up. I think they are the ones who need to understand where not just sports, but journalism in general is heading, and why the use of Twitter isn't necessarily a bad thing. I used my own opinions pretty heavily throughout the piece, and with the line "I also think that increased interaction with fans on social media can only be a good thing, as they can get feedback used to improve their content.", I think I really conveyed my stance and gave a good illustration of the good social media can do for journalism. I think the conversation around this topic is largely negative, especially in my target audience, since I think people like my dad don't truly understand how the internet has impacted these writers. He just sees newspapers slowly dying out, and sees stories about all the terrible stuff taking place on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram, and that gives him a negative view of everything. However, the way I primarily use Twitter, to follow sports by getting breaking news and interact with other fans watching the same game, is great, and in my opinion, has improved sports, especially journalism, as reporters no longer have to write their article to get their thoughts out, instead tweeting out instant reactions. I think the sources are pretty clear, being the reporters online presence, whether it be their Twitter, what they write on their website, or their podcast. I would be interesting in research on how writers have changed if they used to write in a newspaper or magazine and then moved to primarily writing online. I wonder if there is any change in their writing style or the amount of articles they write. I don't think there will a change, but I would interested to see if there is any sort of change. In my Pitch, I reached out to people my age, since that was my original target audience, on Twitter. While I didn't get any response to my Tweet, I did have some friends reach out to me and engage in a conversation about the topic. I ended up changing my target audience since I felt that's how the information was best suited to be distributed and would have the most impact, but I think there is still something to be explored with my demographic. I think I can apply a lot of this to life outside of class. For one, the research methods I used can be used in any situation, and I plan on doing so to be better informed on a variety of topics. Not only can it be used for research in any other class, but using the internet and social media to learn I think is an area that isn't utilized enough. I also learned a lot about how to write, especially how to manipulate the style to best fit the target audience, and to be very cognizant of the audience to enhance the writing. Finally, I think even being able to come up with the pitch or an idea is a key idea. Understanding topics that interest me and how I can learn more about them is something that will be with me for the rest of my life, and I hope to continue learning about new things and new interests. I also think that in general, people nowadays want to be more informed, and they have a greater interest in information as a whole, so the skill of being able to provide that information is huge. In every industry, decisions are becoming more and more analytical, relying more and more on numbers and facts than ever before. With industry trending towards being more statistical, I think it is only natural that society is following and attempting to learn more and know more about all topic, so they can in turn make decisions with more data than ever before. With the research skills we used in this class, I can now do that better than I did before, and I think that will better prepare me for adult life as I begin to learn more about a variety of topics.
Unit 2 Portfolio
Technology has become ever present in our lives. Everyone in my generation grew up around computers, smartphones, and the internet from a young age, and it has undoubtedly had a massive effect on all of us. As a sports fan, it has been easy to see how the sports landscape has changed with new technologies. While SportsCenter and ESPN were revolutionary when they were first launched, they have almost been made obsolete by highlights coming in instantaneously on social media, news breaks on Twitter, and games are being streamed more than watched on television. I think the way journalism as a whole, but specifically relating to sports, is very interesting, and I wanted to look more into it. I believe that as sports journalism has moved into a more digital space, it is in a better place than ever before.
There have been plenty of stories about newspapers dying, and my house has always received the newspaper, and I grew up reading the sports section of the New York Daily News, so I appreciate reading sports articles. I still read a lot of sports content, but it has moved online, with website like ESPN, The Ringer, SBNation, and The Athletic putting out more content a day than a newspaper could in a week. Not only do they have regionalized coverage specific to teams that a fan would want, but that fan now has access to stories that they never would have 10 years ago. For instance, ESPN recently put out a story on the Phoenix Sun's front office. Prior to the digital age, this sort of article wouldn't have reached people outside of Arizona. However, the internet has connected the world of sports in ways that people couldn't have imagined when local newspapers dominated the scene. The sports consumer is now better informed than ever, since if Syracuse is going to play Clemson in basketball like they do on Saturday, I can read game recaps on Clemson from ESPN, look at local online newspapers in South Carolina for injury updates and stories about the team, and read fan blogs for what my counterparts think about the Tigers. This stands in stark contrast to the days of newspapers, where all I would've gotten is a preview in the Daily Orange on Saturday morning.
I also think that Twitter has made a huge and positive impact on the world of sports journalism. Look at Adam Schefter, a reporter on the NFL for ESPN. He breaks almost all of his scoops on Twitter, and the same can be said for every other major sports reporter at every company. The news is getting to everyone in a way which it hasn't previously, as almost instantaneously, people can learn about trades, free agent signings, and anything else you could want to know from these reporters as stories are breaking. I think the genius of Twitter and sports media is the way they can spread their thoughts and interact with normal people as a story is happening. If Schefter tweets out that a player on the Detroit Lions is getting traded, a Lions beat writer can immediately offer his thoughts on the deal and how it affects the team and interact with the fans sharing their thoughts in real time. It gives people who previously never really had a voice, the fans, an avenue to share what they are thinking with the professionals. I think that dynamic is adding a realness to the people who previously you only got to know through their writing, and it adds authenticity to what they are saying. Additionally, you can customize your news. Instead having to watch SportsCenter for an hour just to get one piece of information at the end, you can pick and choose what shows up in your feed. If you don't care about the NBA, just don't follow their account or basketball writers. Want more coverage of your favorite baseball team? Follow their beat writers. You no longer have to get news which you don't care about
In addition to utilizing Twitter, many reporters now also have podcasts, which are an additional way to distribute their content. Some of the largest names in sports journalism, such as Schefter, Bill Simmons, Adrian Wojarnowski, Buster Only, and Jon Rothstein, all the premier source for breaking news in their fields, have podcasts, as well as television personalities such as Stephen A. Smith and Colin Cowherd, who post their radio shows as podcasts. I think this is yet another example of sports journalism becoming more conversational, as listening to someone talk gives you that sense of connectivity that isn't there on a page. It also gives more fans voices, as pretty much anyone can start a podcast and share their opinions, even if they have no sort of journalism background. With the barrier for entry being lowered, conversations that previously took place during games with friends and in bars can now be recorded and put out for others to listen to and enjoy. That has been the backbone of one of the most successful companies in sports journalism: Barstool Sports.
Barstool Sports was founded by a Boston sports fan named Dave Portnoy in the early 2000s, and has since grown into one of the biggest brands in sports. It perfectly utilizes all of the above points, and combines them to be a massive name on the sports scene. They are essentially the antithesis of larger companies, thriving in a space where others don't dare to venture While companies like ESPN present their content with a certain level of polish, Barstool is notoriously unfiltered, talking like fans in bars. ESPN personalities have broadcasting degrees, Barstool employs average sports fans who write blogs and record podcasts. ESPN televises Monday Night Football, Barstool, and especially Portnoy, have an ongoing rivalry with NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell. They employ all of the important beats from above: their website has multiple region-specific offshoots, covering the entire nation in sports, they have a strong social media presence, they produce a large variety of podcasts on a wide variety of topics, even venturing away from the sports space, and most of all, they have an incredibly strong connection with their fans. The company has an incredibly passionate fanbase, known as Stoolies, who are attracted to the different style of content Barstool provides. Instead of watching professional journalists and ex-pros talk about the game on TV, why not listen to guys who are essentially you? They are fans who openly root for their favorite teams, they gamble, they are crass, and they talk just like you. Perhaps one of their biggest draws is the customization factor. You can be a diehard Stoolie, who follows them on Twitter, watches their Youtube videos, and listens to 10 different podcasts. However, they have sports specific podcasts, so if you just want hockey coverage, you can listen to their hockey podcast and not associate with the rest of the brand. They also have content dedicated to things that have nothing to do with sports, such as a movie podcast.
