Writing Assignment #1

 

Self Reflection: I think that the strongest point of my essay, or the point that I am most pleased with, is the ability to take a concept that we learned about in class and to further apply it directly to this assignment. I am pleased with the fact that I was able to see the .22 Winchester and the white sails in the Chesapeake as forms of metonymy within both autobiographies. I think that, as always, I have most likely run into problems with run on sentences and perhaps a weak point when discussing the locational importance of freedom. 

 

Within the two autobiographies written by Tobias Wolff and Frederick Douglass, there are several stylistic overlaps as well as a number of differences in content should the two books be compared directly. One thing that is absolutely true for both writers, is that the use of the concept of freedom in several aspects is apparent throughout both autobiographies. In each book, the use of freedom can be seen on both a conceptual level, as well as a symbolic level after delving a bit deeper into the meaning behind the words. In regards to the actual meat, or content of each book, freedom can be seen in structural aspects such as location and specific characters and the roles that these characters played in the narrator’s lives. 

In the broadest of categories, the issue of freedom as a central theme can be found in the actual craft behind the construction of each autobiography. In writing his story, Douglass takes a huge risk in the simple undertaking of writing a truthful tale of his escape from slavery. While he has his social freedom during the writing process, he still lacks the freedom to truly write every detail of the truth behind his escape. Douglass is a slave who defies all stereotypes of the typical early American slave. He can not only read and write, but his mind works in ways that have far surpassed the mental capabilities of the average slave. If he were to write every last detail of his years in slavery followed by the years up to the creation of his autobiography, he would publicly and formally remove himself from those stereotypes, making his story – despite being true – exceptionally unlikely and difficult to believe from the point of view maintained by the general public. He is restricted not only in this sense, but also lacks the freedom to disclose exact details pertaining to his escape from slavery for fear that he would endanger slaves attempting to escape during the time of his writing. In Douglass’ case, the truth will not set him free, but is instead a huge factor of hinderance to his construction of his autobiography.

In Wolff’s case, he is able to extract a relatively healthy amount of freedom through the writing process itself. His autobiography is structured as a memoir and serves as a way for Wolff to reinvent himself as an adult and to perhaps make sense of his childhood experiences. Wolff explains the writing process of this particular memoir as a series of memories of his life, some which he admits to be factually contested by his mother, but nevertheless, publishes as a true event. Unlike Douglass, Wolff is not bound by the necessity to pick and choose which specific events he chooses to retell in his autobiography, and does so as a means to express himself as an adult writing a book primarily in hindsight and with the ability to use that hindsight to freely make sense of those experiences. 

Aside from the actual writing process of each autobiography, both books share a conceptual aspect of freedom that manifests itself within the same category. For both Wolff and Douglass, education served as a central point of freedom to both authors, but for different reasons respectively. For Douglass, education quite literally meant freedom in the sense that by becoming an educated slave, he could very easily read and write his way to freedom through various avenues that literacy would open. His eventual education which he obtained through less than traditional means was the catalyst which gave him his social and eventual legal freedom. For Wolff, education in the form of the Hill School was a serious source of escape and freedom for him. Upon being accepted and further given this specific academic opportunity, Wolff was not only able to escape the abusive throes of Dwight, and the cyclical patterns of his mother’s dependency issues, but he was also able to break free just for a moment from his own bleak looking future. In leaving the miserable town that is Concrete, Wolff was suddenly presented with a startlingly vast new opportunity in the form of education. Suddenly he had the chance to reinvent himself and to start over in a new, healthy and cultivating environment at the Hill School and was free to be the good boy that his conscious had always nagged him to become. 

For both authors, each encountered a specific character who was particularly oppressive to them at some point in their lives. For Toby, this character was his mother’s on again off again boyfriend, Dwight. Before Toby entered high school, his mother uprooted him form his current home and moved up two hours away to live with Dwight and his children to “try it out,” and get used to the idea of he and his mother living there permanently. Away from his mother’s protective eye, Dwight became a crazed tyrant, occupying Toby’s time just for the sake of occupying it, stealing his rightfully earned money and certainly created some semblance of psychological abuse. Dwight was very much a character that represented oppression to Toby, and was literally the antithesis of freedom. In a similar sense, but on a much more severe scale, Douglass encountered his most oppressive and restrictive individuals when he met Covey who’s sole job was to be a “sprit breaker” for the slaves. Covey and Douglass engaged in a dramatic physical altercation spurred on by deep, seething and rightfully aimed hatred on behalf of Douglass. Covey, and Dwight were individuals who managed to personally restrict the freedom of either Toby or Douglass, and it was not until both authors managed to leave these repressive people in their wakes did they finally experience freedom from oppression. Unfortunately for Douglass, this was really only one of the first steps towards freedom from oppression, but nevertheless, it was a sizable step. 

Aside from specific characters playing key roles in oppression and freedom within This Boy’s Life and the Narrative of the life of Frederick Douglass, location also played a big role towards each character’s feelings towards freedom. For Toby, the most freedom that he felt while growing up always seemed to take place whenever he was on the road with his mother, traveling to a new place to start over. Toby seemed to derive freedom less from the actual idea of motion, but more from the fact that he was there, alone in a car with his mother in which he had her undivided attention and the chances of someone hurting her were unlikely. The comfort which he felt in knowing that he was alone with his mother combined with the understanding that the two of them were going to start over together somewhere new, was a euphoric feeling of freedom for Toby. For Douglass, the location that lead him to feel the most freedom, was during his time spent in the city of Baltimore. While in Baltimore, he was away from the fields, the slave drivers, the hours of manual labor during daylight hours. He could be a new person in Baltimore and to him, it was a taste of what freedom would eventually feel like once he made the tricky journey north to New York City.