Of course, they are not without their detractors. Their no filter style has gotten them into more than one controversy, and they have a tendency to be offensive with some of the things they say, especially towards women. Their off the cuff remarks have veered towards sexist at times, and while they were say it's how all guys think and talk, that isn't true for large segments of the population. Barstool has also been one of the most common examples of people saying the online world is hurting journalism with worse content. Their writers aren't trained, have no credentials, and write blogs. The content can be viewed as lesser compared to what a newspaper can provide, and there is probably some credence to that. Just because anyone can have a voice doesn't mean that they should, and there are plenty of cases of blogs that are essentially just people shouting into the wind with poor grammar and overall writing ability. They have also made enemies with the NFL, and as journalists, have very little objectivity. While it may appeal some, you aren't going to find an unbiased look anywhere on Barstool. This has been a problem for sports journalism as a whole, with more fan sites popping up and even established reporters, like ESPN's Scott Van Pelt, expressing their fan allegiances very openly and publicly. There is also the problem of becoming too insulated. If your Twitter feed only shows one viewpoint, whether it's about sports or not, you won't face any pushback on your opinions and that can be very dangerous. While the implications in the sports world may not be as serious, you can essentially tune out writers who you disagree with, whether they advocate for trading your favorite player or you think they give preferential treatment to an opposing team. Additionally, extreme customization can be very dangerous, as the book Homo Deus by Yuval Noah Harari delves into. There are times when social media sites, such as Facebook and Twitter, know you better than you know yourself, and they tailor advertising towards you. They can also take things out they think you won't like in advance based on your past choices, which can censor potential avenues you didn't know were there.
All in all, while the digital world presents its own challenges, I think it has improved sports journalism. There is a higher volume of content now than ever, and most of it is very good. While there are bloggers that pump out senseless nonsense, that isn't the only content available. A website like the Athletic provides high quality journalism, with plenty of writers hired away from companies like ESPN and CBS, and they are given a lot of freedom with their content, allowed to write a lot of longer form pieces, not putting out daily articles that may be of worse quality. I also think that increased interaction with fans on social media can only be a good thing, as they can get feedback used to improve their content. I also don't think that increased subjectivity in journalism is necessarily a bad thing, with it providing an increased connection to the reader and making it more like a conversation, which I think is preferable to a report on a game. While the industry has changed drastically from newspaper columns, I think it has moved into a direction that makes it better than ever.
There have been plenty of stories about newspapers dying, and my house has always received the newspaper, and I grew up reading the sports section of the New York Daily News, so I appreciate reading sports articles. I still read a lot of sports content, but it has moved online, with website like ESPN, The Ringer, SBNation, and The Athletic putting out more content a day than a newspaper could in a week. Not only do they have regionalized coverage specific to teams that a fan would want, but that fan now has access to stories that they never would have 10 years ago. For instance, ESPN recently put out a story on the Phoenix Sun's front office. Prior to the digital age, this sort of article wouldn't have reached people outside of Arizona. However, the internet has connected the world of sports in ways that people couldn't have imagined when local newspapers dominated the scene. The sports consumer is now better informed than ever, since if Syracuse is going to play Clemson in basketball like they do on Saturday, I can read game recaps on Clemson from ESPN, look at local online newspapers in South Carolina for injury updates and stories about the team, and read fan blogs for what my counterparts think about the Tigers. This stands in stark contrast to the days of newspapers, where all I would've gotten is a preview in the Daily Orange on Saturday morning.
I also think that Twitter has made a huge and positive impact on the world of sports journalism. Look at Adam Schefter, a reporter on the NFL for ESPN. He breaks almost all of his scoops on Twitter, and the same can be said for every other major sports reporter at every company. The news is getting to everyone in a way which it hasn't previously, as almost instantaneously, people can learn about trades, free agent signings, and anything else you could want to know from these reporters as stories are breaking. I think the genius of Twitter and sports media is the way they can spread their thoughts and interact with normal people as a story is happening. If Schefter tweets out that a player on the Detroit Lions is getting traded, a Lions beat writer can immediately offer his thoughts on the deal and how it affects the team and interact with the fans sharing their thoughts in real time. It gives people who previously never really had a voice, the fans, an avenue to share what they are thinking with the professionals. I think that dynamic is adding a realness to the people who previously you only got to know through their writing, and it adds authenticity to what they are saying. Additionally, you can customize your news. Instead having to watch SportsCenter for an hour just to get one piece of information at the end, you can pick and choose what shows up in your feed. If you don't care about the NBA, just don't follow their account or basketball writers. Want more coverage of your favorite baseball team? Follow their beat writers. You no longer have to get news which you don't care about
In addition to utilizing Twitter, many reporters now also have podcasts, which are an additional way to distribute their content. Some of the largest names in sports journalism, such as Schefter, Bill Simmons, Adrian Wojarnowski, Buster Only, and Jon Rothstein, all the premier source for breaking news in their fields, have podcasts, as well as television personalities such as Stephen A. Smith and Colin Cowherd, who post their radio shows as podcasts. I think this is yet another example of sports journalism becoming more conversational, as listening to someone talk gives you that sense of connectivity that isn't there on a page. It also gives more fans voices, as pretty much anyone can start a podcast and share their opinions, even if they have no sort of journalism background. With the barrier for entry being lowered, conversations that previously took place during games with friends and in bars can now be recorded and put out for others to listen to and enjoy. That has been the backbone of one of the most successful companies in sports journalism: Barstool Sports.
Barstool Sports was founded by a Boston sports fan named Dave Portnoy in the early 2000s, and has since grown into one of the biggest brands in sports. It perfectly utilizes all of the above points, and combines them to be a massive name on the sports scene. They are essentially the antithesis of larger companies, thriving in a space where others don't dare to venture While companies like ESPN present their content with a certain level of polish, Barstool is notoriously unfiltered, talking like fans in bars. ESPN personalities have broadcasting degrees, Barstool employs average sports fans who write blogs and record podcasts. ESPN televises Monday Night Football, Barstool, and especially Portnoy, have an ongoing rivalry with NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell. They employ all of the important beats from above: their website has multiple region-specific offshoots, covering the entire nation in sports, they have a strong social media presence, they produce a large variety of podcasts on a wide variety of topics, even venturing away from the sports space, and most of all, they have an incredibly strong connection with their fans. The company has an incredibly passionate fanbase, known as Stoolies, who are attracted to the different style of content Barstool provides. Instead of watching professional journalists and ex-pros talk about the game on TV, why not listen to guys who are essentially you? They are fans who openly root for their favorite teams, they gamble, they are crass, and they talk just like you. Perhaps one of their biggest draws is the customization factor. You can be a diehard Stoolie, who follows them on Twitter, watches their Youtube videos, and listens to 10 different podcasts. However, they have sports specific podcasts, so if you just want hockey coverage, you can listen to their hockey podcast and not associate with the rest of the brand. They also have content dedicated to things that have nothing to do with sports, such as a movie podcast.
Of course, they are not without their detractors. Their no filter style has gotten them into more than one controversy, and they have a tendency to be offensive with some of the things they say, especially towards women. Their off the cuff remarks have veered towards sexist at times, and while they were say it's how all guys think and talk, that isn't true for large segments of the population. Barstool has also been one of the most common examples of people saying the online world is hurting journalism with worse content. Their writers aren't trained, have no credentials, and write blogs. The content can be viewed as lesser compared to what a newspaper can provide, and there is probably some credence to that. Just because anyone can have a voice doesn't mean that they should, and there are plenty of cases of blogs that are essentially just people shouting into the wind with poor grammar and overall writing ability. They have also made enemies with the NFL, and as journalists, have very little objectivity. While it may appeal some, you aren't going to find an unbiased look anywhere on Barstool. This has been a problem for sports journalism as a whole, with more fan sites popping up and even established reporters, like ESPN's Scott Van Pelt, expressing their fan allegiances very openly and publicly. There is also the problem of becoming too insulated. If your Twitter feed only shows one viewpoint, whether it's about sports or not, you won't face any pushback on your opinions and that can be very dangerous. While the implications in the sports world may not be as serious, you can essentially tune out writers who you disagree with, whether they advocate for trading your favorite player or you think they give preferential treatment to an opposing team. Additionally, extreme customization can be very dangerous, as the book Homo Deus by Yuval Noah Harari delves into. There are times when social media sites, such as Facebook and Twitter, know you better than you know yourself, and they tailor advertising towards you. They can also take things out they think you won't like in advance based on your past choices, which can censor potential avenues you didn't know were there.
All in all, while the digital world presents its own challenges, I think it has improved sports journalism. There is a higher volume of content now than ever, and most of it is very good. While there are bloggers that pump out senseless nonsense, that isn't the only content available. A website like the Athletic provides high quality journalism, with plenty of writers hired away from companies like ESPN and CBS, and they are given a lot of freedom with their content, allowed to write a lot of longer form pieces, not putting out daily articles that may be of worse quality. I also think that increased interaction with fans on social media can only be a good thing, as they can get feedback used to improve their content. I also don't think that increased subjectivity in journalism is necessarily a bad thing, with it providing an increased connection to the reader and making it more like a conversation, which I think is preferable to a report on a game. While the industry has changed drastically from newspaper columns, I think it has moved into a direction that makes it better than ever.
Wednesday, March 6, 2019
Unit 2 Draft
Technology has become ever present in our lives. Everyone in my generation grew up around computers, smartphones, and the internet from a young age, and it has undoubtedly had a massive effect on all of us. As a sports fan, it has been easy to see how the sports landscape has changed with new technologies. While SportsCenter and ESPN were revolutionary when they were first launched, they have almost been made obsolete by highlights coming in instantaneously on social media, news breaks on Twitter, and games are being streamed more than watched on television. I think the way journalism as a whole, but specifically relating to sports, is very interesting, and I wanted to look more into it. I believe that as sports journalism has moved into a more digital space, it is in a better place than ever before. There have been plenty of stories about newspapers dying, and my house has always received the newspaper, and I grew up reading the sports section of the New York Daily News, so I appreciate reading sports articles. I still read a lot of sports content, but it has moved online, with website like ESPN, The Ringer, SBNation, and The Athletic putting out more content a day than a newspaper could in a week. Not only do they have regionalized coverage specific to teams that a fan would want, but that fan now has access to stories that they never would have 10 years ago. For instance, ESPN recently put out a story on the Phoenix Sun's front office. Prior to the digital age, this sort of article wouldn't have reached people outside of Arizona. However, the internet has connected the world of sports in ways that people couldn't have imagined when local newspapers dominated the scene. The sports consumer is now better informed than ever, since if Syracuse is going to play Clemson in basketball like they do on Saturday, I can read game recaps on Clemson from ESPN, look at local online newspapers in South Carolina for injury updates and stories about the team, and read fan blogs for what my counterparts think about the Tigers. This stands in stark contrast to the days of newspapers, where all I would've gotten is a preview in the Daily Orange on Saturday morning. I also think that Twitter has made a huge and positive impact on the world of sports journalism. Look at Adam Schefter, a reporter on the NFL for ESPN. He breaks almost all of his scoops on Twitter, and the same can be said for every other major sports reporter at every company. The news is getting to everyone in a way which it hasn't previously, as almost instantaneously, people can learn about trades, free agent signings, and anything else you could want to know from these reporters as stories are breaking. I think the genius of Twitter and sports media is the way they can spread their thoughts and interact with normal people as a story is happening. If Schefter tweets out that a player on the Detroit Lions is getting traded, a Lions beat writer can immediately offer his thoughts on the deal and how it affects the team and interact with the fans sharing their thoughts in real time. It gives people who previously never really had a voice, the fans, an avenue to share what they are thinking with the professionals. I think that dynamic is adding a realness to the people who previously you only got to know through their writing, and it adds authenticity to what they are saying.
Unit 2 Library
I checked out the book Homo Deus from the library. I actually quite enjoy reading and this book fits perfectly into our inquiry, so it was something I have enjoyed reading and related to the class. I also have been involved with libraries for a while, and I think they are really great. In high school, I worked at my local library as a page, and my mom has been a children's librarian for the past 13 years. It is something that has been a huge part of my life for as long as I can remember, from going to programs there as a child to working there, and I have always enjoyed my local library as well as the one at my high school. However, as I grew older, I stopped reading as often as I once had since I spent more and more time online. I now read a lot of articles online at websites like The Athletic and streaming TV on sites like Netflix. Physical books and newspapers have become less and less common for me as I get older, and I think there are pros and cons. I am still consuming information, I just do it in a different way. With documentaries like Fyre Fest and The Ted Bundy Tapes on Netflix and thousands of news sites putting so much content, I think I am learning more than ever. However, I still enjoy reading interesting books like Homo Deus. I think there is a lot of amazing stuff being written in every genre, and it is unfortunate that most people my age have stopped reading books.