While each author manages to use things that are central to most books such as characters and locations to play a part in conveying an underlying theme, both also managed to use a different type of literary device to do so. Both Wolff and Douglass used a type of metonymy within their pages, both of which managed to hint at themes of freedom. Toby goes to a great deal of trouble to discuss his gun and to explain every aspect of it, from how it looked to how it felt to how it made him feel. He focused so heavily on his .22 Winchester rifle that it became clear to the reader that this gun was much more than just a firearm to him. To Toby, that gun was a source of psychological freedom as it allowed him to disappear somewhere into the depths of his imagination even if it were just for a moment such as when he would “[march] around the apartment with it, striking brave poses in front of the mirror.”(24) While he was holding that rifle, or cleaning it, or even just looking at it, Toby was free. At one point, he explains that “Fearlessness in those without power is maddening to those who have it.” Through this brief explanation, we can see how Toby saw himself to be the wielder of power whenever he held that Winchester in his hands, and through his imaginary power, he was then free. He was free to imagine any type of scenario he could think of and during those few sweet moments when he had receded into the back of his own mind, he was truly feeling as if he was free from all that was around him. Like Toby, Douglass also focuses in on an object that represents freedom to him, but chooses to do so on a far less combative object. Douglass fixates on the white sails that he sees coming in and out of the harbor, imagining their voyages, imagining their crews and cargo and imagining the freedom that comes with a sailing ship itself. In staring at those sails, Douglass sees nothing but a cruel reminder of his “wretched condition,” (284) and would silently watch from the banks “with saddened hart and tearful eye, the countless number of sails moving off to the mighty ocean.” (284) He described the ships to be draped in “the purest white” perhaps eluding to Douglass’ association of purity to freedom, but never explicitly explains that the sails signify some degree of freedom to him, however makes it cure that they certainly carried a sever subliminal and subconscious weight within his mind. 

It is no great feat to incorporate an overarching theme to any type of book, however to do so within so many different facets of the writing process is worth noticing. The ways in which Wolff and Douglass managed to weave the idea of freedom into not only the content of their autobiographies, but also into the very writing style is certainly worthy of applause. 

I pledge my honor that I have completed this work in accordance with the Honor Code.

The end of the Narrative

This is another book which I read at some point in high school, and needless to say, remember very little about. The only theme which I did remember quite specifically, and made a point to watch out carefully for, is the theme of perpetuated ignorance as a tool to keep slaves obedient. It was much clearer to me upon reading this book for the second time just how this concept works and how this would further relate to the concept of freedom which is shared in “This boy’s Life.” Depriving someone of even the most basic forms of education, deprives them of the means to understand on a more complicated level what is so morally twisted about their enslaved situation. Without the understanding of why the entire situation is wrong in the most basic of terms, leaves people without the burning need to right something that is wrong. Instead, the slaves were probably more content with accepting their unhappiness and angst as a natural course of things

Given the conversations what we have been having in class as far as paying closer attention to the style in which Douglass ends his narrative, there were definitely a few realization or conclusions that I was able to reach after reading the whole thing again. The most prominent of things which occurred to me, was the understanding of why Douglass chose not to elaborate on the exact way in which he was able to make his escape north. I think that when I read this as a high school student, I was disappointed by the lack of dramatic escape story, but am now in a position where I can understand his reasoning for not divulging a significant amount at this point. While this may have left gaps in the story for many people, and even left them feeling skeptical of his story, it actually left me feeling more confident that he was indeed recounting a painfully true story. It makes logical sense to me that Douglass would see it to be irresponsible and selfish at some levels to explain exactly how he managed to escape to the general public. Chances are, there were plenty of other slaves using the same means that he used in order to flee, so explaining details would jeopardize their chances at freedom.

Speaking of freedom, I have settled on several aspects of freedom within the Narrative and Tobias Wolff’s memoir which are shared. The first, is the idea most prevalent within the Narrative, which supports the idea that “knowledge will set you free.” This is meant quite literally in Douglass’ case, but can also applied a bit more loosely to young Toby. His “escape” to the Hill School, which is an institute of knowledge and learning was in a way, a huge escape for Toby. He was able to escape Dwight, had a good chance at a stronger future and had opened the door to countless opportunities through a higher education than what he was previously offered. The second, is the theme of locational freedom. To Douglass, Baltimore and eventually New England were places of physical freedom, while Toby found some sort of free feeling while he was on the road traveling to new locations with his mother. Every time that they left somewhere and made their way for a new place, Toby was always hopeful that this time around would be different, and that maybe he and his mother really could start over and live happily ever after at whatever new location was awaiting them. 

This Boy’s Life – The End

I found one of the most crucial scenes within the last half of the book to be the scene in which Jack is caught forging a check in a convenience store before he goes off to the Hill School. Upon realizing that the woman has picked up on his act and has recognized that his check as well as his identification was a fraud, Jack interprets the situation differently than anyone else may have even if they were in the same situation. As he hurtles out of the store and the woman is trailing him, calling his fake name, Jack hears nothing more than a mother desperately calling to her child. To anyone else who may not have such a deep yet conflicted relationship with his mother, this scene would most likely have appeared no more complex than a cashier chasing a crook out of her store. Because Jack has a way of turning almost any situation back around to something that reminds him of his mother, it makes sense that he thinks he hears a motherly voice while he is knowingly breaking a law – in this case, check fraud. It seems to me that throughout Jack’s entire adolescence his mother’s voice has remained a constant presence within his head, almost as if her voice has in a way replaced his own conscience.
I do like the way that Wolff brings his memoir to a close, and I think that I like it more so now than I initially did when I first read it in high school. Before he briefly explains his involvement in Vietnam before completely closing the story, he leaves the reader with several emotions towards his adolescent years as well has his high school years. The reader feels everything from anger towards Dwight for stealing his money and basically making his life miserable for quite some time, anxious about his prospects and short career at the Hill School, sympathetic for his chaotic home life and inconsistencies in locations and somewhere in there also feels hopeful that his future holds more stability and simple happiness. I think that in doing this, he managed to capture basically every key aspect of a normal adolescence in that all of those emotions will most likely occur at some point.
I think I understand his reasoning for using stories to show rather than tell the reader that these emotions took place, and I do like this tactic now that I can see it. Reading it this time around, I was much more keyed into wondering what each individual anecdote was chosen for and what I was supposed to get out of reading it aside from the obvious.