Wednesday, February 27, 2019
Research Questions
1. How does technology affect the way we write?
Responses:
- "It has made people less articulate. They are so used to abbreviations and emojis that they lack the vocabulary of people my age"- My Dad
- " I feel like we write and communicate informally. Our vocabulary is mostly made up of slang and I feel like that is reflected in our writing."- Alex, my friend
- "It has made things a lot easier"- Colby, my roommate
2. How has sports journalism changed in the digital age?
Responses:
- "The newspaper has become less important. When I was growing up, everything game from the newspaper. Scores, trades, articles, everything. You'd get highlights on the news, but now everything is happening instantly. ESPN is sending out stories as they happen, and there are 30 different channels dedicated solely to sports."- Dad
- "Sports journalism has changed drastically. Most of us get our sports updates via social media, online news sites, and quick alerts on our phone. The modern "sports section" in the newspaper is becoming more and more obsolete. I also feel like there are a lot more TV personalities"- Alex
- "It is easier to post about topics, so there are more voices than ever. You don't need to work for a newspaper or ESPN to make your thoughts known"- Colby
3. Has Twitter altered the way people write?
Responses:
- "It's made them worse. They are Tweeting out nonsense and I think it has to make you a worse writer. It certainly hasn't made anyone better"- Dad
- "Twitter has changed the media landscape drastically. I would argue Twitter is the main platform in which most people our age receive news, especially when it comes to sports. Is that a bad thing? Not necessarily. People can follow the analysts, reporters, and organizations the desire, and receive their news in a timely manner. I think because of Twitter it is hard to determine what is real and what is BS, but for the most part, most people have an idea of what fake news is by now."- Alex
- "I think so. With people being restricted to 140 characters, they have to be more selective and more concise in what they say. There aren't a lot of people our age writing long descriptions like older writers used to, and I think a lot of that comes from Twitter."- Colby
I think the best responses I got came on the sports journalism question. The people I asked are, like myself, big sports fans, so I think they probably have a better idea of that space than anything else, and I think that is an interesting area to examine. There have been a lot of people who have talked about the changing news landscape, but a lot of that has come from looking at fake news in the political landscape, and I don't think enough has been looked at with sports. That's why I wanted to get my dad's opinion on these topics, since he got to see these changes first hand and his perspective on all of that is different from anything my friends and I can say. We know that things used to be different, but we didn't live through that, so it's very hard to judge just how different things are in this new, digital age. I was also kinda shocked to see how short a lot of the responses were for the first questions, as most people just kind of stopped at a very basic analysis instead of going more in depth. That was a question I initially really was interested in, but it doesn't seem as if most people are really interested in that. I also thought the responses to the last of my questions were interesting, as there seemed to be conflicting opinions between people. My dad was very critical, while Alex brought top some interesting points on the benefits of Twitter.
Responses:
- "It has made people less articulate. They are so used to abbreviations and emojis that they lack the vocabulary of people my age"- My Dad
- " I feel like we write and communicate informally. Our vocabulary is mostly made up of slang and I feel like that is reflected in our writing."- Alex, my friend
- "It has made things a lot easier"- Colby, my roommate
2. How has sports journalism changed in the digital age?
Responses:
- "The newspaper has become less important. When I was growing up, everything game from the newspaper. Scores, trades, articles, everything. You'd get highlights on the news, but now everything is happening instantly. ESPN is sending out stories as they happen, and there are 30 different channels dedicated solely to sports."- Dad
- "Sports journalism has changed drastically. Most of us get our sports updates via social media, online news sites, and quick alerts on our phone. The modern "sports section" in the newspaper is becoming more and more obsolete. I also feel like there are a lot more TV personalities"- Alex
- "It is easier to post about topics, so there are more voices than ever. You don't need to work for a newspaper or ESPN to make your thoughts known"- Colby
3. Has Twitter altered the way people write?
Responses:
- "It's made them worse. They are Tweeting out nonsense and I think it has to make you a worse writer. It certainly hasn't made anyone better"- Dad
- "Twitter has changed the media landscape drastically. I would argue Twitter is the main platform in which most people our age receive news, especially when it comes to sports. Is that a bad thing? Not necessarily. People can follow the analysts, reporters, and organizations the desire, and receive their news in a timely manner. I think because of Twitter it is hard to determine what is real and what is BS, but for the most part, most people have an idea of what fake news is by now."- Alex
- "I think so. With people being restricted to 140 characters, they have to be more selective and more concise in what they say. There aren't a lot of people our age writing long descriptions like older writers used to, and I think a lot of that comes from Twitter."- Colby
Wednesday, February 13, 2019
Unit 1 Reflection
I think my sources were quality. All of them came from reputable sources, and all of the people seemed to have a mastery of the subjects they were discussing. The first source I chose was an interview between two professors at the University of Basel discussing how technology has changed reading, writing, and literature in general. One of the professors, Phillip Schweighauser, talks about how writing has changed with technology, and I thought a lot of it was very poignant. He says "Technological innovations have radically impacted human language and expression throughout history of humankind. Think the invention of the phonetic alphabet in the 2nd millennium BCE, think of the invention of the printing press in the mid-15th century, think of the invention of the telephone, the typewriter and the tape machine in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. All of these technologies have fundamentally changed the way humans lived their lives, communicated, and perceived their world." (Metzger). This was a common theme throughout the sources, and I find it really interesting, also appearing in From Pencils to Pixels and my third source, which specifically looked at this phenomenon. In that article, the author references Fredrich Nietzsche and his writings on this as he transitioned to a new medium of writing as his eyesight declined, which at the time was a Malling-Hansen Writing Ball. Nietzsche said that our writing instruments influence our writing by making us think differently than we would if we were using something different. This whole thing reminds me a lot of Sapir-Wharf Hypothesis from the film Arrival, which states that the language we speak influences our thoughts and decisions. In the movie, a linguist learns an alien language which changes her entire perception of time, and although that is obviously science-fiction, the hypothesis is an actual thing, also known as linguistic relativity, and there have been lots of studies done around it. I think there is something similar with writing, as Nietzsche and others have alluded to, with how and what we are writing on influence the final product. My third source was different from the others, as not only was it presented in a visual and auditory medium, but also in it's content. It was still reputable, since in order to give a TED Talk, you have to have been approved and have a lot of knowledge about your given topic, and Cecilia Knapp, who gave the talk I watched, certainly has that. She is a poet, so she regularly practices writing, and is also a performer and writes her own shows. She has a different perspective than a lot of the other people I looked at, and it was really interesting to hear her thoughts on writing as more of an outlet than an academic endeavor, which is how it was looked at in my other sources. I think technology played a pretty big role on my project, seeing as it was done almost exclusively online, and a lot of these sources wouldn't have been available to me many years ago. I think my sources lack a common man source in a sense, as all of them are from people who are really invested in writing and what it means, so I would be interested to see how people who are similar to myself view the intersection between writing and technology. I would be very interested in seeing how people of different ages are affected by the technology, since my generation has only really known the digital age, and I would like to see how people who experienced typewriters think things have changed, and their thoughts on whether or not that is a good thing. I think it is important to see what, if any, difference the average person sees in writing now compared to with prior technologies, since a lot of the time we only see the views of those writing articles and sharing their opinions, which may not reflect the general public. I certainly think that these sources can be used going forward. Given the similarities between three of them, I think that could be a direction in which my research moves in Unit 2 as I go on and look at some more of the influence that technology has on writing, a lot of these sources could be used, specifically the third source I chose, since there is a lot of interesting stuff in there about writing and technology, and the intersection between the two. After Unit 1, I think my path is beginning to become more clear and I am more prepared to continue going on and looking at the inquiry in what is hopefully a different and an interesting way.
Unit 1 Portfolio
Source 1: From Pencils to Pixels by Dennis Barron
In this piece, the author talks about the evolution of writing over time, from the first genesis of the idea to the modern form of the writing at the time the article was written in the 1990s. The article goes through how changing technology impacts writing and despite the article being written 25 years ago, there are still plenty of things that ring true today. There is one line in particular when Baron says "I could no longer draft anything coherently directly onto a piece of paper. It wasn't so much that I couldn't think of the words, but the physical effort... in short, the writing practices I had been engaged in regularly since the age of four, now seemed to overwhelm and constrict me, and I longed for the flexibility of digitized text" (Barron 1). This is still very relevant today, as I much prefer writing online than on a sheet of paper. This is written as an essay, and I think it is the best way to do something like this. It felt like a script to a documentary you'd see on the Discovery Channel, and I think that is the best way to convey the information, even if it isn't the most engaging material in the world. It fits perfectly into the genre of essays, with a clear thesis, multiple subheadings to back it up, and it is clearly well researched. I think the project very much succeeded, as I now know more about the evolution of writing than I ever though I would. There are a lot of very interesting tidbits I'm sure I never would have learned otherwise, like the origin of the pencils with Henry David Thoreau. One thing that stood out to me was the line "The pencil may seem a simple device in contrast to the computer, but although it has fewer parts, it too is an advanced technology." (Barron 2). It put a lot of things in perspective in terms of technology, since it is typically thought of as cell phones and computers today, but the pencil was once a breakthrough. It makes me think about how computers will be viewed 100 years from now or further, and if they will fall the way of the pencil, just a trivial tool that we take for granted. However, I think something that was very poignant was how the more things change, the more they stay the same. Barron points out that "Only when Macintosh and Windows operating systems allowed users to create on-screen documents that looked and felt like the old, familiar documents they were used to creating on electronic typewriters did word-processing really become popular." (Barron 11). Even though computers were new and revolutionary, they had to adapt to the old way. Apple created a super computer that you can put in your pocket, and yet people felt most comfortable using it as a normal phone. Even if you're absolutely brilliant and you reinvent the entire internet, if you can't explain how it works to people, it will never get off the ground. I think this is something that we must keep in mind as we become increasingly digital, being careful not to change things too much as we continue to delve into a digital world.
Source 2: Interview: How do we read literature in the digital age?
This interview is between Gaudenz Metzger, a professor at the University of Basel, and Phillip Schweighauser, a literary scholar and fellow professor at the university. I enjoyed this genre since we get to empathize with the interviewee, as we consider out answers alongside him. I also thought the professor gave some very interesting answers in how digitalizing literature has changed it. He is mainly focused on reading, and we are in a writing class, but it is very important to remember that when we write, there is someone reading it as well, so that perspective must also be considered. Reading online has its merits: it can be done more conveniently, with more books, and there is greater access to information that can be beneficial in understand the work. I prefer to read a physical book still, as I often get distracted reading on a screen by one of the countless distractions that inevitably pops up. I think this source really gives a modern scholarly take on digital literature, while still feeling casual and keeping it easy to understand. He also talks about writing and communication, and how emojis fit into that, and I found his thoughts particularly interesting. He says "The rise to prominence of machine have certainly introduced further radical changes, among them the virtual disappearance of letter writing, the blurring of the boundaries between speech and writing, and the emergence of new forms of writing such as texting and twitter" (Schweighauser). I never really thought about tweeting as it's own unique form of writing, but given the character restrictions and the content on the site, it really is it's own unique form of writing, just as texting is, where you speak in abbreviations, use emojis, and send multiple messages back to back to convey a point. I think that his thoughts on how the digital age has impacted everything was really interesting and it made me reconsider a lot of things.
Source 3: TED Talk by Cecilia Knapp, Why You Should Write
Cecilia Knapp is an author and poet who gave a TED Talk on her perspective on writing. She really uses the genre to her advantage, giving two full speeches, the first being a poem she wrote, and the second being from a play she wrote. Seeing as it is written by her, and she is able to perform it, it creates a greater impact. We get to hear her speak her own words, instead of having them interpreted on a page by whoever is reading them. In her TED Talk, she discusses why she turned to writing and how she thinks it can aid others. I think she did an excellent job in her talk, and she did a very good job not only saying why she enjoys writing, but why it can be helpful for others. She talked about how she writes in order to express her thoughts and feelings to help her better understand herself. Knapp turned to writing after her brother committed suicide, and how it helped her grieve. My externalizing her feelings, she was able to have an easier time. She mentioned the benefits of writing in mental health, and she experienced that first hand while coping, which made her point even more powerful since she had first hand experience and not just some scientific studies. However, the point I most latched on to was her talking about writing as an outlet for creativity. The writing I enjoy most is non-fiction, and what appeals to me about that genre the most is I can choose things I am interested in that really happened. However, when I do read fiction, I enjoy projects that are deeply creative, and my all-time favorite series is the Percy Jackson series, although I am also partial to Harry Potter. What they both combine is a fantastical world that it seems like only Rick Riordan or JK Rowling could have created. They are very creative, with Riordan turning the Greek gods into modern day characters, and Rowling creating a world of wizards so realistic that you were immediately transported to Hogwarts with Harry. This creativity makes it enjoyable, and when I'm writing, that's what makes it so enjoyable. In the digital world, we now have an incredible outlet for all of our creativity. You can create a blog just like this one, and write about whatever it is you are passionate about. You can create something in five minutes and express yourself more than ever before, and I think that is a great thing.
Source 4: How Technology Has Changed the Way Authors Write by Matthew Kirschenbaum of NewRepublic
This article is about how evolving technology has changed writing on the whole. With the way we write having evolved so much from the days on typewriters and that has obviously had an effect on how we write as a people now. With grammar checkers being automatic on computers now, revisions have almost become obsolete as misspelled words are instantly corrected, and even when they are necessary, they go by much quicker as it is possibly to just scroll quickly through instead of painstaking reading through page after page. Kirschenbaum looks back to Fredrich Nietzsche's thoughts on how we compose our thoughts and the affect that had on our end product. "Our writing instruments, he suggested, are not just conveniences or contrivances for expression of ideas; they actively shape the limits and expanse of what we have to say. Not only do we write differently with a fountain pen than a crayon because they each feel different in our hands, we write (and think) different kind of things" (Kirschenbaum). While there isn't any evidence that computers have literary style, there is no doubt they have had a profound impact. The author points to composition theorist Christina Haas for the biggest change new technologies have had on prose, in what she calls "sense of the text". Kirschenbaum says "Word processing, as the testimony of countless writers suggests, profoundly altered their sense of the text, both in terms of how they approached their writing and what they thought possible." An analysis of countless writers works, including the legendary Isaac Asimov, show that a change occurred after they switched writing platforms. It makes a lot of sense that as the technology changes, so does how we write on it. I doubt I would be able to do all of this work on a typewriter, especially at the last minute, or that it would sound the same, and I don't know if it would be better or worse, it would just be different, which I think is very interesting.