 

This Boy’s Life Post 1/29/12

It’s true what they say about reading a book twice; about how you can read the same passages at two different points in your life and understand them to mean two different things according to when you read them. I read this book when I was a freshman at St. George’s School in Rhode Island, a school which fell into the same category as the Hill School where part of this book is set. At the time, my teacher had seen the book as a paralleling story line between young students trying to find their way through high school and the following chapters of their own lives to the story of Toby – or Jack, as he grows up and struggles with different characters and scenarios within his life and grows up. I think that at the time, the book made sense for green horned high school students as the book touches on so many different aspects of a life that something within the pages is bound to hit home with someone. Whether it is Jack’s brushes with domestic violence via his mother, his struggle with his young identity, or his strange filtering relationships with occasional friends such as Arthur, something is bound to attract the attention or the empathy of a young teenager tying to navigate their way through a new chapter of their lives. Now that I am reading this at a different point in my life, my eyes are open to read certain aspects differently than I had previously read them six years ago.
For example, there is a passage on page 20 where Jack is talking with Sister James and he takes note of the way he sees the Sister looking at him. The passage reads, “I saw an anxious woman of about my mother’s age who wanted to help me without knowing what kind of help I needed.” Initially, the observation can be read purely as a child’s intuitive interpretation of a sidelong glance, but now that I am re-reading the words from a relatively different perspective,  I see the description to be less of an observation made by Jack, and more of a foreshadowing statement made by Tobias Wolff as an author. Later in the story, Jack needs nothing more than some kind of help, whether it’s an emotional rock or even just some semblance of guidance to save him from the way he staggers blindly through his years of youth, desperate for what he thinks would be a better life for himself. I don’t remember anybody who was of particular support to Jack except for the deep recesses of his own imagination, making the passage a much more all encompassing foreboding statement about the trials that lay ahead of him.

Final Project Reflection

For my Final Project, I basically combined two essays into one massive anti-Birketts rant. I took excerpts from one of the first essays we wrote, along with some basic arguments that we talked about in the very beginning of the semester which I had forgotten about by now. I put these excepts into Project 4, our most recent submission. Also – I made a conscious effort to take into account the comments that you made along with my grade from that project. You hinted that I sort of lost a counter argument, so I tried to add one in as best as I could, while also adding in a few more specific quotes, as my last paper actually lacked them all together which was definitely a costly mistake.

Original Essay

The Webster Dictionary vaguely defines the word, “literature” as, “writings in which expression and form, in connection with ideas of permanent and universal interest, are characteristic or essential features.” In a more targeted, and by my taste, close-minded definition, Birketts would most likely offer a definition entailing words on a page, or some sort of venue akin to papyrus, bound together into a single book. According to Birketts, one should view these words alone, so as to fully intake the glory that is the act of reading; and so as to not interact with another living sou. If one were to point Birketts to an article on a website for example, he would by no means classify those words as legitimate forms of literature, but frankly, he would be making a terrible mistake in doing so. Specifically, the essay, “Is Google Making us Stupid?” is innately a piece of literature, both by Webster’s definition in that it offers ideas of interest, and also by my own standards.

Although Birketts would disagree with me here, the act of reading was never intended to be done privately. Take hieroglyphics for example, one of the earliest forms of writing possible –  these symbols conveyed messages which were meant to aid communication when it was not able to be verbally spoken. This example offers some of the earliest proof that reading and writing were, from their point of creation, intended to be a social event. This is the exact point of my initial argument of why this online article is absolutely, 100% legitimate.

This article was written by a journalist, who’s job is to convey the news, touch on topics in current events, and basically convey information to the general public. This article, does just that — it provides people with information to be shared with people. It is here where Birketts may run into some problems with his own argument. Does the fact that this article was written with the intent to be read, shared, and discussed among the masses make it illegitimate? Because he would probably say yes to this, the same thing can then be said about books; aren’t they intended to be read, shared and discussed among numerous people? The answer is a resounding yes – making Birketts’ first argument disappointingly hollow.

Birketts also finds a quarrel with the general location of said text. The fact that these words are located on an electronic screen suddenly sends his vantage point into a tail spin of chaos. To Birketts, as soon as words appear on a screen – something he vehemently condemns throughout his book – they become drastically different, and can by no means be considered as pieces of literature anymore. Again, I find him hugely at fault here, and unreasonably close minded. If anything, the fact that they are on a screen, and on the World Wide Web, make them almost twice as legitimate as they would be if they were located in a book. Allow me to break this down into my sometimes hard to follow logic:

By my standards, reading is indeed something which should be thought provoking and should stir emotions. Because of standards like that, it should also be something which becomes social as people share their ideas, their reactions and their feelings about whatever it is that they have just read. An article about a controversial topic to begin with will be thought provoking by nature, but when it is displayed on an  online venue, it is offered up as a topic of discussion to whomever my stumble across those words. From there, they can then join their fellow readers in discussion and post a comment on the article, or if they’re feeling really ambitious that day, they can blog about it by means of some other online site. This chain of events – reading something, mentally marinating over it and digesting it, and then turning around and joining discussion on it, is what reading to me is all about. That is exactly what the author is generally trying to accomplish. He or she is intending to start conversation with their words. That’s how they know that they have done a good job in their work.