In this piece, the author talks about the evolution of writing over time, from the first genesis of the idea to the modern form of the writing at the time the article was written in the 1990s. The article goes through how changing technology impacts writing and despite the article being written 25 years ago, there are still plenty of things that ring true today. There is one line in particular when Baron says "I could no longer draft anything coherently directly onto a piece of paper. It wasn't so much that I couldn't think of the words, but the physical effort... in short, the writing practices I had been engaged in regularly since the age of four, now seemed to overwhelm and constrict me, and I longed for the flexibility of digitized text" (Barron 1). This is still very relevant today, as I much prefer writing online than on a sheet of paper. This is written as an essay, and I think it is the best way to do something like this. It felt like a script to a documentary you'd see on the Discovery Channel, and I think that is the best way to convey the information, even if it isn't the most engaging material in the world. It fits perfectly into the genre of essays, with a clear thesis, multiple subheadings to back it up, and it is clearly well researched. I think the project very much succeeded, as I now know more about the evolution of writing than I ever though I would. There are a lot of very interesting tidbits I'm sure I never would have learned otherwise, like the origin of the pencils with Henry David Thoreau. One thing that stood out to me was the line "The pencil may seem a simple device in contrast to the computer, but although it has fewer parts, it too is an advanced technology." (Barron 2). It put a lot of things in perspective in terms of technology, since it is typically thought of as cell phones and computers today, but the pencil was once a breakthrough. It makes me think about how computers will be viewed 100 years from now or further, and if they will fall the way of the pencil, just a trivial tool that we take for granted. However, I think something that was very poignant was how the more things change, the more they stay the same. Barron points out that "Only when Macintosh and Windows operating systems allowed users to create on-screen documents that looked and felt like the old, familiar documents they were used to creating on electronic typewriters did word-processing really become popular." (Barron 11). Even though computers were new and revolutionary, they had to adapt to the old way. Apple created a super computer that you can put in your pocket, and yet people felt most comfortable using it as a normal phone. Even if you're absolutely brilliant and you reinvent the entire internet, if you can't explain how it works to people, it will never get off the ground. I think this is something that we must keep in mind as we become increasingly digital, being careful not to change things too much as we continue to delve into a digital world.
Source 2: Interview: How do we read literature in the digital age?
This interview is between Gaudenz Metzger, a professor at the University of Basel, and Phillip Schweighauser, a literary scholar and fellow professor at the university. I enjoyed this genre since we get to empathize with the interviewee, as we consider out answers alongside him. I also thought the professor gave some very interesting answers in how digitalizing literature has changed it. He is mainly focused on reading, and we are in a writing class, but it is very important to remember that when we write, there is someone reading it as well, so that perspective must also be considered. Reading online has its merits: it can be done more conveniently, with more books, and there is greater access to information that can be beneficial in understand the work. I prefer to read a physical book still, as I often get distracted reading on a screen by one of the countless distractions that inevitably pops up. I think this source really gives a modern scholarly take on digital literature, while still feeling casual and keeping it easy to understand. He also talks about writing and communication, and how emojis fit into that, and I found his thoughts particularly interesting. He says "The rise to prominence of machine have certainly introduced further radical changes, among them the virtual disappearance of letter writing, the blurring of the boundaries between speech and writing, and the emergence of new forms of writing such as texting and twitter" (Schweighauser). I never really thought about tweeting as it's own unique form of writing, but given the character restrictions and the content on the site, it really is it's own unique form of writing, just as texting is, where you speak in abbreviations, use emojis, and send multiple messages back to back to convey a point. I think that his thoughts on how the digital age has impacted everything was really interesting and it made me reconsider a lot of things.
Source 3: TED Talk by Cecilia Knapp, Why You Should Write
Cecilia Knapp is an author and poet who gave a TED Talk on her perspective on writing. She really uses the genre to her advantage, giving two full speeches, the first being a poem she wrote, and the second being from a play she wrote. Seeing as it is written by her, and she is able to perform it, it creates a greater impact. We get to hear her speak her own words, instead of having them interpreted on a page by whoever is reading them. In her TED Talk, she discusses why she turned to writing and how she thinks it can aid others. I think she did an excellent job in her talk, and she did a very good job not only saying why she enjoys writing, but why it can be helpful for others. She talked about how she writes in order to express her thoughts and feelings to help her better understand herself. Knapp turned to writing after her brother committed suicide, and how it helped her grieve. My externalizing her feelings, she was able to have an easier time. She mentioned the benefits of writing in mental health, and she experienced that first hand while coping, which made her point even more powerful since she had first hand experience and not just some scientific studies. However, the point I most latched on to was her talking about writing as an outlet for creativity. The writing I enjoy most is non-fiction, and what appeals to me about that genre the most is I can choose things I am interested in that really happened. However, when I do read fiction, I enjoy projects that are deeply creative, and my all-time favorite series is the Percy Jackson series, although I am also partial to Harry Potter. What they both combine is a fantastical world that it seems like only Rick Riordan or JK Rowling could have created. They are very creative, with Riordan turning the Greek gods into modern day characters, and Rowling creating a world of wizards so realistic that you were immediately transported to Hogwarts with Harry. This creativity makes it enjoyable, and when I'm writing, that's what makes it so enjoyable. In the digital world, we now have an incredible outlet for all of our creativity. You can create a blog just like this one, and write about whatever it is you are passionate about. You can create something in five minutes and express yourself more than ever before, and I think that is a great thing.
Source 4: How Technology Has Changed the Way Authors Write by Matthew Kirschenbaum of NewRepublic
This article is about how evolving technology has changed writing on the whole. With the way we write having evolved so much from the days on typewriters and that has obviously had an effect on how we write as a people now. With grammar checkers being automatic on computers now, revisions have almost become obsolete as misspelled words are instantly corrected, and even when they are necessary, they go by much quicker as it is possibly to just scroll quickly through instead of painstaking reading through page after page. Kirschenbaum looks back to Fredrich Nietzsche's thoughts on how we compose our thoughts and the affect that had on our end product. "Our writing instruments, he suggested, are not just conveniences or contrivances for expression of ideas; they actively shape the limits and expanse of what we have to say. Not only do we write differently with a fountain pen than a crayon because they each feel different in our hands, we write (and think) different kind of things" (Kirschenbaum). While there isn't any evidence that computers have literary style, there is no doubt they have had a profound impact. The author points to composition theorist Christina Haas for the biggest change new technologies have had on prose, in what she calls "sense of the text". Kirschenbaum says "Word processing, as the testimony of countless writers suggests, profoundly altered their sense of the text, both in terms of how they approached their writing and what they thought possible." An analysis of countless writers works, including the legendary Isaac Asimov, show that a change occurred after they switched writing platforms. It makes a lot of sense that as the technology changes, so does how we write on it. I doubt I would be able to do all of this work on a typewriter, especially at the last minute, or that it would sound the same, and I don't know if it would be better or worse, it would just be different, which I think is very interesting.