Also, because an online article such as this one has things like hyperlinks embedded within the text, it offers dozens of different avenues to continue reading as the reader may choose to “keep clicking through.” Birketts would argue that this is a form of “vertical reading” in the sense that all of the words on the page are not being fully appreciated or read for that matter, therefore the work is relatively illegitimate. To him, books are superior because they do not offer avenues for such audacious crimes to be committed, as the reader must continue on horizontally instead of bouncing from page to page and topic to topic. In my mind, Birketts’ condemnation of “vertical reading” is asinine.

If anything, it is better to be able to read “vertically” because you can cover a huge range of topics, and learn dozens of new things about all sorts of areas, rather than being constricted to simply the words on the pages of a book. The ability to “click through” pages makes an online article such as this one not only more interesting, but more thought provoking and more educational (if used properly) because the reader can view so many different pages within such a short amount of time and with minimal effort.

Overall, a web based article is without a doubt a proper, and legitimate form of literature. It fits Webster’s definition, and the standards which I laid out based on my views. It is thought provoking, can involve numerous people to partake in, and can provide insight on numerous different topics. So what if Birketts gets cold feet as soon as words that could just as easily be printed in a news paper appear on a screen instead? The bottom line is that this article possesses every quality necessary to facilitate it into the realm of legitimate literature.

Campbell McNicol

English 101 – Assignment 4

Not a cousin of the papyrus leaf?

A crisis for Birketts, but fine by me.

The Webster Dictionary vaguely defines the word, “literature” as, “writings in which expression and form, in connection with ideas of permanent and universal interest, are characteristic or essential features.” In a more targeted, and by my taste, close-minded definition, Birketts would most likely offer a definition entailing words on a page, or some sort of venue akin to papyrus, bound together into a single book. According to Birketts, literature is not only an endangered commodity, but is also something which should be enjoyed entirely in private. According to him, one should view these words alone, so as to fully intake the glory that is the act of reading; and so as to not interact with another living soul. If one were to point Birketts to an article on a website for example, he would by no means classify those words as legitimate forms of literature, but frankly, he would be making a terrible mistake in doing so. Specifically, the essay, “Is Google Making us Stupid?” is innately a piece of literature, both by Webster’s definition in that it offers ideas of interest, and also by my own standards and by the standards of the Webster Dictionary.

Throughout this essay, I will break down Birketts’ entire argument towards literature, and undermine his reasoning that reading is a private activity. In place of his close minded and weak arguments, I will replace them with my own points of view and an overall better sense of what it means to actively read something according to someone from today’s generation. I bring up this point because I find it to be one of the most blatant weak points in Birketts’ definition of writing and of literature. When it comes down to it, the world, and the words within it, and the venues which they are displayed on have changed and evolved – something which Birketts has failed to do.

Although Birketts would disagree with me here, the act of reading was never intended to be done privately. Take hieroglyphics for example, one of the earliest forms of writing possible –  these symbols conveyed messages which were meant to aid communication when it was not able to be verbally spoken. This example offers some of the earliest proof that reading and writing were, from their point of creation, intended to be a social event. The idea of a social approach to reading can even be found today within academia, as was not so much the case when Birketts was going through school. Throughout my education, English classes were almost entirely conversational, in which students were encouraged to speak up, brainstorm together and to bounce ideas off of one another.  Several months ago, I begged a friend of mine to read One flew  over the Cuckoo’s Nest about a week after I had in a last – ditch effort to figure out what on earth was going on with Kesey’s constant reference to the “fog” among other vague statements which seemed to fly over my head. Luckily for me, my friend agreed to read it, and I bombarded him with questions after he did so. He and I spent a long time talking about that book and eventually, we felt as though we were able to figure out most of our questions. My experience with this book was defined by the fact that I had someone else to read it with me. Being able to toss out ideas and bounce theories off of each other made all of the difference and entirely enhanced my feelings towards the book itself. Through this, the actual act of reading is improved significantly.  This is the exact point of my initial argument of why an online article is absolutely, 100% legitimate, even though Birketts would condemn it with no signs of mercy.

This article, “Is Google Making us Stupid?” was written by a journalist, who’s job is to convey the news, touch on topics in current events, and basically convey information to the general public. This article, does just that — it provides people with information to be shared with people. It is here where Birketts may run into some problems with his own argument. Does the fact that this article was written with the intent to be read, shared, and discussed among the masses make it illegitimate? Because he would probably say yes to this, the same thing can then be said about books; aren’t they intended to be read, shared and discussed among numerous people? The answer is a resounding yes – making Birketts’ first argument disappointingly hollow.