Free Writes Unit 1
This free write is the one which I feel I did the best on. It was written on the first day we finally met, and it talked about our expectations for the class and what we thought of the first week, even though we had yet to meet. I had taken Writing 105 and enjoyed it, so I was excited to see what 205 would bring, and so far, I haven't been disappointed.
Monday, February 4, 2019
Unit 1 Draft
Source 1: From Pencils to Pixels by Dennis Barron
In this piece, the author talks about the evolution of writing over time, from the first genesis of the idea to the modern form of the writing at the time the article was written in the 1990s. The article goes through how changing technology impacts writing and despite the article being written 25 years ago, there are still plenty of things that ring true today. There is one line in particular when Baron says "I could no longer draft anything coherently directly onto a piece of paper. It wasn't so much that I couldn't think of the words, but the physical effort... in short, the writing practices I had been engaged in regularly since the age of four, now seemed to overwhelm and constrict me, and I longed for the flexibility of digitized text" (Barron 1). This is still very relevant today, as I much prefer writing online than on a sheet of paper. This is written as an essay, and I think it is the best way to do something like this. It felt like a script to a documentary you'd see on the Discovery Channel, and I think that is the best way to convey the information, even if it isn't the most engaging material in the world. It fits perfectly into the genre of essays, with a clear thesis, multiple subheadings to back it up, and it is clearly well researched. I think the project very much succeeded, as I now know more about the evolution of writing than I ever though I would. There are a lot of very interesting tidbits I'm sure I never would have learned otherwise, like the origin of the pencils with Henry David Thoreau. One thing that stood out to me was the line "The pencil may seem a simple device in contrast to the computer, but although it has fewer parts, it too is an advanced technology." (Barron 2). It put a lot of things in perspective in terms of technology, since it is typically thought of as cell phones and computers today, but the pencil was once a breakthrough. It makes me think about how computers will be viewed 100 years from now or further, and if they will fall the way of the pencil, just a trivial tool that we take for granted. However, I think something that was very poignant was how the more things change, the more they stay the same. Barron points out that "Only when Macintosh and Windows operating systems allowed users to create on-screen documents that looked and felt like the old, familiar documents they were used to creating on electronic typewriters did word-processing really become popular." (Barron 11). Even though computers were new and revolutionary, they had to adapt to the old way. Apple created a super computer that you can put in your pocket, and yet people felt most comfortable using it as a normal phone. Even if you're absolutely brilliant and you reinvent the entire internet, if you can't explain how it works to people, it will never get off the ground. I think this is something that we must keep in mind as we become increasingly digital, being careful not to change things too much as we continue to delve into a digital world.
Source 2: Interview: How do we read literature in the digital age?
This interview is between Gaudenz Metzger, a professor at the University of Basel, and Phillip Schweighauser, a literary scholar and fellow professor at the university. I enjoyed this genre since we get to empathize with the interviewee, as we consider out answers alongside him. I also thought the professor gave some very interesting answers in how digitalizing literature has changed it. He is mainly focused on reading, and we are in a writing class, but it is very important to remember that when we write, there is someone reading it as well, so that perspective must also be considered. Reading online has its merits: it can be done more conveniently, with more books, and there is greater access to information that can be beneficial in understand the work. I prefer to read a physical book still, as I often get distracted reading on a screen by one of the countless distractions that inevitably pops up. I think this source really gives a modern scholarly take on digital literature, while still feeling casual and keeping it easy to understand. He also talks about writing and communication, and how emojis fit into that, and I found his thoughts particularly interesting. He says "The rise to prominence of machine have certainly introduced further radical changes, among them the virtual disappearance of letter writing, the blurring of the boundaries between speech and writing, and the emergence of new forms of writing such as texting and twitter" (Schweighauser). I never really thought about tweeting as it's own unique form of writing, but given the character restrictions and the content on the site, it really is it's own unique form of writing, just as texting is, where you speak in abbreviations, use emojis, and send multiple messages back to back to convey a point. I think that his thoughts on how the digital age has impacted everything was really interesting and it made me reconsider a lot of things.
Source 3: TED Talk by Cecilia Knapp, Why You Should Write
Cecilia Knapp is an author and poet who gave a TED Talk on her perspective on writing. She really uses the genre to her advantage, giving two full speeches, the first being a poem she wrote, and the second being from a play she wrote. Seeing as it is written by her, and she is able to perform it, it creates a greater impact. We get to hear her speak her own words, instead of having them interpreted on a page by whoever is reading them. In her TED Talk, she discusses why she turned to writing and how she thinks it can aid others. I think she did an excellent job in her talk, and she did a very good job not only saying why she enjoys writing, but why it can be helpful for others. She talked about how she writes in order to express her thoughts and feelings to help her better understand herself. Knapp turned to writing after her brother committed suicide, and how it helped her grieve. My externalizing her feelings, she was able to have an easier time. She mentioned the benefits of writing in mental health, and she experienced that first hand while coping, which made her point even more powerful since she had first hand experience and not just some scientific studies. However, the point I most latched on to was her talking about writing as an outlet for creativity. The writing I enjoy most is non-fiction, and what appeals to me about that genre the most is I can choose things I am interested in that really happened. However, when I do read fiction, I enjoy projects that are deeply creative, and my all-time favorite series is the Percy Jackson series, although I am also partial to Harry Potter. What they both combine is a fantastical world that it seems like only Rick Riordan or JK Rowling could have created. They are very creative, with Riordan turning the Greek gods into modern day characters, and Rowling creating a world of wizards so realistic that you were immediately transported to Hogwarts with Harry. This creativity makes it enjoyable, and when I'm writing, that's what makes it so enjoyable. In the digital world, we now have an incredible outlet for all of our creativity. You can create a blog just like this one, and write about whatever it is you are passionate about. You can create something in five minutes and express yourself more than ever before, and I think that is a great thing.
In this piece, the author talks about the evolution of writing over time, from the first genesis of the idea to the modern form of the writing at the time the article was written in the 1990s. The article goes through how changing technology impacts writing and despite the article being written 25 years ago, there are still plenty of things that ring true today. There is one line in particular when Baron says "I could no longer draft anything coherently directly onto a piece of paper. It wasn't so much that I couldn't think of the words, but the physical effort... in short, the writing practices I had been engaged in regularly since the age of four, now seemed to overwhelm and constrict me, and I longed for the flexibility of digitized text" (Barron 1). This is still very relevant today, as I much prefer writing online than on a sheet of paper. This is written as an essay, and I think it is the best way to do something like this. It felt like a script to a documentary you'd see on the Discovery Channel, and I think that is the best way to convey the information, even if it isn't the most engaging material in the world. It fits perfectly into the genre of essays, with a clear thesis, multiple subheadings to back it up, and it is clearly well researched. I think the project very much succeeded, as I now know more about the evolution of writing than I ever though I would. There are a lot of very interesting tidbits I'm sure I never would have learned otherwise, like the origin of the pencils with Henry David Thoreau. One thing that stood out to me was the line "The pencil may seem a simple device in contrast to the computer, but although it has fewer parts, it too is an advanced technology." (Barron 2). It put a lot of things in perspective in terms of technology, since it is typically thought of as cell phones and computers today, but the pencil was once a breakthrough. It makes me think about how computers will be viewed 100 years from now or further, and if they will fall the way of the pencil, just a trivial tool that we take for granted. However, I think something that was very poignant was how the more things change, the more they stay the same. Barron points out that "Only when Macintosh and Windows operating systems allowed users to create on-screen documents that looked and felt like the old, familiar documents they were used to creating on electronic typewriters did word-processing really become popular." (Barron 11). Even though computers were new and revolutionary, they had to adapt to the old way. Apple created a super computer that you can put in your pocket, and yet people felt most comfortable using it as a normal phone. Even if you're absolutely brilliant and you reinvent the entire internet, if you can't explain how it works to people, it will never get off the ground. I think this is something that we must keep in mind as we become increasingly digital, being careful not to change things too much as we continue to delve into a digital world.