Birketts also finds a quarrel with the general location of said text. The fact that these words are located on an electronic screen suddenly sends his vantage point into a tail spin of chaos. To Birketts, as soon as words appear on a screen – something he vehemently condemns throughout his book – they become drastically different, and can by no means be considered as pieces of literature anymore. Again, I find him hugely at fault here, and unreasonably close minded. If anything, the fact that they are on a screen, and on the World Wide Web, make them almost twice as legitimate as they would be if they were located in a book. Allow me to break this down into my sometimes hard to follow logic:

By my standards, reading is indeed something which should be thought provoking and should stir emotions. Because of standards like that, it should also be something which becomes social as people share their ideas, their reactions and their feelings about whatever it is that they have just read. An article about a controversial topic to begin with will be thought provoking by nature, but when it is displayed on an  online venue, it is offered up as a topic of discussion to whomever my stumble across those words. From there, they can then join their fellow readers in discussion and post a comment on the article, or if they’re feeling really ambitious that day, they can blog about it by means of some other online site. This chain of events – reading something, mentally marinating over it and digesting it, and then turning around and joining discussion on it, is what reading to me is all about. That is exactly what the author is generally trying to accomplish. He or she is intending to start conversation with their words. That’s how they know that they have done a good job in their work.

It is also at this point where I see the generation gap between me and Birketts playing a key role. I’ve grown up in the age of technology, a time when all of the information I could ever care to access is literally at my fingertips through the internet. Because I have been exposed to this as a basic, bear necessity fact of life, I am comfortable with and appreciative towards the availability of text. Birketts on the other hand, has sensed the overall communal switch to online word processing. He even goes so far as to say, “A change is upon us — nothing could be clearer.” (118.) Unfortunately, he has not only apparently taken offense to it, but has also  turned his back on it without giving technology a chance to grow on him, and without making an effort to open his eyes to all that it has made possible. Because reading and writing are so seemingly sacred to Birketts, he should be happy that things like blogs and web based articles exist, as they are always there, always accessible, and being used by everyone. It is a shame that feels so intruded upon by the internet, and by machines in general, as when it comes down it, all they have done, at the absolute worst, is made those texts which Birketts holds so dear to his heart even more accessible and readily available to him.

In my opinion, one of the biggest holes within Birketts crusade against machines can be found within his argument of what he calls “vertical reading.” Birketts says, “Print also posits a time axis; the turning of pages, not to mention the vertical descent down the page, is a forward – moving succession, with earlier contents at every point serving as ground for what follows. Moreover, the printed material is static – it is the reader, not the book, that moves forward.” (122.) First of all, things like hyperlinks which are embedded within a text, bring, in my mind, his concept of vertical reading to an all new level. As Birketts would like, the reader is very active when devouring some type of online text. Take the article for example. As the reader moves down the page (the same way they would when reading a book) they can choose to read further and into different topics through those hyperlinks. This makes the process of reading ultimately a never ending process should the reader choose to just keep “clicking through” those webpages.

Birketts would undoubtedly take stabs at my redefining of his term, whining that the reader is not fully intaking the text if he or she keeps “clicking through” a score of pages, but that is exactly where my point of positivity lies. If anything, it is better to be able to read “vertically” by my definition because you can cover a huge range of topics, and learn dozens of new things about all sorts of areas, rather than being constricted to simply the words on the pages of a book. The ability to “click through” pages makes an online article such as this one not only more interesting, but more thought provoking and more educational (if used properly) because the reader can view so many different pages within such a short amount of time and with minimal effort.

Overall, a web based article is without a doubt a proper, and legitimate form of literature, as is almost anything with some sort of context and some point of message, no matter where it happens to be located. Specifically though, for the purpose of my more narrow attack of Birketts‘  definition of reading, an online article fits Webster’s definition, and the standards which I laid out based on my views. It is thought provoking, can involve numerous people to partake in, and can provide insight on numerous different topics the way that a simple book cannot do. So what if Birketts gets cold feet as soon as words that could just as easily be printed in a news paper appear on a screen instead? The bottom line is that an article possesses every quality necessary to facilitate it into the realm of legitimate literature.

Final Project

Not a cousin of the papyrus leaf?

A crisis for Birketts, but fine by me.

The Webster Dictionary vaguely defines the word, “literature” as, “writings in which expression and form, in connection with ideas of permanent and universal interest, are characteristic or essential features.” In a more targeted, and by my taste, close-minded definition, Birketts would most likely offer a definition entailing words on a page, or some sort of venue akin to papyrus, bound together into a single book. According to Birketts, literature is not only an endangered commodity, but is also something which should be enjoyed entirely in private. According to him, one should view these words alone, so as to fully intake the glory that is the act of reading; and so as to not interact with another living soul. If one were to point Birketts to an article on a website for example, he would by no means classify those words as legitimate forms of literature, but frankly, he would be making a terrible mistake in doing so. Specifically, the essay, “Is Google Making us Stupid?” is innately a piece of literature, both by Webster’s definition in that it offers ideas of interest, and also by my own standards and by the standards of the Webster Dictionary.

Throughout this essay, I will break down Birketts’ entire argument towards literature, and undermine his reasoning that reading is a private activity. In place of his close minded and weak arguments, I will replace them with my own points of view and an overall better sense of what it means to actively read something according to someone from today’s generation. I bring up this point because I find it to be one of the most blatant weak points in Birketts’ definition of writing and of literature. When it comes down to it, the world, and the words within it, and the venues which they are displayed on have changed and evolved – something which Birketts has failed to do.