Source 2: Interview: How do we read literature in the digital age?
This interview is between Gaudenz Metzger, a professor at the University of Basel, and Phillip Schweighauser, a literary scholar and fellow professor at the university. I enjoyed this genre since we get to empathize with the interviewee, as we consider out answers alongside him. I also thought the professor gave some very interesting answers in how digitalizing literature has changed it. He is mainly focused on reading, and we are in a writing class, but it is very important to remember that when we write, there is someone reading it as well, so that perspective must also be considered. Reading online has its merits: it can be done more conveniently, with more books, and there is greater access to information that can be beneficial in understand the work. I prefer to read a physical book still, as I often get distracted reading on a screen by one of the countless distractions that inevitably pops up. I think this source really gives a modern scholarly take on digital literature, while still feeling casual and keeping it easy to understand. He also talks about writing and communication, and how emojis fit into that, and I found his thoughts particularly interesting. He says "The rise to prominence of machine have certainly introduced further radical changes, among them the virtual disappearance of letter writing, the blurring of the boundaries between speech and writing, and the emergence of new forms of writing such as texting and twitter" (Schweighauser). I never really thought about tweeting as it's own unique form of writing, but given the character restrictions and the content on the site, it really is it's own unique form of writing, just as texting is, where you speak in abbreviations, use emojis, and send multiple messages back to back to convey a point. I think that his thoughts on how the digital age has impacted everything was really interesting and it made me reconsider a lot of things.
Source 3: TED Talk by Cecilia Knapp, Why You Should Write
Cecilia Knapp is an author and poet who gave a TED Talk on her perspective on writing. She really uses the genre to her advantage, giving two full speeches, the first being a poem she wrote, and the second being from a play she wrote. Seeing as it is written by her, and she is able to perform it, it creates a greater impact. We get to hear her speak her own words, instead of having them interpreted on a page by whoever is reading them. In her TED Talk, she discusses why she turned to writing and how she thinks it can aid others. I think she did an excellent job in her talk, and she did a very good job not only saying why she enjoys writing, but why it can be helpful for others. She talked about how she writes in order to express her thoughts and feelings to help her better understand herself. Knapp turned to writing after her brother committed suicide, and how it helped her grieve. My externalizing her feelings, she was able to have an easier time. She mentioned the benefits of writing in mental health, and she experienced that first hand while coping, which made her point even more powerful since she had first hand experience and not just some scientific studies. However, the point I most latched on to was her talking about writing as an outlet for creativity. The writing I enjoy most is non-fiction, and what appeals to me about that genre the most is I can choose things I am interested in that really happened. However, when I do read fiction, I enjoy projects that are deeply creative, and my all-time favorite series is the Percy Jackson series, although I am also partial to Harry Potter. What they both combine is a fantastical world that it seems like only Rick Riordan or JK Rowling could have created. They are very creative, with Riordan turning the Greek gods into modern day characters, and Rowling creating a world of wizards so realistic that you were immediately transported to Hogwarts with Harry. This creativity makes it enjoyable, and when I'm writing, that's what makes it so enjoyable. In the digital world, we now have an incredible outlet for all of our creativity. You can create a blog just like this one, and write about whatever it is you are passionate about. You can create something in five minutes and express yourself more than ever before, and I think that is a great thing.
Wednesday, January 30, 2019
Surveys/Polls/Quizzes
I took a quiz on Time.com about which Harry Potter house you would be in. I ended up with Ravenclaw, and I think that is pretty accurate. According to Time, most Americans ended up in Ravenclaw as well, with a little over 45% of people being sorted into that house. Hufflepuff was second, and as much as everyone would love to be Gryffindor, the house Harry is in, that came in at third, with Slytherin, the villainous house, at fourth. The results article points out that this makes a lot of sense, as the latter two are home to more extreme characters. The demographics breakdown reveal that my home state of New Jersey produces more Ravenclaws than any other house, although the city of Syracuse produces Hufflepuffs. I was surprised by how overwhelming the Ravenclaw majority was in the overall results, as they are known as the house of intelligence in the Harry Potter universe, so I felt a little bit special when I was sorted into that house, but it seems as if it was more in line with the mean than I would have expected. I would have expected a more even split, but Ravenclaw has 40% more members than Slytherin does. This quiz gives a good insight into the Harry Potter universe, and shows us that as much as we would love to be the daring and brave, going on adventures with Harry, Ron, and Hermoine, it is much more likely we would simply be an extra filling a seat in one of the less glamorous houses.
Quiz: http://time.com/4809884/harry-potter-house-sorting-hat-quiz/
Results: http://time.com/4921918/harry-potter-hogwarts-sorting-hat-quiz/
Wednesday, January 23, 2019
What I...
What I Watch
 |
| The view from my couch |
 |
| Tennessee and Vanderbilt was a thriller that went to overtime |
 |
| As a basketball fan, watching the sport is something I have always done and I love to see different teams play |
 |
| I also will watch on my laptop when there are a lot of games on |
 |
| I love college basketball because of the passion players play with, like Jordan Bone did against rival Vanderbilt and shows in this photo from USA Today |
Reflection
Selfies have overtaken our culture. While they started off as a way for girls to show off on social media, they are now deeply ingrained in daily life. Instagram feeds are flooded with them, Snapchat has turned them into a form of communication, and it's gotten to the point where moms are in on the craze. I don't think this is a good or bad thing, just an undeniable fact. I think they are an interesting way to share your experiences. Rather than just taking a photo of your surroundings, you insert yourself into it, making yourself inseparable from that place or event. Is it slightly narcissistic? Perhaps, but it is also much more personal way to chronicle an experience. I'm not above all of this, I take them just like everyone else, sharing them with friends and family via social media. Selfies are beginning to evolve into an art form, with people using them for more than just a way to show off how good they look in certain lighting. Now, with projects like What I Eat, selfies have become a way to share the world with others in creative ways. I think that the selfie is a really interesting tool in for aspiring photographers to do something that we have yet to see and really express themselves in a new way. I'm interested to see how they evolve over the next few years as they perhaps shake the stigma they currently have. Whether it's a Snapchat to a friend, Ellen at the Oscars, or a new art piece, selfies have become a part of the American experience.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)