Although Birketts would disagree with me here, the act of reading was never intended to be done privately. Take hieroglyphics for example, one of the earliest forms of writing possible –  these symbols conveyed messages which were meant to aid communication when it was not able to be verbally spoken. This example offers some of the earliest proof that reading and writing were, from their point of creation, intended to be a social event. The idea of a social approach to reading can even be found today within academia, as was not so much the case when Birketts was going through school. Throughout my education, English classes were almost entirely conversational, in which students were encouraged to speak up, brainstorm together and to bounce ideas off of one another.  Several months ago, I begged a friend of mine to read One flew  over the Cuckoo’s Nest about a week after I had in a last – ditch effort to figure out what on earth was going on with Kesey’s constant reference to the “fog” among other vague statements which seemed to fly over my head. Luckily for me, my friend agreed to read it, and I bombarded him with questions after he did so. He and I spent a long time talking about that book and eventually, we felt as though we were able to figure out most of our questions. My experience with this book was defined by the fact that I had someone else to read it with me. Being able to toss out ideas and bounce theories off of each other made all of the difference and entirely enhanced my feelings towards the book itself. Through this, the actual act of reading is improved significantly.  This is the exact point of my initial argument of why an online article is absolutely, 100% legitimate, even though Birketts would condemn it with no signs of mercy.

This article, “Is Google Making us Stupid?” was written by a journalist, who’s job is to convey the news, touch on topics in current events, and basically convey information to the general public. This article, does just that — it provides people with information to be shared with people. It is here where Birketts may run into some problems with his own argument. Does the fact that this article was written with the intent to be read, shared, and discussed among the masses make it illegitimate? Because he would probably say yes to this, the same thing can then be said about books; aren’t they intended to be read, shared and discussed among numerous people? The answer is a resounding yes – making Birketts’ first argument disappointingly hollow.

Birketts also finds a quarrel with the general location of said text. The fact that these words are located on an electronic screen suddenly sends his vantage point into a tail spin of chaos. To Birketts, as soon as words appear on a screen – something he vehemently condemns throughout his book – they become drastically different, and can by no means be considered as pieces of literature anymore. Again, I find him hugely at fault here, and unreasonably close minded. If anything, the fact that they are on a screen, and on the World Wide Web, make them almost twice as legitimate as they would be if they were located in a book. Allow me to break this down into my sometimes hard to follow logic:

By my standards, reading is indeed something which should be thought provoking and should stir emotions. Because of standards like that, it should also be something which becomes social as people share their ideas, their reactions and their feelings about whatever it is that they have just read. An article about a controversial topic to begin with will be thought provoking by nature, but when it is displayed on an  online venue, it is offered up as a topic of discussion to whomever my stumble across those words. From there, they can then join their fellow readers in discussion and post a comment on the article, or if they’re feeling really ambitious that day, they can blog about it by means of some other online site. This chain of events – reading something, mentally marinating over it and digesting it, and then turning around and joining discussion on it, is what reading to me is all about. That is exactly what the author is generally trying to accomplish. He or she is intending to start conversation with their words. That’s how they know that they have done a good job in their work.

It is also at this point where I see the generation gap between me and Birketts playing a key role. I’ve grown up in the age of technology, a time when all of the information I could ever care to access is literally at my fingertips through the internet. Because I have been exposed to this as a basic, bear necessity fact of life, I am comfortable with and appreciative towards the availability of text. Birketts on the other hand, has sensed the overall communal switch to online word processing. He even goes so far as to say, “A change is upon us — nothing could be clearer.” (118.) Unfortunately, he has not only apparently taken offense to it, but has also  turned his back on it without giving technology a chance to grow on him, and without making an effort to open his eyes to all that it has made possible. Because reading and writing are so seemingly sacred to Birketts, he should be happy that things like blogs and web based articles exist, as they are always there, always accessible, and being used by everyone. It is a shame that feels so intruded upon by the internet, and by machines in general, as when it comes down it, all they have done, at the absolute worst, is made those texts which Birketts holds so dear to his heart even more accessible and readily available to him.

In my opinion, one of the biggest holes within Birketts crusade against machines can be found within his argument of what he calls “vertical reading.” Birketts says, “Print also posits a time axis; the turning of pages, not to mention the vertical descent down the page, is a forward – moving succession, with earlier contents at every point serving as ground for what follows. Moreover, the printed material is static – it is the reader, not the book, that moves forward.” (122.) First of all, things like hyperlinks which are embedded within a text, bring, in my mind, his concept of vertical reading to an all new level. As Birketts would like, the reader is very active when devouring some type of online text. Take the article for example. As the reader moves down the page (the same way they would when reading a book) they can choose to read further and into different topics through those hyperlinks. This makes the process of reading ultimately a never ending process should the reader choose to just keep “clicking through” those webpages.

Birketts would undoubtedly take stabs at my redefining of his term, whining that the reader is not fully intaking the text if he or she keeps “clicking through” a score of pages, but that is exactly where my point of positivity lies. If anything, it is better to be able to read “vertically” by my definition because you can cover a huge range of topics, and learn dozens of new things about all sorts of areas, rather than being constricted to simply the words on the pages of a book. The ability to “click through” pages makes an online article such as this one not only more interesting, but more thought provoking and more educational (if used properly) because the reader can view so many different pages within such a short amount of time and with minimal effort.

Overall, a web based article is without a doubt a proper, and legitimate form of literature, as is almost anything with some sort of context and some point of message, no matter where it happens to be located. Specifically though, for the purpose of my more narrow attack of Birketts‘  definition of reading, an online article fits Webster’s definition, and the standards which I laid out based on my views. It is thought provoking, can involve numerous people to partake in, and can provide insight on numerous different topics the way that a simple book cannot do. So what if Birketts gets cold feet as soon as words that could just as easily be printed in a news paper appear on a screen instead? The bottom line is that an article possesses every quality necessary to facilitate it into the realm of legitimate literature.

Final Project

Not a cousin of the papyrus leaf?

A crisis for Birketts, but fine by me.

The Webster Dictionary vaguely defines the word, “literature” as, “writings in which expression and form, in connection with ideas of permanent and universal interest, are characteristic or essential features.” In a more targeted, and by my taste, close-minded definition, Birketts would most likely offer a definition entailing words on a page, or some sort of venue akin to papyrus, bound together into a single book. According to Birketts, literature is not only an endangered commodity, but is also something which should be enjoyed entirely in private. According to him, one should view these words alone, so as to fully intake the glory that is the act of reading; and so as to not interact with another living soul. If one were to point Birketts to an article on a website for example, he would by no means classify those words as legitimate forms of literature, but frankly, he would be making a terrible mistake in doing so. Specifically, the essay, “Is Google Making us Stupid?” is innately a piece of literature, both by Webster’s definition in that it offers ideas of interest, and also by my own standards and by the standards of the Webster Dictionary.

Throughout this essay, I will break down Birketts’ entire argument towards literature, and undermine his reasoning that reading is a private activity. In place of his close minded and weak arguments, I will replace them with my own points of view and an overall better sense of what it means to actively read something according to someone from today’s generation. I bring up this point because I find it to be one of the most blatant weak points in Birketts’ definition of writing and of literature. When it comes down to it, the world, and the words within it, and the venues which they are displayed on have changed and evolved – something which Birketts has failed to do.

Although Birketts would disagree with me here, the act of reading was never intended to be done privately. Take hieroglyphics for example, one of the earliest forms of writing possible –  these symbols conveyed messages which were meant to aid communication when it was not able to be verbally spoken. This example offers some of the earliest proof that reading and writing were, from their point of creation, intended to be a social event. The idea of a social approach to reading can even be found today within academia, as was not so much the case when Birketts was going through school. Throughout my education, English classes were almost entirely conversational, in which students were encouraged to speak up, brainstorm together and to bounce ideas off of one another.  Several months ago, I begged a friend of mine to read One flew  over the Cuckoo’s Nest about a week after I had in a last – ditch effort to figure out what on earth was going on with Kesey’s constant reference to the “fog” among other vague statements which seemed to fly over my head. Luckily for me, my friend agreed to read it, and I bombarded him with questions after he did so. He and I spent a long time talking about that book and eventually, we felt as though we were able to figure out most of our questions. My experience with this book was defined by the fact that I had someone else to read it with me. Being able to toss out ideas and bounce theories off of each other made all of the difference and entirely enhanced my feelings towards the book itself. Through this, the actual act of reading is improved significantly.  This is the exact point of my initial argument of why an online article is absolutely, 100% legitimate, even though Birketts would condemn it with no signs of mercy.

This article, “Is Google Making us Stupid?” was written by a journalist, who’s job is to convey the news, touch on topics in current events, and basically convey information to the general public. This article, does just that — it provides people with information to be shared with people. It is here where Birketts may run into some problems with his own argument. Does the fact that this article was written with the intent to be read, shared, and discussed among the masses make it illegitimate? Because he would probably say yes to this, the same thing can then be said about books; aren’t they intended to be read, shared and discussed among numerous people? The answer is a resounding yes – making Birketts’ first argument disappointingly hollow.

Birketts also finds a quarrel with the general location of said text. The fact that these words are located on an electronic screen suddenly sends his vantage point into a tail spin of chaos. To Birketts, as soon as words appear on a screen – something he vehemently condemns throughout his book – they become drastically different, and can by no means be considered as pieces of literature anymore. Again, I find him hugely at fault here, and unreasonably close minded. If anything, the fact that they are on a screen, and on the World Wide Web, make them almost twice as legitimate as they would be if they were located in a book. Allow me to break this down into my sometimes hard to follow logic:

By my standards, reading is indeed something which should be thought provoking and should stir emotions. Because of standards like that, it should also be something which becomes social as people share their ideas, their reactions and their feelings about whatever it is that they have just read. An article about a controversial topic to begin with will be thought provoking by nature, but when it is displayed on an  online venue, it is offered up as a topic of discussion to whomever my stumble across those words. From there, they can then join their fellow readers in discussion and post a comment on the article, or if they’re feeling really ambitious that day, they can blog about it by means of some other online site. This chain of events – reading something, mentally marinating over it and digesting it, and then turning around and joining discussion on it, is what reading to me is all about. That is exactly what the author is generally trying to accomplish. He or she is intending to start conversation with their words. That’s how they know that they have done a good job in their work.

It is also at this point where I see the generation gap between me and Birketts playing a key role. I’ve grown up in the age of technology, a time when all of the information I could ever care to access is literally at my fingertips through the internet. Because I have been exposed to this as a basic, bear necessity fact of life, I am comfortable with and appreciative towards the availability of text. Birketts on the other hand, has sensed the overall communal switch to online word processing. He even goes so far as to say, “A change is upon us — nothing could be clearer.” (118.) Unfortunately, he has not only apparently taken offense to it, but has also  turned his back on it without giving technology a chance to grow on him, and without making an effort to open his eyes to all that it has made possible. Because reading and writing are so seemingly sacred to Birketts, he should be happy that things like blogs and web based articles exist, as they are always there, always accessible, and being used by everyone. It is a shame that feels so intruded upon by the internet, and by machines in general, as when it comes down it, all they have done, at the absolute worst, is made those texts which Birketts holds so dear to his heart even more accessible and readily available to him.

In my opinion, one of the biggest holes within Birketts crusade against machines can be found within his argument of what he calls “vertical reading.” Birketts says, “Print also posits a time axis; the turning of pages, not to mention the vertical descent down the page, is a forward – moving succession, with earlier contents at every point serving as ground for what follows. Moreover, the printed material is static – it is the reader, not the book, that moves forward.” (122.) First of all, things like hyperlinks which are embedded within a text, bring, in my mind, his concept of vertical reading to an all new level. As Birketts would like, the reader is very active when devouring some type of online text. Take the article for example. As the reader moves down the page (the same way they would when reading a book) they can choose to read further and into different topics through those hyperlinks. This makes the process of reading ultimately a never ending process should the reader choose to just keep “clicking through” those webpages.

Birketts would undoubtedly take stabs at my redefining of his term, whining that the reader is not fully intaking the text if he or she keeps “clicking through” a score of pages, but that is exactly where my point of positivity lies. If anything, it is better to be able to read “vertically” by my definition because you can cover a huge range of topics, and learn dozens of new things about all sorts of areas, rather than being constricted to simply the words on the pages of a book. The ability to “click through” pages makes an online article such as this one not only more interesting, but more thought provoking and more educational (if used properly) because the reader can view so many different pages within such a short amount of time and with minimal effort.

Overall, a web based article is without a doubt a proper, and legitimate form of literature, as is almost anything with some sort of context and some point of message, no matter where it happens to be located. Specifically though, for the purpose of my more narrow attack of Birketts‘  definition of reading, an online article fits Webster’s definition, and the standards which I laid out based on my views. It is thought provoking, can involve numerous people to partake in, and can provide insight on numerous different topics the way that a simple book cannot do. So what if Birketts gets cold feet as soon as words that could just as easily be printed in a news paper appear on a screen instead? The bottom line is that an article possesses every quality necessary to facilitate it into the realm of legitimate literature.

Not a Cousin of the Papyrus Leaf? No Problem.

The Webster Dictionary vaguely defines the word, “literature” as, “writings in which expression and form, in connection with ideas of permanent and universal interest, are characteristic or essential features.” In a more targeted, and by my taste, close-minded definition, Birketts would most likely offer a definition entailing words on a page, or some sort of venue akin to papyrus, bound together into a single book. According to Birketts, one should view these words alone, so as to fully intake the glory that is the act of reading; and so as to not interact with another living sou. If one were to point Birketts to an article on a website for example, he would by no means classify those words as legitimate forms of literature, but frankly, he would be making a terrible mistake in doing so. Specifically, the essay, “Is Google Making us Stupid?” is innately a piece of literature, both by Webster’s definition in that it offers ideas of interest, and also by my own standards.

Although Birketts would disagree with me here, the act of reading was never intended to be done privately. Take hieroglyphics for example, one of the earliest forms of writing possible –  these symbols conveyed messages which were meant to aid communication when it was not able to be verbally spoken. This example offers some of the earliest proof that reading and writing were, from their point of creation, intended to be a social event. This is the exact point of my initial argument of why this online article is absolutely, 100% legitimate.

This article was written by a journalist, who’s job is to convey the news, touch on topics in current events, and basically convey information to the general public. This article, does just that — it provides people with information to be shared with people. It is here where Birketts may run into some problems with his own argument. Does the fact that this article was written with the intent to be read, shared, and discussed among the masses make it illegitimate? Because he would probably say yes to this, the same thing can then be said about books; aren’t they intended to be read, shared and discussed among numerous people? The answer is a resounding yes – making Birketts’ first argument disappointingly hollow.

Birketts also finds a quarrel with the general location of said text. The fact that these words are located on an electronic screen suddenly sends his vantage point into a tail spin of chaos. To Birketts, as soon as words appear on a screen – something he vehemently condemns throughout his book – they become drastically different, and can by no means be considered as pieces of literature anymore. Again, I find him hugely at fault here, and unreasonably close minded. If anything, the fact that they are on a screen, and on the World Wide Web, make them almost twice as legitimate as they would be if they were located in a book. Allow me to break this down into my sometimes hard to follow logic:

By my standards, reading is indeed something which should be thought provoking and should stir emotions. Because of standards like that, it should also be something which becomes social as people share their ideas, their reactions and their feelings about whatever it is that they have just read. An article about a controversial topic to begin with will be thought provoking by nature, but when it is displayed on an  online venue, it is offered up as a topic of discussion to whomever my stumble across those words. From there, they can then join their fellow readers in discussion and post a comment on the article, or if they’re feeling really ambitious that day, they can blog about it by means of some other online site. This chain of events – reading something, mentally marinating over it and digesting it, and then turning around and joining discussion on it, is what reading to me is all about. That is exactly what the author is generally trying to accomplish. He or she is intending to start conversation with their words. That’s how they know that they have done a good job in their work.

Also, because an online article such as this one has things like hyperlinks embedded within the text, it offers dozens of different avenues to continue reading as the reader may choose to “keep clicking through.” Birketts would argue that this is a form of “vertical reading” in the sense that all of the words on the page are not being fully appreciated or read for that matter, therefore the work is relatively illegitimate. To him, books are superior because they do not offer avenues for such audacious crimes to be committed, as the reader must continue on horizontally instead of bouncing from page to page and topic to topic. In my mind, Birketts’ condemnation of “vertical reading” is asinine.

If anything, it is better to be able to read “vertically” because you can cover a huge range of topics, and learn dozens of new things about all sorts of areas, rather than being constricted to simply the words on the pages of a book. The ability to “click through” pages makes an online article such as this one not only more interesting, but more thought provoking and more educational (if used properly) because the reader can view so many different pages within such a short amount of time and with minimal effort.

Overall, a web based article is without a doubt a proper, and legitimate form of literature. It fits Webster’s definition, and the standards which I laid out based on my views. It is thought provoking, can involve numerous people to partake in, and can provide insight on numerous different topics. So what if Birketts gets cold feet as soon as words that could just as easily be printed in a news paper appear on a screen instead? The bottom line is that this article possesses every quality necessary to facilitate it into the realm of legitimate literature.